Do The Freakin Math

No law in war or international relations

2012-01-21T19:27:00.002-02:00

Robert F. Turner’s letter criticizing Jonathan Turley’s Outlook commentary, “Ten Reasons we’re no longer the land of the free” had three glaring errors himself.
First, there is no “law of war”. War by its very definition is chaos. While it is hoped that combatants will abide by certain moral standards on the battlefield there is no enforcement of laws there. And when the war is over it is the law of the victor that is enforced. And that law determined by those in power may not be democratic or moral.
Second, “International law” is neither globally applied or law. Non national entities like corporations, organizations, religions or ethnic groups with no nationality have little legal recourse on or off the battle field. And nations have no entity where law enforcement can be expected, fair and consistent. Law simply doesn’t exist on the global level where enforcement isn’t possible without a global police force.
Last, civilized societies wouldn’t have “SWAT Teams”. They would know that killing only begets more killing. The apprehension of suspects would be attempted at great risk to those trying, but the use of non-lethal force, would be their only civilized option.
As Mr. Turner should know, war can be used to justify everything and anything. Outlawing it is the only way to a peaceful, free, prosperous and civilized world.

Chuck Woolery

Will Israel attack Iran? Will the US suffer?

2011-11-15T04:26:00.002-02:00

Is Israel about to attack Iran? Two leaders in Israel are publically urging such action now. But even hawkish Meir Dagan, a former head of Mossad, is saying an Israeli attack on Iran is “a stupid idea”. He gives credence to another Jew, Albert Einstein who once said “the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.” Attacking Iran could be suicidal for Israel and draw the US into a war it simply cannot wage, and cannot win. Why? We have so much more to lose than Iran. And their capacity for destruction is like Israeli leader’s stupidity. Virtually limitless
Most analysis and security experts agree on the likely Iranian response to an Israeli strike. 1. Missiles would rain down on Israeli cities from Iran. 2. Hezbolla, considered Iran’s puppet, would attack Israel Lebanon. 3. Iran could mine the strait of Hormuz to slash the world’s oil supply and worsen an already dreadful economic environment. 4. Hamas and maybe even the Palestinian Authority might join in. 5. Iran’s capacity for covert operations against Israel’s only real ally the US, could be extremely troubling for US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You may even hear that Israel’s best strike may not fully eliminate Iran’s nuclear capacity. And, what you won’t likely hear is the possibility that Iran may already have nuclear capability. And an Israeli attack would give Iran legitimate claim to use it against Israel in retaliation for it’s aggression. Or, science forbid, Iran may have developed biological weapons capable of targeting specific Jewish genetic markers. Such a weapon is possible and could kill more people in Israel than died in Hitler’s concentration camps.
And worse yet, any attack by either side could draw the US into yet another MiddleEast conflict.
And this war wouldn’t be free either.

Space! The final frontier, if we can get past the trash.

2011-10-28T22:26:00.000-02:00

Our nation’s satellite communications, meteorological and GPS systems are the foundation of America’s traditional military national security system as well as our vital infrastructure and addictive comforts. This is our Achilles heel that has at least three serious vulnerabilities.
In 2007 China demonstrated its capacity to hit that heel when it destroyed one of its own weather satellites with a direct hit from one of their own surface to space missiles. That ‘test’ intended to send a message to the US but it also created over 150,000 pieces of debris. It’s possible that the loss of a few of our key satellites would render many of or most powerful weapons systems blind.
With other nation’s launching satellites into space and acquiring missile and drone technologies that can match, assist or surpass China’s capability our Achilles heel will grow in vulnerability. And without an enforceable set of global rules and regulations an arms race in space appears inevitable. Given China’s growing economic and technological prowess, this is an arms race we may be destined to lose.
But even if humanity never sends up another rocket, there is another inevitable lethal threat to our nation’s dependence on space technology. Space junk. According to NASA there are tens of millions of pieces that space age nations have left in the heavenly region above earth since we started launching satellites over 50 years ago. Most trash pieces are much smaller in diameter than a baseball, with the majority being as small as screws or flecks of paint. But, the U.S. Space Surveillance Network is currently tracking approximately 22,000 pieces of orbital trash that are 4 inches in diameter or greater.
Still, some of the tiniest pieces of space trash can seriously damage or destroy a satellite when they collide at 17,500 miles per hour (orbital velocity) or faster. The kinetic force of almost any object at “a not-unreasonable relative velocity of, say five miles per second” could splinter another object or even a satellite into thousands of other pieces. Each piece then increasing the odds of creating more collisions. And when satellites accidently collide as two did in 2009 (a retired Russian communication satellite Cosmos 2251 with the US privately owned satellite Iridium) tens of thousands of new lethal trajectories can be created.
Defending satellites against small pieces of space trash is possible but expensive. The International Space Station has been covered with over 100 shields made from aluminum, ceramic and Kevlar fiber that can protect against objects smaller than half an inch. Taking evasive maneuvers against larger objects - as the International Space Station has done at least six times - can cost precious fuel and shorten the lifespan of the satellite.
As even a child can imagine, the inevitable collision of any combination of existing satellites and junk will create a runaway cascade of debris that will render space virtually unusable for any future scientific, private, militaristic or extraterrestrial endeavors.
Gravity, over decades will gradually remove some pieces. And intentional removal of space debris is certainly feasible. But it won’t be cheap. There are already dozens of ideas for junk recovery on the drawing board but it is unlikely we will be able to afford any of them given the our current inability for finding adequate financial resources essential for dealing with a growing array of problems down here on earth. Problems which arise from, or are perpetuated by, the unworkability of our world’s current ‘national sovereignty’ paradigm. It simply doesn’t allow for the democratic creation and global enforcement of universal rules and regulations.

Conclusion: Whether exploring for oil or other vital earth resources, tracking climate change or the movement of enemy troops, we depend on our eyes in the sky for our security and essential needs. If just one nation or corporation is allowed to trash the heavenly commons, no one will be spared the potentially catastrophic consequences. Enforceable global rules and regulations, democratically acquired and protective of humanities most basic human rights...is essential to a sustainable future of peace, prosperity and unprecedented freedoms. The key question is ‘Can we overcome our earthly worship of ‘national sovereignty’ to ensure a world that works for all.

Occupy Wall street needs a global action.

2011-10-20T22:42:00.002-02:00

This movement originated out of the pain and discomforts associated with the consequences of the 2008 recession that continue today and may likely worsen.
This movement is not yet really global in nature. It has been inspired by but not yet related to the Arab Spring.
It’s primary message appears to be ‘human needs’ not ‘corporate profit’ as well as ‘justice and democracy’ but the global concern is an afterthought.
OWS far smaller in numbers than the tea Party movement, but supported by far more Americans than the Tea Party is.

Unfortunately, the Occupy Wallstreet Movement will accomplish nothing because the source of the crisis is a global economic condition influenced by
a) global lawlessness of corporations and financial institutions.
b) corruption of politicians by corporate/financial institutional donations.
c) personal unpatriotic greed.
d) unfair competition between nations
e) the free movement of capital and the limited movement of people across national borders
f) a powerless UN incapable of addressing any serious global threat (pandemics, terrorism...)
g) a dysfunctional US government with science and reasoning taking a back seat to the influence of money and religion.
h) burdensome sovereign debt by industrialized nations.
i) Selfish values based on consumption patterns.
j) Flawed economic system of unregulated capitalism.
k) Overemphasis on military power as the primary means of achieving security.
l) Beliefs and institutionalized governments based on the concept that each of independence in an irreversibly interdependent world.
Protesting against national governments won’t change much unless these governments cooperate to change the global economic system.
Focusing the movement on creation of a global Financial Transaction Tax that could yield approximately $200 billion for a global Marshall plan to eliminate the worst aspects of global poverty could;
a) Address some of the global problems that have an impact on us we locally (unemployment, infectious diseases, military spending, terrorism, environmental degradation, international crimes...
b) Create a new global institution that could demonstrate the need and effectiveness of global governance structure to address some of the global factors now influencing our quality of life.
c) Create the foundation for a truly peaceful and sustainable world.

Transnational crime requires global police and human rights

2011-10-20T22:41:00.000-02:00

Dear Editor,
Brian Finlay (Washington Times 10-19-11) accurately describes the array of serious national threats of the “global circulatory system” carrying “illicit products” like narcotics, WMD components, counterfeit pharmaceuticals, and sex services or slave labor “from one corner of the globe to another”.
Unfortunately, his approach to lessen these threats will require a Nazi like global police force implementing intrusive inspections that will be essential to effectively discovering and apprehending anyone who trying to use the current “rapid and efficient movement of goods” for selling their ‘bads’.
And, given the ‘dual-use’ capacity of all ‘goods’ for doing either good or evil Finlay’s approach would require a global contraband enforcement strategy that would need to determine the intent of both the buyers and sellers. Without the invention of a perfected truth machine, less perfect intrusive interrogations techniques would be the primary tool of any global intelligence gathering system. In the end, this would not only prove costly and ineffective, but would also destroy any semblance of freedom, trade and privacy as basic human rights. The consequences of such a strategy could be worse than the current disease in every respect.
A far more effective solution to transnational threats was drafted and agreed to over 60 years ago shortly after the world witnessed the horrors of a world war, a holocaust and the use of unprecedented nuclear explosives. An American women, Eleanor Roosevelt drafted and helped pass the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was intended to prevent future threats. It was, and remains today, just a good and viable idea. What it needs is a mechanism for global enforcement. When governments violate these basic human rights they need to be held accountable.
The world could use existing supply chains to deliver such basic rights like universal access to education, clean water, basic health services, sanitation, and adequate nutrition. And doing so would eliminate the worst consequences of poverty and injustice which would greatly reduce the conditions that inspire bad intents, as well as provide a much larger pool of people freely willing to cooperate with efforts to catch the truly bad people.
The creation of a new global financial transaction tax could fund these most basic of human rights and lay the foundation for real freedom and security. Such a tax would also help limit the legal flow ‘financial services’ that have so far only served the rich and left the other 99% of us with a global recession. A Global Marshall Plan would bring far more freedom and security to the world than any transnational “enhanced screeing” or “intelligence assets”.

US education key to US national security

2011-10-02T23:40:00.000-02:00

Dear Editor,

Washington Post Columns related to our nation’s education efforts by Kathleen Parker and George Will (Oct. 2, 2011) both neglected the most important aspect of educating young Americans in the post 9-11 era – national security.
Six months before 9-11 the Presidential bipartisan commission on National Security in the 21st Century, also known as the Hart/Rudmann Commission listed the top threats to our nation in the coming decades. Terrorism was the primary threat. They cited a deficit of math and science students graduating from our High Schools and Universities was the second greatest threat. First, these young people are critical to designing and operating our high tech weapons systems critical to maintaining our nation’s military superiority. Second, they are essential to creating other high tech commodities that will drive US economic growth so we can afford a large military. And last, but just as important, they will also design and run the high tech tools that will enable every aspect of our government to run effectively and efficiently, from infrastructure to tax collection.
Newt Gingrich was one of the seven Republicans on that unanimous commission. On the release of its final report shortly after Bush’s inauguration, Gingrich admitted eliminating the Department of Education was a bad idea. He went on to propose higher wages for math and science teachers, and even paying math and science students to attend class. The need for more language studies became immediately obvious on September 12, 2001.
I don’t think it was coincidental that our Founding Fathers made public education, free and compulsory and that Booker T. Washington claimed “There is no defense or security for any of us except in the highest intelligence and development of all.”

GOP House of destruction

2011-07-04T23:06:00.001-02:00

Dear Editor,
Congressman Carter (“Returning Government to Basics” 7-4-11. Washington Times) needs to be schooled on both the workings of our Constitution and the way the real world works.
First, our “current crisis” wasn’t “created” by Obama. It was the GOP’s unrealistic ideology implemented with control of all three branches of our government during most of the Bush Administration. Their destructive abuse of power was corrected in 2008 but their prior incompetence isn’t so easily undone.
Second, our Founding fathers never intended for the House to wield more power than the Senate and President combined as Mr. Carter seems to believe. The founders designed the House to reflect short term interests of the American people. A majority who now appear more interested in the winner of American Idol than our nation’s longer term interests.
Third, even if Congressman Carter and his GOP House leadership got their way and passed a bill cutting our nation’s unacceptable U.S. budget deficit and our killer debt we still wouldn’t be any safer or economically prosperous than we are now. The global economic consequences of a “Greek style calamity” would still bring us down. This global economic interdependence is a product of globally unregulated capitalism...something most of the GOP appears to worship.
House Republican’s appear more interested in using their “hammer” to destroy any chances of an Obama reelection than constructing a balanced approach to a balanced budget with some legislative compromise that was intended by our Founding Fathers. Some increase in taxes, particularly targeting the havens that the rich believe they are entitled to, combined with significant cuts to some middle class entitlements would be helpful.
We can balance the budget. But with our current infrastructure in tatters and growing chaos in the world undeterred by any level of US military spending, perhaps we need to find another way. Accepting our global interdependence and empowering global institutions that can to prevent problems before they reach our shores would be a balancing of power and economic burden that would give us all a more free, secure and prosperous future.

War is obsolete and suicideal.

2011-06-05T22:36:00.000-02:00

Dear Editor,
Frank Gaffney (Opinion June 1, 2011) doesn’t seem to understand how war has changed as a result of the exponential growth of powerful, affordable, and ubiquitous technologies. Now and increasingly in the future as technologies continue to yield unprecedented killing capacity they will also be increasingly difficult to trace back to their source.
These basic realities make both deterrence and defense ultimately impossible. Even simple existing conventional technologies like IEDs are the primary weapon killing the majority of our best armed, best armored, top trained and most capable military warriors. They won’t be stopped with more or better weapons. Only by making more friends will most IED’s be stopped.
Our advanced weapons were helpful in killing Osama Bin Ladin but it was our everyday technologies he used ten years earlier to overcome our best defenses and kill thousands of Americans, temporarily cripple our national economy and stimulate changes to our government that costs hundreds of billions of dollars. A doubling of military power since 9-11 has made us no safer against a growing range of threats, from cyber, to nano, to biological.
Investing in the development and production of effective defenses against dirty bombs, biological weapons, or cyber attacks will break us economically. This will achieve one of the two primary goals Osama Bin Ladin set out to do and accelerate his second goal of ‘dividing us politically’ as we continue to fight among ourselves over a dwindling supply of economic resources.
Life is fragile and even the most technologically advanced military systems are not vulnerable. Space debris or solar events can take out our most vital satellite resources and without some globally enforceable limits to the freedom to explore space there is no way our current military superiority can be maintained....no matter how much we spend.
Some policy makers are aware of these inevitable vulnerabilities if others intend us harm -- and that our human enemies aren’t even the most lethal or most immediate national security threat we face. Pandemics, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes and economic depression may require military logistical capacity to for humanitarian response or kinetic military power to control initial chaos when disaster does strike, but far more could be done by investing more in systems to prepare for inevitable threats and in thoughtful systems to prevent them if possible.
One useful system is that of law. It can replace war as a means of solving many global problems. At the very least we need more friends in the world, not more weapons. If we hope to identify threats and effectively respond to them without creating more enemies, we must look to systems of cooperation instead of destruction. Having the biggest baddest military isn’t useful or affordable in our increasingly interdependent world.
It’s been said by a far wiser soul, that those who live by the sword shall die by it. Real peace is not a function of armament or even disarmament. It is a function of justice. And justice is a function of law not war.

AIDS not the only concern.

2011-05-30T13:07:00.000-02:00

Dear Editor,
Dr. Fauci’s perspective on the history of HIV/AIDS (Sunday, May 29, 2011) was accurate but woefully incomplete. In 1981 my wife and I were living in San Francisco working to end world hunger. We had gay friends and colleagues but we were personally unfearful of the newly emerging infectious disease. It was only a few months after the birth of our first child in 1983 (the most inspiring moment for us) that we experienced the most terrifying thing thus far in our lives – a letter from the hospital where our child had been birthed. We were advised to be tested for HIV because of possible contamination of the blood transfusion my wife received during the birthing process. We were fine, but our view of the world had begun to change.
By 1988 we had moved to Washington DC to push for the key ingredient to ending hunger – “political will”. HIV/AIDS was now a national problem and with it’s international origins roughly understood yet highly controversial. By 1990 as advocacy director of an organization working to increase funding for global child survival programs the competition with other domestic and global federal budget priorities was paramount. HIV/AIDS programs and ‘population control/family planning’ were becoming primary rivals. They shouldn’t have been. Not with the new noncontroversial studies showing that new and reemerging infectious diseases were the most serious national security threat our nation faced when examined from the sheer loss of American lives and prosperity, and potential loss of American freedoms as pandemics invariably occur.
Prevention is always the most cost effective measure, and universal access to basic health care, clean water, sanitation, nutrition and primary education continued as the wisest investments. But the stovepipe short sighted nature of federal budgeting priorities put foreign policy funding below domestic priorities and humanitarian needs near the bottom of foreign policy objectives. Funding for global health efforts did rise in comparison to other domestic and foreign budget items but it remained woefully inadequate to really prevent or rapidly respond to potentially catastrophic threats from pandemics, biological weapons attacks or laboratory accidents.
Even today, nearly 10 years after the attacks on September 11 and Colin Powel’s poorly remembered speech at the UN citing HIV/AIDS as a greater threat to our national security than al Qaeda, is adequate funding for comprehensive global health efforts still lethally inadequate.
More Americans will die this year in US hospitals from infectious diseases they didn’t walk in with than from all the terrorist attacks and counterterrorism wars in the last 20 years. The emergence of drug resistant pathogens is a global issue. Pathogens know no nationality.
HIV/AIDS wasn’t the first global pandemic and it won’t be the last. Without adequate focus and funding for all global infectious disease rapid detection/response, research/development, prevention, and addressing the worst aspects of world poverty and injustice it is only a matter of time before we are all awakened from our sheltered existence by a world catastrophically changed by a natural or human caused pandemic. The continued daily death toll of 27,000 children from easily preventable malnutrition and related infectious diseases is still the greatest source of individual terror the world over. Prevention is still the best defense and most affordable. You wouldn’t know it following the current federal budget crisis. Pathogens change. Can we?

Preperation and Prevention critical

2011-05-01T21:59:00.001-02:00

Dear Editor,
Fareed Zakaria’s focus on “preparedness” is warranted but it’s grossly insufficient to address budget cost of dealing with catastrophic events that are predictable.
Zakaria’s wrong suggesting it wasn’t “possible to predict” events like 9-11 or the fall of the Soviet Union. Six months before 9-11 a bi partisan Presidential Commission on National Security in the 21st Century released its final report saying ‘Americans should prepare to die in large numbers on American soil’ from terrorism. At least 11 sources were found suggesting airliners could be used as missiles. Vice President Biden, as a Senator the day before 9-11 warned that terrorist would someday bring destruction to our shores in the ‘belly of an airplane’.
The gross inefficiencies that lead to the fall of the Soviet Union were as predictable as our own government’s ineffectiveness at dealing with national security threats related to our global interdependence using ‘independent’ national policies.
Peak oil, pandemics and genocides are a given. No guessing needed. Preventive global policies like funding universal access to clean water, safe sanitation, adequate nutrition, basic education and alternative energies are vital to preventing unprecedented crisis that will break our national economy trying to ‘prepare’ for.
It should be obvious to anyone following the budget crisis that reacting to devastation is economically unsustainable. Prevention is worth every penny. Zakaria nails the problem when he says we are “betting on continuity – which is the default mechanism for people and organizations.” This is a mental flaw our species can’t afford. Things change. We need do need to better adapt, but we need not waste vast sums of money preparing for things we can prevent. Wise investments on a global scale, like Congressman Keith Ellison’s House Resolution 157 calling for a new global Marshall plan should be made without delay.

"Leading to War" video. The most troubling question.

2011-04-01T23:18:00.001-02:00

“Leading to War” video: http://downloads.leadingtowar.com/film/flvs/nosubs/video_player02.html
Almost an hour into the program a McNeal/Lehar News Hour interview, Feb. 23, 2003 starts with a question “Is the US military ready to go against Iraq?” Rumsfeld “Yea.” NH “Are you and your folks planning for a ferocious war, I mean an all out defense by the Iraqi military?” Rumsfeld: “The task of war planners is to plan for every conceivable contingency. And they are doing that. From the most pessimistic to the most optimistic.”
This, for me, is the most unresolved and troubling issue involving the Bush Administration’s invasion of Iraq.
I believe I know why we really invaded. 1. GOP leadership felt our nation needed to prove to the Muslim world that we were willing to go to war and expend American blood and treasure without reservations ...instead of cowering away as Reagan did after Lebanon and Clinton did after Mogadishu. 2. We needed to find a new place to permanently station large American military bases to ensure we would have adequate force structure strategically placed somewhere in the Middle East so we could ensure our immediate access to large quantities of foreign oil if that need ever arose. 3. Iraq was the only one of the three items Osama Bin Ladin listed as grievances against the US that the Bush Administration had not yet addressed. (Almost immediately after 9-11 the Bush Administration withdrew all most all US military forces from Saudi Arabia and shortly after that proposed a two state solution for Israel and Palestine.). These were not crazy ideas. They may have been foolish. But they weren’t crazy. All the hoopla about WMD was legitimate fear, given Saddam’s use of WMD against former advisories, and with the probability that he still had large or even small stockpiles of WMD.
But this is where it gets very, very confusing. If Rumsfeld told the truth in the interview above, and I have no reason to think he wasn’t. Then he and all other planner certainly knew that Saddam could have had access to former soviet stockpiles of weaponized smallpox. A form of Bio weaponry so devastatingly lethal and indefensible that it’s release would have altered the course of future civilization. And sure enough the Bush Administration ordered small pox vaccinations for all military personal and US based first responders (nurses, doctors, fireman, policemen...). That order fell flat because of harmful and sometimes lethal consequences of taking the small pox vaccine, the vastly inadequate number of vaccines, and the very reasonable doubt that the existing vaccines might not be effective but were actually 100% ineffective against weaponized smallpox.
Given the uncomfortably large potential in the fog of war that weaponized small pox could be accidentally or intentionally released in what was certainly ‘the most pessimistic’ planning? Why in the F did we invade? Who was it that specifically made the decision to go ahead with the invasion given the very real risk of killing billions of people and potentially crippling for decades the course of human progress? I want to know who made that call. And I want them to answer for it. Either they knew something everyone else did not know...like there were NO bioweapons WMD to fear....or, they were fearless regarding the likelihood of the apocalypse... or, they were just plain stupid, or didn’t care.
Who was it? Which was it? Americans have the right to know.

America in decline

2011-03-19T00:24:00.001-02:00

Dear Editor,

America is in decline but there is only one pragmatic path that Kim Holmes didn’t mention in “What’s the Big Idea” 3-10-11. He is correct in saying “America’s decline is a choice” but his belief that we can maintain American supremacy in a world of increasing economic, political, religious and environmental instability without the political transformation the current global lawlessness paradigm isn’t a sane choice.

Fact is no religion, state, nation or empire has ever remained supreme indefinitely. And none will. Things change. Those with the wisdom and capacity to adapt to reality, and can do it fast and effectively, have the best chance of survival and remaining on top. Our form of government allows for such change but not nearly as good as China’s.

The overwhelming reality in today’s world is a growing interdependence. It has has always existed but the exponential growth of the power of technology and its increasing affordably and global distribution means power is increasingly in the hands of people as well as every other entity; corporation, government or extremist religion.

The “Big Idea” that Mr. Holmes and any others committed to maximizing our future freedom and security is overlooking is the genius idea routinely rejected by other generations – the concept of a democratic world federation. Former generations rejected the idea of ‘law not war’ and we have had war, after war, after war with only a cataclysmic end in sight. Albert Einstein, a supporter of world federation, once said he “didn’t know what World War III would be fought with but he did know that World War IV would be fought with sticks and stones.”

Mr. Holmes and others who fear world government have to look at the only other options. Continued global chaos leading to Armageddon -- or a world dominated by some nation or religion that may not have America’s best interests mind.

Fact is humanities progress depends on accepting and establishing a political structure that matches the irreversible global interdependence that now exists between every person, city, state, national government, and religion. At the heart of that structure must be a globally accepted and enforceable bill of human rights. An American woman once introduced one and the world accepted it. It’s called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. It was accepted because that generation experienced the horrors of war, genocide and WMD like no one else ever has. They saw it as the essential foundation of real peace but were unable to create any capacity for enforcement. A bill of rights is what allowed the creation of America. And “we the people” of the world won’t be able to maximize lasting freedom and security with anything else.

The more people like Mr. Holmes resists this old but big idea the more he empowers the current system with ‘national sovereignty’ reigning supreme over human rights. And in that system, every nation has the right to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants – whether it has the resources or not. Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Kaddafi and any future leader of any country will retain that abusive right unless limited by a just system of global law capable of limiting their abuse of such unnatural power. If we continue to rely on military power to limit such nation’s rights, we should all start stocking up on sticks and stones. It’s world law or global chaos. Our choice.

GOP Hypocrisy the first day in office.

2011-01-07T14:09:00.001-02:00

In less than 24 hours the GOP hypocrisy reared its immoral head at least three times.
First, while the GOP campaigned on the importance of following the U.S. Constitution, they allowed three of their newly elected members to cast votes without following Constitutional rules on swearing into office.
Then, while the GOP unanimously campaigned on the supreme urgency of cutting our nation’s deficit nearly every GOP member voted in favor of repealing last year’s health care law -- ignoring the Congressional Budget Office’s nonpartisan report that doing so would increase deficits by $230 billion over 10 years.
And most troubling, after insisting that the U.S. Constitution be read on the floor of the House their first day in office GOP leaders ignored the words in the original Constitution choosing instead to only read the words since amended that reflect historic changes in our nation’s moral thinking and experiences in a rapidly changing world. Acknowledging these important changes would have undermined the GOP’s worship of their “strict constructionist” views of the U.S. Constitution.
I’m guessing the GOP will continue to thrive even as they ignore their new Tea Party affiliated members wishes. Such is their way, and the unorganized Democratic Party probably won’t be able to capitalize on it, given the fickleness and lack of knowing of the general voting public.

Bioweapons are the future of warfare

2011-01-05T02:41:00.000-02:00

Dear Editor,
David Ignatius’ view on “The Future of warfare” (Jan 2?, 2011) missed the most powerful, affordable and ubiquitous weapon technology that will likely have more influence over the future of war than those he listed. Last year’s bipartisan commission on WMD newly stated that biological weapons are our nation’s (and the world’s) greatest, most likely, and most imminent threat.
Examining all the offensive characteristics of biological weapons anyone with a rational mind can come to only one conclusion. The practice of war itself is obsolete. With the basic building blocks of life now harnessed and within the hands of any ill intentioned nation or small group, no person, crop or nation is secure. And no amount of military power or futuristic ray gun will protect them.
So there is no “puzzle to ponder in 2011”. The only rational step now and the foreseeable future to maximize all levels of security is to make the Universal Declaration of Human Rights an enforceable global document. World law is the only sane “legacy” for the new age. More war is no longer a sane option.
The use of force will still be needed. But, it must now be limited within the context of law enforcement to protect those rights. The right of any nation to wage war for it’s own selfish reasons must be outlawed and any political leader or extremist party that starts one should be indicted for crimes against humanity and punished accordingly.

