Saturday, September 30, 2006
Iran and The American Conservative
My friend Gregory Cochran has a nice piece about Iran in the most recent issue of The American Conservative. Being a physicist Greg knows a decent amount about nuclear weapons, and, he knows more military history than anyone else I've ever discussed issues with.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Mugged by reality and realism
Over at Bloggingheads.tv the thuggish Jim Pinkerton throws some reality in the gracious Ann Althouse' face. Ann is a big-hearted person, and I can't help but feel for her idealistic Wilsonian vision in the face of Pinkerton's cold realist calculus. But Pinkerton is right on many points, and importantly, he seems to place less emphasis on what should be done, as opposed to the facts we have to work with in making our decisions. Similarly, today Matthew Yglesias rubs it in the face of a commenter who declares that the Sky is Falling! On that foundation does not a sound foreign policy rest.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
will Democrats defund the war?
Some have suggested that if the Democrats take power in November, they will move to cut off funding for the war. The basic argument is that Charlie Rangel will take over the House Ways and Means Committee and then turn off the spigot for war appropriations. For example, RedState quotes Rangel via Bloomberg:
In other words, Rangel will seek to repeal the Bush tax cuts - increasing funding to the federal government, so that we can actually spend money for the war on terror, not borrow money for the war on terror. Yet how does RedState interpret the quote above?
This is not just partisan hack talking point rhetoric, but the official position of the White House itself:
These are shameful smears of the Democrats' position. Rather than face the actual proposed policies of the Democrats, which are certainly open to debate if considered honestly, the Administration invokes the strawmen that the Democrats want to block money for the war, and want to "appease" terrosist to get them to "leave us alone." That portrayal of the Democrats' position is total nonsense and as the WaPo points out, completely unsupported by any factual basis:
Logical interpretation? As Ezra Klein snarks, "I'm looking forward to the next press conference, when Rummy drags out a chalkboard and treats the American people to an ontological primer so we're better equipped to follow future speeches."
Look, the reason Democrats support a timetable for withdrawal is because they argue that our presence in Iraq is actually helping the terrorists more than it hurts them. The recently-released NIE certainly provides evidence to support this view. By withdrawing, the argument goes, we remove the cause celebre for the instability of foreign jihadis flooding Iraq - who have a disproportionate contribution to the worsening security situation there. No less than General Abizaid himself has acknowledged that the number of foreign jihadis in Iraq is increasing with time (contradicting the Administration's claims). And it also is worth noting that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis want US troops to leave Iraq as well. And an even greater majority believe that the US won't leave even if asked!
Now I for one am still unsure whether a timetable-driven withdrawal is better or not than keeping most of our forces in the theater and changing their strategy. Even if I favored a timetable I'd still think that we would need a sizable contingent of response forces available. If we sent half the troops home and the other half to Afghanistan it might be better in the long run for winning the war.
Still, the point remains that the argument for a timetable withdrawal is based firmly in Iraqi security concerns and a genuine and sincere desire to win the war. Not let it continue to fail. Interpreting the Democrats' position as defunding and running is not logical, its mendacious. I'll even go so far as to say it falls outside the boundary of spin and firmly into the realm of a lie.
Let's have the debate about the merits of timetable withdrawal or not. RedState and the Administration don't want that debate. Why? Are they so unsure of the merits of their own position that they feel it won't withstand scrutiny?
[H]e "cannot think of one" of President George W. Bush's first-term tax cuts that merit renewal. He also said no discussion would be possible on overhauling Social Security until Bush dropped a plan to create individual accounts funded by payroll taxes.
"If they want to get that on the agenda, they better take privatization off the table," Rangel, 76, an 18-term New York lawmaker, said in an interview. "Trade will be easy to work out some agreement, and we can probably do some minor things with the tax code."
In other words, Rangel will seek to repeal the Bush tax cuts - increasing funding to the federal government, so that we can actually spend money for the war on terror, not borrow money for the war on terror. Yet how does RedState interpret the quote above?
if the Democrats take back the Congress... they'll defund not just Iraq, but the global war on terror.
This is not just partisan hack talking point rhetoric, but the official position of the White House itself:
Bush suggested last week that Democrats are promising voters to block additional money for continuing the war. Vice President Cheney this week said critics "claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone." And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, citing passivity toward Nazi Germany before World War II, said that "many have still not learned history's lessons" and "believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased."
These are shameful smears of the Democrats' position. Rather than face the actual proposed policies of the Democrats, which are certainly open to debate if considered honestly, the Administration invokes the strawmen that the Democrats want to block money for the war, and want to "appease" terrosist to get them to "leave us alone." That portrayal of the Democrats' position is total nonsense and as the WaPo points out, completely unsupported by any factual basis:
Pressed to support these allegations, the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone. But White House and Republican officials said those are logical interpretations of the most common Democratic position favoring a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
Logical interpretation? As Ezra Klein snarks, "I'm looking forward to the next press conference, when Rummy drags out a chalkboard and treats the American people to an ontological primer so we're better equipped to follow future speeches."
Look, the reason Democrats support a timetable for withdrawal is because they argue that our presence in Iraq is actually helping the terrorists more than it hurts them. The recently-released NIE certainly provides evidence to support this view. By withdrawing, the argument goes, we remove the cause celebre for the instability of foreign jihadis flooding Iraq - who have a disproportionate contribution to the worsening security situation there. No less than General Abizaid himself has acknowledged that the number of foreign jihadis in Iraq is increasing with time (contradicting the Administration's claims). And it also is worth noting that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis want US troops to leave Iraq as well. And an even greater majority believe that the US won't leave even if asked!
