| Tuesday, May
13, 2008 ==========
Farewell to a true heroine
http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/
2008/05/farewell-to-true-heroine.html
"The word 'hero' is grossly misused today. Sports
figures who score a thrilling goal or touchdown; public figures who use
their position in the spotlight to advance a particular charity or cause;
these and many others are called 'heroes'. They're not.
A real heroine has just left us. If you want to know
what true heroism is, take a few moments to think about her life."
Note that this story involves torture. Not war on
terror faux torture, but real, actual torture, and a heroine who is a real
hero, as opposed to somebody who popularizes a distinctive style of dress or
pop song.
Graves
Irena Sendler, RIP. Righteous among the nations. I
doubt our prayers are needed. Perhaps if she has a spare moment now...
===========
More Inconvenient Truth...
http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB121062360067986045.html?
mod=Best+of+the+Web+Today
"Even with the human tragedy of Cyclone
Nargis still unfolding in Burma, environmentalists aren't wasting any
time linking the disaster to global warming. Or at least one isn't: Al
Gore. Citing the deadly Burmese storm and recent storms in China and
Bangladesh, he declared on National Public Radio: "We're seeing
consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated
with continued global warming."
"There's just one problem -- it's not clear
there's any link between climate change and hurricane numbers or
intensity. The number of big storms has been falling, not rising. As for
intensity, researchers led by Christopher Landsea of the National
Hurricane Center have found that earlier generations of
hurricane-watchers using inferior satellite imagery incorrectly
classified many storms as weaker than they actually were. After
correcting for this mismeasurement, the "increase" in storm intensity
since the 1970s nearly disappears.
"But Mr. Gore is perhaps too busy these
days to follow the science closely. In April, a London-based company he
chairs began selling shares in its so-called Global Sustainability Fund
to small investors in New Zealand, following a similar offer to
investors in Australia (interestingly, out of sight of the U.S. press).
He was also a conspicuously invoked presence when the Silicon Valley
firm Kleiner Perkins this month announced a new $500 million "green
growth" fund in partnership with Mr. Gore's London firm. Asked by the
San Jose Mercury News if Mr. Gore had been helpful in raising money,
co-manager John Denniston replied: "That's not been his primary
responsibility."
"Uh huh. Mr. Gore's primary responsibility,
from the looks of it, is to spread alarm about global warming and create
the political conditions (subsidies, mandates) without which Kleiner's
"green" energy ventures are unlikely to flourish. Expect the payoff to
come next year as a new Congress and President debate global warming
policy."
Don't confuse me with the facts; my mind is made up.
Charles Brumbelow
==========
Wacky Science Fair...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/
05/13/science/13make.html?_r
=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
"At first blush, then, this festival,
sponsored by Make magazine, is a gathering place of pyromaniacs and
noise junkies, the multiply pierced and the extensively tattooed. But
wander awhile, and the showy surface gives way to a wondrous thing: the
gathering of folks from all walks of life who blend science, technology,
craft and art to make things both goofy and grand."
"Recent online projects have shown
people...how to make a computer-powered coffee warmer from an old Intel
Pentium chip plugged into a P.C.'s U.S.B. port..."
Charles Brumbelow
I am very sorry to have missed the Maker Faire. I
hope to get there next year.
==========
Patton wept.
<http://online.wsj.com/public/article/
SB121063207588086509-JCODxaBcd
ADwD4dtqaLv8KcIMtQ_20080611.html?
mod=tff_main_tff_top >
- Roland Dobbins
==========
Last of the Tigers
http://formerspook.blogspot.com/
2008/05/last-of-tigers.html
"There was a military reunion last Friday at Lackland
AFB in San Antonio. But it was anything but your typical gathering of
veterans and their family members. In fact, the reunion may be the last of
its kind, since it brought together the last surviving members of the
American Volunteer Group <http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/
military/stories/MYSA.051008.METRO4B
FlyingTigers.3897e91.html> (AVG), the famed "Flying Tigers" who
fought in China during the early days of World War II.