Wikileaks for cover of TIme. Man of the Decade.

2010-12-07T03:31:00.001-02:00

For anyone worshiping liberty, Wikileaks’ Assange should be a hero. It was the word’s of Jesus that claimed only “the truth shall set you free”.

Ultimately our freedoms and security will be improved by Wikileaks. Now, in the current paradigm were “national sovereignty” reigns supreme over human rights...human rights are disregarded in favor of “national interests”. That gives us a perpetual state of war interspersed by calm periods of rearming.

Freedom of the press is our nation’s first Amendment for a reason. Our founding fathers would be advocates of Wikileaks receiving the Nobel Peace prize. Only the enforcement of a global bill of rights with freedom of the press will really ensure maximization of human freedom and security.

Secrets may be good for ‘national interests’ in the short run but with all nation’s competing for supremacy in one area or another, we will never really know freedom from fear, want, oppression and extermination, until we have such freedom of the press globally.

Assange deserves the cover of Time Magazine as man of the decade. Calls for his assassination and claims that he is a “cyber terrorists” ring like the logic of witch hunts and the McCarthy era.

Bankers and terrorists?

2010-11-07T23:36:00.000-02:00

What do terrorists, infectious diseases, hackers, climate change and bankers all have in common? A global lawless environment that fosters the free flow of chaos.

US in decline.

2010-11-02T02:45:00.002-02:00

Arnaud de Borchgrave’s assertion (Managing Decline: Pax Americana is winding down, 11-1-10) that “the decline of the American empire may be hastened by another war in the Gulf … triggered by Israel and/or US bombs on Iran’s nuclear installations” is eye opening to say the least.
That could explain why Iranian leaders are threatening a second holocaust on Israel. They want an attack. A US or Israel attack might prove tactically devastating to Iran and it citizenry…but it’s strategic effects could fulfill Osama Bin Ladin’s original goals of breaking us economically and dividing us politically (not that we needed assistance doing either).
Perhaps capitalism really didn’t defeat communism. Communism was just the first superpower to be defeated by clever Islamic extremists. We helped them bring down the Soviet Union and now by provoking Israel they can destroying us.
Any attack on Iran would spark an asymmetrical gulf war resulting almost immediately in massive reduction (if not a complete halt) of affordable petroleum vital to our already faltering economic engine. And that will be just an opening move in their game of destruction. Don’t forget the Persians invented chess and we invented checkers.
What if Iran uses biological or chemical weapons? They didn’t forget that the US provided Saddam with both the chemical WMD precursors and the targeting information essential to effectively gas thousands of Iranians in the 1980s.
Even a limited “asymmetrical Gulf war” could “speed up the end of ‘America’.” It’s not hard to imagine a worse case scenario with cyber attacks combined with the dispersal of anthrax or weaponized smallpox. It could be released by North Korea…and we wouldn’t know until millions of Americans were dead. Check and check mate. War just isn’t what it used to be. Perhaps we should find another way of resolving our differences. Make world law, not world war.

Security depends on global cooperation

2010-10-08T22:25:00.000-02:00

(Printed October 8, 2010 in The Washington Times)

Frank Gaffney Jr.'s column headlined "The Peace Through Strength Pledge" (Opinion, Sept. 29) - which calls for a "Bill of National Security Rights" or his preferred "Peace Through Strength Pledge" - represents pre-Sept. 11 thinking and the opposite of the direction in which we need to go if we truly value and want to retain our freedoms and security.
Nearly 60 years ago, Emery Reves stated in his book "The Anatomy of Peace" that "peace is not a function of armament or disarmament - it is a function of justice" and "justice is a function of law." If Mr. Gaffney wants to keep the use of force superior to the rule of law, we will never have security from terrorism, pandemics, global economic instability, international crime or harmful environmental changes.
Our best and brightest military leaders in both Iraq and Afghanistan have said repeatedly that we can't kill our way to victory. They learned the hard way that our soldiers' only real defense against improvised explosive devises is making reliable friends in a lot of remote places.
Eventually, our drone attacks will kill enough innocent people and enrage enough moderates that someone somewhere will develop a biological weapon of mass destruction (WMD) with the killing capacity to end life as we know it. The chance of a WMD attack increases with the exponential growth of affordable, ubiquitous and powerful technologies. No level of U.S. government spending or intrusive inspections can identify and pre-empt every planned attack.
A biological attack with something akin to weaponized smallpox would make Sept. 11 look quaint. Even a police state here in America couldn't stop the chaos from reaching our shores if it were released in Iran, Canada or Mexico.
Our sovereignty won't save a single life or cherished freedom against most global threats. Maximizing our global friends and allies can. The greater the global cooperation, the more threats we can prevent and the better we can respond to those we can't prevent.
CHUCK WOOLERY
Rockville, Md.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/7/security-depends-on-global-cooperation/

9-11 didn't cause US decline:

2010-09-27T21:57:00.000-02:00

Was 9/15 a greater game changer than 9/11? Many believe that the collapse of the World Trade Towers on 9-11, 2001 changed the world. Looking at the numbers after the collapse of Lehman Brothers on 9-15, 2008 suggests it was. After 9-11 the US global political and economic dominance re-surged. The financial crisis sparked by Lehman’s insolvency however, forced our nation to acknowledge our limits. The rising economies of China and other rival nations while the US economy is drained by an endless war against an extremist group who’s only real hope is to break us economically and divide us politically is progressing faster than they had ever dreamed of. 9-11 and a small number of extremists the world over didn’t cost us our future. Our reliance on a greed inspired unregulated economic system and waging an endless war against a tactic did.

How will our great grand children judge us?

2010-09-27T21:54:00.002-02:00

I believe they will first judge us on our refusal to end the most horrific of all human experiences…the death of tens of thousands of children each day from easily preventable malnutrition and hunger related infectious diseases…in an era when so much, could be done for so many, for so little cost. Even today more than 40 years after we (the world and the US) committed to ending world hunger, 22,000 children still die every day. We (the US and the world) agreed to achieve the measurable, affordable and achievable year 2000 goals pledged at the 1990 World Summit for Children and then failed to make good on the promise. We again failed to meet a similar set of affordable goals set for 2025 (the Millennium Development Goals) that could have cut child deaths by 15,000 a day, full well knowing that achieving such goals would have made the world freer, safer and more prosperous for all.
Second, future generations will judge us as temporarily insane for not abandoning war as a means of solving differences between nations. A federation of nations using the global rule of law to address disagreements was virtually ignored because of an irrational fear of world government. It will be impossible for future generations to understand why we continued our mass worshiping of national sovereignty when it’s predictable consequence was continued genocide, war, hunger, terrorism, disease and environmental destruction.
Third, future generations will judge Americans harshly regarding our insistence on maintaining the global status quo of US supremacy when the universal ideal of inalienable human rights (the real power that created our nation) could have been our nation’s logical legacy to the world. Our nation’s persistent denial regarding the known benefits of global cooperation, the rule of law, the golden rule, and the cost saving aspect of problem prevention, will be mind numbing looking back.
Last, our nation’s collective political decision to wage war against a tactic will be seen as the most irrational means of maintaining a decades long addiction to burning a finite ancient resource. A polluting resource that helped fund our enemies and altered for worse a stable global climate that all humanity depended on.

Pandora's box not only option on Iran

2010-09-22T00:52:00.004-02:00

This week U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) exposed his enormous and lethal ignorance regarding Iran's capacity for responding to any US or Israeli military attack on its sovereign soil. He said "If you use military force against Iran, you've opened up Pandora's box. If you allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon, you've emptied Pandora's box. I'd rather open up Pandora's box than empty it.

Senator Graham appears to be oblivious to Iran's capacity for biological warfare...or even conventional or cyber attacks against our oil lifeline. Attacking Iran would likely result in the emptying of Pandora's box. Iran's possession of nuclear weapons is not the problem. The real threat is Iran's leaders genocidal threats. They should be held accountable for the extremely serious crime of inciting genocide.

But without world law...the only other option is world chaos. Opening or emptying pandora's box... isn't the only two options we have. Indicting criminals and putting them into a box is not an impossible option. We just have to overcome our fear of world government. The threat of Pandora's box should help us overcome that fear.

Koran burning and WMD don't mix.

2010-09-11T02:15:00.000-02:00

“Assessing the Terrorist Threat”, a report released today summarized by it’s authors and the co-chairs of the 9-11 Commission states “Threats are measured by intent and capabilities. Al-Qaeda continues to hope to inflict mass-casualty attacks in the United States. Indeed, al-Qaeda leaders have said since 9/11 that the U.S. is owed millions of deaths because of its supposed crimes against Islam. However, the group’s capabilities to implement such a large-scale attack are currently far less formidable than they were nine years ago or indeed at any time since.”
http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20100910_7168.php
http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Final%20NSPG%20Threat%20Assessment%20Report%20Sept%202010%20report%20w%20cover.pdf

Their analysis stands in stark contrast to another report detailing the growing risk from the increasing ease and affordability of creating and abusing synthetic pathogens which is matched with an apparent decreasing capacity to control such likelihood of abuse.
http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20100910_5762.php

It appears warnings from biology experts are trumped by political wishful thinking. The Al Qaeda threat has certainly morphed into a more ubiquitous animal but given its mission and determination that doesn’t mean it won’t continue to morph, or has stopped its quest for WMD or weapons of mass disruption.

We quickly forget that Al Qaeda isn’t trying to destroy us literally. They hope to break us economically and divide us politically. It appears we are heading down this path in spite of Al Qaeda, but even a failed bio-terror effort by Al Qaeda or any affiliate will spur more federal spending, expensive regulation, privacy intrusions, lethal overreaction and ultimately political division.

The ultimate answer is dealing with them as the mass murderers they really are. Waging war against them only raises them to ‘warrior’ status…while creating more killers with each collateral damage victim from our ‘war’ related actions.

Preemptive wars, assassin drone attacks and Koran burnings only make more enemies. We need more friends in far away places (and now at home) willing to help us catch these mass murderers…not join them.

Patrriotism is the Measles of humanity

2010-07-13T22:43:00.001-02:00

Dear Editor,
The statistics offered in “The patriotism gap” editorial (July 8, 2010) are useless given the lack of any clear or agreed upon definition of patriotism. Patriotism, much like beauty and pornography, is in the eye of the beholder.
Oklahoma federal building bomber Timothy McVeigh believed he was a great patriot and Tea Party members who now rail against the powers of our Federal government also see themselves as great patriots. And no doubt those serving inside our federal government see themselves as good patriots.
In reality Tea Party ideologues appear to love their perception of our nation’s Constitution more than they love the self evident truths that led to its creation. Our country is a federation of sovereign states that has grown and evolved over decades. A country of ‘laws’ not rebellious men. Our federation of states isn’t great because of its boundaries, its people, its places or its laws. It’s a great nation because of what it stands for...the ideal that ‘all men are created equal’.
If patriotism is holding our nation’s citizens above others, as most of the survey respondents appear to do, consider me unpatriotic. Such exceptional patriotism was infamous in Nazi Germany, Hirohito’s Japan and Communist Russia. Such exceptional patriotism exists still today in Shiite Iran and Jewish Israel. Such patriotism is more like religion. A worshiping of place that is more likely to spawn war than peace, justice or heaven on earth.
I believe I’m patriotic because I fundamentally believe that all people are created equal and are naturally endowed with certain inalienable rights. Some of those rights are spelled out in our Constitution and the rest are more clearly detailed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- a profound document drafted and advanced by a great American patriot- Eleanor Roosevelt.
I love my country not for what it is (in debt, in an endless war against a tactic, addicted to foreign oil, 16th in the world in math and science…), or for what it has done (killed American Indians, Enslaved Africans, Murdered Iraqi civilians, Empowered corporations, or sparked recessions) but for what it stands for ‘liberty and justice for all”. That is what the world’s greatest patriots believed when they wrote the Declaration of Independence. What they created afterwords was a constitution that didn’t hold up to their own ideals. In my world, it’s patriotic to advocate for their original ideals….and cowardly, treasonous or ignorant not to.

Obama Ignoring the obvious?

2010-06-13T20:33:00.001-02:00

Oddly, the Exxon Valdez Oil spill helped the US GDP 21 years ago. Work, even dirty nasty work, employees people and spurs economic growth. While there are dozens of other ways that going green can help the economy the BP Gulf Oil catastrophe offers one that comes at a very opportune time in US history and holds within it the capacity to change American thinking.
The Deepwater Horizon accident is also a shovel ready project that even conservative extremists will support. And, it should be fully funded by the corporations and others profiteers ultimately responsible for this environmental disaster.
The Obama Administration could demonstrate the value of big government to the economy, the environment and the American people by putting FEMA and/or the EPA in charge of hiring all able bodied unemployed Americans (and even a few undocumented workers) to clean up, protect and then restore the entire Gulf of Mexico to its pre BP status. They could even help fund their transportation costs and living expenses and then bill PB for all cost associated with the cleanup effort plus 10% for government administrative costs and other likely incidentals such as health care needs of those affected by exposure to crude oil.
Our government bailed out large corporations during the economic blowout…now it needs to bail the oil out of the Gulf and bill corporations with culpability and capacity to pay.
Contrary to conservative thinking…there is a roll for big bad government. It might not be efficient…but it can serve the greater good and make for a more perfect Union.

Peace is not through strength!

2010-05-17T04:02:00.002-02:00

Dear Editor,
The seven authors of “Restoring ‘peace through strength’ (Washington Times May 11,-2010 - Edwin Meese, Elaine Donnelly, Frank Gaffney, Brian Kennedy, Herbert London, Cliff May and Herman Pirchner) need to return to the drawing board if they are serious about preserving our nation’s freedoms and security.
Their pre 9-11 thinking is virtually useless against the greatest threats we face today : nature’s pandemics, nuclear or bio engineered WMD, other dual use technologies that can fashion any SUV into a IED-WMD, economic collapse, environmental catastrophe, or the inevitable catastrophic natural disasters that will come from both inside our planet and from outside our solar system .
A strong military may be helpful in cleaning up messes or controlling chaotic conditions here or elsewhere after disasters…but reducing the number, severity and types of threats will require something different – nations working effectively together. Not just two or three. Extremely cooperative and comprehensive international partnerships between all nations, and more importantly all peoples, working for the common good.
The authors highly value the “Preservation of US sovereignty” but keeping this priority will usually be counterproductive to marshalling the essential international cooperation and coordination needed to ensure both freedoms and security. Put simply, national sovereignty is synonymous with the mental concept of independence. And independence simply doesn’t’ exist in the real world of hyper interdependence. Two examples: The US economy is now dependent upon China’s economic policy and our economic an national security remains hopelessly dependent on OPEC policy.
Do the seven authors really believe that “strength” leads to “peace”. We had the most powerful military in human history prior to 9-11. Then we used it to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. Is Iran next? We may feel safer but time is working against us. Committed adversaries will continue to use asymmetrical means. WMDs, IEDs, and other destructive capabilities are infinitely more difficult to defend against. And, they may eventually require extremely intrusive, repressive and offensive responses -- responses that ultimately aid the enemy and systematically weaken our own moral standing.
Having such a powerful military significantly increases the chances of our using it. And, our use so far against terrorists appears to have made more terrorists than it has killed. Our military reaction to 9-11 was what Osama Bin Ladin wanted. He knew he couldn’t defeat in battle, but he hoped our reaction would weaken us economically and divide us politically. Note to Authors: OBL’s still alive and appears to be doing well on both strategic fronts even as he loses every battle.
Then there is our increasing insecurity as a result of the exponential growth of powerful dual use technologies and their increasing affordability and availability globally, to anyone with a cell phone and bank account. Time is running out. We need more friends in faraway places…and military power doesn’t make real friends.
History suggests former military superpowers didn’t fail because they lacked military strength…they failed because they over used it.
And, do these seven authors really believe that ‘deterrence’ will work against fundamental religious extremists?
Regarding border controls…Just the construction costs along of effectively securing our borders against most serious threats would break us economically. The maintenance costs and the economic losses from decreased trade, commerce and tourism would bring on another great depression.
The authors call for “a foreign policy that supports our allies and opposes our adversaries”. Nowadays our allies and adversaries change faster than the weather. And they are seldom the same from issue to issue.
Here’s an idea for the authors. How about fulfilling the promise of our Declaration of Independence! It still adheres to the basic principle that all people are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights independent of what form of government or religious majority they live under. Our Constitution was originally designed to fulfill on that promise. It hasn’t yet succeeded. As it stands it’s essentially a suicide pact. It still holds some people to be more worthy than others…simply because of the passport they carry. Until a constitution fulfills the promise of our nation’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence -- freedom and security will remain political slogans…and never fully realized. And time is running out.

Oil spills, SUVs, RPGs and Tea party poopers.

2010-05-14T03:18:00.002-02:00

The BP oil spill of 2010 could be the greatest thing to happen to us…if we were really open to change. Changing our minds, our priorities and our government. Unfortunately, we didn’t learn from 9-11, we didn’t learn from Katrina, we didn’t learn from Vietnam or Afghanistan, we didn’t learn from HIV/AIDS or Rwanda…and we probably won’t learn from this.
The spill is just too small. It’s been about 3 weeks from the initial pipe burst and the amount of oil released is still less than that lost by the Exxon Valdez tanker spill in Alaska 20 years ago. BP’s disaster may soon exceed it, but even if it’s capped tomorrow and all other offshore drilling efforts around our nation remain safe for the next 100 years catastrophic oil spills will continue to occur beyond our visible concern. According to Time magazine “Nigeria …has spills equal to that of the Exxon Valdez about every year.”
We’re only concerned about oil spills in our yard. Real change is needed. Consider that China is now spend twice as much as the US on research and investments in clean energy ($18 billion vs $34 billion). What are they thinking? Oh yes. Ahead. The problem isn’t faulty shut off valves…or poorly regulated drilling. It’s our addiction and dependence on oil, and our collective disregard for our own health, economy, national security and environment.
Does our involvement in Iraq and the rest of the middle east have much to do with our dependence on oil? Iran’s leadership’s incitement to genocide has Zionists and others rightfully worked up about protecting Israel, but what will be the US consequences if Israel or the US bomb Iran?
Yet every day, we get into our gasoline burning trucks, SUVs and automobiles and drive without concern to places we could have easily walked, bused, biked or trained to. Why? Because we don’t see or feel our dependence. We know it exists. We just choose to ignore it and how it relates to our debt crisis, unemployment lines, obesity rates, national security risk, air pollution and maybe even climate change.
An SUV bomb in NYC gets more attention than our addition to SUVs…and we continue to believe that drone strikes in Pakistan will reduce the number of future car bomb attacks here. Bush once said “we will fight them over there…so we won’t have to fight them here!” WTF? Did he really think they couldn’t find us again? Now, with the assistance of Google Earth they can also locate all of our oil storage tanks near our largest cities which are relatively easy targets for RPGs.
As oil and food dependent individuals we such little concern for how vulnerable we really are. But we feel good that way. And as long we feel good…that seems to be our highest priority. It appears the only time we get off our butts and do something …is when we aren’t feeling good. Ask the Tea party why they are involved? Ask them how dependent they are on foreign oil and their solution. Drill baby Drill. Spill maybe spill. Just pray and pass the ammunition. Free we will stay! Free of rational thought and appropriate action.

Counterterrorism

2010-05-07T01:51:00.004-02:00

"Would-Be Warriors: Incidents of Jihadist Terrorist Radicalization in the United States Since September 11, 2001, by Brian Michael Jenkins via RAND corporation (Paperback • 32 pages • ISBN: 978-0-8330-4981-0) http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP292/

is an excellent overview of domestic terrorism including shocking statistics from the 1970s. The only flaw I see from Mr. Jenkins' detailed analysis is his use of the word "prevention" instead of "Preemption" when labeling US law enforcement measures to stop potentially lethal terrorist acts before they occur.

For accuracy sake terrorist 'prevention' measures would have more to do with eliminating the radicalization factors or crazy factors that ultimately lead to plots -- instead of some use of force or intelligence intervention to halt a terrorist plot that is already in play.

President Bush may have left most thoughtful people with a negative view of "preemption" but in fact...it is what he believed he was doing...in wrongly believing that Saddam's WMDs were an imminent threat.
If a terrorist plot is discovered...it should rightfully be preempted... that would be a rational tactic against such a threat. But such tactical actions will not 'prevent' future terrorist attacks. That will require an entirely different strategic approach to counter-terrorism. One that focuses on the global rule of law...not the global law of force.

Taming the Deficit is easy. Not likely, but easy.

2010-02-10T15:08:00.001-02:00

Few educated Americans would disagree that taming the deficit is key to maintaining US national security.
Jeffrey Sachs makes a compelling case (Time Magazine, "How to Tame the Deficit" Feb.15, 2010) that compromise in Washington could solve this dilemma if just “two conditions” are met --wide public acceptance of increasing taxes and weaning “Congress and the White House…off lobbyists”.
Those lobbyists succeed because they to often falsely claim that their pet projects are vital to national security.
Given these lies one other condition is necessary.
The general public must finally recognize that defense spending no longer protects our nation from the far greater and more immediate threats America faces from pandemics, terrorism, climate change, economic instability and international criminal networks. Preventing and preparing for these pervasive and massive threats are better done by wise investments in both domestic and global social programs (healthcare, nutrition, education, water and sanitation, jobs, micro lending and environmental restoration) and ‘rule of law’ programs that are democratic, just and protective of basic human rights.
Failing this approach we could easily wean Washington from shyster lobbyists. Simply return to our founding fathers plan for managing our Republic where each House Member was legislated to represent only 20,000 Americans, not the 600,000 citizens each Member now represents. This would add over 14,000 new Members to our House of Representatives but it would yield far more citizen influence over high paid lobbyists or corporate donations.
In reality, it isn’t the economic deficit that most threatens our security. Its our own ignorance, arrogance and apathy regarding the real world that surrounds us.

Obama not responsible for US decline

2010-02-06T01:05:00.003-02:00

Jeffrey Kuhner’s claim (in the Washington Times 2-5-2010 "America's Suicide Attempt") that our nation is losing its superpower status as a result of Obama Administration policy is laughable. Attributing our “soaring deficits, economic stagnation, appeasement of radical Islam and revolutionary socialism” simply to “Mr. Obama’s policies” misses the role that Republican Presidents, other Democratic Presidents and conservative policies played in dragging down our status.
If Mr. Kuhner is serious about stopping our nations “decline” “into a second-tier nation”, he will have to dismount from his conservative ideological horse and look at the facts.
The greatest decline in US leadership in the world is more the result of global economic growth elsewhere as increasingly powerful and profitable technologies spread and corporate profits take priority over social essentials like health and education. Our decline is not as nearly as great as the rise in China, India, Brazil, the EU and other adapting nations in blending both capitalist and socialist policies.
Conservative views that “government is the problem”, “education is a family issue”, “Market forces are the answer”, “peace through strength” and “we aren’t the world’s policeman” are far more responsible for our decline in security than Obama policies or liberal ideals.
Government has its inefficiencies but it is of “we the people”. We have the government we deserve. For too long most Americans (liberals, conservatives and independents) have been too comfortable and unwilling to sacrifice and make the wise investments needed for preventive measures that would keep our nation on top.
Market forces didn’t wean us from our dependence on foreign oil as we often used abusive US foreign policies to maintain our addiction. An addiction that ultimately enriched those whom our policies abused.
Spending trillions of dollars on the most powerful and competent military force in the world didn’t stop a handful of foreign extremists from mass murdering 3000 Americans, frightening us into rearranging our government, and exposing our suicidal reliance on conservative championed unilateral US policies.
Conservative distrust of government run schools, science curriculum and health care programs helped lower our standard in science, technology, languages, and understanding of foreign cultures as well as weakening our defenses against pandemics or bioterror attacks which are by far the greatest and most immediate threats to our national security.
It was conservative abandonment of our highest ideal – the ‘rule of law’ - intended by our founding fathers for dealing with all of God’s souls - that led some US leaders and individuals to using torture, assassinations and an unlawful invasion that ultimately empowered extremist ideologies. Criminal ideologies that ultimately only the ‘rule of law’ can defeat.
It is our fear that most empowers our enemies. Without keeping faith in our highest ideal - the rule of law – with liberty and justice for all – and making adequate investments in the health and education of ‘we the people” our nation will continue to slide.

Obama budget not helping US security

2010-02-05T15:39:00.001-02:00

Comments by Professor Jeffrey Sachs on
President Obama’s FY 2011 Budget Request on the Global Health Initiative (GHI)
1 February 2010

Professor Jeffery Sachs is the Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. He also serves as a Special Advisor on the Millennium Development Goals to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

VERY BIG DISAPPOINTMENT

Basically, this is a very big disappointment because it’s pretty much a standstill with maybe tiny changes here and there. But the only thing that’s really rising in this budget is military spending. There’s a $3 billion increase in the military budget which is not going to get us security. It’s $744 billion, which will probably equal or exceed the total military spending of all of the rest of the spending combined.

So I find this a blunder that is quite serious. I really frankly don’t understand how we’re going to get security if our international development and humanitarian assistance is budgeted at around $29 billion compared with $744 billion of military spending. If we invest only four percent of the military spending in the development approach it’s going to be a very unhappy world and a very dangerous world for us in terms of health, in terms of poverty, in terms of conflict. I expected better of the administration. This President campaigned with wonderful words pointing out that development was a path to national security but he’s not following through in real programmatic terms.

Unfortunately, I think that the administration is abandoning a lot of its campaign pledges about development aid in general and about scaling up approaches. So it’s not just on health. There was a page about doubling aid which seems to have vanished when you look at the out years of the budget on international assistance.

So I think that what we have here is basically a foreign policy dominated by military spending that is missing an incredible opportunity that the United States has right now to build on what the Bush administration did in global health to make a huge difference and to help stabilize countries and win enormous goodwill. And they’ve said all of the words; but this budget doesn’t live up to those words.”

SHORTCHANGING THE GLOBAL FUND TO FIGHT AIDS, TB, & MALARIA

When it came to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria -- which is absolutely crying for funds right now for already approved scientifically vetted programs that immediately save lives from those three pandemics -- the President couldn’t find any increase at all. And that’s the case where the global fund has already cut its approved programs because it doesn’t have the money right now.