Now I for one am still unsure whether a timetable-driven withdrawal is better or not than keeping most of our forces in the theater and changing their strategy. Even if I favored a timetable I'd still think that we would need a sizable contingent of response forces available. If we sent half the troops home and the other half to Afghanistan it might be better in the long run for winning the war.
Still, the point remains that the argument for a timetable withdrawal is based firmly in Iraqi security concerns and a genuine and sincere desire to win the war. Not let it continue to fail. Interpreting the Democrats' position as defunding and running is not logical, its mendacious. I'll even go so far as to say it falls outside the boundary of spin and firmly into the realm of a lie.
Let's have the debate about the merits of timetable withdrawal or not. RedState and the Administration don't want that debate. Why? Are they so unsure of the merits of their own position that they feel it won't withstand scrutiny?
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Transcript of NIE executive summary http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=7376#more-7376
Transcription courtesy of Tim at Balloon Juice.
United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qa’ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization. We also assess that the global jihadist movement—which includes al-Qa’ida, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells—is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts.
We assess that the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global strategy, and is becoming more diffuse. New jihadist networks and cells, with anti-American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge. The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups.
We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.
We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of the Estimate.
Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement. They include dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of the jihadists’ radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens.
If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. Nonetheless, attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities for jihadists to exploit.
Al-Qa’ida, now merged with Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s network, is exploiting the situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role.
Other affiliated Sunni extremist organizations, such as Jemaah Islamiya, Ansar al-Sunnah, and several North African groups, unless countered, are likely to expand their reach and become more capable of multiple and mass-casualty attacks outside their traditional areas of operation.
We judge that most jihadist groups – both well-known and newly formed – will use improvised explosive devices and suicide attacks focused primarily on soft targets to implement their asymmetric warfare strategy, and that they will attempt to conduct sustained terrorist attacks in urban environments. Fighters with experience in Iraq are a potential source of leadership for jihadists pursuing these tactics.
While Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria, remain the most active state sponsors of terrorism, many other states will be unable to prevent territory or resources from being exploited by terrorists.
Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologues. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist or separatist to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint.
United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qa’ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization. We also assess that the global jihadist movement—which includes al-Qa’ida, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells—is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts.
- Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.
- If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.
- Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qa’ida, could erode support for the jihadists.
We assess that the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global strategy, and is becoming more diffuse. New jihadist networks and cells, with anti-American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge. The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups.
- We assess that the operational threat from self-radicalized cells will grow in importance to US counterterrorism efforts, particularly abroad but also in the Homeland.
- The jihadists regard Europe as an important venue for attacking Western interests. Extremist networks inside the extensive Muslim diasporas in Europe facilitate recruitment and staging for urban attacks, as illustrated by the 2004 madrid and 2005 London bombings.
We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.
- The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of the Estimate.
- Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq “jihad;” (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social and political reforms among most Muslims – all of which jihadists exploit.
Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement. They include dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of the jihadists’ radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens.
- The jihadists’ greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution – an ultra-conservative interpretation of shari’a-based governance spanning the Muslim world – is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists’ propaganda would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade.
- Recent condemnation of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a constructive alternative to jihadist ideology; peaceful political activism. This also could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim communities in rejecting violence; reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror.
- Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyong operations to capture of kill terrorist leaders.
If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. Nonetheless, attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities for jihadists to exploit.
Al-Qa’ida, now merged with Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s network, is exploiting the situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role.
- The loss of key leaders, patricularly Usama Bin Ladin, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and al-Zarqawi, in rapid succession, probably would cause the group to fracture into smaller groups. Although the like-minded individuals would endeavor to carry on the mission, the loss of these key leaders would exacerbate key strains and disagreements. We assess that the resulting splinter groups would, at least for a time, pose a less serious threat to US interests than does al-Qa’ida.
- Should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks against Muslims, we assess that he could broaden his appeal and present a global threat.
- The increased role of Iraqis in managing the operations of al-Qa’ida in Iraq might lead veteran foreign jihadists to focus their efforts on external operations.
Other affiliated Sunni extremist organizations, such as Jemaah Islamiya, Ansar al-Sunnah, and several North African groups, unless countered, are likely to expand their reach and become more capable of multiple and mass-casualty attacks outside their traditional areas of operation.
- We assess that such groups pose less of a danger to the Homeland than does al-Aa’ida but will pose varying degrees of threat to our allies and to US interests abroad. The focus of their attacks is likely to ebb and flow between local regime targets and regional or global ones.
We judge that most jihadist groups – both well-known and newly formed – will use improvised explosive devices and suicide attacks focused primarily on soft targets to implement their asymmetric warfare strategy, and that they will attempt to conduct sustained terrorist attacks in urban environments. Fighters with experience in Iraq are a potential source of leadership for jihadists pursuing these tactics.
- CBRN capabilities will continue to be sought by these jihadist groups.
While Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria, remain the most active state sponsors of terrorism, many other states will be unable to prevent territory or resources from being exploited by terrorists.
Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologues. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist or separatist to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint.
- We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicatie, propagandize, recruit, train, and obtain logistical and financial support.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
reality vs spin http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=7364
John Cole, remarking on the thesis (advocated by Glenn, Austin Bay, and others) that teh media is actively supporting the terrorists' goals, pretty much sums up my view.