Only eight members of the unit made it to the San
Antonio event--roughly half of the 19 Flying Tigers who still survive. Time
has already claimed most of the group's most famous members, including
double ace David "Tex" Hill, who passed away in 2007, and Richard "Dick"
Rossi, who died last month at the age of 92. Mr. Rossi, who was credited
with six aerial victories in World War II, did much to preserve the heritage
of his unit, serving as President of the Flying Tigers Association for 50
years."
The 23rd Fighter Group inherited the traditions of the
Flying Tigers, and their A-10s are the only craft in the USAF authorized the
snarling shark mouth insignia. One of their warthogs recently became the
most flown fighter in USAF history, with more than 9,000 flight hours. Every
generation has heroes.
Graves
============
Crisis in Black and White
Doctor P:
Reference the City Journal article on the criminal
justice system Mr. Dobbins sent to you. . .
35 years ago I read a book that was already close to
10 years old that predicted, with some accuracy, where race relations in the
United States would in the books future. It was Crisis in Black and White by
Charles Silberman, who also wrote a book about the criminal justice system
called Criminal Violence/Criminal Justice at about the same time, which made
many of the same observations the article does. The more things change, the
more they stay the same, indeed. You may know him as the author of Crisis in
the Classroom.
Alas, it appears, from search Amazon, that all of Mr.
Silberman's books are out of print. However, as can be seen here,
http://www.amazon.com/
Crisis-Black-White-Charles-Silberman/
dp/0394702794/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=
UTF8&s=books&qid=1210552680&sr=1-1
They may still be available from used book sources.
Tim
============
Hezbollah and Iran Israel Conflict
-
Dr. Pournelle,
I would like to hear your thoughts on the current
crisis in Lebanon, where you think it is going, and what should the US do in
this situation.
Lately there has been a lot of renewed talk about
strikes against Iran - I can't help wondering why if not to prepare the
world opinion for a strike soon. The recent moves by Hezbollah seems to be
be positioning for a strike on Israel if either the US or Israel strikes
Iran. Such a strike would set off a chain reaction that God only knows how
far it would reach.
What are your thoughts, sir?
I am glad for the good news regarding your tumor and
the improvements in previous symptoms.
Marty Stephens
My view is that I predicted as much back in the
last Lebanese crisis. The Israelis kicked a hornet's nest, then weakened the
Lebanese government's ability to defend itself, undermined the government's
prestige, and then ran away when the job turned out to be a lot tougher than
they thought.
I asked Joel Rosenberg to comment on the letter.
Here is his reply, which is concerned with nuclear Iran, Osirak, and the IDF:
==
Let me take the last one first; I'll take the first
one on shortly. [I look forward to that. JEP]
I think too many people take the wrong lesson from
Osirak; much of US foreign policy seems to be informed by the usually
unvoiced belief that, when push comes to shove, the IAF can solve the US's
and Israel's mutual problem of the Iranians going nuclear, just like it did
for Iraq, at least temporarily.
I see no reason to believe that's the case.
The IAF was able to take out the Iraqi nuclear program
because, basically, Saddam Hussein was both stupid and arrogant. He put all
his eggs -- at least temporarily -- in one basket, and he kept the basket
above ground. The Iranians haven't repeated his error -- they've gotten
their facilities, at the very least, distributed, underground, and almost
certainly overlapping/duplicated. I wouldn't assume that the projections
about how long we've got before the Iranians go nuclear mean much of
anything -- if the policy is to hold off making the awful decision until
just before, the Iranians will beat the clock, more likely than not.
In order for conventional strikes to work, they would
have to take out far more than one facility -- and, unfortunately, things
can be rebuilt unless there's enough divisions moving in to take the ground
(the US doesn't have those available; Israel doesn't have near enough, nor
are they available) -- and prevent them from being rebuilt.
All of which makes Hezbollah's threat basically chin
music. It's a cheap form of hostage-taking -- "we know that you're not going
to make a serious strike against the Iranian nuclear program, so we'll
threaten to lash back against Israel from Lebanon -- so when you don't, we
can claim that we have deterred you."