The Bush administration made a great breakthrough in AIDS control and in malaria control. I was with 15 African presidents this afternoon who were discussing in great detail how to scale up the fight against malaria and, of course, the major funder of malaria programs is the Global Fund. And we talked about how they were going to submit more comprehensive programs to cover some of the things that can bring that disease down to almost zero mortality now with the tools that we have. Those programs will not be financeable with this budget and it’s just shocking, actually, that the administration won’t build on that. I would really not like to be back in the room with those presidents and say: ‘Sorry; your people will die because you’re very poor and the administration – the U.S. which is not so poor has -- decided that it’s going to put $744 billion into the military but only $1 billion into the global fund which would save the lives of your children and their mothers and fathers from AIDS.’

What the Bush administration did -- this administration is not building on right now in this budget and Congress is just going to have to see the facts as they are because they’re stark -- and change this.

This is a huge mistake. Really, I don’t know somebody at OMB just doesn’t realize what’s happening actually on the global scene. And so I think that all they did was compare it to last year;n this case they made a $50 million cut but I’m afraid that they’re really not aware of the most basic dynamics that are underway in the world right now. Why was it that the African presidents were huddled today on taking urgent and decisive actions exactly of the sort that are not being supported by today’s budget. I think it’s actually simply a blunder.

[The Obama administrations’] argument is not based on the evidence, I’m sorry, because there’s overwhelming evidence of what it will cost to treat people with AIDS, to scale up the malaria control and to introduce safe childbirth -- which we can applaud that the words are there. But without the investment it’s just words.

A big concern of mine about what I regard as really simple policy mistakes is that if we put money into the global fund we get a multiplier because other countries match. And we get approximately a three to one multiplier.

There was lots of discussion during the past year about globally funding the scale-up of maternal and infant health, especially safe delivery which has its specific investments in emergency obstetrical care and neonatal survival. It seems obvious that the administration has lost or neglected the opportunity to leverage U.S. taxpayer money to get far more bang for our buck by going bilateral on this.

Now, I do have to say that during the past year one got inklings in discussions with OMB and with the State Department and U.S. AID and so forth that that was the direction they were going to go. This is, therefore, not a completely atypical U.S. blunder. But it’s a huge one at a time when other countries are prepared to scale up their funding for delivery. We just didn’t take the obvious point. And it’s a surprise to me. This is an administration that says it wants to work with other countries to harmonize and coordinate but at a time when our taxpayer dollars…

I was just saying that we know, those of us who are engaged in global health know, that other countries are prepared right now to join with the U.S. and we seem willfully to be skipping this opportunity. So again, I think that there are some basic mistakes being made inside OMB, inside other agencies, maybe the people are inexperienced or they don’t really know what’s happening internationally and I hope that Congress fixes this.

MISSED LEADERSHIP ON GLOBAL MALARIA CONTROL

“There’s clearly a major problem. Global spending on malaria has been going up in recent years because of the new tools that include the long lasting nets, the new first line (Artemisinin Combination Therapy- ACTs) and base combination drugs, the rapid diagnostic tests, the fact that community health workers can now do community and home based treatment.”

“With all that the world has committed to comprehensive malaria control and to get these systems in place, actually, by the end of 2010. And that requires a scale up and the estimate in the very carefully worked out budgets is that this would require about $5 billion per year. Now, remember that the whole high income world has one billion people in it so that’s about $5 per person in the high income world; very modest.

Now, these goals cannot be financed with the budget that’s put forward. They did not do the basic arithmetic. How can we make sure there will be adequate financing of the sound scientific programs that are already at the fund and those that will arise with respect to a globally agreed plan for comprehensive malaria control. They’re (Obama administration) breaking the momentum. In fact, they’re putting a ceiling on something that had been rising because with the tools that we have comprehensive control of malaria is now possible. And they’re just not doing the arithmetic that is needed. And these numbers are small compared to normal budget numbers in military spending or in many other parts of the budget.

So that’s the basic point that a global agreed action plan, the one that the African presidents were discussing today in Ethiopia, requires a modest but from a world scale real increase of funding which is not forthcoming right now.

CALL FOR URGENT CONGRESSIONAL ACTION – BROKEN PROMISES ON THE LANTOS HYDE GLOBAL LEADERSHIP ON HIV/AIDS, TB AND MALARIA ACT (P.L. 110-293)

Now, I hope and certainly will work towards changing these numbers in the Congress. Because a lot of Congress people are very unhappy with a military approach to national security that is out of control and a development approach which we can see from the life and death arithmetic causing people to die because approved programs can’t operate. And, this administration is filled with people who do know better, should know better and I think should really appreciate the opportunity that we have historically to do better right now. The programs are there. This is a time when it’s not hypothetical. They’re already there. They’re already approved and we’re not even getting them funded. So I hope that this is rectified when it goes to the Congress.

I think [the Obama budget] clearly does not fulfill the vision of Lantos-Hyde of continuing the scale up of the fight against AIDS to reach the promises that have been made, for example, universal access to treatment, the obvious need for continued outlays on prevention of many different kinds. The fact that there’s still a significant mother-to-child transmission [rate] that could be brought down to zero with the tools that we have if we invest in it. So it does not fulfill that vision of that legislation. And obviously doesn’t fulfill the dollars and sense of what Congress was looking towards.

I do think that with recognition of this and if this can be explained to the Congress there will be a lot of takers for it because this is not a partisan issue. And this is an effort that the Bush administration started and that the Obama administration should be building on far more ambitiously than it is.

The need for effective world government?

2010-01-20T03:24:00.000-02:00

http://www.ted.com/talks/ian_goldin_navigating_our_global_future.html

Blackwater remains a national security threat

2010-01-08T03:41:00.001-02:00

Dear Editor,
Dismissal of the Blackwater guards lethal actions in Nisour square on legal technicalities may be warranted. But their actions that day are still disgraceful, cowardly and infinitely consequential to our national security. It looks like no individual will be held accountable for the killing of 17 innocent Iraqis. I’m guessing that to many Iraqis and other Muslims around the world that is totally unacceptable. It’s unacceptable to me.
Jim Hanson “The end of a warrior witch hunt” and the Washington Times editorial (The Blackwater lynching 1-7-09) believe the guards should “be cleared of the impression that they purposefully slaughtered innocents”. Unfortunately there was a purpose to their slaughtering of innocent Iraqi’s that day. They did it to save themselves regardless of the local or global consequences. Their “dismissal” on technical grounds may be legal and but they are not innocent.
Mr. Hanson claims that what they did “was not a crime”. So it’s legal to intentionally kill innocent people as long as there is a “perception of a threat.” Mr. Hanson says that’s “what matters, not whether it actually was” a real threat. There is one monstrous problem in this perception. If 17 Americans were killed under similar circumstances here in the US somebody would be held accountable. And, when we chose to have one justice standard for Americans and another for foreign Muslims that’s goes directly on Osama bin Ladin’s recruiting posters. It’s also the same logic al Qaeda uses for killing innocent Americans.
Most U.S. military and counterterrorism professionals know the collateral damage caused by Coalition forces greatly assists Al Qaeda’s recruitment efforts. So each new al Qaeda (or Iraqi insurgent) recruit increases the risk to both US citizens and our brave soldiers.
Blackwater guards volunteered for those jobs with a clear understanding of the risks. They are well compensated for those risks. That day, they were clearly more interested in protecting their own lives than the lives of innocent Iraqi men, women and children who didn’t volunteer. The guards literally had no laws to obey that day. For them it was OK to slaughter innocent people if they perceived any threat. That operating procedure shouldn’t be acceptable to anyone on this planet, let alone legal.
We will never know exactly what happened that day but I’m relatively confident of two outcomes. First, those who pulled triggers that day will have to live with their actions until their judgement day. Second, all of us, even those who opposed the idea of invading Iraq will continue to suffer the consequences of future terrorist attacks inspired by the real or perceived Nisour Square incident.

StratCom - WTF?!!!

2010-01-07T03:44:00.003-02:00

I just discovered this profoundly important topic. Below is the briefing paper that outlines this transformation in war fighting. My questions:
1. Does StratCom make our U.S. Constitution obsolete in terms of the war making powers of Congress?
2. Will StratCom force our enemies to resort even more to IEDs, Suicide Vests, WMD underwear, and biological weapons that cannot (yet) be stopped.
3. Does StratCom give us the illusion that we can win a war...and thus more likely to wage it?
4. Is StratCom the precursor to SkyNet? (Unfortunately I'm not joking)
5. Will your reading this put you on a government watch list?
6. Is Stratcom be the beginning of the end of all human privacy and freedom? Then how else can we stop WMD underwear, biological weapons and Armageddon?

I thank Tim Rinne (walterinne@neb.rr.com) for bringing this to my attention.

**********
StratCom: The Next Generation in War-fighting

The consolidation of eight military missions in U.S. Strategic Command (nuclear deterrence; space; cyberspace; full-spectrum global strike; missile defense; intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance; information operations; and combating weapons of mass destruction) constitutes more than a simple expansion of StratCom’s power and reach.

It represents an evolutionary leap—a paradigm shift—in the way war is made.

Just as the invention of gunpowder and the splitting of the atom ushered in a new age of war-fighting, the creation of this global, integrated, space-reliant command has transformed the face of warfare.

Under “CONPLAN 8022” (the Pentagon contingency plan developed in the aftermath of 9/11), U.S. Strategic Command outside Omaha experienced what StratCom Commander former astronaut General Kevin Chilton described as not simply “a sea-state change, but a tsunami of change” in its mission and organization. In the space of five years, this Cold War icon shed its ‘defensive’ role as the headquarters of the U.S.’s nuclear deterrent to become the command center for offensively waging the Bush/Cheney Administration’s international “War on Terror.” StratCom went from being the ‘unthinkable’ weapon that, it was hoped, would ‘never be used’ to ‘being used for everything.’

On the mere perception of a threat to America’s national security, StratCom (on word from the president) is now authorized to preemptively attack any place on the face of the earth within one hour—using either conventional or nuclear weapons. It’s not for nothing that Commander Chilton testified to Congress that he thought Strategic Command should be re-named “Global Command” to better reflect its new role and mission.

The agility and speed with which the command now operates effectively bypass any constitutional checks by the U.S. government’s legislative or judicial branches (not to mention international bodies like the UN Security Council). As the personal preserve of the executive branch, 60 minutes from now, StratCom could have started the next war and Congress and the Courts wouldn’t even know till they heard about it on CNN.

At a “National Defense Industrial Association” conference in March 2007, former StratCom Commander (and current Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) Marine General James Cartwright described the changed face of warfare that StratCom now sees itself confronting in the 21st century:

“Anything that comes off the face of the earth” [be it an explosive detonation, a rocket launch or a missile armed with either a conventional or nuclear warhead]…

…you have about 100 seconds to type it, figure out what it is, and act. I can’t even get a phone call through that fast.
But the national system is set up to have a phone conference about that.
You try to do that in the middle of the night. You try to do that in the middle of the day—get people out of meetings. It’s not possible.
In that 100 seconds, what do we do when we get people on the phone? We describe what’s going on so we spend most of the time in discovery rather than in options and activity and execution. We can’t do business that way.
And that, he said, was “the simple one” compared to the potential threat of a cyber attack:
…Virus launched out of Baghdad towards the United States, out to geosynchronous orbit, 23,000 miles out, and back down to Seattle for the attack—300 milliseconds…
I can’t afford to do business the way we’re doing business, so we have to build the organizational construct to work in these timelines. We have to change the cultural approach to doing business, [from] having people get involved and discuss and review and then decide and then execute… to ‘intervention by exception’—machine to machine, intervention by exception. Build the business rules. Missile defense won’t work without it. Space does not work without that. We’re at a huge disadvantage if we think of it otherwise.
But what happens to all the people who think they have a vote?
They’re disenfranchised. Business has discovered this. What do you do with middle management in those kind of timelines? It’s a huge problem.
Count Congress, the courts, the United Nations Security Council among the “middle management” that’s being “disenfranchised” under StratCom’s new operating format. The compressed time-frame—of necessity, StratCom would argue—limits democratic input. Decisions have to be made—“machine to machine.” The ‘checks and balances’ provided for under the Constitution to prevent the executive branch from overreaching have been eclipsed by technology. Under these conditions, the safeguard of ‘separation of powers’ has become a rickety thing of the past, unsuited to the threats of the 21st century.

This fixation on speed, however, comes dangerously close to a policy of ‘shoot first, ask questions later.’

What about computer error or ‘flawed intelligence’? What if StratCom launches and coordinates an attack (as it did with the “Shock and Awe” bombing campaign in Iraq) but there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction? What if, as was the case with Iraq, the information was wrong?

Even if it acts in good faith, with the best of intentions, StratCom—by its very mode of operation—runs the risk of flouting international rule of law. It risks a repetition of the same “illegal” act under the UN Charter that Secretary General Kofi Annan spoke of when rendering judgment on that preemptive attack against Iraq.
This ‘New StratCom’ however, is not just a ‘good soldier’ dutifully and obediently following orders it’s handed.

It proposes. It promotes.

It’s walking the halls of Congress, lobbying elected officials, hobnobbing with military contractors and the scientific community, and spinning its public relations message as it makes its views and wants known—on everything from why we need to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons to having direct control over the newly commissioned “Cyber Command.”

With its comprehensive mission array, centralized authority and emphasis on speed and agility, StratCom will not only plan, direct and execute the next military conflict the White House gets the U.S. into—it will collect and interpret the intelligence upon which the decision to attack will be made. The same entity that (under its “Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance” mission) is framing the alleged threat is also the entity that (under its “Global Strike” and “Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction” missions) will execute the strike. A ‘firewall’ no longer separates the ‘accuser’ from the ‘executor.’ It’s a ‘closed loop’ with lots of room for human error—if not outright mischief.

Ten years ago, with the Pentagon’s more decentralized command and control structure—and without the advantages of space technology—it would have been organizationally and technologically impossible to create a weapon with StratCom’s prowess. In the whole of recorded history, there’s never been a weapon that could offensively attack any place on the face of the earth (with nuclear weapons, no less) in such a compressed time frame.

It constitutes nothing less than an evolution in war-making—one that hourly places the security of the entire world at risk.

Operating as it does with such freedom of action and so little oversight, StratCom is on the verge of becoming a law unto itself: a kind of 21st century presidential “Praetorian Guard,” exercising vigilante justice.

And before things get any further out of control, the Congress and the courts of the U.S.—and the General Assembly of the UN—need to start talking about how best to rein in this new war-making menace with a system of international protocols.

Because (a less belligerent Obama Administration notwithstanding), there’s no putting this genie of StratCom back in the bottle any more than in 1945 we could undo the new danger that was unleashed by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Back then, the world had to learn how to live with ‘The Bomb.’

Now, we must learn how to live with StratCom.

Tim Rinne, UNA-USA Nebraska Division, walterinne@neb.rr.com

Obama's Nobel war prize speech.

2009-12-11T01:40:00.001-02:00

It was a good speech, but not good enough. President Obama still appears to justify war as a means of problem solving.

My greatest disappointment in his speech was his failure to make a clear distinction regarding the use of force. For it is the difference between the “force of law” and the “law of force” is the difference between night and day, good and evil, right and wrong.
There should be no doubt that “force” will be needed in conducting future aspects of foreign policy and national defense. But there should be no doubt that military force in the context of war will only reduce our nation’s security, for war itself justifies the killing of innocence. And, likewise, the use of force in the context of waging law, where the loss of innocent life is simply and profoundly unacceptable, will improve most aspects of our nation’s security. Laws are made to protect the innocent. Wars are waged knowing they will be killed.
War is obsolete. We just haven’t figured it out even though we know that ‘those who live by the sword die by it’. The law of force now puts biological weapons in the hands of all. And thus sets the stage for the meek inheriting the earth.
My favorite lines…and there were others I liked: “…peace includes not only civil and political rights - it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want. It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family.” Barak Obama, Dec. 10, 2009, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.

World Government still a good idea. But not likely.

2009-11-22T22:55:00.000-02:00

Who's Afraid of World Government? Thursday 19 November 2009
by: Lawrence S. Wittner, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

A few weeks ago, Glenn Beck of the Fox News Channel, with that hysterical flourish that has made him the darling of right-wing extremists, proclaimed: "America, if . . . you're not really into that whole One World Government thing, watch out." This kind of warning, regularly issued on Fox News, seems rather absurd today, given the obvious weakness of the United Nations and the failure of mainstream political figures to even suggest that this international organization might be strengthened to provide more effective world governance.
Nevertheless, not so long ago the idea of world government had greater influence in the United States. Amid the enormous destruction unleashed by World Wars I and II, American presidents successfully championed the establishment of the League of Nations and, later, the United Nations as instruments to curb the narrow nationalism that traditionally had led to war. During the Second World War, especially, an avalanche of books and pamphlets called for new thinking about global governance. Probably the best-known of them was "One World" (1943), a best-seller by Wendell Willkie, the 1940 Republican candidate for president. Serialized or printed in brief versions in more than a hundred newspapers in the United States and Canada, "One World" - within two years of its appearance - sold two million copies in book form.
When the war culminated in the most shocking action yet, the atomic annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world government movement acquired even greater momentum. In early October 1945, twenty prominent Americans - including Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts, US Senators J. W. Fulbright and Claude Pepper, novelist Thomas Mann and physicist Albert Einstein - called for a "Federal Constitution of the World." The movement quickly gathered powerful supporters: businessmen such as Owen D. Young, W. T. Holliday and Robert Lund; labor leaders such as Philip Murray and Walter Reuther; university presidents such as Robert Hutchins; magazine editors such as Norman Cousins, and news commentators such as Raymond Gram Swing.
With world government groups springing up across the United States, six of the largest merged in February 1947 to form United World Federalists. By 1949, that organization - dedicated to working "to strengthen the United Nations into a world government" - had 47,000 members in 720 chapters across the nation.
Furthermore, the idea of transforming the United Nations into a world government was endorsed by 45 important national organizations, including the General Federation of Women's Clubs, the National Grange, the Farmers' Union, the United Auto Workers, the Junior Chamber of Commerce, the Young Democrats, the Young Republicans and numerous religious bodies. The Communist Party was not among these organizational backers, as the Soviet line of the time was that the world government movement was part of an imperialist plot to invade Communist nations.
Thanks to this broad support, World Government Week was proclaimed in early 1949 by the governors of nine states and by the mayors of approximately fifty US cities and towns. By mid-1949, twenty state legislatures had passed resolutions endorsing world government. That same year, 91 members of the House of Representatives (64 Democrats and 27 Republicans) introduced a resolution to have the House go on record as supporting world federation as a "fundamental objective" of US foreign policy.
This proved the high-water mark of the movement. As the Cold War heightened and as a hot war broke out in Korea, establishing world government began to look increasingly utopian. To the American right, in fact, it looked downright subversive. The House Un-American Activities Committee conducted a grueling investigation of United World Federalists. Seizing the spotlight, Senator Joseph McCarthy and his cohorts repeatedly attacked the "one-worlders." In 1952, Senator Pat McCarran succeeded in attaching a rider onto federal legislation barring the distribution of funds to federal agencies that promoted "one-world government or one-world citizenship." A scramble immediately began to remove suspiciously globalist books from the US government's overseas information centers.
What remains today of the world government movement in the United States is comprised largely of Citizens for Global Solutions, a small organization dedicated to strengthening the United Nations and the scope of international law. Its modest efforts hardly put this unruly planet on the brink of world government, or even provide much of a counterforce to the rabid nationalism peddled by the American right.
But let's give Glenn Beck and his ilk their due. If there were a more effective global organization, that world body would be able to reach across national boundaries to cope with global warming, defend human rights, prosecute war criminals and terrorists, regulate multinational corporations, provide famine relief, enforce arms control and disarmament, and prevent military aggression. And should patriotic Americans support such practices?
Why not?

Major Hasan is not a terrorist. He is a murderer.

2009-11-12T02:24:00.001-02:00

Dear Editor (New York Times),
David Brooks may be missing the motivation of Major Hasan’s bloody assault at Ft. Hood (“The Rush to Therapy” Nov. 10, 2009). Hasan was a biochemist. If terror were his motive the death toll could have been far higher. Perhaps his murderous action was “to teach us a lesson about the reality of our war on terrorism”. Such a motive wouldn’t be “evil”, irrational or even insane. But it would be bloody.
It is possible that Hasan’s natural “drive to seek coherence and meaning” in the culture and nation that he was “born into” had come to a bitter end – and, he found our real “war narrative” monstrously unacceptable. And no one – especially those in power -- would listen.
Our national story is that ‘we try to avoid “collateral damage”, apologize when it happens, and then continue fighting’. Perhaps forcing of Hasan to participate in this narrative was an error. Undoubtedly, our “narrative” that ‘the loss of innocent life is acceptable when we are fighting a war for our freedom and security’ -- is better than a narrative that intentionally targets innocent life. But, both narratives justify murder. First degree murder is far worse than third degree murder – but ‘in country’ both are still a murderous crime, while elsewhere, if innocent Muslims die, it’s “Sorry! Just ‘collateral damage’. Our bad!”
There is no doubt that lethal impact of American firepower on the innocent lives in Afghanistan and/or Iraq is numerous, horrific, and unavoidable as long as we continue our other national narrative of ‘war’ as solution. Many of our active soldiers and army doctors know of this deadly outcome – yet they continue to follow orders. Hasan couldn’t follow those orders. He could have taken his own life, went AWOL, or retired to the brig to avoid ‘service’… but that wouldn’t even dent our narratives. General Shinseki confirmed this week that our war narrative is virtually immune to US soldier suicides (since 9-11 more US veterans have committed suicide than been killed in combat during the same period – yet we don’t question war as a solution).
Did Hasan hope to shake our nation’s narrative of gross disregard for third degree mass murder of tens of thousands of innocent Muslims? Perhaps his “shock and awe” assault was the only way he could shock us into thinking rationally about our “war narrative” against a tactic.
Any fair trial should determine that Major Hasan is mentally fit and guilty beyond any shadow of a doubt of multiple counts of first degree murder. He should then be held accountable for his heinous crime. But he’s not the only murderer who should be receiving a well deserved verdict. Perhaps its time we chose our nation’s most powerful narrative… the global rule of law…instead of the lawlessness of world war.

Healthcare is Loss of Freedom???

2009-11-08T13:23:00.002-02:00

You are witnessing the return of the right-wing wing-nut framing talents. Conservative ideologue are claiming that the current health care bill is the "greatest threat" to our freedoms...that they have seen in their lives.
They are covering the media with this virulant soundbite as a relatively mild H1N1 pandemic is testing the limits of our already understaffed and underfunded 'health care system'. Let's overlook the fact that it is realy and 'ill care' management failure.
Last December the bipartisan Commission on the prevention of WMD,terrorism and proliferation stated there is a 50/50 chance we will see a WMD attack somewhere in the world in the next 5 years, and that their current report (historically the only commission ever reauthorized by Congress)said the most likely target is the US...and that the best we can do is prepare for it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that our so called 'health care system' is our first line of defense and that it is entirely incapable of handling a mild virus. The economic situation has resulted in cuts to our health care system with an approximate loss of 15,000 health care workers job.
Weaponized small pox will rock out world, not to mention the our list of freedoms.

One US Soldier costs 20 Afganistan schools.

2009-11-07T02:00:00.003-02:00

On October 29, 2009 NYTimes Op-Ed Columnist NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF wrote:
"More Schools, Not Troops"

"Dispatching more troops to Afghanistan would be a monumental bet and probably a bad one, most likely a waste of lives and resources that might simply empower the Taliban. In particular, one of the most compelling arguments against more troops rests on this stunning trade-off: For the cost of a single additional soldier stationed in Afghanistan for one year, we could build roughly 20 schools there.
It’s hard to do the calculation precisely, but for the cost of 40,000 troops over a few years — well, we could just about turn every Afghan into a Ph.D."

Congressman Charlie Wilson could have used these numbers. Then there would have been no 9-11 then conspiracy theorists would still be working on the JFK assassination and moon landing.

9 reasons Humanity will go extinct. The list grows.

2009-11-06T23:28:00.001-02:00

9 Genetic & Cerebral flaws of the human species: Cause for Extinction?

1. Humans can and will believe anything: 70 percent of Americans believed Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9-11. 70 percent of Muslims believed Jews had something to do with 9-11. Jamestown koolaid party. David Koresh & Branch Dividian Waco fireworks. Heavens Gate space odyssey….
(Earth is the insane asylum for the universe.) (“The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.” Albert Einstein.)

2. People believe what they want in spite of the evidence: Most people maintain their belief system even when presented with evidence their belief is wrong. Creationist will never believe in Evolution. Bush fans will never believe invading Iraq was a mistake. Some liberals will always believe gun contol will bring peace. (Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege. Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.)

3. We don’t do what we know we should do: Eat right. Exercise regularly. Don’t smoke or abuse drugs or alcohol. Plan for the future. Be prepared for emergencies.
(Consciousness: That annoying time between naps.)

4. Rule of 7 (+ or – 2). People believe the consequence of their action/inaction is limited. This should probably be the rule of 2, plus or minus 3. Some people don’t even know their actions or inaction effects themselves.
(God must love stupid people; He made so many of us.) (The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity. Harlan Ellison [1934 - ])
(Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. Hanlon's Razor )
5. People are easily distracted and fail to plan for the obvious and inevitable. With H1N1’s return, bioterrorists inevitable strike, Afghanistan in chaos, Iraq in limbo, and economy in free fall…most conservatives are fearful of socialized medicine and most liberals are insisting on nuclear disarmament.
(The gene pool could use a little chlorine.)

6. We have short or selective memories. Troop surge? US Vietnam and Soviet Afghanistan…hello!!!! (Happiness is nothing more than good health and a bad memory. Albert Schweitzer) (Nothing is so admirable in politics as a short memory. John Kenneth Galbraith) (Fools rush in where fools have been before.)
7. Women fail to accept their role as leaders… (It’s funnier to watch men screw things up)

8. People don’t work well together.… (Liberals only do it if it feels good – conservatives if its profitable.)

9. Most people don’t give a rats ass about these 9 reasons or the consequences on their lives or the lives of their own children…

Basic education can defeat Al Qaeda.

2009-11-06T13:13:00.001-02:00

In the war against radical extremists even right wing newspaper columnists now see the value of providing basic education in Pakistan as the only effective means of defeating Osama Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda.

Read the whole story "Warlords R Us" by Arnaud de Borchgrave, who is editor at large of The Washington Times.

"Warlords R Us"
The Washington Times, Friday, November 6, 2009

Arnaud de Borchgrave

If we are successful beyond President Obama's wildest dreams - e.g., Taliban is wiped out and a tough new Afghan government does not allow al Qaeda or other terrorists to conspire against us on their territory - would that make us safer from radical Islam?

The answer, of course, is no because this is not about geography. Two veteran intelligence operatives, with much Middle Eastern and Afghan experience, speaking not for attribution, agreed that a stable, secure Afghanistan doesn't change the equation, at least not significantly.