His co-blogger Tim actually reports with skepticism what many, including Glenn and Bay, have simply accepted at face value - that President Talabani might (shocker!) be engaging in some spinning of his own. And that Talabani's proposal looks rather familiar.
it seems Glenn’s real complaint is that the media refuses to be spun by the ‘good guys,’ but is somehow buying the ‘spin’ of the bad guys. I don’t see that. I see them trying to report what they know at the time, and I don’t think what the jihadists and terrorists said was or is ‘spin.’ I think they really do want to do what they are saying, and I don’t have a problem with the media reporting that. That isn’t being spun- that is accurately reporting what they want to do, and I support them reporting it much like I support allowing the KKK to march down the streets of Skokie – I want to see what the crazy bastards are up to rather than having them fester underground.
At any rate, I simply do not buy the argument that the media being cautious when dealing with an administration and military establishment that routinely does lie to them is somehow a problem, and I don’t buy the argument that reporting the desires and statements of jihadists is somehow ‘helping’ them. If anything, it galvanizes support against them.
It seems to me the core of this distaste with the media is the false impression that, for whatever reasons, the media is on the side of the terrorists because they report what they do, yet not on the side of the good guys because they are skeptical after being lied to a number of times. If that is the case, Glenn’s problem isn’t the media coverage, it is that he is not getting to decide what the media is covering.
His co-blogger Tim actually reports with skepticism what many, including Glenn and Bay, have simply accepted at face value - that President Talabani might (shocker!) be engaging in some spinning of his own. And that Talabani's proposal looks rather familiar.
Monday, September 25, 2006
he's not dead, okay? http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2006/09/bin_laden_dead.html
As Abu Aardvark puts it, when OBL truly dies (even of illness), then does anyone doubt that
?
al-Qaeda's media arm al-Sahab will be ready with a massive propaganda blitz to capitalize on his martyrdom
?
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Grow the force http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_09/009541.php
Kevin points out that we need to either send more troops to Iraq to butress the force there for victory, or withdraw, but instead we do neither. That's the politically safest and most craven course. Disagree or not with Democrats who favor withdrawal, at least they are standing by their convictions. "stay the course" isn't a plan, its the lack of one.
But even beyond Iraq, it's clear that we do need to have a military capability - in terms of boots on the ground - that can handle Iraq-level stress without falling apart. Maybe more. The world is full of Darfurs and Lebanons and the United States can best play a role by commiting the best resources we have - trained, expert troops. We need more troops overall, not just for Iraq but for the entire century ahead.
And the truth is that we don't need a draft. How quickly we liberals seem to forget the GI Bill's legacy - the vehicle by which millions of households were lifted into the middle class. "Growing" the troops, rather than "building" them (by draft) or "straining" them (by staying the course), is what is needed. We need a new GI Bill for the 21st century to get back to the troop levels we were at during the Cold War - but a different kind of force, than the dogged one-threat focus of the past.
Here's what such a proposal would look like.
- Financial incentives. Signing bonuses, increased salary at all levels. Guaranteed benefits under the same plan that our Senators and Representatives get. Increased funding for the VA, including more funding for mental health.
- Raised standards. Go after the cream of the crop. Recruit professionals too, with graduate degrees, so that we can build up the tail of the force, not just the tooth.
- Emphasis on MP-type training, even for the common infantryman. Given that counterinsurgency will be our primary challenge in every deployment for the forseeable future, we need every soldier to be an MP in a limited sense.
- Reduce the commitment. Make a minimum two-year tour be an option. That way the voluntary nature of the force is preserved and emphasized - and easy to "try it out".
"Grow the force" should be the rallying cry.
But even beyond Iraq, it's clear that we do need to have a military capability - in terms of boots on the ground - that can handle Iraq-level stress without falling apart. Maybe more. The world is full of Darfurs and Lebanons and the United States can best play a role by commiting the best resources we have - trained, expert troops. We need more troops overall, not just for Iraq but for the entire century ahead.
And the truth is that we don't need a draft. How quickly we liberals seem to forget the GI Bill's legacy - the vehicle by which millions of households were lifted into the middle class. "Growing" the troops, rather than "building" them (by draft) or "straining" them (by staying the course), is what is needed. We need a new GI Bill for the 21st century to get back to the troop levels we were at during the Cold War - but a different kind of force, than the dogged one-threat focus of the past.
Here's what such a proposal would look like.
- Financial incentives. Signing bonuses, increased salary at all levels. Guaranteed benefits under the same plan that our Senators and Representatives get. Increased funding for the VA, including more funding for mental health.
- Raised standards. Go after the cream of the crop. Recruit professionals too, with graduate degrees, so that we can build up the tail of the force, not just the tooth.
- Emphasis on MP-type training, even for the common infantryman. Given that counterinsurgency will be our primary challenge in every deployment for the forseeable future, we need every soldier to be an MP in a limited sense.
- Reduce the commitment. Make a minimum two-year tour be an option. That way the voluntary nature of the force is preserved and emphasized - and easy to "try it out".
"Grow the force" should be the rallying cry.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
The calculus of Iran
Charles Krauthammer says:
1) The irony. The bolded part could be transposed into screeds put out by Left-wing idelogues when it comes to the Bush administration.
2) The italicized part, here is the calculus compared to the Soviet Union:
Scary = (Soviets have thousands of nuclear weapons) X (Soviet probability of use)
Scarier = (Iranians have dozens of nuclear weapons in the near future) X (Soviet probability of use) X (Soviet probability of use)-1
Scarier >> Scary. So Iran is the worst thread of all time!
But how about this?
