The Spit Shine

/* Google Analytics Code asynchronous */

Friday, December 8, 2006

Sorry, AS, I think that Kagen is wrong

AS laments:

But do we have enough troops to do this [embed and train]? And why was this not done years ago? Oh, forget that last question, but rephrase it: given the level of talent in the White House, what are the chances of getting it right this time?<

BACKSTORY
First, here is what went wrong. Read testimony of the guy in charge of training the ISF.

KAGEN's ASSUMPTIONS

Kagen is probably wrong on two counts. One, the military have already decided for on-the-job training to facilitate "acceleration", despite the MIT training courses they have set up.

The ISG or B-H Report mentions continuing on with embeds until 1Q2008 (see R42). So far as I can tell, this is what the military's pros have been suggesting for a while now and implementing.

NUMBERS GAME?

The hard questions about how recruiting is going for ISF (Army and police), by province, aren't asked of the podium too often without a "classified" *cough*.

However, the tea leaves that I've read through suggest that the problem isn't with numbers, but with quality (although, again, that is an overall assessment - numbers do appear to be a problem in some places). That is a good thing - time improves quality, but time will not improve numbers ...

sullylink

[+/-] Show Full Post...

Apologies accepted

I set up a bunch of posts to self-publish while I went to the shrink and had lunch. Typepad malfunctioned, hence the gap and now the glut. No idea when future publishing will work again - so I'm glued to the laptop.

Oh, please, apologies accepted!

The World is in a mess and anyone tapped into it has got to take a break, if they can, to re-rejuvenate. On top of that, you've invited a lot of tension/conflict into your life with that Conservative Soul Train, so ... take some naps too!

sullylink

[+/-] Show Full Post...

Thursday, December 7, 2006

Denied a Father, but oh, what a Sugar Daddy

This kid has a grandfather whose net worth is probably in excess of $100 million.

Somehow, I think he or she will not be disadvantaged by mommy and mommy ...

[+/-] Show Full Post...

Cunning Linguists

Part A:
1) There is no shortage of individuals who want to become linguists.

Part B:

Linguists are better paid (we got an extra $100+ a month per language for being linguists). We had far better living conditions, and were generally treated as mini-officers in many circles, as most of us were highly skilled, educated, and generally quite intelligent.

Humm... those seem in contradiction economically. If there were no shortage, then there would not be "better" anything, most likely. As I was pointing out, those with real Arabic skills are in hot demand, right now. What's more, home-grown is, for the reasons I cited, not nearly the same as those who are in country who have brought with them cultural understandings that go along with any language.

Besides, it's not clear that DIA training is going to help the FBI (let alone with the apparent Islam-deficit on display with don't-know answers to the question, "Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'a?")

[+/-] Show Full Post...

First Impressions

I'm always surprised when some Conservatives are so down on diplomacy. Perhaps it is reflective of some people's personal ethics or something. Who knows.

In any case, it appears that, unless one has "leverage" or there is some way to force someone else to do something, that *all* diplomacy is either appeasement (failure to apply what "force" or threat one can) or an afterthought, a nice-to-have. It's astonishing, really, such views.

I'm not sure on what basis Andrew draws the conclusion that we are absolutely leaving soon. The report says (my summary here), (a) absolutely no open-ended commitments (b) quid pro quo for ongoing US "support". There are some other indications, like training objectives out to 1Q2008, which is what is reasonable - I don't believe the six month 'accelerated' timeframes much.

[+/-] Show Full Post...

Wednesday, December 6, 2006

FBI: still smug, after all these years?

I suspect the overall situation is worse than Andrew lets on.

If you look though this bit on how terrorists use the internet, you gain an appreciation of how much "free" information isn't being aptly culled.

Other items of note (process/institutional-design related):

It's hard for Arabic (and other language) speakers to get clearances, even second generation - their 'backgrounds' cannot be verified.
People with knowledge of the regions can often easily tell from dialect and accent who is from where, something that no amount of book learning will create.
We have no idea how much information that is freely available we are missing (although there are statistical exercises that could estimate that)

Other, threat-related

The Internet provides for recruiting. Videos have gotten increasingly sophisticated.
The notion that al-qa'ida use of the internet is primitive is possibly to ignore a gathering threat
Virtual community provided, in some instance, directly to terrorists and sympathizers
A large number of voyeurs on various websites
Calls for logistical support provided by decentralized network of experts
The idea that to openly oppose jihad is to oppose Islam is possibly deeply rooted - it's not just intimidation, it's cultural milieu, it's acceptable mores.

