perfidy

I join John Cole in wondering just how the Rumsfeld memo that was leaked to the press today is bad thing.

Assuming it's real (and yes, I'm assuming it's real), Rummy is basically asking his senior staff "how're we doing? Long way to go... how can we do better?" and getting hit in the papers with charges of "admitting we've lost." Noooo, he's asking how we can more effectively fight the terrorists. Read the memo. These kind of questions are EXACTLY the kind of issues he should be addressing.

I tend to think Rumsfeld is kind of a dickhead, (and I LOVE to see him restrain his murder-urge in front of the press), but I love that he is taking the time to address issues like "Is the Department of Defense on the right track?" and "Are we doing the best we can in Afghanistan?" I'm really glad that someone with pull is asking these difficult questions about the War On Terrah, and taking the time to solicit responses. Hopefully this will lead to improvements in our tactics and strategery.

And I agree with Cole. Leaking this kind of memo and crucifying it in the media will only lead to; fewer such memos; fewer such questions; and greater opacity from our government. All these are, say it with me, Bad Things.

Dammit.

[memo reproduced below the break.]
October 16, 2003
TO: Gen. Dick Myers
Paul Wolfowitz
Gen. Pete Pace
Doug Feith

FROM: Donald Rumsfeld

SUBJECT: Global War on Terrorism

The questions I posed to combatant commanders this week were: Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror? Is DoD changing fast enough to deal with the new 21st century security environment? Can a big institution change fast enough? Is the USG changing fast enough?

DoD has been organized, trained and equipped to fight big armies, navies and air forces. It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror; an alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere — one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem.

With respect to global terrorism, the record since Septermber 11th seems to be:

We are having mixed results with Al Qaida, although we have put considerable pressure on them — nonetheless, a great many remain at large.

USG has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis.

USG has made somewhat slower progress tracking down the Taliban — Omar, Hekmatyar, etc.

With respect to the Ansar Al-Islam, we are just getting started.

Have we fashioned the right mix of rewards, amnesty, protection and confidence in the US?

Does DoD need to think through new ways to organize, train, equip and focus to deal with the global war on terror?

Are the changes we have and are making too modest and incremental? My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves, although we have have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?

Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?

Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.

Do we need a new organization?

How do we stop those who are financing the radical madrassa schools?

Is our current situation such that "the harder we work, the behinder we get"?

It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog.

Does CIA need a new finding?

Should we create a private foundation to entice radical madradssas to a more moderate course?

What else should we be considering?

Please be prepared to discuss this at our meeting on Saturday or Monday.

Thanks.

"An unabashedly Christian message is not by definition anti-semitic"

Fucking A. I wish more people in public positions would take that, and related sentiments, to heart.

My own religious background was in dour Methodism, and it never really took. As a teen, I bounced around from Methodist to Episcopal to Lutheran to Congregational churches, and never really found much that resonated with me.

What I mainly took away from Christianity when I left (did I leave? I was confirmed a Methodist, but confirmation seemed to be just something you "do" rather than something that "changes you," which runs counter to the whole idea of confirmation in the first place. I mean, I got confirmed, but I never had that inner-light experience that Wesleyans seem to hold as the hallmark of the saved person. Saved? Maybe by a technicality, but don't ask me to accept Jesus as my saviour, because I tried that once and it felt like I was faking it. Better to be an honestly sinful person than a falsely pious one.)

Whew - digression. What I took away from Christianity when I walked away was this understanding of the basic lesson that Jesus taught: that it's good to be nice to people and let them live their lives and you yours. Even though the spiritual aspects of Christianity are lost on me, the ethical and moral lessons went deep. Which is why it burns me up when people use religion as a test or (loaded word) crusade. Since Christianity is inherently an evangelical religion, you’re bound to have some measure of urgent fervor for converting nonbelievers, since their eternal happiness in some measure your responsibility. But the flip side of that is the message of tolerance and goodwill that Jesus preached. 

This actually came up in a post on Blogmother Kathy Kinsley's site. Kathy excerpts an article from the Observer which compares the Pledge of Allegiance to a test oath, which, as the article observes, was one of the MacGuffins behind the founding of the USA in the first place.

Let me remind those who have forgotten: There is a "pro-God," pro-American argument against putting God in the Pledge, against the worship of a graven image (the flag) that the Pledge requires. If I'm going to pledge allegiance to anything - under God or Vishnu or Whomever - it would be to the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is more worthy of true Americans' allegiance than a piece of red, white and blue fabric.