Scarier = (Iranians have dozens of nuclear weapons in the near future) X (Soviet probability of use) X (Soviet probability of use)-1
Scariest = (Aliens have weapons of infinite destructive capacity) X (Soviet probability of use) X (Soviet probability of use)-1
Scariest >> Scarier, ergo, we should focus on developing colonization schemes for other worlds to spread the seed and hide from the impending alien threat. Yes, Iran is scary, but it is only a threat to particular nations, the aliens could blow the whole earth up! Yes, the probability for aliens showing up at any given time and destroying the earth is low, but the existence of the species hangs in the balance!
Will the Iranians have ICBMs that can hit every city in the world? Will the mullahs of Iran pass out nuclear weapons to rogue terrorist like cookies at a bake sale? Do the mullahs of Iran drink deeply at the well of religious millenarianism? The likelihood of the interesection of independent probabilities is the simply the product of the individual probabilities. E.g., 10 probabilities which are indepdent and are 0.01 (1%) results a 1 out of 100 quintillion expectation.
My friends who tend to support aggression toward Iran generally use an either/or argument, e.g., that is, even if the likelihood is small, the outcome is so dire that we must act. The problem though is that they obviously don't live in fear of alien invasion, even though the outcome could be dire, because they do the mental calculus implicitly and rule it out as too small a probability. We all do these calculations. I tire of those who would dismiss those of us who are skeptics of Iran's existential threat to the world (and this seems to be the argument Krauthammer is making) because even the smallest chance is worth acting upon, because obviously those who want to act on the smallest chance do not use the same logic on the sample space of infinite possibilities.
Then there is the larger danger of permitting nuclear weapons to be acquired by religious fanatics seized with an eschatological belief in the imminent apocalypse and in their own divine duty to hasten the End of Days. The mullahs are infinitely more likely to use these weapons than anyone in the history of the nuclear age. Every city in the civilized world will live under the specter of instant annihilation delivered either by missile or by terrorist. This from a country that has an official Death to America Day and has declared since Ayatollah Khomeini's ascension that Israel must be wiped off the map.
1) The irony. The bolded part could be transposed into screeds put out by Left-wing idelogues when it comes to the Bush administration.
2) The italicized part, here is the calculus compared to the Soviet Union:
Scary = (Soviets have thousands of nuclear weapons) X (Soviet probability of use)
Scarier = (Iranians have dozens of nuclear weapons in the near future) X (Soviet probability of use) X (Soviet probability of use)-1
Scarier >> Scary. So Iran is the worst thread of all time!
But how about this?
Scarier = (Iranians have dozens of nuclear weapons in the near future) X (Soviet probability of use) X (Soviet probability of use)-1
Scariest = (Aliens have weapons of infinite destructive capacity) X (Soviet probability of use) X (Soviet probability of use)-1
Scariest >> Scarier, ergo, we should focus on developing colonization schemes for other worlds to spread the seed and hide from the impending alien threat. Yes, Iran is scary, but it is only a threat to particular nations, the aliens could blow the whole earth up! Yes, the probability for aliens showing up at any given time and destroying the earth is low, but the existence of the species hangs in the balance!
Will the Iranians have ICBMs that can hit every city in the world? Will the mullahs of Iran pass out nuclear weapons to rogue terrorist like cookies at a bake sale? Do the mullahs of Iran drink deeply at the well of religious millenarianism? The likelihood of the interesection of independent probabilities is the simply the product of the individual probabilities. E.g., 10 probabilities which are indepdent and are 0.01 (1%) results a 1 out of 100 quintillion expectation.
My friends who tend to support aggression toward Iran generally use an either/or argument, e.g., that is, even if the likelihood is small, the outcome is so dire that we must act. The problem though is that they obviously don't live in fear of alien invasion, even though the outcome could be dire, because they do the mental calculus implicitly and rule it out as too small a probability. We all do these calculations. I tire of those who would dismiss those of us who are skeptics of Iran's existential threat to the world (and this seems to be the argument Krauthammer is making) because even the smallest chance is worth acting upon, because obviously those who want to act on the smallest chance do not use the same logic on the sample space of infinite possibilities.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Sen-NJ: Tom Kean flies under the radar
NPR had an interesting piece on Tom Kean, Republican candidate for Senate in New Jersey, this morning. The piece made the point that Kean is running as a stealth Republican - focusing exclusively on local issues and distancing himself from the President and the party. On the campaign trail, he studiously avoids the issue of Iraq, but when pressed on it, unhesitatingly says that the Administration made huge mistakes and that the Defense Department needs new leadership (veiled reference to firing Rumsfeld). His campaign literature omits any mention of his party and when Cheney dropped by to raise money for him, he got "stuck in traffic" rather than be caught in a photo op with the veep.
What's also interesting is the attitude towards the race from the activists on both sides. Dailykos hasn't had much front-page mention of Kean, though there has been some limited discussion at myDD. The worst that anyone's said about Kean there is that he benefits from some identity confusion from people who think he is his father Tom Kean Sr., a former Governor and still well-respected. The myDD Senate forecast probably should be updated, it's presently under the "lean Democratic" category when it really should be under Toss-ups. I don't think Menendez's mere $5M money advantage and the general blueness of NJ are enough to bank a win on, and as myDD admits Kean has way better name ID than Menendez does (something the NPR piece also mentions).