The popular perception of al Qaeda in Afghanistan is the same propaganda news clip, shown a gazillion times during the last eight years, replete with terrorist "trainees" in shalwar kameez (knee-length shirts over baggy pantaloons) running through obstacle courses, and emerging from tunnels, presumably to kill us all in our beds.

Al Qaeda doesn't need commando-steeled volunteers to attack the United States and its allies. For the next Sept. 11, the chances are they have already selected highly motivated, brainwashed wack-jobs among the graduates of Pakistan's madrassas, who look forward to a one-button push to the land of plenty in the sky where 72 impatient maidens await their arrival.

Al Qaeda's "martyrs" don't need Afghan training camps for weapons-of-mass-destruction terrorism. In fact, to be inconspicuous, they should not have the physique of an avoid-at-all-cost, likely-to-arouse-suspicion type.

Al Qaeda does not need Afghanistan for its next terrorist objective. In fact, those who follow events in Afghanistan closely were taken aback when Mr. Obama said Afghanistan was a war of necessity because that's where al Qaeda is.

They haven't been there since Afghanistan was liberated in October 2001. They moved to Pakistan's tribal areas, where they attracted volunteers from the Middle East and Europe.

When a reconstituted Taliban insurgent force re-entered Afghanistan in large numbers in 2004, al Qaeda was not interested in its now-insecure old training camps. If Pakistan's current offensive against Taliban and al Qaeda in the tribal areas is successful, al Qaeda is not an entity that can be captured or destroyed. Its clandestine operatives are widely scattered in the Middle East, Africa, Europe and North and South America.

As alternatives to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Yemen, in the vernacular of the intelligence community, will do/is doing it. Somalia will do/is doing it. West African states whose writ doesn't extend much beyond their capitals will do/are doing it. Grimy North African suburbs of major French cities will do/are doing it. British provincial towns with Pakistani enclaves will do/are doing it. And Internet's thousands of pro-al Qaeda Web sites will do/are doing it.

Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri are believed to be comfortably installed in a tribal chief's compound somewhere near Quetta, the capital of Pakistan's constantly rebellious Baluchistan province, which has 48 percent of the country's land with only 10 million of its 175 million people. There is no al Qaeda central issuing orders to thousands of adherents the world over.

If there is no connection between Afghanistan and the core problem of "no more 9/11s," what are the United States and 41 friendly nations doing there? Even in the event of a Taliban victory in the years to come, Taliban would not be stupid enough to invite al Qaeda back.

Three months prior to Sept. 11, there was palpable tension between Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar and bin Laden. Mullah Omar complained that bin Laden was issuing "too many fatwas (religious edicts), which he has no business doing as he didn't complete his religious education."

Mullah Omar also prevented journalists from seeing bin Laden. The Taliban leader knows he lost power and his country because of what bin Laden and his terrorists did to the United States.

In today's Afghanistan, almost everything turns out to be corruption and mismanagement. The average citizen has seen little benefit from expenditures in the $250 billion range - on top of $1 trillion in Iraq. The U.S. effort has been plagued by fraud, laced with mismanagement and bereft of strategic focus.

One example among many others came in 2007 when the U.S. awarded a massive contract worth some $300 million to Aey Inc., a Florida-based company,to supply the Afghan army with 52 types of ammo, chiefly bullets for AK-47s.

All requirements for safety inspections, mandatory for all ammo delivered to U.S. forces, were removed. Thus, Aey was able to shop around in Eastern Europe for the cheapest ammo available. Millions of rounds of old Chinese ammo made in the 1960s turned out to be substandard and dangerous.

The State Department was aware of what was going on but did not object as speed was the only criterion. Aey and its officers were eventually indicted in Florida. But U.S. officials involved got off with a slap on the wrist. Wherever U.S. inspectors look, they find fraud and abuse.

There are even cases - reported by online GlobalPost reporter Jean Mackenzie - of American contractors paying bribes to Taliban to ensure aid projects are not disrupted. This is a recipe for a war without end. She also reports a disguised Taliban office in Kabul that reviews all aid projects and determines the amount to be paid to Taliban.

If true, the U.S. is paying the Afghan government to fight Taliban while also paying Taliban to fight the Afghan government.

The key lies in Pakistan. Almost all terrorist trails in Europe lead back to Pakistan - and its madrassas. These are the free Koranic schools that have stepped into the vacuum of no education system for the poor as the military take up 50 percent of government revenue.

A fraction of what the U.S. has spent in Iraq and Afghanistan would go a long way to turning Pakistan around. Instead, Congress, in its infinite wisdom, after authorizing $1.2 trillion in both wars, allocated $7.5 billion to Pakistan over five years - with umpteen caveats. In a country of 175 million, a drop in the proverbial bucket.

Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International.

Kill 3 million in Chicago!

2009-10-09T02:28:00.003-02:00

If you want some laughs and a profound understanding of the problems we face...and possible solutions...watch Thomas Barnett's TED presentation. Wow!

http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_peace.html

National security through global security.

Climate change could help food production

2009-10-01T21:26:00.003-02:00

A new report from the International Food Policy Research Institute projects 25 million more malnourished children in 2050 due to climate change. They claim that this scenario can be averted with an additional annual $7 billion in investments in agriculture and rural development. http://www.ifpri.org/pressroom/briefing/impact-climate-change-agriculture.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for annual additional billions for agriculture and rural development...but there is only a 50/50 chance that climate change will harm food production and an even smaller chance that new 'investments' in agriculture and rural development will actually improve the lives of the poor.

A warming atmosphere could increase agricultural production in many areas. Some may be hurt but plants breath CO2. Past geological era's extremely high in CO2 gave us the oil we are now addicted to today. It was the ice ages that reduced plant growth.

But current agricultural production predictions are essentially irrelevant to how many children will go hungry in 2050. Advances in technology in agriculture and environmental protection /restoration…has a far better chances of ensuring all children will be obese by 2050. The only thing missing to ensure all children are fed is the political will to make it happen. Hunger, malnutrition and even starvation...isn't about food production shortages. These lethal maladies are about food affordability. What climate you live in isn't nearly as important as how much money you have.

If there is a massive drop in grain yields...feed fewer cows. Going vegetarian would be better for human health and the environment in spite of fears of climate change. Things always change. We need to learn better to adapt to changes and stop doing things we know we shouldn't do. Like buying oil from producers who don't like us.

Need hope? Now vote for a project.

2009-09-30T00:18:00.004-02:00

If you are seeking an antidote to all the troubling and seemingly unsolvable problems in the world...do yourself and the poor a favor. Visit the "World Challenge 2009" website... http://www.theworldchallenge.co.uk/ where you can see dozens of small replicable projects making an enormous difference in the lives of the poor all over the world.

From environmental protection, to child education and health efforts. From job creation to green mining. All projects in need of meager resources to make a mountain of sustainable, life saving differences. And you get to vote for the one you deem most worth of the prize money The World Challenge will give out.

BIOLOGICAL THREAT GREATER THAN NUCLEAR

2009-09-25T02:00:00.002-02:00

U.S. BIPARTISAN COMMISSION CONFIRMS BIOLOGICAL THREAT GREATER THAN NUCLEAR.

HTTP://PREVENTWMD.GOV/

In December 2008, the U.S. Commission for the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism issued a report identifying 13 recommendations for Congress and the Administration. Executive Director Col. Randall Larsen (Ret.) comments on the report on C-span 2-24-09. http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/09/24/Terr/A/23523/Col+Randall+Larsen+Ret+Prevention+of+Weapons+of+Mass+Destruction+Proliferation+Terrorism+Cms.aspx His KEY POINTS:
1. Without action WMD attack likely within 5 years.
2. Most likely Bio.
The Bipartisan Commission key finding: “The Commissioners unanimously concluded that unless we act urgently and decisively, it was more likely than not that terrorists would attack a major city somewhere in the world with a weapon of mass destruction by 2013. And we determined that terrorists are more likely to obtain and use a biological weapon than a nuclear weapon. This conclusion was publicly affirmed by then Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Mike McConnell”
They state “three primary reasons stand out in support of our conclusion. First, developing and dispersing a biological weapon would not be expensive -- and it will only get cheaper and easier. Second, the lethality of an effectively dispersed biological weapon could rival or exceed that of an improvised nuclear device. Third, the constraints that a bioterrorist would confront in making an effective bioweapon are significantly fewer than those facing nuclear terrorists. Virtually all pathogens suitable for use in a biological weapon are readily available in nature. The equipment required to produce a large quantity from a small seed stock, and then “weaponize” the material – that is, to make it into a form that could be effectively dispersed -- are of a dual-use nature and are readily available on the internet. The most effective delivery methods are well known in the pharmaceutical, agricultural, and insect-control industries. This is not speculation. Al Qaeda was well down the road to producing such weapons prior to 9/11. Due to the ease in creating a clandestine production capability, our intelligence community had no knowledge of two such facilities in Afghanistan prior to their capture by U.S. troops. Facilities with more sophisticated equipment than those found could be in operation today without our knowledge. “
http://www.preventwmd.gov/9_22_09_world_at_risk_the_wmd_prevention_and_preparedness/

My summary: Once Americans and our policy makers of every political strip understand the dynamics of this growing threat ...our defense and foreign policies will change radically in support more progressive means of prevention of every bio threat and national security concern. They will fully understanding that 'preemption' or aggressive or intrusive disarmament efforts will only exacerbate the problem/threat. War is now obsolete. And human security, through the global enforcement of human right (See UDHR) is our only means of real and sustainable security. Military minds and strategic thinkers are grasping this reality far faster than my liberal colleagues. What's that about?

Mass Exstinction in progress?

2009-09-17T00:37:00.002-02:00

Mass Extinction? We may be making it…but we won’t make it.

The last few days, mostly while watching people talk on cell phones while driving, I had the realization ‘we aren’t going to make it”. Our species is doomed. While there is a remote chance we could go on, and on and on …warring, polluting, bankrupting our morals and going deeper into debt… I’m not counting on our wisdom coming to the rescue. And the facts are not encouraging.
There have been at least 5 mass extinctions on earth (six if you count Noah's flood) over the last 500 million years. The worst was called the Permian-Triassic catastrophe about 250 million years ago. It wiped out 95 percent of all species on earth. There were two others before it --about 364 million and 439 million years ago respectively-- and two more after it -- about 200 million and then 65 million years ago.
Now, some experts believe we humans are now in the midst of the next mass extinction. And many believe that and our species disregard for the environment is the primary causal factor. It may be arguable that global warming is the cause, and that we are causing global warming, but there should be no argument that we are not just on the endangered species list. We are on the fast track to extinction. And, there are well over a dozen ways humanity can be wiped out. The good news -- humans are in control of about half of them. The bad news – humans don’t care…(and don’t care that they don’t care) about controlling them. The really bad news… the rest that we can’t control (asteroids, pulsars, pandemics) would be difficult to deal with…even if we were working together in global harmony…instead of using our technological prowess to plan the next war or mass murder.
If you think all this ’doomsday stuff” is hype..or believe Jesus will return to save us…consider the words of NASA’s Director in the Feb 23, 2006 issue of Rolling Stone. “In the long run a single-planet species will not survive”. In all fairness, it is in his professional self interest to promote advancement of space travel. But anyone with 30 minutes to read an astronomy book knows he’s dead on correct.
Even if Earth (and we humans) manage to escape all incoming galactic threats over the next 5 billion years we will still have to contend with the death of our sun. We may have gotten solar power perfected by then but there’s a good chance we’ll be out of oil by then. But I digress.
Fear not for the world during mass extinction. Earth will do just fine. Life will go on…without us. Evolution will ensure that millions of other species will evolve to fill the voids and the cars we leave behind. The strongest will not have survived. Because when Darwin said “survival of the fittest, he didn’t mean those with the biggest biceps or the baddest WMD. In the world of evolution “fitness’ means the ability to adapt. That’s something we humans suck at. We don’t change. We change things around us. We don’t adapt to a changing environment. We change the environment (or ignore it or pray that it will change back).
We are by far the most powerful species ever to exist. Our brains creation and powerful amplification of tools and technology could eventually enable us to move or recycle entire plants…But long before we reach that level of civilized behavior we will have used our nano technology to wipe each other out.
Our global environment (life support system) we depend on is extraordinarily complex and infinitely more complicated than we can imagine. We are just too collectively stupid and/or stubborn. Just for sake of argument, let’s forget the fact that our brain has the extremely flawed capacity to believe anything! And focus on our second greatest flaw…We don’t even do the things we know we should do (eat healthy, get exercise, don’t smoke, and wear a helmet, drive without texting….).

I have little hope for humanity. Things change. For the most part, we and our governments don’t.

Invest in human survival, not just winning war or moon shot

2009-08-23T03:19:00.003-02:00

Dear Ms Stine. (Congressional Research Center author of a comparative analysis of R&D investment in Manhattan Project, Apollo Program, and energy independence...)

Thank you for your hard work in researching the details in your report: The Manhattan Project, the Apollo Program, and Federal Energy Technology R&D Programs: A Comparative Analysis, June 30, 2009” report. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/128397.pdf

I found your research on cost effectiveness of R&D most helpful.

Four questions if you have the time.

1. Why didn’t your study include the cost to US tax payers in higher oil prices over the two time periods of R&D investments after each oil crisis? A useful number considering such R&D expenses would not actually be a cost…but rather a measurable investment in reducing costs from oil price increases which are inevitable.

2. In response to your paragraph on “Threat” that says “The threat to which investment in energy technology R&D responds, however, is largely economic rather than military. In addition, the threat posed by climate change, which is related to energy consumption, will likely be gradual and long-term. “ Couldn’t it also be reasoned that the war on terrorism and the our need for middle east oil resources that spark and help then fund terrorism – are the greater national security threat…given terrorists ability to acquire nuclear, chemical and biological WMD…which could do greater harm to our nation than conventional war?

3. A GAO report regarding the cost savings of the US investment in the Eradication of Smallpox used future cost savings as a measure of effectiveness….not just lives saved. The same will be true of weaning ourselves from increasingly costly oil dependence.

4. Last…Given that the report says “marketability of any technologies developed will be a key determinant” shouldn’t the marketing of ‘sustainable energy independence’ to protect our national security and human life on earth be put on a higher level of action than winning a war?

Yunus is freakin' brilliant.

2009-08-13T23:26:00.001-02:00

Must watch/ listen....

http://www.cspan.org/Watch/Media/2009/08/12/HP/A/22070/Nobel+Laureate+Muhammad+Yunus+on+Microcredit+Lending+Programs.aspx

Capitalism will never be viewed the same.

Founding Father's made some mistakes.

2009-07-04T11:33:00.001-02:00

Dear Editor,
It would be hard to demonstrate as much ignorance and confusion about our nation’s form of government, American liberal opinion and U.S. history as Ian de Sliva did in his “The Founding Fathers” the day before Independence Day. It’s odd that the Washington Times would allow someone with only a “side interest in history and politics” to appear on its esteemed opinion page so close to the most honored day of our nation’s existence.
First of all, our Founding Fathers didn’t give us “the world’s greatest democracy”. They created for us a federation where democracy (the tyranny of the majority) was conceptually prohibited majority abuse of minorities. Our federal “system” is not “universally attractive”. Many leaders in despot, dictatorial and religion dominated nations that our government has often supported (Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Haiti, Saudi Arabia, Israel…) violently resist any regime change that would insist on protection of basic inalienable human rights – something that is universally attractive. Unfortuantely, the majority of our own citizens and policy makers reject the application of our federal system universally. It’s a legal shame that our nation still hold “national sovereignty” as the supreme authority of the world, allowing any nation to abuse it’s own majority or minority population at any time and by any means. And we may even supply the means.
Second, liberals don’t “claim that all cultures are equal”. Most of us understand that all cultures are equally flawed. Our Founding Fathers legalized slavery. It wasn’t until the turn of the last century that half our citizens (women) were allowed to vote. Over half of all U.S. marriages, the bedrock institution of any culture, ends in divorce. And, loving minority couples of the same sex are still legally denied this fundamental human right of a legal union. Our ‘anything goes’ financial culture brought the world into recession that may yet impoverish a whole generation of Americans. And, within 50 years, if current trends and the US political cultures continue, China and India will both surpass our nation in wealth, scientists and engineers, and most U.S. elderly will have to fend for themselves. Our only salvation is accepting and generously inviting “multiculturalism” including “brown” and ignorant people like de Silva, into our great nation.
Contrary to de Sliva’s Historical claim, great democracy’s have flourished and perished in the past. Many with longer lives and greater accomplishments than ours. The Persians invented math and science – the foundation of our culture’s scientific accomplishments. Great democracies existed and flourished even before the Roman empire.
Mr. de Silva’s believes in the “superiority of Western civilization”. A famous “western leader” Adolph Hitler also had a similar thought. In that light…a western journalist once asked Mahatma Gandhi what he thought of “Western Civilization”. Gandhi responded “I think that would be a good idea”. I think it would be a good idea if the Washington Times limited its commentary page to comments with at least a basic grasp of the facts. The immigrant Ian de Silva still has a lot to learn about this great and powerful nation he has chose as his new home.

Code of Honor is universal and timeless.

2009-06-22T03:42:00.001-02:00

Frank Miniter’s analysis of ‘codes of honor’ over the ages is essentially accurate. From the Samurai and early Christian’s codes to the code of the Texas Rangers and the Marines “most of the rules [in these codes written over the ages] are the same.”
But Mr. Miniter’s “Call to Action for Men” (Father’s Day) had it backwards regarding his analysis of conservatives and liberals application of such codes. In today’s hyper globalized world it is conservatives who are “morally relative” and resist the universal enforcement of such codes. It is progressives who are more likely to have a “black and white set of concrete moralities” guiding their actions. Look no further than a lack of conservative support for the universal protection of basic human rights where protections are justified relative only to one’s nationality, religion, income level, skin color, or relative importance to the interests of the United States. That’s no code of honor.
Miniter is correct when he writes there are “fundamental absolute rights and wrongs” consistently “written by various cultures across several millenniums…often…established independently from each other.” And, I believe the latest of these universal code agreements was the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But it’s mostly conservatives who refuse to strengthen the United Nations ability to enforce those basic inalienable rights. The conservative’s code appears to hold national sovereignty supreme to such inalienable human rights. The rest of the world can go to hell. We just need to defend our Constitution. And, even our Bill of Rights is optional in war time.
Our nation’s founding Fathers wrote in our Declaration of Independence that human rights are universal and inalienable -- regardless of sex, age, religion, skin color or nationality.
Consider persistent conservative views and foreign policies regarding what is allowable treatment for suspected terrorists. Enhanced interrogation techniques, lifelong incarceration without trial, and death as collateral damage -- are all acceptable violations of human rights outside our borders. Equal justice isn’t needed if we are fighting Muslim extremists to protect our “freedoms” and our way of life. In their relatively moral world “innocent until proven guilty” and ‘law enforcement’ are reserved for U.S. citizens not suspected of Muslim extremist terrorism.
Such conservatives views are biased relative to their own nationality. Their belief in the exceptionalism of our nation and their worship a Constitution that was anything but moral regarding its original laws regarding slaves. They forget that it was actually the Amendments to the original Constitution that gave protection to human rights…and even those rights were limited to white males. Genocide of the American Indian was permissible because they were unChristian savages. Now bombing suspected Taliban leaders and ‘accidently’ killing innocent men women and children is ‘regrettable’ but allowed because we are an exceptional nation… and they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
In this liberal’s view, the killing of innocent men, women and children is murder. Full well knowing that war results in collateral damage should mean that starting a war – is a war crime. And those who initiate it should be held accountable in a court of law. Conservatives believe such murder is OK because our President and our troops mean well. That is not a code to live by. It is a code for world chaos. Creating a world federation with the capacity to enforce the universal declaration of human rights is the code of conduct all the world needs now. Even conservatives.

Failing to End Hunger is Liberal's fault.

2009-06-20T23:22:00.001-02:00

After nearly 30 years of working with tens of thousands of people and hundreds of organizations to end hunger, I must now admit publically, what we did, didn’t work that well. There was some progress. There used to be 42,000 children dying each day from easily preventable malnutrition and infectious diseases. Now there’s only 25,000 a day. Still about 7 times the daily death toll attributed to Nazi Germany’s death camps. But still not enough deaths. Enough to change the minds of those in power.
Who’s in power? Those who vote on appropriation and authorization bills, those who run organizations who try to influence those who vote, and finally, those who raise the children who often don’t have the income, literacy, health care, nutrition or legal status to raise health children the votes could help.
Humanitarian logic and compassion simply failed to achieve the achievable and affordable year 2000 goals set in at the 1990 at the World Summit for Children. And, now, the similar achievable and affordable Millennium Development Goals set in 2000 for 2015 are unlikely to be met.
Short of waiting for the second coming of Christ, I do believe there are two other means available for motivating those in power.
One is to make easily preventable human death and suffering against the law. Essentially, effectively protecting inalienable human rights. If the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were a globally enforceable document……massive child death and disability would be eliminated because those in power who allow it would be held accountable. And knowing they would be held accountable…they would do what is obviously urgently necessary to stop such deaths and human destruction.
But since so few hold world law dear enough to advocate for it… the more likely path to the end of hunger -- is for those in power (and those who influence those in power) to understand that there are serious threats to their own freedoms, security and prosperity if they fail to end persistent hunger and lethal poverty. If people were clear about the economic, security and liberty costs of failing to meet such basic and inalienable human needs, the paltry resources needed to provide them would be made immediately and those who oppose it would be made immediately embarrassed.
For less than 1/6 of what Americans spend gambling each year…world hunger could be eliminated, and half the world’s infectious diseases could be wiped out. The latter done with the simple provision of clean water and safe sanitation, costing about 1/100 of what our great nation spent ‘liberating’ Iraq.
Ending preventable childhood hunger, disease and disability really isn’t an issue of money. The amount needed is embarrassingly small compared to current ‘rescue’ packages. The proven solutions are cheap and available. All we lack is the political will to do the doable. And we lack it because progressives still believe their humanitarian instincts are adequate for mobilizing the political will.
There are now a billion hungry people in the world hoping something will change. They are not alone.

Net war in Iran = trend against national soveriegnty.

2009-06-19T03:25:00.004-02:00

See: http://journalsquared.blogspot.com/2009/06/irans-netwar.html

(thank you Jody Gatwood for inspiring this blog response!)

This "Iran Net wa" blog conforms with a key element of the new world we live in.

Exponential advances in the power, affordability, and ubiquity of dual-use technology (cyber, bio, chemical, nuclear, nano, and even conventional..) are making people more powerful than nations.

It used to be that only superpowers had such capacity. Now even Haitians have cell phones. Eventually, human rights everywhere will gain supremacy over national sovereignty (the right of any nation, to do whatever it wants, to whomever it wants, whenever it wants) anywhere.

In summary: We're mad as hell! And, we aren’t going to take it (lying down, repressed, ignored, abused, overwhelmed, outgunned, peacefully, impoverished, ill, illiterate...) any more!!!

In spite of aging...It's getting harder and harder to be cynical.

The current uprising in Iran suggests that Twitter and Facebook are vastly more effective than CNN at providing news updates. One blog poster says "one of the ways people have been trying to make it more difficult for the Iranian police to track down dissidents is by changing their twitter location and timezone to that of Tehran. Feel free to do that too." Now you too can frustrate the Iranian thought police. I never thought Twittering could be so subversive.

WHO Pandemic call wrong? but important.

2009-06-16T04:12:00.001-02:00

Dear Editor,

Henry Miller (A premature Pandemic call, Sunday, June 14) may be a smart man but he’s going to feel pretty stupid if H1N1 mutates this fall or winter into a far more lethal pandemic. Given the horrific death toll that could result from ignoring this possibility WHO’s decision to call it a ‘level 6’ was hardly “dubious”. Given, the almost non-existent global health infrastructure and our own competent yet insufficient domestic emergency medical capacity both we and the world will need as much time as possible to prepare. Any serious virologist knows will a killer pandemic will come and is in fact overdue. If H1N1 continues to be a dud…consider it excellent practice. The inevitable killer pandemic will come and ‘practice makes perfect’ and “be prepared” are not just cute phrases. When facing something as powerful as a natural mutating virus or even a human-made viral WMD that some whacko bioterrorist is inevitably working on, being too cautious is the same as being real dead.
Suggesting that WHO’s “policy role should be limited drastically’ is odd given that it already is. Each country is allowed to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and to whomever it wants regarding infectious out breaks within its own borders. That’s a receipt for absolute chaos and catastrophically lethal and expensive consequences. If Dr. Miller doesn’t mind paying this catastrophic price for protecting our nation’s sovereignty –I would classify him as “scientifically challenged”. Nowhere in nature does ‘national sovereignty’ exist. It only resides in our minds and written on paper documents. And pathogens can’t read words on paper or our minds.
If we, WHO and the rest of the world remain woefully unprepared in the midst of the next serious pandemic Dr. Miller will be remembered as the “witless Monty Python character.”
We need far more global health policy procedures and funding. Enforceable policies and dependable funding. Currently we have none. And Dr. Miller wants less? Is it any wonder why conservatives lost the last election?

CEDAW ratification vital to U.S. national security

2009-06-14T02:59:00.003-02:00

President Obama will likely sign the CEDAW treaty but we can't assume the Senate will ratify it. Our founding fathers designed our governing system so minorities can block progress. If the extremists in the U.S. Senate understand that our national security is best served by subordinating our national sovereignty to ensuring the human rights of women...we have a chance at improving our security.
Most murderous Islamic extremists come from nations where women's rights don't exist. Women's rights to an education, economic and political empowerment is the best means of reducing population growth and related environmental pressures of wasteful and destructive consumption patterns. Women's access to basic health services and health education to become community health workers, nurses and doctors is one of the best means of preventing and preparing for pandemics and other infectious threats. Empowering all the world's women to gain and hold bread winning jobs is an economic stimulus package that will rise all boats. And, finally, Winning the hearts and minds of women everywhere...and helping them save their children from early death, permanent disability or brain stunting malnutrition will give us the best intelligence we need to find males who are determined to mass murder those people in the civilized world -- who bring health, education, clean water, sanitation and nutrition to men, women and children that women love and care for on a daily basis.
Educating the radical men in the U.S. Senate to the needs of women world wide is the best shot we have of improving U.S. national security. 'National sovereignty' is a lethal concept in an irreversible hyper-interdependent world.

The Matrix, Terminator or ????

2009-05-31T02:29:00.002-02:00

The pace of technological change is unthinkable...as well as the future it will bring. I'd love to be optimistic about it...

http://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_kelly_on_the_next_5_000_days_of_the_web.html

But the current path of human history regarding war, poverty, disease, genocide, crime and religion...doesn't give much room for hope.

The newest "Terminator" movie actually provides a glimmer of hope...about the resilience of life over machines. But as Kevin Kelly points out...the web is one machine that hasn't yet failed. It's evolution continues. Ours is questionable.