Which will work, since, realistically, the US isn't
going to engage in a serious strike against the Iranian nuclear program. A
symbolic strike -- to what import, I don't know -- may well go back on the
table; it seemed to be there about a year ago. But you can only bomb people
into submission who are willing to submit to bombing. I don't see any reason
to believe that several -- or several dozen -- airstrikes against the
surface above any of the Iranian nuclear facilities would do anything to
persuade the Iranians to give up their nuclear program. The North Korea
lesson is not lost on them -- once you have a nuclear weapon, your
bargaining position gets better, not worse.
So I don't think there's much sense in talking about
using not nearly enough force to stop the Iranian nuclear program. Just like
the most expensive thing in the world is a military that isn't quite good
enough, the most expensive military campaign in the world is one that
doesn't quite accomplish a goal.
Charles Krauthammer, among others, takes the position
that the US administration -- both this one and the next one, who's ever it
is -- has basically given up on the notion of a non-nuclear Iran. I wish I
could disagree. Even the most serious proposed sanctions were laughably
inadequate, and watered down at the UN to meaninglessness. (I sense a
pattern here.) "Stop your nuclear program or we'll warn you again," isn't
really a terribly serious threat.
That said, if it is otherwise in America's interest to
strike at the Iranian nuclear program, allowing northern Israel to be held
as hostage would be insane. I can't imagine what good could possibly come
from that.
The US has really two choices: use nuclear weapons to
prevent Iran from going nuclear, or accept a nuclear Iran. Both of those are
dreadful.
The assumption that the mad mullahs will be as sane
and deterrable as the Politburo was is a pretty spectacular one; all
indications are otherwise. As are, for that matter, notions that the move
for democracy or at least away from Islamic totalitarianism in Iran is going
to be more than just talk. The Supreme Leader is in charge, and he's not
going to be dislodged by petitions and demonstrations, but by guns and
explosives -- if he's dislodged at all. No sign of that.
So? Which is worse? A nuclear Iran, or a nuked Iran?
By default, we're going to get a nuclear Iran.
And then?
I don't see any reason to believe that the Iranians
won't use the nuclear weapons that they've been threatening to, and that the
question really comes down to whether or not it's better to see Iran nuked,
or, say, Tel Aviv or Jerusalem (let's not accept the notion that Muslims
really care about Al Quds; historically, the only thing they really care
about, with regards to Jerusalem, is that it not be in the hands of
infidels) and then Iran.
From an Israeli POV, that's an obvious -- not
pleasant, but obvious -- choice. As bad as the former would be, it's hard to
see how it wouldn't be worse than having at least one major Israeli city
nuked and then having to retaliate. I know that the narrative is that Jews
are supposed to be compliant victims to earn sympathy, but that's not likely
one that will appeal to Bibi, shortly, and it was never one that had a lot
of appeal for Sharon or Begin. (Golda, for all her virtues, fell for it in
'73, by letting the Egyptians and Syrians strike first; that was, pretty
clearly a horrible mistake, which perhaps may not be repeated.)
From an American POV, though? I'm not at all sure. And
here's where there's a problem. In terms of deterrence, there's nothing much
wrong with the US quietly taking the position that Krauthammer, among
others, has suggested that the candidates should do publicly (and which, of
all three, only Hillary has taken, albeit not quite explicitly): that a
nuclear attack on Israel would be treated in exactly the same way as, during
the height of the Cold War, a nuclear attack either on Western Europe from
the Soviet Union or on the US from Cuba would have been treated as a nuclear
attack on the US from the Soviet Union.
There's nothing much wrong with it . . . as long as
the deterrence works.
I don't think that it will.
So, yeah, it's going to be ugly. And, as I've been
saying for some time, that's the center of mass of all of this: the Iranian
nuclear program. All three Presidential candidates say that for Iran to have
nukes is "unacceptable," but, pace Inigo Montoya, I don't think that the
word means what they think it means.
What should scare the hell out of all your readers --
it does me -- is that, of all three of the candidates for President, not one
of them gives any hint of thinking all of this through.
-- Joel Rosenberg
Alas, I see little in your analysis to disagree
with. Our only hope is our Cultural Weapons of Mass Destruction, which cease
to work if we take a military threatening line.