At RedState, Kean has got some front-page love from Pejman (who is rather moderate himself). Still, Kean hasn't attracted much attention. It's likely that Kean's liberal views wouldn't go over well if they got a fuller airing, so in that sense the relative silence about him works in his favor; Kean resembles Lincoln Chaffee in his RiNOism but he doesn't get any of the bile. Of course there wasn't an annointed conservative challenger to Kean as there was to Chaffee either so the GOP grassroots have really very little choice.
It's worth pointing out that Menendez was an appointed Senator, and that Democratic Party in NJ is generally considered corrupt. In that sense Kean might well be a good kick in the pants for the NJ Dems to get their act together, and probably better represent the will of the voters in NJ than Menendez. Given NJ's overwhelming blueness it's a safe bet that as Senator he'd be forced to be bipartisan - and given his pretty liberal positions, that isn't going to be too much of a setback.
On the whole, I think this is a race that if the GOP does win, does them no favors, and doesn't hurt the Democrats either. Control of the Senate is still possible for the Dems even without Menendez, and Kean might be a good ally. After all, we DO need "good guy" Republicans like the McCain-Warner-Hagel trio who led the charge against the President's attempt to undermine the Geneva Conventions yesterday, to confer genuine legitimacy to the Democrats when doing the right thing.
Overall, Kean flies under the radar on the national scene and is working hard where it matters - in the field, on the ground. I think that a Kean victory is not only likely, but also probably going to garner as much attention as his race has. Namely, very little.
UPDATE: Note that Menendez is now under federal investigation. The timing is of course suspect, but calling the US attorney a crook is pretty desperate.
What's also interesting is the attitude towards the race from the activists on both sides. Dailykos hasn't had much front-page mention of Kean, though there has been some limited discussion at myDD. The worst that anyone's said about Kean there is that he benefits from some identity confusion from people who think he is his father Tom Kean Sr., a former Governor and still well-respected. The myDD Senate forecast probably should be updated, it's presently under the "lean Democratic" category when it really should be under Toss-ups. I don't think Menendez's mere $5M money advantage and the general blueness of NJ are enough to bank a win on, and as myDD admits Kean has way better name ID than Menendez does (something the NPR piece also mentions).
At RedState, Kean has got some front-page love from Pejman (who is rather moderate himself). Still, Kean hasn't attracted much attention. It's likely that Kean's liberal views wouldn't go over well if they got a fuller airing, so in that sense the relative silence about him works in his favor; Kean resembles Lincoln Chaffee in his RiNOism but he doesn't get any of the bile. Of course there wasn't an annointed conservative challenger to Kean as there was to Chaffee either so the GOP grassroots have really very little choice.
It's worth pointing out that Menendez was an appointed Senator, and that Democratic Party in NJ is generally considered corrupt. In that sense Kean might well be a good kick in the pants for the NJ Dems to get their act together, and probably better represent the will of the voters in NJ than Menendez. Given NJ's overwhelming blueness it's a safe bet that as Senator he'd be forced to be bipartisan - and given his pretty liberal positions, that isn't going to be too much of a setback.
On the whole, I think this is a race that if the GOP does win, does them no favors, and doesn't hurt the Democrats either. Control of the Senate is still possible for the Dems even without Menendez, and Kean might be a good ally. After all, we DO need "good guy" Republicans like the McCain-Warner-Hagel trio who led the charge against the President's attempt to undermine the Geneva Conventions yesterday, to confer genuine legitimacy to the Democrats when doing the right thing.
Overall, Kean flies under the radar on the national scene and is working hard where it matters - in the field, on the ground. I think that a Kean victory is not only likely, but also probably going to garner as much attention as his race has. Namely, very little.
UPDATE: Note that Menendez is now under federal investigation. The timing is of course suspect, but calling the US attorney a crook is pretty desperate.
Monday, September 11, 2006
September 11
Five years ago today, 19 guys with box cutters flew hijacked planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. They killed themselves in the process, along with a little under 3,000 other people. It's hard, at least for me, to understand exactly why they did this, and what, if anything, they thought they would accomplish. I don't know if I'll ever understand it, actually, or if I really want to put myself into whatever frame of mine is necessary to do so. In any case, they did it.
Five years ago today, a young mother sat on a plane next to her two year old daughter, knowing that both of their lives would end in a few short minutes. A man stayed behind in one of the towers with a coworker who was wheelchair bound, knowing that it would probably mean his life. Faced with a choice of incineration or jumping to their deaths, numbers leapt from the top of the towers. Some held hands as they did so. Some were on fire as they did so.
Hundreds of firemen and other rescue workers acted against every instinct of survival and walked up into the burning towers to save those who were still inside.
Thousands of people filed out of the towers to safety, wondering if they would make it or if they would die. I imagine that most of them, by far, were simply scared out of their wits, hoped and prayed they would get out alive, and ran like hell once they got to the street. That is what I imagine I would do.
A handful of people, knowing their lives were forfeit, stood up and fought the hijackers face to face and hand to hand, to prevent whatever larger catastrophe was intended.
We all remember where we were when it happened. We all remember the sickening feeling, the horror of watching the towers fall, the months and years (even still) of anxiety worrying when and where it would happen again, the confusion and inability to understand "why".
This is what war looks like when it comes to your country, your city, your family, your home. The good and the bad die together. The innocent and the guilty, the powerful and the poor, all alike are thrown into the fire. Most emerge scarred, many beyond any hope of being made whole. Some do not emerge at all. The fruit of great effort, of many human lifetime's effort, is laid waste and destroyed. Things are broken beyond repair or remedy.
In this country, we have rarely had to see war so closely as we saw it five years ago. I hope we never see it again.