Any predictions?

Connecting the Wrong Dots

2009-05-06T23:52:00.002-02:00

(Printed today in the Washington Times:)

Understanding the details of "The Ipsen-Iran connection" (Editorial, Sunday) is irrelevant to knowing "how serious the Obama administration is about bio-defense," as your editorial puts it.

The relevant news is that the biotechnology horseman has already left the barn. There is absolutely no means of controlling its spread and abuse without also limiting its potential for curing AIDS or cancer - even if a serious effort were made. Botulism sources are available almost anywhere in the world, and they are not even the most useful bioterrorist agent. Unless The Washington Times is proposing the creation, funding and empowerment of a global police force to pre-emptively root out every potential abuse of biotechnology, fretting about Ipsen is pointless.

For now, nature's pandemics are far more threatening than are bioterrorists. The human immune system needs adequate nutrition to supply the first line of defense against infections. A global network of basic health care providers - fully staffed, trained and equipped - could provide the world with the most cost-effective warning and response systems against natural, man-made and accidental biothreats. An early-warning capacity would be an excellent mechanism for preventing other threats like genocide, terrorism and piracy.

The Times can continue to pick on Ipsen, or it can educate Americans about the best policies to ensure our freedom and security. Making adequate global investments in improving the health standards for all is a good place to start. Forcibly stopping the abuse of biotechnology will be no more effective than gun control is in reducing crime.

CHUCK WOOLERY

Rockville

Biodefense and the bible.

2009-05-04T01:24:00.001-02:00

Dear Editor,

Mr. Brilliant does humanity a great service by reminding us of the biological threats we face and great cost savings we could achieve in lives and dollars if we chose to make wise investments in early detection and response.

I join others in looking forward to reading the report he mentions but it’s hard to imagine it will offer any new insights already provided with in a list of prestigious and non controversial reports that were issued by the CDC, the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine, the Department of Defense and the National Intelligence Council over the past 15 years.

One error Mr. Brilliant makes is his overemphasis on climate change and his under emphasis on poverty as key factors in the spread of infectious diseases. According to WHO almost half of all the world’s infectious disease deaths would be eliminated with the simple provision of clean water and sanitation to the one to two billion poor people now without.

His best suggestion of investing a global surveillance and response network of primary health care clinics would also provide the most cost effective means of disease prevention if adequate human nutrition were included in its mandate. Our immune systems are humanities first line of defense against infectious agents. Eradicating hunger would also be our wisest investment addressing the root causes of other problems he mentions like eating too much bush meat, having too many babies, cutting down too many trees or growing the ranks of too many extremists.

Meeting basic human needs may seem like an extreme solution…but the threats we face from infectious agents are far greater than any other earthly threat with, or without climate change. It’s something other books have also proposed. The Bible, The Quran and the Torah, just to name a few.

******************
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL MAY 2, 2009
The Age of Pandemics The threat of deadly new viruses is on the rise due to population growth, climate change and increased contact between humans and animals. What the world needs to do to prepare.

By LARRY BRILLIANT

In 1967, the country's surgeon general, William Stewart, famously said, "The time has come to close the book on infectious diseases. We have basically wiped out infection in the United States." This premature victory declaration, perhaps based on early public health victories over 19th-century infectious diseases, has entered the lore of epidemiologists who know that, if anything, the time has come to open the book to a new and dangerous chapter on 21st-century communicable diseases.

Indeed, to the epidemiological community, the Influenza Pandemic of 2009 is one of the most widely anticipated diseases in history.
Epidemiologists have been shouting from rooftops that a pandemic (or, a world-wide epidemic) of influenza is overdue, and that it is not a matter of "if" but "when." The current pathogen creating the threat is actually a mixture of viral genetic elements from all over the globe that have sorted, shifted, sorted, shifted, drifted and recombined to form this worrisome virus.

No one knows if the 2009 swine flu will behave like the 1918 Spanish flu that killed 50 million to 100 million world-wide, or like the 1957 Asian flu and 1968 Hong Kong flu that killed far fewer. This 2009 flu may weaken and lose its virulence, or strengthen and gain virulence -- we just do not know.

Here's the good news: Compared with a few years ago, the world is somewhat better prepared to deal with pandemic influenza. There have been training meetings, table-top exercises, dry runs and preparedness drills at virtually every level of government and civil society. World Health Organization member states have agreed on a set of regulations that require all members to report the status of diseases of global significance within their borders. We have two effective antiviral drugs, at least for the time being. There have been some breakthroughs to reduce the time required to get effective vaccines into the field, and there is even a small chance that last year's seasonal vaccine will help protect lives from H1N1. In the U.S. at least, influenza surveillance has improved.

Here's the bad news: Today, we remain underprepared for any pandemic or major outbreak, whether it comes from newly emerging infectious diseases, bioterror attack or laboratory accident. We do not have the best general disease surveillance systems or "surge" capacity in our hospitals and health-care facilities. We do not have enough beds, respirators or seasoned public-health staff (many of whom, because of the financial meltdown, ironically got pink slips from their state and county health departments days or even hours before WHO declared we are at a Phase 5 alert, one step short of its highest global level). We not only need to retain the public-health people we have, we quickly need to train a new generation of 21st-century workers who know both the old diseases and have mastered the computer and other digital technologies and genomic advances to keep them ahead of the newest emerging threats.

And there is worse news: The 2009 swine flu will not be the last and may not be the worst pandemic that we will face in the coming years. Indeed, we might be entering an Age of Pandemics.

In our lifetimes, or our children's lifetimes, we will face a broad array of dangerous emerging 21st-century diseases, man-made or natural, brand-new or old, newly resistant to our current vaccines and antiviral drugs. You can bet on it.

One of the top scientists in the world did bet on it. A few years ago, Lord Martin Rees, who holds three of the most distinguished titles in the scientific world (Astronomer Royal; Master of Trinity College, Cambridge; and head of the 350-year-old Royal Society, London) offered a $1,000 wager that bioterror or bioerror would unleash a catastrophic event claiming one million lives in the next two decades. Lord Rees
said: "There's real concern about whether our civilization can be safeguarded without us sacrificing too much in terms of privacy, diversity and individualism."

Risks from bioterror are unpredictable, of course, but I think it's fair to say that world-wide access to infectious agents and basic biological know-how has grown more rapidly than even the exponential growth of computing power. According to Moore's law, the number of transistors on a chip doubles in 18 to 24 months -- or, said another way, the "the bang for the buck" in computers doubles in less than two years.

The technologies supporting bioterror have exploded even faster than computing power. The cost of genomic sequencing, as one example of a supporting technology, has gone down from the nearly $1 billion it cost for the first full human DNA sequences to the low thousands for consumers in the coming years. Genetic engineering of viruses is much less complex and far less expensive than sequencing human DNA. Bioterror weapons are cheap and do not need huge labs or government support. They are the poor man's WMD.

Naturally occurring diseases with pandemic potential are much more ubiquitous and more certain to occur. Over the last decades, we have seen more than three dozen new infectious diseases appear, some of which could kill millions of people with one or two unlucky gene mutations or one or two unfavorable environmental changes. The risks of pandemics only increase as the human population grows, the world loses greenbelts, uninhabited land disappears and more humans hunt and eat wild animals.

Most pathogenic viruses that affect humans have originated in animals and jumped to humans; for that reason, we call them "zoonoses." They account for 60% of all infectious diseases, and 75% of all emerging infections.

Some of these diseases are well-known: bird flu, SARS, HIV/AIDS, West Nile, Monkey-pox and Ebola. Some are brand-new, like the arenavirus that was first found only a few months ago when it caused a handful of deaths in Africa and was genetically sequenced and identified by Ian Lipkin at Columbia University. He believes there may be as many as one million viruses that remain to be discovered.

Why are more new viruses with pandemic potential jumping from their traditional animal hosts to humans now? If I had to choose a single word answer it would be: "modernity." If I had two more words, I would add "human irresponsibility." And of course so much of this peril is made much worse by the Great Exacerbator -- climate change and global warming.

Increasingly, humans push every conceivable barrier, and we now occupy more land that was historically the province of animals then ever before. More humans come in contact with animals and their viruses because there is less rain forest, jungle and wild lands separating them. Partly driven by poverty and lack of access to other food sources, Africans last year consumed nearly 700 million wild animals, about two billion kilograms of "bush meat." Scientists like Nathan Wolfe of the Global Viral Forecasting Initiative are taking matching blood specimens from the bush-meat hunters and the animals they kill, in an attempt to predict which virus will jump next.

If sub-Saharan Africa is the hotspot for blood-borne diseases, the Mekong area bounded by China, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand and Cambodia is the hotspot for respiratory diseases like SARS or pandemic bird flu. In these countries, the issue is not poverty but relative prosperity that has led to increased raising of cattle and chickens, and increased meat consumption. In China, the numbers of chickens raised for food has increased 1,000-fold over the past few decades. In parts of Southeast Asia, humans and chickens -- and pigs -- live so close together, exchanging viruses, it looks almost like a science experiment.

As climate change causes sea levels to rise and aquifers to dip dangerously into salty water, agricultural lands yield fewer calories of food per acre. That leads farmers to cut down jungle, creating deforested areas which once served as barriers to the zoonotic viruses that each day have more opportunities to jump from bats and rodents and monkeys and civet cats to humans. As temperatures rise and seashores change, animals head inland and to higher ground, moving into heavily populated human areas. Soon there will be human climate refugees on the move into land once thought inhabitable. All of these changes increase the potential for humans and animals to exchange new viruses.

I chair the National Biosurveillance Advisory Subcommittee, created by a presidential directive in 2008, comprising some of the smartest and most dedicated public health professionals I have ever met. We've been working to understand our national capability to respond to these emerging threats. Our first report will be released shortly. I can't prerelease it, but its contents will come as no surprise. We are concerned that the nation and the world do not have adequate "early warning" or bio-surveillance capabilities. We are recommending that governments need far better early warning systems for potential pandemics and other epidemic threats. We are also emphasizing that public health be restored to a position of respect and be given resources commensurate with its duty to protect us all from these and other threats to our health.

In the 1970s I had the great good fortune that my first job out of medical school was to be the junior-most member of the WHO's smallpox-eradication program in India. I was, in Silicon Valley terms, the third or fourth "hire" for the team that would create history and eradicate smallpox from India and South Asia. I stayed in India for nearly a decade and went back at the end of the program to turn off the lights and document this amazing success story, the only disease in history to be eradicated.

Smallpox killed 500 million people in the 20th century alone. The global smallpox program cost $150 million total in 1965 dollars; each year, in addition to lives saved from ending this terrible disease, the U.S.
reaps economic benefits exceeding $2 billion from eliminating routine vaccination and the handful of very serious adverse consequences, including three or four vaccine-caused deaths, airport checkpoints (remember those little yellow cards?) and the loss of time away from work and school.

In analyzing the effect of loss of travel and trade in addition to the health-care costs of a possible bird-flu pandemic, Bank of Montreal chief economist Sherry Cooper estimated the global costs of a "mild"
pandemic to be 2% of global GDP, which in 2005 dollars was $1.1 trillion. There is a stark contrast between savings in lives and treasure from investing in public health and prevention, increasing training programs, funding the research that leads to better vaccines, more lab capacity, improved antivirals and early warning systems -- and the human and economic costs of not acting in time. The business community should be at the front of the line, advocating for prevention and public health, one of the history's best investments by any criteria.

There is hope for some good news on that front: Another disease may soon join be checked off the list of human scourges. Because of the dedicated staff of WHO and Unicef, and the generosity of Rotary International, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others, polio, with only 1,500 cases in the world last year, may soon follow smallpox into the dustbin of history. The Carter Center has also brought Guinea worm close to its demise as well.

That is either one, two or three diseases that could be ticked off the list of humanity's worst afflictions, with great savings in lives, health and wealth. Reducing the number of terrible forms of suffering is what we all want, but I fear that if we don't take seriously the factors that could make the next decade the Age of Pandemics, we will start moving backward, adding lethal diseases to that list -- instead of subtracting them.

Larry Brilliant, an epidemiologist, is chairman of the National Biosurveillance Advisory Subcommittee and chief philanthropy evangelist at Google. He will soon begin work as president of the Skoll Urgent Threats Fund.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page W1

A trillion? Small price for sustainable future.

2009-02-20T03:23:00.004-02:00

These hard times can be the best of times. Here is the most uplifting talk I've heard regarding the mess we are now in. I encourage you to listen to these words of wisdom coming from Lynn Twist (former Hunger Project staff) and currently leading a new group regarding the sustainability of our individual/societal means of living and human life on earth itself.

http://www.vimeo.com/2915430

Freakin brilliant. No math needed.

T. Boone Pickens and Buckminster Fuller

2009-01-25T22:44:00.001-02:00

Dear Editor,
It was good to read Jay Ambrose acknowledge the “400 percent increase in using wind energy during the Bush years”. That’s an annual average 50 percent increase for his Administration and could be one of the more positive and lasting legacies of Bush’s otherwise disappointing Presidency.
And, as Ambrose points out in “Wind beneath our wings?” (Jan 25, 2009) wind power won’t yield enough electricity to wean us entirely from oil, but no one I know, not even “T. Boone Pickens” suggest it could or should.
Ambrose unfortunately exaggerates the down sides of the large and wise investments proposed by the likes of Obama and Mr. Pickens in future wind farms. Building hundreds of windmills may cost about the same as a nuclear power plant but they will be far less of a burden to the environment, the scenery and our nation’s security than any nuclear facility. And, erecting them far from population centers isn’t really a problem. According to Michael Powers, spokesman for Global Energy Network Institute, southern California gets a hefty portion of its electricity from 1,000 miles away via a single high voltage direct current line connecting it to hydro power from Oregon. Enough to run 2-3 million homes. He assures us that “distance is not a barrier.” Our nation needs a new and comprehensive national electric energy grid that will ultimately serve domestically generated electricity to every square mile of our nation from a variety of alternative energy sources. Investing now in more wind only speeds us to that glorious day.
In the 1970s Buckminster Fuller proposed a global electric supply grid as a means of addressing many of our global problems. Any such grid would rid ourselves from the tyranny of oil dependence. If we had listened to Dr. Fuller back then and invested the trillions of dollars we gave to OPEC nations over the last 40 years into alternative energy sources our economy, our climate and our national security situations would be far better off today.
Ambrose says he believes that wind energy “may play an increasingly important role in our energy future”. It’s too bad he spent so much time hyping its minor drawbacks instead of documenting the astronomical costs to our future from our continuing dependence on burning foreign oil.

CJCS no help in US future security

2009-01-22T00:01:00.003-02:00

I love Obama but I hope he doesn't place much power in the hand of Admiral Mullen.

Admiral Mullen’s release of the U.S. national security strategy update in the form of his “CJCS Guidance for 2008-2009” fails America by promoting the three same “inter-related strategic priorities for our military” that got us into the current freedom, prosperity and security deficit.
Mullen says “First, we must increase stability and defend our vital interests in the broader Middle East”. As if supporting Iraq’s, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan’s status quo and defending our vital oil interests before 9-11 worked perfectly. “second” he says “we must reset, reconstitute, and revitalize our Armed Forces” as if having the most powerful, vital and constituted military prior to 9-11 was useful in stopping the mass murder of Americans. And “Third” he believes “we must deter conflict and be prepared to defeat foes globally by rebalancing our strategic risk”, as if deterrence worked well to prevent religious extremists from violently expressing themselves over the last few decades.
Mullen does later express the fact that military force is not sufficient to defeat terrorism but it appears his pre 9-11 thinking is more focused on the threat of China or Russia than the non state threats that actually put America’s future and our freedoms and prosperity at risk.

While he does mention the importance of increasing international cooperation US military force applications in most places have worked against such essential cooperation.
What our military needs is the moral force of protecting all human rights instead of focusing on our strategic interests.

UCAV's are terror weapons.

2009-01-15T14:48:00.000-02:00

While many Americans may still approve of the logic of Washington Times editorial views on targeted assassinations using CIA controlled “UCAVs”…which your paper even agrees are “true terror weapons” (“Judgment from the sky” editorial Jan. 15, 2009) it is a seriously flawed view that in the long run undermines our efforts to rid the world of terrorism.
Most serious policy makers have rightfully concluded that we cannot ‘kill’ our way to victory against terrorists. Terror is a ‘tactic’ used by the weak to overcome the conventional forces of their enemy. Our use of “real terror” demonstrates that we do not really believe that our most powerful ideal and force…the rule of law is too weak to defeat them. Worse yet, our waging ‘war’ against them only raises their status as legitimate forces on the global field of battle. In reality, they are illegitimate killers who use murder to terrorize their opponent. These killers are nothing more than murderers. Criminals of the worst sort. Criminals that blatantly disregard the sanctity of innocent life. By stooping to a level and accepts the loss of innocent life as ‘collateral damage’ we provide powerful ammunition to these murderers that they use recruiting more murders to their ranks.
Our war efforts could be reducing the number of terrorists but most intelligence analysis believe our war efforts are actually increasing their ranks. Either point is irrelevant given the fact that we will not eliminate all the terrorists before they acquire unprecedented destructive power from the exponential advances in technology, particularly biotechnology, and reek profound destruction on our lives, our nation, and our world view.
The Washington Times even agrees that “taking out senior leaders” vaporizes their “unique knowledge”, “surreptitious supporters” and other “irreplaceable…intangibles” necessary for their murderous acts to be effective. Unfortunately we also lose these valuable assets that could be used to role up entire terror networks while maintaining our own most valued asset, the legitimacy of the rule of law.
We may lose more of our brave soldiers in capturing such assets but they joined swearing to serve and defend the constitution. The same constitution that believed in laws instead of men as the only means to ensure freedom. Those who gave us the constitution were willing to sacrifice their lives. Our honorable military still exists for that reason.
We cannot out terrorize the terrorists and win. In the end God will pass judgment on us all. And we know what the Bible says about ‘those who live by the sword’. I don’t believe Christ wouldn’t approve of UCAV assassinations. We must summon the courage of our own convictions to defeat the murderers…not become like them.

Al Qaeda liked 2008

2009-01-07T13:18:00.001-02:00

Dear Editor,
Harlan Ullman correctly summarizes 2008 as a “watershed year for Al Qaeda” (Washington Times 1-7-09). His list of the events and conditions that made it so however was incomplete. If we want Al Qaeda to have a bad year in 2009 and beyond we must recognize at least four factors that profoundly contribute favorably to Al Qaeda’s future.
The most powerful and troubling is the exponential growth of powerful and affordability dual use technologies (cyber, bio, nuclear and eventually nano and robotics). Al Qaeda will increasingly adapt these to its intention of mass destruction and disruption. And as Ullman observes “society’s unlimited fragilities and vulnerabilities”…”can never be fully protected or made fully secure against a few…committed jihadist”. Limiting global access to these technologies will only limit our own economic growth that is essential to maintaining our freedom and the wealth needed for maintaining other means of our own security.
The second factor is our brains limited capacity for understanding the significant of ‘exponential’ growth. Albert Einstein called it the most powerful force in the universe. When we combine this with the third factor, the limit of our existing ‘independent’ government to deal with the irreversible interdependence of increasingly hyper globalized and lawless world – the future is painfully clear. Chaos will rule.
The solution lies in overcoming our mental limitations and grasp the significance of exponential growth of powerful technologies and then clearly understanding the increasingly vital need for enforceable global standards, effective global intelligence gathering and a capable global response system that improves the lives of all people -- including Muslims -- instead of improving Al Qaeda’s recruiting propaganda. Such an effective ‘global’ capacity would require that we overcome another key factor aiding Al Qaeda. Our fear of world government. Government should be feared. Over the last 100 years governments have been responsible for wars that have killed over 100 million people -- and dozens of genocides that killed over 160 million of their own citizens. The only thing more destructive is global lawlessness that allow other powerful forces to run free – like pandemics. In the last 100 years smallpox alone killed over 300 million people. That disease was globally eradicated because every world government participated. If just one had not, smallpox would still be around today. Weaponized smallpox or other equally destructive WMD will be created if conditions in any nation fosters the hatred created by global injustice today. Al Qaeda like smallpox favors world chaos. A federated world government is the only effective antidote.

The math of greed.

2009-01-03T00:36:00.001-02:00

The paragraphs below come from a writing by David Korten responding to the current global economic crisis. There is a silver lining to this crisis....the transformation of our context for living…
*******

Speth quotes psychologist David Myers, whose essay "What Is the Good Life?" claims that Americans have:
big houses and broken homes, high incomes and low morale, secured rights and diminished civility. We were excelling at making a living but too often failing at making a life. We celebrated our prosperity but yearned for purpose. We cherished our freedoms but longed for connection. In an age of plenty, we were feeling spiritual hunger. These facts of life lead us to a startling conclusion: Our becoming better off materially has not made us better off psychologically.
This is consistent with studies finding that beyond a basic threshold level of about $10,000 per capita per year, equity and community are far more important determinants of health and happiness than income or possessions. Indeed, as Speth documents, economic growth tends to be associated with increases in individualism, social fragmentation, inequality, depression, and even impaired physical health.
Speth gives significant attention to social movements grounded in an awakening spiri-tual consciousness that are creating communities of the future from the bottom up, practicing participatory democracy, and demanding changes in the rules of the game:
Many of our deepest thinkers and many of those most familiar with the scale of the challenges we face have concluded that the transitions required can be achieved only in the context of what I will call the rise of a new consciousness. For some, it is a spiritual awakening-a transformation of the human heart. For others it is a more intellectual process of coming to see the world anew and deeply embracing the emerging ethic of the environment and the old ethic of what it means to love thy neighbor as thyself.

***************
The article can be found at:
http://www.tikkun.org/archive/backissues/tik0811/politics/economic/base_view

Welcome to the new year…

Love,

cw

Kindess is the basis of Security.

2008-12-26T14:15:00.001-02:00

Dear Editor,
Michael Chertoff is right. ‘There has not been an attack on America soil since 9-11’. This is also meaningless for at least 3 reasons.
First, Al Qaeda doesn’t need to hit us here if we are destroying our own economy and constitution through an endless global war that also corrodes our cherished domestic freedoms. Bin Ladin’s primary goal wasn’t mass murdering Americans on American soil. His primary goals were to ‘break us economically’ and ‘divide us politically’. Bush’s policies have been doing this quite well.
Second, Al Qaeda doesn’t need to come here when they can kill us over there in greater numbers. More Americas have been killed and maimed by terrorists during the last 7 years of the Bush Presidency than from all the terrorist attacks on Americans proceeding and including 9-11.
Last, Americans are now directly and indirectly responsibility for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Muslims in Iraq and the displacement of millions more as a result of Bush’s post 9-11 policies. These losses have aided the recruitment of future terrorists that may yet succeed in mass casualty attacks here -- perhaps using biological weapons.
Chertoff claims that “at our ports, we have deployed radiation scanning equipment to check virtually 100 percent of incoming cargo for WMD”. He doesn’t say these scanners are incapable of detecting biological WMD that could be more devastating than a nuclear blast. Unlimited border patrol/control expenditures won’t be able to detect or stop such weapons without completely destroying our economy and shredding our constitution. Then there are domestic sources of WMD like the post 9-11 anthrax attacks by a US citizen ‘with’ security clearances.
And, the power to commit mass murder grows exponentially with both old and new technologies. And, the same technology growth curves give every government increasing capacity to invade the privacy of our lives.
Real security lays in common principle within each of the Abrahamic religions. Be kind to one another. U.S. militaristic foreign policy based on “US interests” has not always been kind to innocent people. Our best interest is to ensure the security of all people who share this troubled world with us. Our Savior once said, ‘Those who live by the sword will certainly die by it.’ In this light sufficient U.S. expenditures towards Helene Gayle’s advice (“Do the right thing: Strike at the roots of Poverty” 12-26-08) would do more to yield security than any military or DHS expenditures.

Bioterrorism prevention not possible with military means

2008-12-03T23:56:00.001-02:00

Dear Editor,
The Washington Times usually has outstanding coverage of national security and foreign policy issues facing Americans. That’s why its inadequate coverage of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism 3 days after the release of their report is so disturbing. The Washington Times gave this profoundly important report less than 7 narrow column inches in it’s “Washington in 5 minutes” page.
There is no other terrorist threat that deserves more attention than the threat of biological weapons and the measures needed to truly prevent such horrific means of mass murder.
There are at least 4 characteristics of biological weapons that make them such a game changer when protecting America’s security, freedoms and prosperity.
First, the technologies used to make biological weapons are exponentially increasing in power and global availability while falling in costs.
Second, most biological weapons form a new classification of weaponry. They replicate when used instead of being used up when fired.
Third, the size of biological weapons means they can be created and dispersed with minimal infrastructure and a nearly infinite array of undetectable delivery mechanisms. A bioweapon capable of targeting a specific ethic group with a similar genetic profile can be created in a basement bathroom sized lab and delivered by spray bottles.
Last, defending against such weaponry is virtually impossible without first developing every possible pathogen imaginable while also developing a massive manufacturing and distribution infrastructure that could not be easily be targeted or debilitated by increasingly available conventional weapons.
The new report from the congressionally mandated bi partisan Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism (created last spring as one of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission) concluded in the opening sentence of the executive summary: “Unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013.”
The six-month study headed by former Senators Bob Graham (D-FL), and Jim Talent (R-MO) correctly faulted the Bush administration for failing to devote the same degree of high-level attention and resources to the threat of bioterrorism as it has to nuclear threats, but, the panel’s 13 recommendations falter by suggesting it’s possible to adequately secure dangerous pathogens and tighten oversight of high-containment laboratories by strengthening international organizations. Even with unlimited access to every nation, every laboratory and every cave in the world international organizations will have difficulty in stopping a determined bioterrorist group. Such unlimited access wouldn’t be accepted by every nation and even if it were it still wouldn’t protect us against natural occurring biological pathogens of equal or greater capacity for mass death and suffering. Even a Nazi like intrusive presence of international weapons inspectors would be unable to stop a cleaver and committed group from creating the perfect biological weapon.
The panel’s recommendations for improved bioforensic capabilities and strengthening international organizations would be useful in responding to biological mass murder, but ‘preventing’ a bioterrorist event will require two other approaches not mentioned by the Commission.
First, we must stop making so many enemies in the world. This will require powerful international institutions capable of creating a climate of justice, shared security and protection of basic human rights listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Such an environment would give poor people as well as the rich a direct incentive and the capacity to reporting any suspicious actors or actions.
Second, new international institutions endowed with the capacity of enforcing globally agreed upon standards of control, intelligence gathering and incident reporting must be created. Without adequate funding and enforcement capacity, such institutions would be as anemic as the UN is today in stopping transnational threats.
In summary, we need to make more friends, less enemies, and globally enforceable world laws.

Bioterrorism within 5 years.