We used to say the Stalinists were crazy but not
THAT crazy.
I wish I could say the same for the Iranians.
I usually know what I would do were I suddenly
proclaimed Caesar. In this instance I do not. As you say, we cannot occupy
Iran. The Legions are stretched to the breaking point now. And bombing from
15,000 feet with iron bombs will not end the Iranian nuclear programs.
==
In the long run, of course . . .
. . . what you've named Cultural Weapons of Mass
Destruction are lethal. Hot babes (and/or guys, depending on one's
preferences), good music and plenty of choice of it, computers, open
discussion, and such are just plain more attractive than self-flagellation,
beekeeper suits, the Gulag, Great Leaps Forward, Five Year Plans,
self-criticism sessions, and all the other things that the various other
sides have had to offer.
Not for everybody, of course. All of that being
available in the West hasn't prevented, say, the Amish or the Mennonites or
the Lubavitchers from maintaining their own lifestyles, nor does it force
the folks in John Ashcroft's church to dance -- but the presence of options
does do a lot to prevent it from being compulsory for those who don't want
it. I think Raoul Castro is making some serious longterm errors in
maintaining the Castro dynasty's control of Cuba by opening it up to outside
influences, but I digress.
-- Joel Rosenberg
==
Lebanon, and not the future of
Israel
I think the results are predictable; you and I just
disagree -- in part -- as to what they're the results of.
I don't think it's as much an issue of the Lebanese
(government and polity) being unable to defend themselves, as unwilling,
although the difficulties in standing up to Hezbollah are hard to overstate.
As Michael Totten points out, the Lebanese army is
useless. I was going to paraphrase, but he says it better than I can at
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/
blogs/index.php/totten/5371 :
"The army is too weak and divided along sectarian
lines to protect Lebanon from internal or external threats. It was sabotaged
for more than a decade during Syria's military occupation and was staffed at
the highest levels with Damascus loyalists who have yet to be purged. It is
a make-believe army at best, and a part-time tool of the Syrian state at its
worst."
That wasn't a function of the 2006 war; that problem
has been institutionalized over (depending on how you look at it) at least a
generation or so, and there's been no serious move to fix it; the US
megabucks didn't address the underlying problem.
The reservation that the rest of the Lebanese have in
taking on Hezbollah is understandable, up to a point. Without a working
military and police, the Lebanese government is capable of little more than
trying to shuffle around patronage. (Which, by the way, is the one thing
that they can do reasonably well, and which Obama is idiotically claiming is
the heart of their problem.)
There was a very revealing exchange over at Totten's
today; see
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives
/2008/05/jumblatts-men-s.php#comments
Preface: I think Totten is a must-read for anybody in
the US who wants to understand the disaster of Lebanon, but he's only a
starting point. His (entirely understandable; they're lovely people)
affection for the westernized Lebanese leads him into errors. Minor ones --
"My old liberal Sunni neighborhood of Hamra near the American University of
Beirut – the best in the Middle East – is now occupied by the private army
of a foreign police state" -- excuse me? The American University of Beirut
is certainly, most of the time, a fine educational establishment, but better
than, say, Hebrew University? (Compare their distinguished faculty lists at
Wikipedia. The comparison doesn't do well for AUB.)
And major ones. Like this:
Why should Lebanese Sunni, Druze, and Christians risk
their lives when the West doesn't help them? I have to admit being a little
perplexed by this one.
Because they would lose. Fighting a war you know you
can't win is dumb. If the most powerful military in the Middle East (the IDF)
can't beat Hezbollah, why should anyone think the weakest (various Lebanese
forces, some which barely even exist) could possibly do it?
The flip side of that is that Hezbollah cannot conquer
and rule all of Lebanon. No one in Lebanon is strong enough to hold it
together. Anyone who seriously tries will get creamed.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten Author Profile Page <http://profile.typekey.com/miketotten>
at May 13, 2008 10:30 AM
Well, yeah, to all of that. Even now, with the opening
salvos of the third Lebanese Civil War under way, the non-Hezbollah Lebanese
are just barely willing to fight in their own defense.