An US Gov't interrogator once told the author that there are "32 ways to spell Qa'daffi". "Not in Arabic", she thought to herself ...

[+/-] Show Full Post...

Tuesday, December 5, 2006

Maximum Security

This looks like a standard operating procedure for maximum security. You know, guards just don't open the door and say, "Come out, come out, wherever you are!".

All the same, I've never seen goggles and earmuffs before.

Of course, although the procedures might be more-or-less standard, that doesn't say anything about whether the circumstances of this detention are justified, which is the main point, perhaps.

[+/-] Show Full Post...

Nothing to Achieve --> Zero Troops

How much higher would make a difference? At this point, close to 50,000 to 100,000 extra troops to halt the centrifugal force of societal disintegration in Iraq. Does the Weekly Standard seriously believe that is either politically or militarily possible with the urgency necessary?

I'm not sure that anyone knows what the right amount is. The theoretically correct amount probably varies from time-to-time, which only makes calibration that much more difficult.

Because they are not politically possible doesn't change the analysis of whether they are needed or might be beneficial.

Two other observations. Does draw down or "re-deploy" mean forever? That seems like an odd prescription, since any breakdown in the situation is going to come up at the U.N. subsequently, and the US will be under pressure to 'do something'. In other words, thinking about the troops' impact on Baghdad now may ignore long-term needs that may still arise for another division or two or three.

Last, do they all have to be U.S. troops? I asked this a long time ago when Operation Lightning was launched ... how is it that so many can just stand aside so easily?

By the way, I'm not in any position to assess "denial", but Andrew should recognize that there will always be a faction that supports continuous military engagement. It's a strong element in Israeli politics, for instance, perhaps the most direct parallel. I can't see any reason it won't continue here too.

sullylink

[+/-] Show Full Post...

How many roads ...

Or maybe — gulp — he really does believe that Iraq is still fixable,

There is a lot that has been fixed, is getting fixed, and that could be fixed, still.

that Maliki will soon emerge as a unifying national leader,

When people tire of violence, they will want a national, unifying leader, if not before. When the government is able to defend itself on its own terms (i.e. have a more full command of Iraqi troops), that also may be a catalyst for change. One may not like that change or its modus, but ...

that American troops will manage to calm a civil war,

Sufficient American troops (and an empowered judiciary) certainly can forestall an escalating cycle of reprisal killings. Either those fighting will exhaust themselves in a struggle by eventually realizing that they cannot consolidate the small gains they make in 'reprisal', that they cannot gain anything long-term by excalting and getting their neighbors involved, or that they can reach some interim political compromise (and start to work together, despite rivalry and animosity).

that trained Iraqi troops will fight for a united democratic government rather than for sect or tribe or vengeance.

In some instances, they already are (the fifth division isn't the whole story). The question is whether so-much can be brought to scale and how quickly, given the other inter-dependent tasks to complete (and the failure to prioritize this task from the outset).

[+/-] Show Full Post...

Monday, December 4, 2006

MarKos, Obama, Sully, and Libertarians

Who are we kidding ... this is the FUTURE OF THE LEFT :

edit: I have a new thought on this.
Perhaps it would be good for the New Left to engage the "Refreshed" Right, if only to drown out the 'debate' that is promulgated from both their flanks. I mean why do we have to submit the public discourse to the sensationalists, sometimes even self-admitted, and to the endless, cheap moralizers like O'Reilly?

sullylink

[+/-] Show Full Post...

Def Musical Soul

Def Leopard are like rock candy - cheap and loathsome in their own sweetness, but unable to be avoided.

[+/-] Show Full Post...

Psssst... over here.

Just worth knowing the details of the vast chasm between the White House and reality. Now put yourself in the position of an American soldier ordered to do something he doesn't have the back-up for, in order to provide window-dressing for a re-election campaign. The troops are heroes not just for doing their work, but for doing it under one of the most clueless commanders-in-chief in recent history.

[Andrew, pssst, the military are complicit ...]

[+/-] Show Full Post...

Saturday, December 2, 2006

The Minimum Wage

Honestly, if Conservatives had better ideas, they could have done something in the long time they have had both houses and the Executive.

In truth, Conservatives of late prefer earmarks to minimum wages ... (That's a bit of a cheap shot, given what has actually happened under "W", but I'll leave the wall for them to scale).