2008-12-02T02:34:00.000-02:00

A new report from the congressionally mandated bi partisan Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism (created last spring in keeping with one of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission) has just concluded in the opening sentence of the executive summary:
“Unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013.”
The final result of this six-month study headed by former Senators Bob Graham (D-FL), and Jim Talent (R-MO) correctly faults the Bush administration for failing to devote the same degree of high-level attention and resources to the threat of bioterrorism as it has to nuclear threats. But, the panel’s 13 recommendations falter themselves by suggesting it’s possible to secure dangerous pathogens and tighten oversight of high-containment laboratories by strengthening international organizations. International organizations will have to have unlimited access to every nation, every laboratory and every cave in the world to eliminate all bioterrorist threats. And this won’t protect us from natural occurring biological pathogens of mass destruction. And it’s questionable if even a Nazi like intrusive presence of weapons inspectors would be able to stop to cleaver and committed group from creating the perfect genocidal gene targeting biological weapon.
The panel’s recommendations for improved bioforensic capabilities and strengthening international organizations will be useful, but ‘preventing’ a bioterrorist event will require two other approaches not mentioned by the Commission.
First, not making so many enemies in the world. This will require powerful international institutions capable of creating a climate of shared security and protection of basic human rights. An environment where poor people as well as the rich have a direct incentive to reporting any suspicious actors or actions. Second, the creation of international institutions endowed with the capacity of enforcing globally agreed upon standards of control, intelligence gathering and incident reporting. In summary, we need to make more friends, less enemies, and enforceable world laws.

Preemptive Doctrine helps Osama not Obama

2008-11-18T12:58:00.000-02:00

Dear Editor,
George P. Shultz is a smart and honorable man but he’s simply wrong headed when he suggests that
“President Elect Obama should practice President Bush’s doctrine of preemptive defense against terrorism” (Washington Times front page story, 11-18-08).
Mr. Shultz seems to have forgotten that Osama Bin Ladin’s goal was not mass murdering Americans on American soil but to destroy our nation. His plan was to drain us economically (like he did the Soviet Union) and divide us politically. In this context Bush’s preemptive doctrine has done more to aid Al Qaeda’s mission than anything Osama has done from his safe haven on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.
Bush’s pre-emptive doctrine has three other devastating consequences beyond the immediate economic and political costs of waging distant wars. First, Americans are still dying and in greater numbers. More American citizens (mostly soldiers) have been killed by ‘terrorists’ since 9-11 than on 9-11 and at least three decades before 9-11 combined. Second, US military involvement in pre-emptive wars feeds Bin Ladin’s false claims that our nation is waging war against Islam. Collateral damage in the form of tens of thousands of dead innocent Muslims and the violent dislocation of millions more only fuels Osama’s jihadist recruiting campaigns. Third, the long term economic costs of taking care of our veterans needs and preparing our military for more ‘pre-emptive’ strikes and occupations will undoubtedly send our economy over the cliff if it’s not already falling.
Al Qaeda isn’t the only threat or even the most serious threat we face. Preventing or preparing for pandemics, climate change, transnational crimes and emerging WMD threats like biological weapons that won’t be stopped by pre-emptive doctrine…are all in need of limited federal resources that will continue to shrink following Bush’s doctrine.
Repeating Bush’s mistake would also confirm the justification of such doctrine being used by any other nations. This is a receipt for global chaos. We can only hope that President Elect Obama recognizes this folly and acts on his campaign wisdom that our security is less and less a function of military power and “increasingly” a function of “common security and common prosperity with other peoples and other countries”.

CSPAN radio programs regarding US war against Al Qaeda

2008-11-15T19:01:00.001-02:00

1. CIA Director Michael Hayden on Challenges For New U.S. Administration:
rtsp://video1.c-span.org/project/ter/ter111308_hayden.rm

Key point: What remains of Al Qaeda still thrives in “most lawless and remote areas” where “rule of law” does not exist. Every major anti US plot identified so far originated in the difficult to reach uncivilized mountainous area along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. They ally with locals like the Taliban and assist them with their local needs and political agenda.

2. Eric Margolis, Author, "American Raj"
rtsp://video1.c-span.org/project/ter/ter_wj111408_margolis.rm
Key points: US foreign policy continues to empower Al Qaeda by supporting non democratic regimes that do little to help the majority of Muslims …thus giving most Muslims little reason to support US policy or military occupations.

Soft power answer to Global War on Terrorism

2008-11-12T12:38:00.000-02:00

Dear Editor,
U.S. Central Command’s new focus on “soft power” (US Shows that Soft power can work…, 11-12-08) will do far more to gain our nation effective allies for winning the war on terrorism -- and bringing Americans real security against other threats like pandemics and climate change -- than any speaking power our new commander in chief brings to bare.
Given the irreversible global spread of exponentially powerful dual use technologies and their increasing ease and affordability of converting into weapons of mass destruction there will be no real security in our future -- not without the recruitment of many, many friends, in far-far away places who willingly assist us in finding and stopping any plots for mass murder or mayhem. The influence of “soft power” in earning us such helpful friends dwarfs the usefulness of any ‘respect’ we may earn using hard power. The vital intelligence we need to find terrorists and stop WMD proliferation will be found in the wisdom of soft power not the kinetic power of smart bombs. Soft power will also drain the swamps of new terrorist recruits.
If President Elect Obama and the new Congress want to use their legislative power to forward this new “top priority” they would quickly enact a new version of H. C. Res. 1078 calling for a new “Global Marshall Plan”. The new version should be an appropriations bill that provides a new source of funding for the ‘soft power’. One possible source of funding would be a new tax on global currency trading. Such speculative currency trading is a major source of global economic instability and could be discussed when world leaders meet this week to hammer out a more stable global economy.
Another simple yet profoundly important action for the new President and Congress would be renaming the Department of Defense to the Department of Peace. There is precedent for such a simple act. Before World War II the Department of Defense was called the Department of War. In today’s world of interconnectedness, interdependence and ubiquitous WMD -- ‘defense’ is no longer a possibility. Working for real peace is.
President Bush’s most positive legacy may be his “3D” approach to fighting terrorism “Defense, Diplomacy and Development”. Without a new approach to funding his legacy all we really have is just words. If President Elect Obama and the new Congress want to translate words into real power these will be the first actions they take upon stepping into office.

Bush Foreign Policy Legacy

2008-10-29T09:59:00.001-02:00

Dear Editor,
Helle Dale exposes her extreme partisanship (“Bush’s Foreign Policy” 10-29-08) or global ignorance in concluding that Bush’s “essential legacy, was to keep the United States safe from any further terrorist attacks after September 11, despite the terrorists’ determined efforts.”
Osama Bin Ladin’s primary goal was not the mass murder of Americans. His primary goals were to break us economically and to divide us politically. In this sense, President Bush has done more to aid Al Qaeda’s mission than anything Bin Ladin and his murderous cronies have done before, during or after 9-11.
For the record, more Americans have been killed post 9-11 than on that day and the decades before it. If Bush’s approach to terrorism is continued by the next President even the Patriot Act on steroids won’t prevent far more American deaths from murderous extremists in the future. Osama Bin Ladin or his replacements will eventually get biological weapons, or they will find more US troops occupying their lands trying to preempt them, and thousands if not millions more Americans will die.
If Senator Obama or McCain is elected President and we suffer another mass murdering attack by Al Qaeda (or any other extremist group) it will not be their fault -- any more than 9-11 was Bush’s fault. Al Qaeda and other extremist groups attacked the US because in their eyes, we had to pay for the lethal consequences of our nation’s interventions in their lives and countries over the past 40 years.
US support of Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran and his use of WMD against Iranians and Saddam’s own people (the Kurds) along with earlier US support of the Shaw in Iran, and other US efforts to support Islamic radicals during Soviet Union’s occupation of Afghanistan were essentially, US foreign policy interventions destined to backfire. And, Bush’s invasion and failed occupation of Iraq will be no different. Further attacks against Americans here or abroad will be in response to the tens of thousands of deaths of innocent Muslims and the dislocation of millions more as a direct result of US military exploits since 9-11.
The recent US military attacks inside Syria (a potential enemy state) and Pakistan (a critical ally state), as justified as they may be to protect the lives of US troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, will likely be seen as more US hypocrisy by fundamentalists, extremists and Muslim moderates alike. With more innocent Muslims dying as a result of such rogue US military strikes, even if we do our best to prevent collateral damage, we only feed the ranks of those who want to murder us on our own soil.
War is not the answer to terrorism. Bush’s greatest foreign policy legacy will be his recognition that development and diplomacy are best tools for defeating Al Qaeda’s ideology. His support from African citizens is testament to that legacy.
There is little chance that the people or the governments of Iraq, Pakistan, Iran or Afghanistan will be friendly to the United States if our presence in their lands and in their faces is primarily military. When America puts as much resources into saving and protecting the lives of innocent Muslims as we put into killing suspected terrorists in their neighborhoods, we may have a chance of truly preventing the next mass casualty attack against us.
The best way for the next US President to ensure future US security is to act on the fact that we are far safer in the long run by having many, many close friends in far way places than by having the most powerful military force in history stationed here and throughout the world in thousands of well fortified camps.

No math...just inspiration. Vote Obama

2008-10-27T19:53:00.001-02:00

http://mcyogi.com/voteforhope

US Banks more dangerous than foreign armys

2008-10-21T02:22:00.000-02:00

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our
liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a
moneyed aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance.
The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored
to the people to whom it properly belongs."
-- Thomas Jefferson
(1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President

"The system of banking [is] a blot left in all our Constitutions,
which, if not covered, will end in their destruction...
I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous
than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to
be paid by posterity... is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
-- Thomas Jefferson
(1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
Source: stated in 1811 when President Jefferson refused to renew the charter for the First Bank of the United States (the 2nd central bank chartered by Congress in 1791)

Maverick: Another name for cowboy.

2008-10-06T02:44:00.002-02:00

Somewhere between Andrew Bacevich’s “He told us to go Shopping” and the Washington Post news story “Standard Warfare May be Eclipsed by Nation-Building” (both in Sunday 10-5-08) lies the answer to this nation’s economic crisis, our defeat of terrorism and our future leadership in this increasingly troubled world.
If after or even before the attacks on 9-11 President Bush had asked Americans to buckle down economically and invest a small part of our relative wealth in boosting the wealth of all people in all nations via foreign aid -- instead of shopping domestically or visiting Disney world, we wouldn’t be in the world of hurt we are today.
Stability operations, nation building or ‘development’ -- whatever you want to call it -- is as vital to our economic prosperity as it is to draining the swamp of future terrorists. But, expecting the U.S. Army or the American tax payers to achieve this essential endeavor alone is futile.
After the suffering of the last great depression and the horrors of the last World War America led the world in creating a new international institution aimed at preventing war and suffering for future generations. But when we gave the UN the most aspirating objectives, we failed to give it the power or the resources to achieve them. And now we either blame the UN or ignore it when its ideals and an empowered reforms are needed most urgently.
Our next President will inherit a giant sucking sound of dollars and power leaving our still great nation. Investment in a new global marshall plan as outlined in H. Res 1078 could help prevent more costly crisis that are inevitable. Both candidates are calling for change but small change isn’t going to do it. And, H.Res 1078 proposes funding changes for nation building that won’t add to our deficit or detract from our military readiness.
On Sept. 18, 2001, when then-defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said "We have a choice, either to change the way we live, which is unacceptable, or to change the way that they live, and we chose the latter." He was dead wrong. Both presidential candidates know admit we need change. And one of them clearly articulates the change we need to make in how we relate to the rest of the world. And “maverick”? That’s just another name for cowboy.

US Army does Develpment. End of hunger closer.

2008-10-06T01:42:00.002-02:00

Normally I write in response to Washington Times opinions...but I believe the story below from the Washington Post is so significant it deserves our attention and contemplation. Should nation building be the role of the UN instead of the US Army? What are your thoughts?

Standard Warfare May Be Eclipsed By Nation-Building: By Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post Staff Writer, Washington Post, October 5, 2008. Pg. 16

The Army on Monday will unveil an unprecedented doctrine that declares nation-building missions will probably become more important than conventional warfare and defines "fragile states" that breed crime, terrorism and religious and ethnic strife as the greatest threat to U.S. national security.
The doctrine, which has generated intense debate in the U.S. military establishment and government, holds that in coming years, American troops are not likely to engage in major ground combat against hostile states as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan, but instead will frequently be called upon to operate in lawless areas to safeguard populations and rebuild countries.
Such "stability operations" will last longer and ultimately contribute more to the military's success than "traditional combat operations," according to the Army's new Stability Operations Field Manual, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post.
"This is the document that bridges from conflict to peace," said Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, commander of the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., where the manual was drafted over the past 10 months. The U.S. military "will never secure the peace until we can conduct stability operations in a collaborative manner" with civilian government and private entities at home and abroad, he said.
The stability operations doctrine is an engine that will drive Army resources, organization and training for years to come, Caldwell said, and Army officials already have detailed plans to execute it. The operations directive underpinning the manual "elevated stability operations to a status equal to that of the offense and defense," the manual reads, describing the move as a "fundamental change in emphasis" for the Army.
Yet the concept has drawn fire from all sides: Military critics say it will weaken heavy war-fighting skills -- using tanks and artillery -- that have already atrophied during years of counterinsurgency campaigns. For their part, civilian officials and nongovernmental groups with scarce resources say armed forces are filling the gap, but at the cost of encroaching upon their traditional overseas missions.
Military advocates argue that the Army has long been called upon for peacekeeping and rebuilding in unstable areas, but that it has conducted those operations an ad hoc fashion because of an excessive focus on combat. "Contrary to popular belief, the military history of the United States is characterized by stability operations, interrupted by distinct episodes of major combat," states the manual, saying that, out of hundreds of U.S. military operations since the American Revolution, only 11 were conventional wars.
From Panama in 1989 to Haiti to the 1991 Persian Gulf War to Iraq in 2003, Caldwell said he has seen the Army "confronted with having to conduct stability operations woefully unprepared."
In 1989, for example, Caldwell was the chief of a military planning team preparing for the 82nd Airborne Division's role in the invasion of Panama. "We never once talked about once we took down [Gen. Manuel] Noriega, what then," he said. "We only thought about the clenched fist, and someone else would get the trash picked up and get the water plants working." After Noriega's power structure fell, Caldwell's superiors ordered him to put police back on the streets. "We all panicked," Caldwell recalled.
Today, such fragile states, if neglected, will pose mounting risks for the United States, according to Lt. Col. Steve Leonard, the manual's lead author. Weak states "create vast ungoverned areas that are breeding grounds for the threats that we fear the most, criminal networks, international terrorists, ethnic strife, genocide," he said. "The argument against it is: Forget all that; you still have . . . near peer competitors who are on the verge of closing the superpower gap."
The new manual aims to orchestrate and plan for a range of military tasks to stabilize ungoverned nations: protecting the people; aiding reconstruction; providing aid and public services; building institutions and security forces; and, in severe cases, forming transitional U.S. military-led governments.
In doing so, the manual adds to a growing body of doctrine focused on the military's nontraditional skills, most notably the Army's 2006 counterinsurgency manual, overseen by Gen. David H. Petraeus, Caldwell's predecessor at the Fort Leavenworth command. "It's certainly going to shape how we will allocate resources and how we direct training," said Col. Mike Redmond, director of the Army's stability operations division, who is executing an action plan to implement the doctrine with 157 different initiatives, such as directing the Army's medical command to develop plans advising foreign health ministries.
But as the Army struggles to define its long-term future beyond Iraq and Afghanistan, some critics within the military warn that the new emphasis on nation-building is a dangerous distraction from what they believe should be the Army's focus: strengthening its core war-fighting skills to prepare for large-scale ground combat.
The critics challenge the assumption that major wars are unlikely in the future, pointing to the risk of high-intensity conflict that could require sizable Army deployments to North Korea, Iran, Pakistan or elsewhere. "All we need to do is look at Russia and Georgia a few months ago. That suggests the description . . . of future war is too narrow," said Col. Gian P. Gentile, an Iraq war veteran with a doctorate in history who is a leading thinker in the Army camp opposed to the new doctrine.
"I don't think the Army should transform itself into a light-infantry-based constabulary force," Gentile said. Instead, he said, "the organizing principle for the U.S. Army should be the Army's capability to fight on all levels of war."
Civilian officials and nongovernmental groups voice a different concern: that the military's push to expand its exercise of "soft power," while perhaps inevitable, given the dearth of civilian resources, marks a growing militarization of U.S. foreign policy.
"When the military is handed the task of stabilizing an area, that means doing everything. That's not really what we want to have happen," said Beth Ellen Cole, a senior program officer at the Center for Post-Conflict Peace and Stability Operations of the U.S. Institute of Peace who worked on the manual. However, she said, "we are in an unfortunate situation where the civilian side is not resourced or equipped to do these things."
Some nongovernmental organizations raised concerns about the potential blurring of roles when the military carries out relief operations, saying it could compromise their independence and impartiality in the eyes of local citizens, and make relief workers targets of attack.
The organizations also objected to early drafts of the manual that suggested the military had an obligation or right to intervene in fragile states. "They referred to humanitarian NGOs as partners of the military," said James Bishop, vice president of Humanitarian Policy at InterAction, a coalition of nongovernmental organizations. "We said we did not want to be described as such."
Nonetheless, civilian government officials and NGO representatives including Cole and Bishop credit the Army for inviting them to take part from the beginning in shaping the doctrine, and for incorporating their suggestions. "They left the pen up to us for key sections," said Matthew A. Cordova, deputy director for civil-military affairs at the State Department's reconstruction and stabilization office.
Michael Hess, assistant head of the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance at the U.S. Agency for International Development, said, "The military understands and we understand that if we don't work together, your chances of achieving success are diminished."
Still, bureaucratic unrest surrounded the writing of the Army stability manual, Leonard said, pointing to disputes over questions such as whether to the document should enshrine "democracy" as a goal of stability operations, a move that was ultimately rejected. "It was constant debate and argument," he said.

Philadelphia Inquirer
September 24, 2008
Worldview
Note To McCain, Obama: Gates Making A Lot Of Sense
By Trudy Rubin, Inquirer Opinion Columnist
As the presidential candidates bone up for their foreign-policy debate Friday, they should study the speeches of Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
Gates, the CIA director under Bush père, had happily moved on to the presidency of Texas A&M but was brought back to Washington to rescue defense policy from the mess Donald Rumsfeld made.
His levelheaded pragmatism has been a blessing after years of policy driven more by ideology than by realities on the ground.
Gates' sober outlook presents a sharp contrast to Sen. John McCain's emotional, shoot-from-the-hip approach to foreign policy. He strongly promotes the use of "soft power" tools abroad, as does Sen. Barack Obama. But Gates goes further in describing how to balance soft and hard power.
Particularly fascinating was a speech Gates gave last week in England at Blenheim Palace, the birthplace of Winston Churchill. Referring to Churchill's prescient warnings about Nazi Germany and rejection of appeasement, Gates noted that Munich is still constantly invoked to prove the need for preventive action. (That's certainly been the case with the Bush administration.)
But Munich, he said, can't be the only reference point "whenever crisis strikes or an adversary threatens." Gates recalled another history lesson, that of August 1914, the beginning of World War I, where "a combination of miscalculation, hubris, bellicosity, fear of looking weak, and a runaway nationalism led to a cataclysmic and unnecessary conflict."
His point: In today's world, with unprecedented challenges by terrorist networks and authoritarian states with oil, the next president can't afford to get trapped by either historical analogy. There has to be a balance "between too-eager embrace of the use of military force and an extreme aversion to it."
This may sound like (and is) common sense. But such common sense has been sorely missing in recent years. It's a quality that will be essential for the next president.
Two examples. First, Russia's recent behavior in Georgia. As Gates noted, although Russia seriously violated international norms, the Cold War has not returned. Russia's incursion will backfire in the long run; it scared the Europeans and even disturbed China, and sent foreign investors fleeing.
Therefore, Gates said, it's important "not to fall into a pattern of rhetoric or actions that create self-fulfilling prophecies." Sen. McCain's claim that "we are all Georgians" and call for expelling Russia from the G-8 fall, I believe, into that rhetorical category. So does loose talk about war with Moscow.
Not only Gates, but five former secretaries of state made a similar point on CNN last weekend. Republicans Henry Kissinger, James Baker and Colin Powell and Democrats Madeleine Albright and Warren Christopher agreed we had to think strategically on how to deal with a difficult Russia, not tactically or emotionally; we have major strategic interests in U.S.-Russian cooperation.
In other words, there are better ways for America and Europe to deal with Russia than direct confrontation - or a rush to admit Georgia to NATO. For starters, why not use Europe's new anger at Russian behavior in Georgia to galvanize a united European energy policy that makes Europe less dependent on energy pipelines through Russia?
Second example: Iran. Gates said it was essential to avoid a situation "where we have only two bleak choices: confrontation or capitulation, 1914 or 1938."
He described those bleak choices in refreshingly blunt language: on the one hand, a nuclear Iran that could blackmail other countries in the region (note: he did not claim Iran would threaten America with nuclear weapons); on the other, "a costly and potentially catastrophic military intervention - the last thing the Middle East needs."
Avoiding those extremes would probably involve aggressive diplomacy offering Iran a choice between international acceptance or harsher sanctions. The three Republican ex-secretaries of state told CNN they backed direct talks with Iran at high levels. That in no way signifies approval of the disgusting rhetoric of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Beyond Iran, Gates urges a dramatic increase in the projection of U.S. "soft power": more reconstruction aid, more foreign service officers, and a global information network that could counteract the extensive Internet operations of terrorist groups. He says nonmilitary means are as essential to our national security as are "the guns and steel of the military" in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
So when you listen to the debates, see which candidate sounds more Gates-like. This is not the moment for shrill rhetoric or calls for regime change. We need sanity and clear thinking - for a change.

Tactic or strategy? McCain blows it.

2008-09-29T04:33:00.001-02:00

One of the most significant mistakes Senator McCain made in his first debate with Senator Obama was insisting that the “surge” was a “strategy” and “not a tactic”. For someone who prides themselves in military knowledge and whose supposed strength is national security …this was a strategic political error.
While there may be endless debate both within and outside of the military about where a tactic ends and a strategy begins the United States Army Field Manual 3-0 makes the difference recognizably clear. According to Wikipedia the Field Manual offers the ffollowing definition of tactics: "Tactics – (Department Of Defense) 1. The employment of units in combat. 2. The ordered arrangement and maneuver of units in relation to each other and/or to the enemy in order to use their full potentialities. (Army) The employment of units in combat. It includes the ordered arrangement and maneuver of units in relation to each other, the terrain, and the enemy in order to translate potential combat power into victorious battles and engagements. (FM 3-0)."
So, technically a tactic is method --- such as a siege or a surge. A conceptual action used by a military unit to achieve a specific objective. In this case the objective was a decrease in violence -- to allow political progress and meaningful nation reconstruction.
US commanders in Iraq have made it clear that we could not “kill our way to victory”. They say that victory in Iraq will require soft power. A surge of troops alone cannot achieve a sustainable and favorable political end to violence. The surge was a risky but apparently successful tactic -- luckily timed with the ‘Sunni awakening” – that is helping to achieve that goal. And progress in Iraq will hopeful prove an example for other Muslim governments in the region to emulate or to fear.
Military tactics are at once both a science and an art…and, at heart, tactics are a shifting amalgam of psychology, physics, and statistics. Thus, Shock and Awe, Rapid Deployment, Pre-emptive strikes, Sieges and surges are all essentially tactics.
So, what’s going on in Iraq is at best a series of battles designed to achieve a less violent occupation of a foreign country. A country that was mistakenly invaded. An invasion that ultimately fed the ranks of global jihadists and empowered another nation that supposedly sponsors global terrorism. So, Iraq is essentially a battle ground not a war. Just one battle ground in a much larger tactical war against jihadist terrorism. What we are still lacking is a strategic response to terrorism that reserves military power for kinetic needs and uses the tactics of soft power (diplomacy, development and legal justice) to defeat Al Qaeda instead of war. In this greater sense ‘war’ is itself a tactic. A tactic to achieve a political end.
If one defines “strategy” as a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal like "winning” then any strategy to defeat Al Qaeda should not include the concept of war. Strategies should be used to make the problem easier to understand and solve. But viewing the “surge” as a strategy doesn’t make the war on terrorism easier to understand or solve. And if the ‘surge’ mentality of ‘victory’ is applied to Afghanistan, Pakistan and/or Iran…both our economic and national security problems will get progressively worse.
The father of modern strategic study, Carl von Clausewitz, defined military strategy as "the employment of battles to gain the end of war." Making more kinetic battle grounds against terrorism will on sustain this global war. Liddell Hart's definition put less emphasis on battles, defining strategy as "the art of distributing and applying military means to fulfill the ends of policy" Arguably, both war experts give the pre-eminence to political aims over military goals, thus ensuring civilian control of the military.
Wikipedia claims “Military strategy is a ‘national defense policy’ implemented by military organizations to pursue desired strategic goals. So even the invasion of Iraq was a initially a tactic. A pre-emptive strike to reduce the threat of a particular type of weapon (WMD) from being used against the United States. While there has been no WMD attack on the US since the invasion and occupation of Iraq that is not evidence that this invasive tactic has succeeded. Our invasion and fumbled occupation actually increased Iran’s regional power and it may well be working to develop nuclear WMD. There is also mounting evidence that the ‘Iraq war’ having inflamed Jihadists globally, may have even accelerated the likelihood of a WMD (biological or nuclear) being used against Americans on or above American soil.
Unfortunately the US never found any WMD that it could claim as a legitimate threat to the United States. Saddam certainly had some at some time…But he may have had enough advance warning to move or effectively hide any WMD stocks he certainly had. Most evidence however suggests Saddam’s WMDs were destroyed earlier and in some cases may have never even existed even when he believed they did. So after failing to find any real WMD the Bush Administration was forced to reframe its use o f military force from a “pre-emptive’ tactic to a more long term strategy for bringing freedom to the Iraqi’s in the form of a western style democracy. Some may even consider this a tactic within the greater context of changing political dynamics for the entire Muslim world. With, of course, the ultimate global strategy of eliminating the roots of Al Qaeda.
Fortunately, a grand strategy for the elimination of terrorism in general is now taken shape. It originated in the Bush Administration with it’s “3-D strategy “ “defense, diplomacy and development” for defeating terrorism. In reality, this ‘strategy’ has actually existed since the terror of war and genocide and particularly the terror of nuclear WMD emerged in the closing months of World War II. That world adopted a new strategy to replace war as a means of solving problems. It was believed the global rule of law that holds the protection of human rights superior to that of nation’s rights could yield a more peaceful world. Unfortunately, the victor nations of WW II were unwilling to give their global creation, the United Nations, any teeth to implement such a preventive strategy. They kept uncontrollable ‘national sovereignty ‘the supreme law of the world. A receipt for future chaos. The chaos threatening our very civilization today.