Perhaps it's the sheer historical inattention - if not ignorance - of so many of the supporters of the Pledge, and the all-important "under God" insertion, that gets on my nerves. Could they be unaware of the unsavory history of the "test oath"? I'm sure I don't need to explain test oaths to Observer readers, but for those who skipped that day in class, test oaths were the essential reason that religious and other dissidents fled England to found America. Test oaths were the means by which the Established Church in England enforced its repressive regime: Those who refused to mouth oaths required by the Established Church were often imprisoned, tortured and executed, leading many religious dissidents to leave for America.

Test oaths were one key reason the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibited the making of laws respecting the establishment of religion. That's what they were talking about. An enforced Pledge of Allegiance - especially the Pledge of Allegiance with the "under God" clause - is nothing but a test oath. It is a violation of everything American democracy is about. If you want to be - was this Mencken's phrase? - a "God botherer," go ahead, wander the halls of the schools, the streets and sidewalks affirming that we are "one nation under God." Just don't force everyone to take a test oath and worship a graven image made out of cloth. Or you can go reside in a nation founded upon test oaths and the worship of graven images. Look them up under "theocracies." You'll be happier there.

This also pertains to my post earlier this week about General Boykin, the chap at the Pentagon who declared Muslims as idolaters. By the way, since when was God an idol? From a Christian perspective, Muslims may well be idolaters, but last time I checked all three People of the Book (Christian, Jew, Muslim) worshiped the same dude.

Variety is reporting that Gibson has finally found a US distributor for his movie Passion. After being stiffarmed by wary studios, Gibson has reached a deal with Newmarket, where Gibson essentially is renting their distribution system for a cut of the gross. Gibson self financed the movie to the tune of $25 million dollars.

Personally, I am happy that we will be able to see the movie. (And also happy that the movie will now have subtitles. My Aramaic is a bit rusty...) While the usual suspects were up in arms with charges of antisemitism, every review I've read from someone who has actually seen the movie was overwhelmingly positive. A movie that has an unabashedly Christian message is not by definition anti-semitic. I look forward to seeing it.

For its expose of the Gest/Minnelli nightmare.

Charges of slander brought against Eminem by a guy he went to school with have been dropped. The charges were based on lyrics in which Eminem accused the man of beating him up every day in elementary school. (Em was willing to admit that???) The judge's decision was reprinted in part yesterday in the Detroit Free Press, and read in part:

Mr. Bailey complains that his rep is trash
So he's seeking compensation in the form of cash.
Bailey thinks he's entitled to some monetary gain
Because Eminem used his name in vain. . . .
The lyrics are stories no one would take as fact
They're an exaggeration of a childish act.
Any reasonable person could clearly see
That the lyrics could only be hyperbole.

It's nice when a judge has a sense of humor.

According to this article the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is on the verge of developing some kick ass solid state lasers. Within ten years at the outside, U.S. armed forces will begin to be equipped with laser weaponry.

The first and most obvious use for these weapons would be point defense against missiles and artillery rounds - given that lasers are nearly instantly retargetable, a ground based, radar guided laser system could knock out incoming artillery barrages, missile strikes and enemy aircraft. The advantage over conventional systems is that the ammunition is merely electricity rather than say, a $3mil patriot missile. It will become far more difficult to saturate a laser defense system, because as long as their is adequate electrical power, it could shoot at anything in the air, shifting targets every second, and not worrying about wasting expensive ammo on decoys.

The Air Force has been working on a large chemical laser system - mounted in a modified Boeing 747 - designed for missile defense. This system would shoot down missiles during the boost phase, when missiles are slowest and most vulnerable. But the equipment required weighs many tons, and requires toxic and explosive chemicals to fire.

The new lasers being developed are solid state, and require only a plug into an electrical system. They could be powered by generators, and mounted on Humvees or in jet aircraft. The DoD says it needs at least 100kW for a useful battle laser - and the researcher in the story, Yamamoto, says he'll have 25 by Christmas and double that early next year.