What I hope we learn from the events of that day is this: war is, at best, a bitter and tragic necessity, and at worst an evil, wasteful sin. To go to war is to loose destruction, death, and chaos without discrimination. It is to kill, to crush, to scour, to destroy, to waste. All of these things have effects far beyond the immediate moment.
To think that anyone is "in control" of war, or the outcome of war, is delusion. Those who see war as a reasonable or acceptable instrument for achieving political ends are irresponsible, insane, and dangerous. You go to war when you must, and for no other reason.
This day belongs to the memory of those whose lives were torn from them, against their will, and who faced their fates with whatever courage, faith, hope, and love they could summon in the worst imaginable circumstances. May we never forget them, nor may we ever abuse their memory.
Thank you.
Five years ago today, a young mother sat on a plane next to her two year old daughter, knowing that both of their lives would end in a few short minutes. A man stayed behind in one of the towers with a coworker who was wheelchair bound, knowing that it would probably mean his life. Faced with a choice of incineration or jumping to their deaths, numbers leapt from the top of the towers. Some held hands as they did so. Some were on fire as they did so.
Hundreds of firemen and other rescue workers acted against every instinct of survival and walked up into the burning towers to save those who were still inside.
Thousands of people filed out of the towers to safety, wondering if they would make it or if they would die. I imagine that most of them, by far, were simply scared out of their wits, hoped and prayed they would get out alive, and ran like hell once they got to the street. That is what I imagine I would do.
A handful of people, knowing their lives were forfeit, stood up and fought the hijackers face to face and hand to hand, to prevent whatever larger catastrophe was intended.
We all remember where we were when it happened. We all remember the sickening feeling, the horror of watching the towers fall, the months and years (even still) of anxiety worrying when and where it would happen again, the confusion and inability to understand "why".
This is what war looks like when it comes to your country, your city, your family, your home. The good and the bad die together. The innocent and the guilty, the powerful and the poor, all alike are thrown into the fire. Most emerge scarred, many beyond any hope of being made whole. Some do not emerge at all. The fruit of great effort, of many human lifetime's effort, is laid waste and destroyed. Things are broken beyond repair or remedy.
In this country, we have rarely had to see war so closely as we saw it five years ago. I hope we never see it again.
What I hope we learn from the events of that day is this: war is, at best, a bitter and tragic necessity, and at worst an evil, wasteful sin. To go to war is to loose destruction, death, and chaos without discrimination. It is to kill, to crush, to scour, to destroy, to waste. All of these things have effects far beyond the immediate moment.
To think that anyone is "in control" of war, or the outcome of war, is delusion. Those who see war as a reasonable or acceptable instrument for achieving political ends are irresponsible, insane, and dangerous. You go to war when you must, and for no other reason.
This day belongs to the memory of those whose lives were torn from them, against their will, and who faced their fates with whatever courage, faith, hope, and love they could summon in the worst imaginable circumstances. May we never forget them, nor may we ever abuse their memory.
Thank you.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
no dropoff in Baghdad deaths http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/07/africa/ME_GEN_Iraq_Violent_Deaths.php
The much-heralded August drop off in deaths, as reported by the Baghdad morgue, was used to paint the results of Operation Forward Together as a success. The numbers were just revised upward by the Ministry of Health, however - tripled.
more detail from IHT.
It turns out the official toll of violent deaths in August was just revised upwards to 1535 from 550, tripling the total.
[...]
Violent deaths now appear roughly in line with the earlier trend: 1855 in July and 1595 in June. Officials at the Baghdad morgue have no good explanation for the dramatically revised number. We'll see what the U.S. military has to say.
more detail from IHT.
Baghdad recorded more than 1,500 violent deaths in August, according to final figures released this week by the Health Ministry. The final count was roughly the same as the figure the ministry released for July, before the U.S.-led security crackdown began in the Baghdad area.
The final figure was also nearly three times the preliminary count released by the same ministry last week.
If accurate, the final figures cast doubt on U.S. and Iraqi claims of a significant reduction in the level of violence here since the crackdown was launched Aug. 7.
Nevertheless, U.S. officials were sticking by that claim Thursday.
Asked about the latest Iraqi figures, U.S. spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Johnson referred The Associated Press to a statement on a U.S. military Web site which said the murder rate in Baghdad dropped 52 percent from the daily rate for July.
"The violence Baghdad endured in July receded during the month of August," the Web statement added. "Attacks in Baghdad were well below the monthly average for July."
Iraqi officials could provide no explanation for the difference between the preliminary and final August figures. But it could have resulted in part from a late August surge in deaths.
More than 250 people were killed in Baghdad in the final week of the month.
peer review
My position can best be summarized as follows, when it comes to a scientific debate with political overtones.
1. look at what the scientists are saying
2. look at what the critics are saying
3. see which side is using the peer review system and which is playing to the media.
if point 3 is false, and both sides are using peer review and there is no real consensus, then thats great! I refuse to have an opinion. Unless its my field and I am qualified.
otherwise, i'm with the peer review side. I trust the experts in a field to be the experts. Because I do on the whole have a faith in the scientific process - flawed as all human endeavours are - to be the best of all possible systems.
1. look at what the scientists are saying
2. look at what the critics are saying
3. see which side is using the peer review system and which is playing to the media.
if point 3 is false, and both sides are using peer review and there is no real consensus, then thats great! I refuse to have an opinion. Unless its my field and I am qualified.
otherwise, i'm with the peer review side. I trust the experts in a field to be the experts. Because I do on the whole have a faith in the scientific process - flawed as all human endeavours are - to be the best of all possible systems.