Surge as a Global strategy is delusional

2008-09-26T13:19:00.001-02:00

Mr. Bernard I. Finel makes some vital distinctions regarding “our victories…against easy targets” and the future difficulties we will encounter in defeating jihadist terrorists globally. In that light “Victory over Jihadists” (Washington Times, 9-25-08) should be read by anyone making decisions on future components of national security, U.S foreign policy and global counter-terrorism strategies.
As the report from the American Security Project suggests our nation did pick the “easy fruit” in its early victories against Al Qaeda in Iraq and Southeast Asia – And FInel is correct when he concludes it would be a “delusion” if we believe we have “discovered a strategic concept for victory in the concept of ‘the surge’ and a renewed focus on counter-insurgency warfare.”
Mr. Bernard also believes a victory over jihadists in other places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and East Africa (or other places where weak or failing governments fuel terror’s expansion) will take “a fundamentally different approach, including a larger role for the international community and non-military elements of state craft”. But this is where Mr. Finel misses a key element that will also be required to defeat jihadist terrorists. We also need a new and comprehensive approach to development assistance. We need new and sufficient funding as well as a solid commitment of technical and logistical resources to raise the health, education and employment opportunities of would be terrorists ranks wherever they may be. We are now paying former insurgents to police the streets of Iraq to prevent them from killing US soldiers occupying their country. The same tactic will be just as important in every sector (health, education, judicial…) globally.
As other terrorist experts have said, Al Qaeda harbors within itself the seeds of its own destruction. We can fertilize those seeds by following Finel’s initial suggestion along with the launch of a new global Marshall Plan as outlined in House Resolution 1078.
We helped stopped the spread of communism in Europe after World War II with a bold aid initiative. Europe is now beyond war as a strategic tool for solving its problems. Applying a similar strategy to the world in this era of global interdependence will also address a variety of other threats we face including pandemics which may be far more dangerous than a dying breed of jihadists.

True patriotism

2008-09-23T03:15:00.000-02:00

Dear Editor,
Sam Holliday’s “meaning of patriotism” matches that of every other nationalist movement that “served for more than 300 years” giving us Nazi Germany, Communist China, and Ahmadinejad’s Iran. Patriotism in each case was used to promote the narrow national interests of a nation over the well being of humanity and our vital global life support system that we often quaintly refer to as ‘the environment’.
War, greed, religion, poverty, genocide and disease continue to threaten the survival of people and nations alike. If we fail to end the insanity of this ‘country-centric’ view of the world we will get more of the same.
There is nothing wrong with loving one’s country. But, just as one may love a child or parent, that doesn’t mean they are perfect or innocent beyond reproach. Our country has serious problems…and many of them are related to pressures beyond our borders.
I’m far more in love with the ideals that created this great country and it’s form of government than the actions that this nation has delivered by politicians elected by corporate campaign contributions and the selfishness and ignorance of far to many American voters.
The true meaning of patriotism should be reserved for our founding fathers as they wrote the “Declaration of Independence”. It was they who recognized the inalienable rights of all the world’s people to be free of government tyranny anywhere.
They put their lives on the line to establish that ideal on paper and eventually on land when they later wrote a Constitution with a Bill of Rights to firmly establish this experiment on this continent.
They made some lethal mistakes…like legislating that a black person was less than a full human being and failing to recognized females as legitimate voters. But they gave us a form of government were such mistakes could be corrected – with or without armed conflict.
Mr. Holliday’s devolved view of patriotism will eventually lead to the loss of our freedoms, our security and our prosperity. In this interdependent world we will only maintain these American standards of life if we respect the freedom, security and inalienable rights of others we share this planet with.
Patriotism is more than a unremitting allegiance to a piece of land. It is, or at least should be, about an allegiance to the highest of ideals. And for me and a growing number of real Americans there is nothing more sacred than the ideals our founding fathers lived by when they created this great experiment.
For a more detailed view of what a true patriot is see www.truepat.org

Osama for Palin!

2008-09-15T02:29:00.002-02:00

McCain’s VP pick clearly demonstrates that he would rather win an election than win a war. Osama Bin Ladin must be thrilled. By selecting a right wing Christian, gun gloating, oil loving, foreign policy ignoramus McCain has single handedly ‘reignited our nation’s culture war’. Dividing Americans politically was one of Bin Ladin’s pre-9-11 strategies for defeating us and Palin as VP will boost Osama’s terrorist recruiting powers by putting another ‘crusade’ only a lipstick shade away from being commander in chief. McCain's pick will also nourish our addiction to oil -- the primary source of terror financing. Osama must be smiling.

Global Freedom Coalition doomed to fail

2008-09-13T00:03:00.002-02:00

Kim Holmes (Big Idea,Washington Times 9-11-08) nails it when he insists “it is time to think boldly about America’s future” and that “our alliances and international institutions are stuck in the past”. But when he says we need “think about creating ones more fitting to the 21st century” his own thinking remains stuck in a blood drenched past. He still uses a 20th century mindset that holds nation state confederations superior to the protection of inalienable universal human rights.
Even our 18th century founding fathers knew that the confederation of our 13 colonies was inherently flawed. Our confederation of states struggled for almost 100 years with border disputes, currency difficulties and unequal political freedoms. Mr. Holmes proposal for a “Global Freedom Coalition” is just more of the same. The same limited 20th century ‘ideal’ of ‘independent’ nation states that gave us the abysmally weak and ineffective United Nations.
In a world irreversibly interdependent on every aspect of life any confederated alliance or “Global freedom Coalition” as Holmes desires is doomed to catastrophic failures. If just one nation anywhere on earth fails to control an outbreak of the bird flu or some other inevitable outbreak, or the release of weaponized smallpox or a computer virus capable of bringing down the world wide web, or contaminates catastrophically any aspect of our global life support system (oceans, climate, breathable air or croplands) -- no “voluntary” “loose association” will matter a bit. The “common good” of we the world’s people will not be protected. Even a single “border dispute” anywhere in the world could result in the use of nuclear or biological weapons with any ‘freedom coalition” member possessing the freedom to leave it at any time. What’s the value of that?
Mr. Holmes is correct about the failings of the United Nations inability to deal effectively with “the tragedy of Darfur” or “hard problems like Iraq, Iran and North Korea. But the UN was never given the financial capacity, police power, or legislative or judicial means to do much more than talk.
Tragically it has been the Heritage Foundation and other such ‘think tanks’ that lobbied against any UN empowerment. They have clung to the failed 20th century concept that continues to give supreme power to nation states putting ‘national sovereignty’ above globally protecting the already universally approved list of inalienable human rights. This December 10th marks the 60th anniversary of this list - the “ Universal Declaration of Human Rights” -- yet this document still remains just a ‘good idea’ instead of an globally enforceable document like our own Bill of Rights.
Mr. Holmes is correct that “the need for a new global security arrangement …couldn’t be more obvious or timely” and the “desperate” need for a new “international mechanism to coordinate policy”. But the “power of unity” cannot be maximized in a world divided by shifting voluntary interests of loose and voluntary coalitions.
The more workable “Big idea” would be to put world law and the protection of human rights and basic human freedoms above that of world war and the protection of nation state’s freedoms.

McCain budget weak on national security

2008-08-23T03:05:00.002-02:00

Dear Editor,

“Budgetopia” (Washington Times “Nation” A19, 8-22-08) showing the spending and savings of both Presidential candidates Obama and McCain -- if they are elected -- tells a lot about their commitment to national security.

Senator McCain, who admittedly knows little about economics, appears to put budget cuts ahead of national security. Senator Obama who supposedly has less experience in national security actually devotes twice the funding as McCain to increased military funding and three times the funding for “green technology” that will help us break our addition to terrorists oil. But more importantly Obama wants to “double” our “foreign aid” budget. Even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is clear about the value of dramatically increasing our nations ‘soft power’ as an equally important tool in defeating terrorists. Earlier this year he acknowledged the “need for a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security--diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development”. If Al Qaeda is truly the murderous threat that McCain and other national security ‘experts’ claim then Obama’s budget is better suited to addressing this threat than McCain.

But even more importantly, increasing our foreign aid for health, education, water, sanitation, nutrition and microcredit efforts is also the most effective means of reducing a far greater threat to Americans and our way of life than Al Qaeda – nature’s inevitable pandemics. A future bird flu which could easily kill more Americans than the blast of a terrorists nuclear weapon.

Improving the lives of the poor and inventing greener technology that could help wean them from their need for terrorist’s oil will also assist in reducing our contributions to climate change.

The links between US foreign aid and improving our nation’s security is clearly detailed in a bipartisan bill H. RES. 1268, but it is H. Res 1078 calling for a new Global Marshall Plan that calls for an adequate budget for a comprehensive approach to national security. And H Res 1078’s funding increase would come from new sources of funding like a ‘Tobin tax’ producing no increase in our already overstretched federal budget.

The primary objection most conservatives have to such a ‘global tax’ is their unexamined fear of losing our sovereignty. But as Gen. Victor Renuart, Commander of the U.S. Northern Command, recently stated regarding a wide array of threats all American’s face… “we must sacrifice some of our sovereignty” if we want to “increase our national security”. General Renuart was commander during Operation Iraqi Freedom and knows more than most about the threats we face from both traditional and non-traditional threats.

Obama clearly understands that or national security is most improved by improving the lives of everyone on this interdependent plant and by making friends in faraway places to effectively prevent common threats. And, it looks like McCain is more interested in winning the votes of fiscal conservatives.

Sovereignty is a myth

2008-08-15T01:26:00.000-02:00

If David Rivkin, Jr. and Lee A. Casey believe the title of their opinion piece “Border Security equals Sovereignty” (8-14-08) they need a refresher course in reality. ‘Border security’ is a mythical ideal impossible to achieve in an increasingly and irreversibly interdependent world.
Federal officials might stop a few papers or laptop computers from crossing our border each month but the daily volume of dangerous information accessible on the world wide web, via emails or stuffed into any bushel of marihuana smuggled across our borders each day dwarfs any lucky federal finds. And, there appears to be no shortage of federal inspection officers capable of error or open to bribes. Have Rivkin and Casy bothered to calculate what would it cost our government to inspect all the laptops of the 400 million travelers who enter the US each year? And, what about the latest data storage devises like IPods that can store more information than 2 year old laptops but be smuggled inside a wallet.
Sovereignty is a political concept that current reality simply doesn’t recognize. A Nazi like regime can’t stop a pandemic from ravaging their nation and American seem incapable of kicking a dangerous addiction to foreign oil. An oil tanker filled with a fuel oil and fertilizer bomb could deliver a near nuclear sized detonation to any US port. And a biological weapon capable of killing more Americans than a limited nuclear exchange can be smuggle in the blood stream of any individual.
How do Rivkin and Casey propose ‘sovereignty’ will stop the effects of climate change or defend us against cyber attacks by those who know sovereignty is an outdated notion?
“The inspection” that “revealed approximately $79,000 in unlawful US currency” is a joke when one considers the hundreds of billions of unregulated currency that crosses our border each day by electronic currency trading and illegal electronic offshore deposits.

Only the dumbest of terrorist would try to carry something across our border that an inspector could find. What to Rivkin and Casey have to offer for the more creative terrorists? A wiji board? Lawyers like Rivkin and Casey may be good at understanding laws but they carry no credibility in dealing with the real world we all now live in.

No such thing as "Domestic" AIDS problem

2008-08-12T13:22:00.000-02:00

Dear Editor,

Dr. Blumenthal and Melissa Shive make a good case for renewed focus on addressing the global HIV/AIDS pandemic more here at home. It was shocking to read in their column that DC infection rates are greater than many impoverished Third World countries.

Their plea for more funding however would be more persuasive if they included a few over vital bits of information.

First, the failed to make clear that the AIDS RNA based virus has an extraordinarily high mutation rate of about 1%. That means that in every person infected with HIV there is a potential for about 2 million variations of this lethal virus produced each day. Most variations are insignificant but some lead to new strains of the virus that are resistant to our best treatments. This makes speed and scope of US and global treatment and prevention efforts are vital to putting AIDS in “the history books” and preventing the evolution of the virus that could become airborne or water borne. Viruses are efficient at trading gene segments with other viruses and sometimes they are incorporated into bacteria. With nearly a third of all HIV/AIDS deaths the result of TB infections and already a lacking global health infrastructure to deal with it and other deadly or disabling infectious agents it is incomparably urgent to address global health needs from a more comprehensive perspective.

Recent genetic analysis of the origins of the AIDS virus determined that it first entered the United States in the early 1970s via a Haitian air lines steward. I just returned from Haiti this week where increasing poverty as a result of food and oil price increases are putting more Haitians at risk of infections. As many as 1000 people a day fly out of Port-au-Prince for Miami or New York. We will fail to address the AIDS threat if we make a distinction between foreign and domestic infections, AIDS or TB, poverty or ignorance.

Only a comprehensive focus on global health infrastructure, basic education, adequate nutrition, clean water and sanitation, political and environmental stability, and adequate sustainable economic growth will protect us from what former Secretary of State and Joint Military Chief of Staff, Colin Powell once said was a greater threat to our national security than Al Qaeda.

There is no shortage of money if political leaders were willing to put human security needs above their misplaced patronage of ‘national sovereignty’. A micro tax on global currency speculation could yield the resources needed for such a comprehensive global/domestic approach while also contributing to increasing global economic stability. That was the original idea of the “Tobin tax” that helped Economics Professor James Tobin win the Nobel prize in Economics nearly 30 years ago.

Pathogens change. Let’s hope our politicians can.

McCain's 'exceptionalist' campaign strategy will fail

2008-07-25T13:02:00.001-02:00

Obama supporters must be praying that Senator McCain takes Brett Joshpe’s campaign advice (America’s identity 7-25-08) in running for President. Mr. Josphe’s and his inspiration, Natan Sharansky’s ‘exceptionalist’ “identity” have done more to harm America’s future in the world, than any multicultural supporters. The only thing more damaging to our freedom and security in today’s hyper interdependent world is American’s unexamined identity of ‘independence’.

The US Constitution is an exceptional document forwarding basic principles like protection of inalienable rights and a sensible balancing of power that should be applicable to all the world’s people and nations respectively. Unfortunately that idealism hasn’t been applied in U.S. foreign policy and still isn’t practiced by the Bush Administration that often talks about freedom and democracy but continues to support domestic policies and foreign governments that undermine these universal ideals.

It is this profound hypocrisy that had Bush’s father in the late 1980s providing Iraq with WMD which our ‘ally’ Saddam Hussein used in warring against Iran and mass murdering Kurds. Even post 9-11 President Bush supported undemocratic governments in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and China in hopes of gaining some short term US advantage like lowering oil prices, killing suspected terrorists or buying cheap manufactured goods.

The International Olympic Committee slogan “One World, One Dream” is closer to American idealism of “liberty and Justice for all”, than Joshpe/Sharansky exceptionalist ideology of ‘might makes right’ or ‘my country, right or wrong’.

Obama ‘multicultural’ types don’t “regard all nations and governments as equally righteous”. Most of us do believe however that all the world’s people are deserving of equal protection for a basic set of universal rights. To the degree that past or current US foreign policy ignores this fact is the degree to which people like McCain will justify attacking Iran yet refuse the use of US military force in stopping genocide in Darfur. We will apparently go out of our way, and risk Armageddon to protect ourselves and our exceptional ally Israel from an unlikely genocide -- yet won’t lift a single rifle to stop the ongoing genocide of poor black people with no oil under their feet.

Joshpe should realize that “E Pluribus Unum” means 'Out of many, One.' Not ‘one (or two) over many’. I’m guessing Obama sides with our founding fathers ideal that “we're all in this thing together' and any identity different than that is both un-American and un wise.

‘Yes we can’ do more to put into global practice what our founding fathers preached. Not because the United States or American’s are exceptional, but because the universal ancient ideals that were used to create this great nation are. McCain is a good man, but if he can’t make this simple yet profound distinction he doesn’t deserve any American vote.

AIDS isn't exceptional.

2008-07-24T02:22:00.002-02:00

Dear Editor,

The concerns regarding ‘exceptional response to AIDS” are valid -- even if their negative specifics aren’t. Increased funding and attention to counter the global HIV/AIDS threat has contributed overall to other health opportunities. But progressive advocates for other global health needs continue to waste time and efforts competing for a limited supply of insufficient Government crumbs. Three factors must be fully recognized and responded to before this persistent problem evolves into a catastrophic global health event.

First, a new source of funding adequate to the challenge must be found and seriously advocated for. A Tobin tax, a carbon tax, a global health security tax...something that will provide sufficient resources for a truly universal global health infrastructure. One that includes clean water, sanitation, nutrition and basic education along with a global network of primary health facilities adequately furnished and supplied and with adequately trained staff.

Second, basic health needs must be pushed within the context of national security -- instead of just meeting humanitarian needs. Pulling heart strings alone will never open sufficient purse strings that are now urgently needed. It took 4 dollar a gallon gasoline to get Congress serious about weaning our nation from oil. We can’t wait for the equivalent infectious disease ‘wakeup call’ for serious congressional and presidential leadership.

Last, only by pulling together in support of a truly comprehensive approach to meeting global human health needs (such as H. Res 1078 calling for a new Global Marshall Plan) will we achieve our progressive vision of health and a truly civilized and secure world.

As Nobel Laureate Dr. Joshua Lederberg once said “Pathogens change. Why can’t we”.

Deterrence is dead

2008-07-04T00:01:00.002-02:00

Dear Editor,

Peter Huessy’s “deterrence” thinking (Playing Games with US Security, July 3, 2008) is based on lethally dangerous pre-9-11 logic that relies primarily on ‘feel good’ cold war policies that have no real relevance in protecting Americans from the current world catastrophic threats that we now face from both nuclear and non-nuclear sources.

How quickly Huessy forgets that our nation’s unprecedented and unmatched nuclear weapons and conventional weapons capacity was useless against a handful of determined mass murderers -- who only had a simple plan, minimal resources and access to everyday technology. Imagine what others can do with other even more powerful technologies that our civilization depends on and makes more affordable, available and powerful each daily.

Huessy’s fixation with the rogue state nuclear threat or reviving America’s fears of a Russian or Chinese nuclear attack ignores the destructive powers that these nations and even invisible rogue groups can now obtain using biological, chemical, cyber and even conventional technologies. An oil tanker filled with a ‘Oklahoma City Federal Building bomb mixture of fuel oil and fertilizer could yield a near nuclear size detonation capable of leveling the city of Baltimore -- or any other vital US port city. The direct damage alone is unimaginable, but the indirect damage to trade, our economy and our precious freedoms would be even greater. And, within a decade nano technology will likely yield even more catastrophic destructive power with minimal cost and like other means of destruction -- no return address.

Huessy also seems to forget that some murderous groups even seek death as their ultimate reward. This simple factor makes Huessy’s unyielding dependence on deterrence laughable. Given the additional fact that most forms of mass destruction (or disruption) are difficult to trace with absolute certainty means the tactic of deterrence should go the way of the Calvary charge. In summary, deterrence is dead.

Huessy is correct on one point. Going to ‘zero nuclear weapons” would be a mistake. They may actually prove useful in taking out a Earth killing asteroid or meteor. But as far as making us safe. Investing in measures to defend Americans against bird flu, weaponized smallpox, oil embargos and climate change…or making more friends in the world who can assist us in reducing these threats or more effectively responding to their catastrophic outcomes would be a fare wiser use of existing and potentially shrinking federal resources.

Duncan Hunter supports Bin Ladin's goals

2008-06-14T01:49:00.001-02:00

Congressman Duncan Hunter’s concern about “open borders” implies we can effectively close them. Does he need to be reminded that just one person can carry a doomsday biological weapon across our border in their blood stream? Or, send it across our border by contaminating imported foods.

Attempting to protect ourselves by stopping threats at our ‘border’ might be conceptually popular and agreeable but in real life application we would be contributing measurably to Osama Bin Ladin’s top two priorities – breaking us economically and dividing us politically.

Some will undoubtedly argue correctly that we don’t have the technical capacity to seal the border. But more important, the economic cost of trying to ‘closing’ our borders (or even slowing down the flow of goods, information, finances, wildlife, and people) would be catastrophic to US prosperity. A few companies and private contractors would get wealthy but the taxes needed to fund such the construction of such a security wall would further bankrupt our nation and divide us politically even more than we are now.

And then we need to consider the damage to our “freedom” agenda and image. By putting restrictions on the most fundamental of all human freedoms – the freedom of movement – what message are we sending the rest of the world? What happens when other nations follow our lead and follow our fears?

It would be far cheaper and easier to make as many friends as we can in this troubled world to get maximum global cooperation in finding and stopping dangerous people -- and other threats to our security like pandemics, poverty or environmental evils.

Duncan Hunter’s fort mentality should have died with Custer’s last stand.

Washington Times
June 12, 2008
Pg. 17

National Security = Border Security

Terrorists work to infiltrate southern U.S. border

By Duncan Hunter

The open borders of the United States amount to a national security exposure. This is a fact that cannot be debated.

One has only to look at the number of foreign nationals attempting to illegally enter the U.S. through Mexico over the last several years.

Since 2005, the Department of Homeland Security reports that more than 331,000 people from countries other than Mexico have been apprehended trying to cross the Southern land border. These individuals came from virtually every country in the world, including some with whom we have an adversarial relationship, such as Communist China, Iran and North Korea.

These apprehensions as well as the approximate 3.1 million border arrests over the same period are the result of a U.S.-Mexico border that has been left wide open and largely unprotected against illegal entry. This vulnerability continues to be exploited by migrants and smugglers everyday and, until our borders are secure, we must anticipate that terrorists may eventually try entering the U.S. the same way.

In 2005, when testifying before Congress, then-Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security James Loy confirmed the seriousness of this threat. According to Mr. Loy, "Al Qaeda leaders believe operatives can pay their way into the country through Mexico and also believe illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons." He also added that intelligence "strongly suggests" terrorists have considered entering the United States through Mexico.

That same year, while visiting Mexico City, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, "We are quite aware that terrorists will try very hard" to use the border with Mexico to enter the United States. Miss Rice also acknowledged the fact that terrorists will continue trying to infiltrate the United States this way, and thus "we need to make certain that we keep working on this issue." I could not agree more. The threat created by our open borders, as well as many of the other problems that are attributable to illegal immigration, will only intensify until this exposure is closed.

While we have made some progress in recent years toward creating a more enforceable border, we still have a lot of work left to do. Moving forward, we must continue strengthening security through manpower, technology and infrastructure, including the most reliable and effective enforcement tool so far: border security fencing.

Much like many other areas of the border today, the land corridor that once existed between Tijuana, Mexico, and San Diego, Calif., was for many years considered to be the most prolific and dangerous smuggling route in the nation. It was not until I wrote into law the construction of a double border fence that the drug smugglers and armed gangs lost control of this corridor and conditions on both sides of the border started to improve.

Since construction of the San Diego border fence started in 1996, the smuggling of people and narcotics in this area has decreased by more than 90 percent. Violent crime is down by 53 percent, according to FBI statistics, and vehicle drug drive-throughs have been eliminated altogether. There are also significantly fewer apprehensions in the San Diego sector due to fewer crossing attempts.

In Yuma, Ariz., where almost 30 miles of fencing has been completed to date, there have been similar results. In 2006, before the start of fence construction, there were 119,000 apprehensions in this sector. By the next year, once fence construction started, there were 81,000 fewer arrests.

Homeland Security is rightly building fence at other points along the border and reports it is on course to complete 370 miles by the end of this year. Given the effectiveness of fencing, as demonstrated in San Diego and Yuma, it is in our national interest to extend this infrastructure to other smuggling routes and heavily traveled areas of the border.

Our nation's security largely rests on the security of our borders. We know what we need to do. All we have to do is act.

Rep. Duncan Hunter of California is the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.

Neither Candidate can deliever

2008-06-12T02:12:00.000-02:00

No! That’s the short answer to Harlan Ullman’s “Reform and change” bi-line question “Can either candidate deliver?” And, to make matters even worse the ‘daunting challenges and seemingly insurmountable obstacles” before us are even greater than the “dysfunctional government” and the toxic and misguided partisanship that Ullman sees dominating it.

I believe our greatest obstacle to making the change needed is our unexamined/unquestioned ‘American’ mindset that we are ‘independent’. In reality, our world is entirely interdependent. And our words and our actions have consequences. Far too often our words and actions have unintended global consequences that affect our security, prosperity and freedom to travel safely or pursue our own domestic happiness.

Politicans from both partys now pander to Americans who clamor for lower gas prices. The fact is we drive too much, exercise too little and ignore the national security linkages between our dependence on oil and our war against terrorism. And, you won’t see the bumper sticker “Burn oil- Fuel terrorism” because there aren’t any electric cars to put them on.

As Ullman states “Irrespective of who wins in November, 80 percent of the public believes that the country is on the wrong track” and “bold thinking is crucial”. Ullman’s solutions are bold thinking but they don’t go far enough. Making “Congress” “accountable” for reading and understanding bills via threat of impeachment and conviction is warranted, but the same level of accountability should be applied to the unelected member states on the UN Security Council. Each should be impeached and convicted for allowing the genocide in Darfur to continue. And, mandatory US voting won’t solve any problem if the majority of American’s remain so misinformed or simply ignorant on vital issues.

Our nation is at a critical junction. The creative and destructive power of most technologies are increasing exponentially and becoming available and affordable globally. Unfortunately, our minds think linearly. And changes in our thinking and acting, and our governments capacity for reasoned response is basically flat lined. If either candidate really told us what we needed to do and proposed the changes in government that we really need…they wouldn’t be elected.

The shock of September 11^th, didn’t move us in the right direction. It took us deeper into the failed policies and thinking that brought such horrific violence back to our shores. It’s time we try another path. But like Ullman, I’m not optimistic either Candidate will take it…and then gain the votes to win.

Endless war or lawful order

2008-05-19T04:11:00.000-02:00

Endless war or Lawful peace:

Within weeks of 9/11, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told Americans "Forget about 'exit strategies…we're looking at a sustained engagement that carries no deadlines."

Speaking at West Point almost 7 years later Rumsfeld’s successor Robert Gates said "There are no exit strategies." Expect a "generational campaign" with "many years of persistent, engaged combat all around the world."

Woody Allen once said ‘humanity stands at a cross road. One road leads to utter hopelessness and despair. The other…to complete Annihilation. I hope we have the wisdom to chose the right path.” America and the world are at a cross road. Endless war or something else. And time is running out on which path to chose.

But what might some other path be? The path of religion appears dead ended with either the 5^th Imam or Armageddon. And the human minds greatest strength, its imagination, is also our greatest flaw. The human mind is capable of believing anything. When it comes to religion…it often does. And now many continue to believe in war. But, our imagination can take us down another path. The path of law…instead of war. Our nation’s founding fathers took this path a little over 200 years ago with the original 13 states on this continent. Now it’s time to proceed with the 192 nation states of the world.