That's the Lebanese attitude. They simply have to live
with Hezbollah, they say, so they keep making concessions to Hezbollah, and
on the rare occasions that the Lebanese government tries to say no over
something important (like, say, attacking their southern neighbor) they
shrug and say that there's nothing they can do, and then, if they try to
press the matter at all . . .
. . . the Hezbollards send out the troops. Note that
the troops aren't being sent out to take over the Lebanese government --
just to stop even the slightest interference by the government with
Hezbollah, and that the defense, such as it is, isn't being fought by the
US-funded Lebanese army, which even on Day Six of the new civil war, is only
now threatening to begin trying to impose order, something that it's not in
any way prepared to actually do. At best (and things rarely work out for the
best in the Levant) they're prepared to stay neutral between the
heavily-manned, heavily-armed Hezbollah army and the Druze militias (and
others) that the Hezbollards are busy killing. The US-funded Sunni militias,
according to local reports, threw down their weapons and ran when Hezbollah
attacked.
The results are predictable, but they're not the
results of the botched 2006 invasion; that, at best, is a minor contributing
factor. More to the point: Lebanon is the host to an army funded and armed
from outside, that the other locals do not have the will to take on . . .
nor the ability to do so, without serious outside help. And Hezbollah will
continue to push the Christians, Sunni and Druze just hard enough for them
to delude themselves that this isn't an existential matter for their
communities, but merely just a few inches more of camel's nose being pushed
into the tent. (For the benefit of your readers -- you know this as well as
I do -- note what culture that story comes out of . . . )
Where it's going to go from here is easy to predict:
in a few days or a couple of weeks, the fighting will die down, and the
Lebanese government and army will remain ineffective and impotent. Hezbollah
will allow the government to do almost anything it wants, as long as it
doesn't want to do much of anything. The government, having learned its
lesson, will allow Hezbollah to ride even more roughshod over it, and more
and more dominate it.
I don't see the outside help coming. Condi Rice is
willing to send more words, as is the Arab League. But who is willing to
pick up rifles, pack up the artillery, and fire up the tanks and go and help
the Lebanese who won't even help themselves?
That's easy: nobody.
Lebanon is, to use the technical term, a tragedy. Just
as their deal with Arafat led to the last civil war, the attempt to buy off
Hezbollah with money and power is leading to Lebanon's destruction, and
whether it happens in this round or the next, it's inevitable.
I suspect we're still in disagreement, in part, about
the causes. But I'd surely love to be persuaded that Lebanon isn't on an
inevitable downward spiral -- do you have any reasons to doubt that it is?
Joel Rosenberg
There was a time when the US would have helped.
Eisenhower ended the first efforts to destroy Lebanon with about five
casualties. Alas, we don't have the resources -- or the reputation --
now.
I would say that Israel has a great concern with
keeping Lebanon a viable state. And I think there is a better chance for
Lebanon to be a viable multi-cultural state than any other Arab state in the
region.
As to the future, without some kind of
international assistance, Lebanon may not be viable; but it's sure a lot
less viable now than before the 2006 invasion. Had the Israelis concentrated
their efforts on the actual enemy and left the central government alone, I
think the results would have been better for all concerned. Had the Israelis
had the determination to do what it took to finish the job they started,
there would have been a Lebanese government to pick up the pieces -- and a
lot of fear in the potential rebels. Yes, it would have been a long,
expensive, and politically difficult job; but surely the Israeli government
knew that when they began?
As to the inevitable downward spiral, that may be
inevitable now. I don't think it was in January 2006.
=========
Did the solar system ‘bounce’ finish the dinosaurs?
<http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/articles/
did-the-solar-system-bounce-
finish-the-dinosaurs.html >
- Roland Dobbins
==========
"We can bring together a large number of skilled
lawyers in no time at all and at one-fifth the cost."
The part about 'hack-proof servers' is a absurd on its
face, patently impossible, of course:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2008/05/10/AR200805100
2355_pf.html >
- Roland Dobbins
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Tuesday |