Pirates and the Geneva Convention http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1157589160.shtml
In response to my previous post about adopting the pirate standard for international terrorists, Dean Esmay raises the point that it might well be used to justify the view that accused pirates or sympathizers have no civil rights and therefore do not enjoy any right to due process or protection under the Geneva Conventions:
This is not necessarily correct however. For one thing, the Geneva Convention does define combatants very precisely. The Third Geneva Convention (GCIII) applies specifically only to lawful combatants, who are defined in a precise way in Article 4.
In addition, Article 5 of GCIII also states,
Which means that if there is doubt about whether a combatant is lawful as defined by Article 4, they must be treated as a lawful combatant until a competent tribunal can determine their status.
The entry in Wikipedia for "unlawful combatant" (whose neutrality is understandably disputed) makes for interesting and relevant reading here.
So first let's understand that the Geneva Conventions are in fact very flexible and do allow for sever treatment, as long as due process is followed. This Conventions represent a great achievement of the modern age and we should look at them in the liberal tradition, ie understand that they help codify our Enlightenment values. In this, they are a source of strength, not weakness - because when followed, they remove any doubt about whether justice has been meted.
Now, adopting the pirate standard (which predates the Geneva Conventions by quite a lot) doesn't automatically imply a repudiation of GCIII. We can adopt the legal frameworks for defining piracy as crime and an international problem, and then use those as our legal justification for capturing pirates. Er, terrorists. Once captured we are obligated to make sure that due process is given and the Conventions can and should be followed accordingly.
The point is that the pirate standard provides a precedent for international cooperation. And a better means of defining just who we are fighting against - a specific class of people defined by their actions, not their beliefs (for example, it would pretty much eviscerate the argument that the war on terror is a war against Islam). Its not a solution, its a tool to facilitate a solution.
Finally, note that the original article does not invoke the pirate standard in the context of civil rights and "kill them upon sight" mentality, but rather discusses the advantages from a much more pragmatic (and completely GCIII-consistent) perspective.
If your position regarding International Law is akin to that of the Administration - namely, that it's a joke and toothless, and solely exists as a means to harass the interests of the United States, then the piratical standard proposal is probably not your bag. After all, the "kill em where they be found" standard is already in effect, and the Administration already flouts the GCIII even when they claim otherwise, so if anything the pirate standard is going to be at best unnecessary and at worst invite unwanted international scrutiny.
However if you take the liberal view that international law can (as history has demonstrated time and again) be a useful tool for cooperation and bring to bear the immense resources of nations in a much more focused manner, then the pirate standard is something that should not only be considered, but advocated.
arrrr.
But there is a danger to this view of terrorism. My own gut says this is a proposal with much merit, but it amounts to declaring that pirates and terrorists enjoy no civil rights protections to speak of. Anyone declared a pirate or terrorist may be killed on sight or, if captured, hung by the neck until dead, dead, dead by a fairly quick military tribunal--what some might call a "kangaroo court."
Under such a view of terrorism, for example, many of the inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay would simply be dead now, summarily executed after a quick military tribunal.
This is not necessarily correct however. For one thing, the Geneva Convention does define combatants very precisely. The Third Geneva Convention (GCIII) applies specifically only to lawful combatants, who are defined in a precise way in Article 4.
In addition, Article 5 of GCIII also states,
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
Which means that if there is doubt about whether a combatant is lawful as defined by Article 4, they must be treated as a lawful combatant until a competent tribunal can determine their status.
The entry in Wikipedia for "unlawful combatant" (whose neutrality is understandably disputed) makes for interesting and relevant reading here.
So first let's understand that the Geneva Conventions are in fact very flexible and do allow for sever treatment, as long as due process is followed. This Conventions represent a great achievement of the modern age and we should look at them in the liberal tradition, ie understand that they help codify our Enlightenment values. In this, they are a source of strength, not weakness - because when followed, they remove any doubt about whether justice has been meted.
Now, adopting the pirate standard (which predates the Geneva Conventions by quite a lot) doesn't automatically imply a repudiation of GCIII. We can adopt the legal frameworks for defining piracy as crime and an international problem, and then use those as our legal justification for capturing pirates. Er, terrorists. Once captured we are obligated to make sure that due process is given and the Conventions can and should be followed accordingly.
The point is that the pirate standard provides a precedent for international cooperation. And a better means of defining just who we are fighting against - a specific class of people defined by their actions, not their beliefs (for example, it would pretty much eviscerate the argument that the war on terror is a war against Islam). Its not a solution, its a tool to facilitate a solution.
Finally, note that the original article does not invoke the pirate standard in the context of civil rights and "kill them upon sight" mentality, but rather discusses the advantages from a much more pragmatic (and completely GCIII-consistent) perspective.
If the war on terror becomes akin to war against the pirates, however, the situation would change. First, the crime of terrorism would be defined and proscribed internationally, and terrorists would be properly understood as enemies of all states. This legal status carries significant advantages, chief among them the possibility of universal jurisdiction. Terrorists, as hostis humani generis, could be captured wherever they were found, by anyone who found them. Pirates are currently the only form of criminals subject to this special jurisdiction.
Second, this definition would deter states from harboring terrorists on the grounds that they are "freedom fighters" by providing an objective distinction in law between legitimate insurgency and outright terrorism. This same objective definition could, conversely, also deter states from cracking down on political dissidents as "terrorists," as both Russia and China have done against their dissidents.