We often think of peace as being the opposite of war. But often what we see as ‘peace’ is just a cease fire. A time for reloading until the next war. If such peace condones lawlessness between nations or such great restrictions in freedom that the human spirit for life and joyous dreams is crippled, even for some small member group within our species, then peace won’t last. And given the extraordinary and accelerating killing capacity of modern technology, the security of all will eventually threatened. The opposite of war is actually the rule of law. Such is the root of lasting peace.

We have had peace in the US since we incorporated the three basic elements of the Rule of Law. Democracy (participation), justice (equality) and maximum freedom and security (A bill of rights). Now the United States is a stable geographic entity and a relatively peaceful gathering of diverse people and religions. But most importantly, America is an ideal. A concept. An ideal concept that differences between people and states are settled by judges and juries -- not armed conflict. We chose and still choose Law not war.

Today, we may not be able to preserve our access to cheap oil, prevent the spread of WMD, or remain the dominant global economic or military power…but we can preserve our ideals. But only if our ideal of law replaces war.
And this ideal is adopted by others globally. This is unlikely if we continue to talk about freedom…and the rule of law…but continue to march down the path of war.

In September 2001, Rumsfeld said: "We have a choice -- either to change the way we live, which is unacceptable, or to change the way that they live; and we chose the latter." And thus we invaded Iraq, a nation of 20 million Muslims and alienated nearly a billion more throughout the world.

US leaders at that time believed that America’s military supremacy was enough and a majority of Americans and our elected officials believed the same. They were wrong. And those who believe our military will eventually defeat terrorism are also wrong. Rumsfeld himself acknowledged that those people who think the US military can win the war against terrorism “just don’t get it”. And, those who think “we can win it alone”, also, “Just don’t get it”.

But the limits of US military power are still not apparent to all. Two relatively small occupations (Iraq and Afghanistan) have bogged down and strained the most powerful and maneuverable military force the world has ever known. And there is no end in sight in either devastated country. And our own nation’s prosperity dwindles as rapidly as our infrastructure and the oil supply we depend on.

While our nation has not been attacked since 9-11 a strong case can be made that our ‘war’ against terrorism has actually made matters worse. We are sacrificing our blood and treasure faster than Al Qaeda could drain it intentionally. And our loss of freedoms are mostly self inflicted. And the longer we depend on oil the more we fund those we war against.

Americans today are more threatened by the drop in the value of our currency, the ripple effects of the self inflicted mortgage crisis, or the potential for bird flu pandemic than another terrorist strike.

But Gates did offer another way. He pointed to the value of development and diplomacy in defeating terrorism. Our nation used these two “d”s to defeat Communism. The Marshall Plan kept the communists out of Europe and other programs of US humanitarian assistance helped in other places.

And there lies the second genius of American influence. Generosity.

Rumsfeld had it backward. We must choose to change the way we live. Abandon oil as an energy source. Ignore the cost of generosity and cherish it’s value to making friends in the world instead of wars that now only make us more enemies.

Bin Ladin had two goals. Breaking America economically and dividing us politically. Nothing would do more to boost our nation’s wealth and political spirits than taking on a constructive mission instead of a destructive one.

Security does not lie in war. It’s found in law and order and a world full of friends. The greatest tool we have for achieving both is the fulfillment of a new Global Marshall Plan. Yes, it will cost money. So does any valuable investment. But the returns on this investment will be profound. The maximization of freedom and security for all. We should pay now… we might not get another chance.

Global Marshall Plan

2008-05-14T01:59:00.001-02:00

Gary Scott Smith did justice to President Roosevelt’s “New Deal” (Sunday, may 11, 2008, “Revisiting the New Deal”) by detailing Roosevelt’s “religious convictions” and the “spiritual” foundation of Americans “significantly increasing the size, spending and scope of the federal government” and the “tremendous impact” it had on American lives and “the foundation” of our nation’s current welfare system.

Mr. Smith unfortunately left out an important motivation for Roosevelt’s transformation of our nation’s welfare system – security. President Roosevelt was well aware of the difficulties that might threaten our great nation’s stability and security if the disparity of wealth between rich and poor American’s was allowed to continue.

In that context the next US President should consider another transformation of our nation’s government that occurred almost immediately after President Roosevelt’s death -- the Marshall Plan. That post war effort was essentially a new ‘federal welfare system’ that our nation applied to devastated Europe at the end of World War II. It also was in line with our moral interests and our nation’s Judeo-Christian faith -- as well as our future security -- because it greatly reduced Europe’s susceptibility to the spread of communism.

With the growing threats we face today from pandemics, terrorism, climate change and economic instability our next U.S. President must be as bold and as generous. He or she could provide no better national spiritual legacy to the world while also protecting our homeland security than launching a new Global Marshall Plan. General recommendations for such a plan are listed in House Resolution 1078 recently introduced into Congress by Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota.

Our new generosity will be as Roosevelt said “wholly in accord with the social teachings of Christianity” and it will also provide our most cost effective investment in protecting our cherished freedoms, valued security and our future blessings of prosperity. Paying for it will not be easy but it won’t cost us any more relative to the original Marshall Plan. And considering the price of failing to improve the living conditions of all people in this increasingly interdependent world – we can’t afford not to.

Details of this proposal and its rationale can be found http://www.spiritualprogressives.org where individuals and organizations can also endorse the plan. And, anyone agreeing with the wisdom and blessed value of this new “Plan” can contact their U.S. Representative and ask that they become a cosponsor of H. Res. 1078.

As Roosevelt proclaimed “The thing we are seeking is justice.” There can be nothing more just than all of God’s people having affordable access to adequate food, clean water, sanitation, primary health care and basic education. The moral, spiritual and security returns on such targeted generosity will be worth every penny.

Hunger not from overpopulation

2008-04-30T02:18:00.001-02:00

Georgie Anne Geyer has been on my “must read” Washington Times list for nearly 15 years because here insights and experience almost always prove correct. Her “Food Shortage Anguish” (4-24-08) completely misses the key factor however regarding global hunger.
Ms. Geyer’s analysis of the current rise in hunger is accurate but she fails to mention that even without any of the new factors there would still be approximately 27,000 children a day dying from easily preventable malnutrition and hunger related infections. And, even if we solved all the current problems like diverting food back to people instead of SUVs, eliminated draught in Australia, and reduced food demand in China or food hording in India, the number of malnourished would still remain astronomically high.

And the basic problem wouldn’t be as Ms. Geyer concludes, overpopulation. The world and this nation has more than enough food, financial resources and new technologies to feed us and all the hungry of the world – IF – there is the political will to do so. And, doing so would actually save us far greater money in the long run as better nourished people (especially children) are able to learn, work, and contribute more to the quality of life for all on this increasingly troubled planet.

If we did eliminate hunger from the world the next president of the US would have to deal with fewer pandemics, fewer failed states, less economic uncertainty, less crime and even fewer murderous, ignorant, radical Islamists.

But none of this is new. A U.S. Presidential Commission on World Hunger during the Carter years produced all the information need to end hunger by the year 2000, and it was virtually ignored.

It’s time all nations of the world acknowledge what was agreed to after the horrors of World War II when an American President’s wife, Eleanor Roosevelt worked to create the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and rallied the world to unanimously approve it, knowing that enforcement of such basic rights, such as the right to food, would prevent such global horrors of war, genocide, disease and starvation in the future.

We can wean ourselves from oil, greatly reduce the obesity related illnesses that now plague our nation’s health system and even better protect our air and water if we shift to sustainable food production and energy production means that we have known for decades. We can pay now…or we will pay far more later. All we have to do is walk our talk regarding our reverence for human rights, human life and this amazing planet that God has given us.

Hunger solutions possible.

2008-04-25T00:45:00.000-02:00

Kelpie Wilson’s leading paragraphs in “Why More Food Is Not the Answer” is grossly misleading (Truthout, Tuesday 22 April 2008).

First, food production is more about biology than mechanics. Here expertise in mechanical engineering and reliance on Lester Browns prophecies appears to have limited her biological perspectives.

She states that “serious limiting factors are coming into play: dwindling water supplies and increased drought exacerbated by climate change; increasingly degraded land and soils; the rising cost of energy used for everything from water pumping to transport, and the growing cost of fertilizer and other inputs. The world wants more food - a lot more food - but the planet will not be able to provide it. For this reason alone, more food is not the answer - it cannot be the answer.”

In reality the greatest limiting factors are not mechanical or even biological in nature. Our limits are scientific creativity, economic boldness and the creation of political will.

“Water supplies” are not “dwindling”. Clean water is but that’s not because of any inherent shortage of water. From space we live on the “Blue planet”. Two thirds of our dirt ball is covered by water averaging over 2 miles deep. Fresh water is a tiny portion of that water but affordable technology for desalination exists and with easily conceivable improvements in mechanical or biological desalinization of salt water…there won’t be any real shortage of water for several millennium. The only question is -- are we willing to invest in a) keeping existing clean water sources pure, b) cleaning polluted sources, and c) investing adequately in creating new sources of usable water.

Degraded land and soils is a problem but not insolvable. With significant changes in food production and existing advances in biotechnology global food production could quadruple without negative environmental consequences. In fact such changes could even be beneficial to our environment (see Biosphere II ‘experiment’ results for mathematical evidence). Would it be expensive. Yes. But, Americans alone spend over $600 billion a year gambling on lotteries, sports and card games. A fraction of that devoted to funding sustainable food production wouldn’t be a gamble.

Climate change spurred by increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere will mostly help to increase global food production capacity. Some areas will experience drought. Others more rain. We and our plants ae capable of adapting (see Holland’s or Japan’s food supply). Plants need CO2 to grow and ancient historical records indicate that our planet’s greatest era’s of plant production occurred during the highest levels of CO2. More plants grow in warmer conditions than colder climates and a rise in oceans and better global stewardship over fisheries will yield even greater volumes of protein.

Our addiction to cheap oil has been one of our species greatest weaknesses. As oil prices rise alternative fuels will be discovered and developed -- and with some wisdom only sustainable sources will be prioritized. E=MC2. That means there is no shortage of energy in the universe -- or on earth. That’s all we are. Mass equals energy. We just need to perfect the capture and conversion of existing clean sources (sunlight, wind, geothermal, tidal, and yes, even nuclear).

And, Ms. Wilson’ future predictions don’t even take into account existing technologies. Her predictions are based on humanity continuing to do everything exactly the way we’ve been doing it. There is significant evidence to suggest we might go down that path to extinction…but the fact remains…we have the capacity to adapt. To create. To advocate for sufficient political will to end hunger, cure disease, ensure clean water -- and clean air -- and even end our addiction to oil. World peace may still be a ways off…but working together planet wide on these other essential goals of species survival will go a long way to helping us achieve the peace goal as well.

When she says “producing more food… cannot be the answer” what she is really saying is that she doesn’t’ expect us to change our evil ways. She may be right on that. But that’s not a function of mechanical or biological engineering. It’s a function of our own stupidity, apathy and ignorance.

In summary we are not at “Peak food”. We are at a tipping point in our evolution. We will either change everything we do regarding food production…or we will parish in large numbers from a variety of reasons…famine being only one…with wars and pandemics taking far more lives before starvation conditions really set in.

Perahaps that’s why Obama has gathered such a following. It is painfully clear and obvious that . “Change” is needed.

Chuck Woolery
315 Dean Dr., Rockville, MD 20851
H: 301-738-7121 Cell:240-997-2209 chuck@igc.org

Blog: Dothefreakinmath http://dothefreakinmath.blogspot.com
Issue Website: www.thetrilemma.org

Action Website: www.HelpHaiti.sampasite.com

From: Daniel Shaughnessy [mailto:des@tcrserv.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 3:28 PM
To: 'Hunger Notes'; Lane Vanderslice
Cc: 'Chuck Woolery'; 'Linda Worthington'; Margie Ferris Morris; 'Antonio Gayoso'
Subject: [SPAM] Lane - FYI:Possible Reference Article

Print This Story E-mail This Story

"Three Nos" don't make a right. Nuclear disarmament means war..

2008-03-30T15:26:00.002-02:00

Graham Allison’s logic in “Preventing a nuclear terrorist attack” (Sunday, March 30, 2008) demonstrates the flawed perspective of most ‘experts’ who tend to view problems through a limited area of expertise.

His analysis of the nuclear terrorist “threat” is accurate but his “Doctrine of Three Nos” is lethally flawed. Stopping such an attack won’t “prevent” even larger death tolls likely to result from our global implementation of his doctrine.

Stopping Iran (or any other determined ‘independent’ nation exercising its rights of national sovereignty) from developing nuclear capabilities will eventually require military force. And, any such act of war will have unpredictable consequences. Retaliation by Iran or any other ‘preempted’ nation could take the lives of tens of millions of Americans if they used biological weapons. Or, they could reduce us to Third World economic starvation conditions by targeting our satellites or oil supply using cyber, chemical or even conventional weapons?

Essentially, there can be no security for anyone if some believe they can arm themselves to the teeth and assuredly ‘prevent’ others from doing the same. This is not a new reality. Emery Reves, author of ‘Anatomy of Peace’ detailed this fact nearly 60 years ago when he wrote, “Once the mechanics and the fundamental causes of wars – of all wars – are realized, the futility and childishness of the passionate debates about armament and disarmament must be apparent to all. If human society were organized so that relations between groups and units in contact were regulated by democratically controlled law and legal institutions, then modern science could go ahead, devise and produce the most devastating weapons, and there would be no war. But if we allow sovereign rights to reside in the separate units and groups without regulating their relations by law, then we can prohibit every weapon, even a penknife, and people will beat out each other’s brains with clubs.

These words were made real for me after the Rwandan Genocide when nearly a million people were killed primarily with machetes and clubs.

We could likely “prevent” a million Americans from being incinerated by a nuclear attack? But the ultimate price we pay in American lives, dollars and essential inalienable freedoms will be far more costly.

The only sane path requires abandoning the flawed concept of the supremacy of national sovereignty, not trying to abolish some weapons for some groups.

National security vs capitalism

2008-03-11T15:02:00.001-02:00

Dear Editor,

Frank Gaffney, Jr. accurately details the lethal dilemma in US military systems relying on “foreign suppliers” for key logistical needs, but, then states that our ‘tanker’ capabilities are “arguably one of the most important determinants of US ability to project power around the world”.

Mr. Gaffney simply doesn’t understand several other components that are far more important to protecting the lives, freedoms and prosperity of the American people.

First, our nation’s prosperity is key to maintaining any semblance of military superiority that Gaffney and others believe are the key to our nation’s survival. Yet this ‘national’ prosperity is entirely dependent upon a global capitalist system that currently has an absence of enforceable national government controls. And we can clearly see that unregulated private capital investments anywhere (U.S. Mortgage finance rules or OPEC oil supply decisions) can harm prosperity everywhere.

Second, Gaffney makes a catastrophic error in assuming military threats are the only (or even the greatest) threat we Americans face. Pandemics, climate change or natural disasters could cause far more devastation than some European country failing to join with us in executing yet another questionable war.

Third, Gaffney assumes that domestic companies will provide near perfect military systems -- yet current examples of corruption in ‘cost plus contracts’ with Halliburton or their incompetence in supplying US troops with clean water or body armor, or the repeated instances of spies within U.S. companies to providing useful information to our enemies.

Forth, there is also the military itself that provides weapons and advanced weapon systems and technology to those who are the ‘enemy of our enemy’, who will likely someday become our enemy again. Arming the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation in 1980s or providing Saddam with chemical and biological weapons components as he was gassing the Kurds and Iranians before he became our enemy are just two of hundreds of such examples of such insanity.

Last, military power is not ‘one of the most important determinants” of US power projection. Our moral ideals expressed within our ‘Declaration of Independence’, our ultimate devotion to the rule of law instead of the law of force, and our innate tolerance for diversity of thought, religious belief and phenotype are far more powerful in influencing human behavior throughout the world – when we chose to practice them.

Mr. Gaffney and others like him must eventually come to grips with reality. We cannot rely on independent forces to protect us in an irreversibly and entirely interdependent world. We must either chose a globally regulated capitalism system where national sovereignty does not reign supreme, or continue retaining the faulty ideal of national sovereignty and abandon any and every aspect of an unregulated or even partially regulated global capitalist world. Trying to maintain both is truly a “ plane wreck” in the making.

Half truths better than ignorance

2008-02-25T13:51:00.002-02:00

Nelson Marans and Serge Wing simply don’t get it (Obama’s dangerous path 2-21-08). But they needn’t take my words or Obama’s more reasoned and non-lethal approach to dealing with the threat of terrorism to understand the fallacy of thinking more military “muscle” is needed to defeat terrorism.

Just last November U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said "One of the most important lessons of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that military success is not sufficient to win: economic development, institution-building and the rule of law, promoting internal reconciliation, good governance, providing basic services to the people, training and equipping indigenous military and police forces, strategic communications,” were also “essential ingredients”. Gates also said “the attacks of September 11 marked the dawn” of a “new era” distinct from previous war eras, and now “there is a need for a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security." He also acknowledged that Pentagon supporters (like Marans and Wing) would consider this "blasphemy".

Marans and Wing could also review the recent survey of more than 3,400 active and retired officers -- 10 percent of whom served in Iraq, Afghanistan or both. Even a majority of these military professionals agreed that more muscular military assets would not be as useful in assisting “the US military in winning the Global War on Terror” as “diplomacy tools”, “intelligence”, “language skills”, “civilian experts” and “economic development assistance”.

It’s clear that many other patriotic Americans like Marans and Wing are still stuck in a pre-9-11 era mindset even after super military powers like the US and the Soviets loss insurgent wars against Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Mr. Morans claims I “essentially endorse a policy of surrender to terrorism and the nations that support it.” The US and the Soviet Union didn’t ‘surrender’ to Vietnam or Afghanistan. We (and the Soviets) simply stopped fighting a war that wasn’t worth the cost.

Devoting our limited resources towards policies that effectively reduce terrorism… instead of using military muscle that creats 10 terrorists for every one we kill -- isn’t a policy of surrender. It’s a smart policy that works against a relatively small group of mass murderers whose organizational structure is nearly identical to the Mafia , not the Nazis.

Mr. Wing claims my “Platitudes…are at best half correct” but then asserts that we had a real “coalition” going into Iraq. He then claims that “12 years of noncompliance” and “17 violations” were legitimate “acts of war” by Iraq – and my “criticisms” of Bush’s Iraq war are “outdated” given “recent successes”. I believe it’s completely accurate to say that the tens of thousands of people who lost loved ones on both sides of this unnecessary conflict will consider all of Mr. Wing’s statements far less than half correct.

And finally, anyone who seriously claims that “water boarding” is not torture because they ‘experience it’ under peace time conditions at the hands of their own professional colleagues…doesn’t really know the difference between reality and half truths.

Dovish better for US than Hawkish

2008-02-14T13:13:00.001-02:00

Donald Lambro makes so many errors in “The race to pull out” (Valentines Day) that one can only guess that he gets his information from former Bush administration advisors.

This “left-wing, anti-war” individual doesn’t “oppose a tougher defense posture”. I oppose an alienating ‘offensive posture’ that leaves us warring against a dangerous global enemy with fewer and fewer friends. And, to win a global war of ideas we don’t need more “muscle” in our “foreign policy” -- we need more brains. Forcing our ideas upon others isn’t as powerful as influencing them by ‘walking our talk’. ‘Liberty and justice for all’ is far more motivating than ‘bombs and waterboarding for any suspect.’

Lambro claims Senator Obama “harbors” a “more dovish national security” view -- as if that’s a bad thing. How bad would it be if we had never invaded Iraq -- or did so with the more ‘dovish’ protection of the Iraqi people instead of the more hawkish strategy of ‘shock and awe’. There is little doubt that a ‘more dovish’ approach would have yielded us more Iraqi support in the beginning as well as more allies and international financial support desperately needed as we end this costly fiasco.

And, no approach to war could be more “dangerous and sophomoric” than going it virtually alone, on faulty intelligence, and with inadequate planning. Better not to have gone at all. Or, as Barack Obama insists, gone after Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda where they were… instead of where we wanted them to be.

Obama might ‘look weak’ by being lied to by foreign leaders but that wouldn’t leave us as weak as we are with our military bogged down and overstretched in a seemingly endless war.

Lambro’s final question “How long do you think it will take al Qaeda to re-establish bases throughout the country once we’re out?” misses contextual reality. Al Qaeda doesn’t need to re-establish bases in Iraq if it already has them in Pakistan -- or can establish them in any other lawless areas of the globe where a more thoughtful US foreign policy would harden the ground they seek to crawl into.

If we can believe the Bush administration it also to wants to “pull out” of Iraq. But, for Obama, it is more a function of strengthening our nation’s security than improving the dismal legacy of a hawkish political party.

Education is a national security investment

2008-02-05T14:29:00.000-02:00

Dear Editor,

Fred Gedrich should be applauded for correctly identifying Pakistan as our nation’s greatest concern regarding Al Qaeda’s effort to acquire a nuclear weapon (Invest in Pakistsn, 2-5-08). And, Gedrich’s idea of investing in counterterrorism efforts that primarily focus on improving the quality of education in Pakistan’s “13,000 religious schools” and to sharply reduce the 50% illiteracy rate of other Pakistani children is paramount.

Properly educating Pakistan’s children will undoubtedly reduce the number of Jihad recruits, demonstrate positive American concern for Pakistan’s impoverished people, and lay the foundation for that nation becoming a truly democratic US ally in the larger global war on terrorism.

There is one basic problem however, with Mr Gedrich’s idea. There is a seemingly insurmountable shortage of US tax dollars available for us to make such a wise foreign investment. Bush’s new budget even cuts US education programs and proposes large increases in the military budget. While this military increase is suspect given the opinion of most experts that Iraq, Afghanistan and the larger war against terrorism won’t be won by the military, we are unlikely to see any reduction there. And we can’t ignore the flailing US economy, the falling value of our currency, Bush’s promise not to raise taxes, and a host of other vital US security programs that are as urgently in need of similar investments in US tax dollars.

One ‘thoughtful suggestion’ that this critic of the Bush Administration would like to offer is the implementation of a fee on cross border currency trading. Mitt Romney balanced his state’s budget by increasing fees for valued services. Currently there is no fee on people like George Soros who make billions in cross border currency trades basically speculating on the ups and downs of the momentary values of national currencies. Almost everyone is convinced we need fences to prevent free flow of people across our borders yet we have no restrictions on the free flow of currency that most economists would agree is the single greatest threat to global economic stability.

A micro fee on estimated $1.8 trillion dollars traded daily across national borders could yield $100 to $200 billion a year. Each nation that agrees to join in this effort could keep half and devote the rest to universal education goals that would help reduce jihadi recruitment globally. Using this same windfall of resources we could also invest in truly ‘universal health care’. A well staffed primary health care center in every community in the world could also yield enormous amounts of useful intelligence information to stop the spread of Al Qaeda or other serious threats we face, like natural pandemics or bioterrorist attacks.

At what price war?

2008-02-01T04:23:00.000-02:00

Dear Editor,

Thomas Crawford (At What price peace? Letters 1-31-08) makes ghastly errors in responding to Deborah Metke (“Creating a war free world”). First, we aren’t ‘giving up our ability to protect ourselves’. That ideal vanished with the invention of the atomic bomb. At best, we managed to avoid mutual destruction, but in today’s world any undergrad biologist, agricultural chemist, wanna-be pilot or cyber punk -- with a mean streak or a real or perceived grudge -- can wield unimaginable damage to our nation.

We can’t stop the postal delivery of anthrax or rental truck’s filled with fuel oil and fertilizer, not to mention radical religious extremists with engineering degrees. For these feats we will need a world of people who don’t hate us and global institutions willing to help us find such killers before they strike. But, most importantly, we need a world of fair and enforceable laws that will assist in creating a world where the desire to mass murder is rare. Waging more wars won’t create that kind of world.

George Washington was correct. “Government is …force”. That’s why he and his wisest followers chose to build a government with effective checks and balances -- including an invaluable second amendment as the ultimate check against tyrannical government. With today’s growing array of increasingly lethal, affordable and ubiquitous ‘technologies’ and their undetectable/uncontrollable nature (think IEDs)… there is no government or global institution (not even the US military) that is capable of forcing a population to capitulate against their will. The only lasting success we will have in Iraq or Afghanistan is in winning hearts and minds -- not bombing them into submission.

Crawford really needn’t fear any strong UN military force. He should however, fear any place in the world where lawlessness exists. Today, the greatest lawlessness in the world exists in impoverished communities within nations and the artificial lines between them. A stronger UN could help elevate the lawlessness in both these arenas.

Crawford expossed a blissful ignorance of history however by stating “nationhood is a good thing” because “ it places a curb on the ambitions of would-be dictators.” Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam and every other mass murdering dictator depended on the sovereign rights of “nationhood” to protect their homicidal ambitions and actions. An ICC with the force of law could rally a world of support to stop any future genocidal dictators.

Mr. Crawford may be correct that “only” the EUs “elitist leaders are happy with” that super union. But the same was true of most colonists when our founding fathers were attempting to convert our confederation of 13 independent states into one vast ‘united states’. People were against it …until they realized the freedom and security advantages of legal unification. That is our choice today. At what price war?

At what price peace? (Letter printed in Washington Times 1-31-08)

Deborah Metke ("Creating a war-free world," Letters, Sunday) advocates giving up our ability to protect ourselves to a strengthened United Nations, which supposedly would guarantee peace by outlawing war. Personally, I think she is advocating a recipe for disaster.

The expression "enforce the law" means just that: to use force to assure that the law is complied with. George Washington once said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

To enforce a global peace, an entity must be strong enough to force all nations to do as it says. If it is strong enough to force all nations to do as it says, it is strong enough to impose global tyranny.

In fact, human nature being what it is, isn't that precisely what we should expect?

Even if we refuse to attribute bad motives to those currently heading the United Nations or NATO, if such power is ever assembled, sooner or later, some individual or group will succeed in gaining control of it, for his/her/their own ends. The world will be far safer if such power is never assembled.

As for the International Criminal Court about which Miss Metke is enthused, President Clinton (an advocate of the ICC) admitted it will not be based on fixed legal principles. Miss Metke urges us to look at the European Union. We should, indeed.

Only its elitist leaders are happy with it. The vast majority of the people in it are angry and frustrated, as they see decisions they historically made at the local level being taken away from them and made by unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels.

Peace is always desirable, but not at any price. After Germany conquered Austria, France and Poland at the beginning of World War II, it was technically "at peace" with those countries.

From the 1950s through the 1980s, the Soviet Union was "at peace" with the Eastern European nations it had forced into the Communist Bloc. One reason why nationhood is a good thing is that it places a curb on the ambitions of would-be dictators.

THOMAS M. CRAWFORD

Laurel