By the way, Andrew is silent on the actual alternatives proposed in passing in the Mankiw piece. Can we infer from that just how high a priority, a "consideration", the working poor deserve on the scale of Dish tax-priorities?

[+/-] Show Full Post...

big-R not small-c tax policy

Some readers have asked if I favor [a mortgage decution] abolition. I sure do. That's probably why I'm a blogger and not a politician.

I would hazard that is why you are a big-R Republican and not a small-c conservative.

Conservatism cannot change its spots. Andrew's efforts to reign in Christianism are worthy, but the overall context of suggesting that small-c conservatism is "re-freshed" enough to be re-embraced is succotash:

People made jokes recently about whether Truman was a doll on the cake and so on, but, whether he was or not, his eyesight was clear:

Harry Truman said this over 50 years ago and it is as relevant today as it was when he first said it.

* “Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke.

* They stand four-square for The American home but not for housing.

* They are strong for labor- but they are stronger for restricting labor’s rights.

* They favor minimum wage- the smaller the minimum wage the better.

* They endorse Educational opportunity for all but they won’t spend money for teachers or for schools.

* They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine- for people who can afford them.

* They consider electrical power a great blessing but only when the private power companies get their rake-off.

* They think American standard of living is a fine thing- so long as it doesn’t spread to all the people.

* And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.”

--President Harry S. Truman

[+/-] Show Full Post...

A Warrior, Fast?

Kuo has a hard time selling just a half-measure fast.

Matthew, the lost verses:

"Verily, I say unto you, the legislature is like unto the Kingdom. Go forth and dominate it with a permanent majority."

Kuo is going to need bigger medicine ...

[+/-] Show Full Post...

The Cultureless Culture Warrior Rides Again

I'm not a longtime FOX watcher, but how much do you need to see before you realize what it amounts to?

If you missed it, here's yet another view on how FOX gets the "News" out to the faithful: FOX NEWS INTERNAL MEMO: "Be On The Lookout For Any Statements From The Iraqi Insurgents...Thrilled At The Prospect Of A Dem Controlled Congress"

Sully on Tax Policy

I'm not sure what Andrew intends to cover under 'flat tax' (or which shelter's he's after, precisely). Does that mean one tax rate for everything, all types of income, no sales taxes or excise taxes? He may want to do some other checking. Right now, the marginal Federal tax rates are all within +/- 7% for those earning $28K to $312K, which probably covers 90% or more of all those paying income taxes. In other words, we have close to a de-facto flat tax ... and, yet, still ... Barney's points about the apparent inequities in burden sharing are current, i.e. related to recent tax and income experience under that regime.

O'Reilly's premise, of course, is ridiculous (alongside most of his attack-style, 'Answer this, yes-or-no'). I don't know at any time in history of America in which someone said that the purpose of the tax code was to re-distribute income.

There was a time when it was mostly the wealthy who paid for everything, and they were naturally inclined to pay for their security (not for policing, in general, but for their security, arguably). They didn't want to pay for a Congressional Chaplain. It was a long time coming, until they decided to pay for a standing army, to protect their property. Naturally, they resented paying for any social welfare programs, etc., etc.

Causes one to think

Still, it causes one to think, how would you respond to O'Reilly's attack question.

One short answer: I perfer not to tax jobs. I also prefer to tax dynasties.

A longer answer: We'd like to have a tax code that reflects a just and stable society, and not go back to the times when everything you can expect from life is driven by how much money your family may have collected ...

p.s. I'm glad to hear that the 'working poor' deserve some consideration ... The problem with small-c conservatives is that this too often comes up as an afterthought, not an aforethought.

[+/-] Show Full Post...

Krauthammer's rant

I have to agree with Andrew on this one.

Krauthammer rants, "What in God’s name will a negotiation with Iran and Syria yield?" (It sounds like one of Lantos' floor speeches?).

This is why militarists in the guise of 'realists' should never be left in charge of policy, because they lack vision, tie themselves up in knots with "pure solutions".

If he seriously thinks that Iran and Syria yearn for a civil meltdown in Iraq, a potential near-by base for al-qa'ida and no way out of an engagement themselves, he's got some serious problems.

What if he's wrong and the Syrians or the Iranians make a "mistake", in his calculus, and co-operate on this or that security matter. Heck, we'd have never capitalized on their "errors", if we weren't talking to them, except at the end of a Woolsey gun.

[+/-] Show Full Post...

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)