Recall the U.N. definition of piracy as acts of "depredation [committed] for private ends." Just as international piracy is viewed as transcending domestic criminal law, so too must the crime of international terrorism be defined as distinct from domestic homicide or, alternately, revolutionary activities. If a group directs its attacks on military or civilian targets within its own state, it may still fall within domestic criminal law. Yet once it directs those attacks on property or civilians belonging to another state, it exceeds both domestic law and the traditional right of self-determination, and becomes akin to a pirate band.
Third, and perhaps most important, nations that now balk at assisting the United States in the war on terror might have fewer reservations if terrorism were defined as an international crime that could be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court.
If your position regarding International Law is akin to that of the Administration - namely, that it's a joke and toothless, and solely exists as a means to harass the interests of the United States, then the piratical standard proposal is probably not your bag. After all, the "kill em where they be found" standard is already in effect, and the Administration already flouts the GCIII even when they claim otherwise, so if anything the pirate standard is going to be at best unnecessary and at worst invite unwanted international scrutiny.
However if you take the liberal view that international law can (as history has demonstrated time and again) be a useful tool for cooperation and bring to bear the immense resources of nations in a much more focused manner, then the pirate standard is something that should not only be considered, but advocated.
arrrr.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
The war on Pirates http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/July-August-2005/feature_burgess_julaug05.msp
Legal Affairs argues that we should treat terrorists as pirates, legally speaking:
This is more than pure legalese. The lengthy article goes into extensive historical detail, and the parallels between historical piracy and modern-day terror are striking enough to suggest that the difference is indeed purely semantic. The great European powers actually had state-sanctioned piracy, as vehicles for their foreign policy aims - a fact that immediately brings to mind the Great Game in Afghanistan and the way in which realpolitik created the Taliban and funded Saddam in the mid-eighties.
Much of the advantages are long -term, to be sure. But there is one immediate benefit, which incidentally also gives a moral clarity of its own:
Considering how meaningless the Administration's tactic of lumping all terror threats into one faceless mass of generic "Islamofascism" has been, adopting the piracy standard provides some much-needed contrast in the debate about how best to achieve victory.
TO UNDERSTAND THE POTENTIAL OF DEFINING TERRORISM as a species of piracy, consider the words of the 16th-century jurist Alberico Gentili's De jure belli: "Pirates are common enemies, and they are attacked with impunity by all, because they are without the pale of the law. They are scorners of the law of nations; hence they find no protection in that law." Gentili, and many people who came after him, recognized piracy as a threat, not merely to the state but to the idea of statehood itself. All states were equally obligated to stamp out this menace, whether or not they had been a victim of piracy. This was codified explicitly in the 1856 Declaration of Paris, and it has been reiterated as a guiding principle of piracy law ever since. Ironically, it is the very effectiveness of this criminalization that has marginalized piracy and made it seem an arcane and almost romantic offense. Pirates no longer terrorize the seas because a concerted effort among the European states in the 19th century almost eradicated them. It is just such a concerted effort that all states must now undertake against terrorists, until the crime of terrorism becomes as remote and obsolete as piracy.
But we are still very far from such recognition for the present war on terror.
[...]
If the war on terror becomes akin to war against the pirates, however, the situation would change. First, the crime of terrorism would be defined and proscribed internationally, and terrorists would be properly understood as enemies of all states. This legal status carries significant advantages, chief among them the possibility of universal jurisdiction. Terrorists, as hostis humani generis, could be captured wherever they were found, by anyone who found them. Pirates are currently the only form of criminals subject to this special jurisdiction.
This is more than pure legalese. The lengthy article goes into extensive historical detail, and the parallels between historical piracy and modern-day terror are striking enough to suggest that the difference is indeed purely semantic. The great European powers actually had state-sanctioned piracy, as vehicles for their foreign policy aims - a fact that immediately brings to mind the Great Game in Afghanistan and the way in which realpolitik created the Taliban and funded Saddam in the mid-eighties.
Much of the advantages are long -term, to be sure. But there is one immediate benefit, which incidentally also gives a moral clarity of its own:
In the short term, it is a tool to cut the Gordian knot of definition that has hampered antiterrorist legislation for 40 years. In the long term, and far more important, it provides the parameters by which to understand this current and intense conflict and the means within which it may one day be resolved. That resolution will begin with the recognition among nations that terrorism is a threat to all states and to all persons, the same recognition given to piracy in 1856. Terrorists, like pirates, must be given their proper status in law: hostis humani generis, enemies of the human race.
Considering how meaningless the Administration's tactic of lumping all terror threats into one faceless mass of generic "Islamofascism" has been, adopting the piracy standard provides some much-needed contrast in the debate about how best to achieve victory.
Election 2008 feed
Nation-Building feed
Archives
Obama 2008 - I want my country back
About Nation-Building
Nation-Building was founded by Aziz Poonawalla in August 2002 under the name Dean Nation. Dean Nation was the very first weblog devoted to a presidential candidate, Howard Dean, and became the vanguard of the Dean netroot phenomenon, raising over $40,000 for the Dean campaign, pioneering the use of Meetup, and enjoying the attention of the campaign itself, with Joe Trippi a regular reader (and sometime commentor). Howard Dean himself even left a comment once. Dean Nation was a group weblog effort and counts among its alumni many of the progressive blogsphere's leading talent including Jerome Armstrong, Matthew Yglesias, and Ezra Klein. After the election in 2004, the blog refocused onto the theme of "purple politics", formally changing its name to Nation-Building in June 2006. The primary focus of the blog is on articulating purple-state policy at home and pragmatic liberal interventionism abroad.