Interestingly, the problems with heat have led the developers at Yamamoto's lab to adopt a gatling-type principle - when a stack of laser crystals gets to hot, it can be rotated out and replaced by another so that it can cool. Gatling lasers. Sweet. And the lasers are pumped by diodes - LEDs, which are much more efficient than flashlamps:

In theory, that means a liter of everyday Army diesel fuel costing as little as $1 will generate enough rapid-fire laser pulses to destroy a standard airborne missile. The job now falls to Patriot missiles costing $3 million apiece.

The only real defense against laser weaponry is dust, which degrade the beam - limiting range. But just because lasers don't shoot through smoke, doesn't mean bullets won't.

Considering that we are effectively the only nation in the world investing in new military technology, we should have a years, even decades long monopoly on battlefield lasers once we put them in the field. Imagine, functional invulnerability to artillery barrages - historically the most lethal of all weapons systems - causing half of all casualties in American wars of the last century. Jet fighters that can't be shot down with missiles. AC130 gunships with lasers that can fire at a hundred targets a second.

Sheesh.

Jesse Walker has a short piece at Reason about the clusterfark that is "market reform" in Bolivia. The 800-lb gorilla in the room is (of course) the single biggest market in Bolivia, coca. Check it out. Walker reveals a tragic and misguided series of events, and offers this analysis: " the war on drugs has undermined not just peasant property rights but the rule of law."

If I ruled the universe like I was rightfully born to do I would institute some hard-and-fast rules.
One is this: All celebrities who in my estimation outstay their welcome, by say, getting a daytime talk show after starring in Gigli and serial-marrying marginally talented hunks, will be summarily consigned to a facility run by Wolfgang Puck where they will be "repurposed" and fed to the next generation of studs and starlets.

This will make the universe a happier place, and Hollywood will run more efficiently, no longer forced to continue supporting vampiric fading stars. No more Carrot Top! No more Tara Reid! No more Osbournes. That Puck dude from The Real World who keeps hanging around would become that on which Jake Busey feeds. I'm so goddamn brilliant.

The Washington Post is running an op-ed piece today taking the President to task for quietly condemning the shit-headed remarks of Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia, but not doing the same for the equally shit-headed remarks uttered by one of his own generals.

Look. One of the things that makes this country great is that people of all stripes, creeds, beliefs, and systems can rise to positions of prominence. The degree of freedom any one person can enjoy, given a little luck and circumstance, is staggering. Members of the US military are allowed to have any inner belief they want. (Unless they're queers. Then they by God don't want 'em.) But there's a point when this system bites you in the ass, like last week when an undersecretary of Intelligence, William Boykin, declared that our God is bigger than their God, and framed the war on terror as a Christian crusade against the devil. (Previously, Boykin sponsored a huge revival at a military base using Federal funds, so this kind of thing is not really new to him.)

There's two layers on which to respond to the situation: the personal and professional. The first layer amounts to"whatever gets you through your day, dude." I happen to think that Gen. Boykin's comments are foolish, divisive, and profoundly un-Christian. But, they're his sincerely held beliefs and more power to'im for it.

But the professional level is the more important one here. The President has spent two years off-and-on trying to convince the Muslim world at large that the United States' campaign against terrorism, often meaning radical Islamic terrorism, is NOT a "crusade" against Islam in general. Any comment from American officials that could possibly be played for anti-Islamic gain is reproduced, amplified, and chewed over endlessly in the Islamic press around the world.

In light of this, it is in the interest of the Federal Government to make sure that everyone in a position of responsibility in the War on Terrorism-- including the For-God's-Sake-Undersecretaries of Intelligence-- is on board with the general message. It's incredibly important that the US win the Sysiphean hearts-and-minds campaign. In fact, it's the one thing that can help ensure the longevity of the US' hegemony, which kind of makes it the most important thing. (Reasonable minds may differ, and although I feel hearts-and-minds is the biggest of the long-term goals, others may be more important over finite periods. So put that flaming email down, Poindexter.)

I'm all in favor of giving shit-heads a chance to succeed. It's the American way! But the President really ought to think twice about letting this guy stay in his post. It hurts the home team as much as letting Pedro pitch the 8th.

[wik] I know I'm right, because Eugene Volokh agrees with me! He also analyzes the legal what-ifs involved in firing Boykin, if that were to happen.

[alsø wik] Boykin has issued a statement apologizing. But check out CNN's list of what the Pentagon had him take out! Again Boykin's beliefs are totally his own bidness, but as Eugene V observes, there is tension between his beliefs and the mission he is part of.

It's so very nice to see some things never change.