New Document

0230 GMT February 29, 2008

Sunni Militia Unrest: Not The US's Fault Washington Post reported yesterday that the Sunni "Awakening" militias are in danger of collapse or at least in considerable disarray.
Three problems have arisen: irregular/delayed payments from the Iraq government; refusal of Iraq government to regularize more than a small percentage of the militias; and inadvertent American killing of Awakening militiamen.
This last may seem to be the US's fault and undoubtedly some incidents where US troops fired on militia were avoidable. But the US is hardly picking on the militia. American troops have gotten much better at limiting fire when they are attacked in civilian areas. Nonetheless, compared to many highly trained CI armies the US still tends to use excessive force. At the same time, it does so impartially, be they Shia, Sunni, Iraqi, Afghani, anyone. This is a risk you have to accept working with US troops, and allied troops understand this quite well. US is not picking on the Awakening militias.
Re the matter of pay. That has nothing to do with the US after a particular militia is taken over by the Iraqi government. Baghdad is not exactly regular about paying Shia troops, either.
Re the matter of the militiamen not being taken into the Iraq security forces in larger numbers. Let's get real here, folks. The Iraqi government does not want any Sunni militias. US has sat on Baghdad with considerable force, but the Iraqi government does its best to undermine the militias. No need to wonder why: these militia chappies were hard-core enemies of the government till the other day, many openly boast how they will settle accounts with the Shias when the Americans are out of the way. What does the US have to do with this sectarianism? Nothing.
The US military did a good thing in taking up the militias. We will not say "brilliant", "amazing", or whatever because making friends of your enemy is SOP in CI operations. The US took very long to see this. Nonetheless, the Awakenings are a huge adjustment in American attitude. Americans are black and white people, with or against us type of thing, and for making that paradigm shift the US is to be congratulated. Everyone knew this couldn't last because of the Iraqi government. The US has gotten one good year out of the militia and will probably get another year before the Iraqi government and Sunni militias start fighting. That's fine. Tactics have to adapt to circumstances. No big deal.
Mexican Border Hi-Tech Fence Fails: This Is The US's Fault These days expecting the US government to get anything right concerning defense and homeland security is like the Editor hoping to win the Lottery: mathematically possible but in practice unlikely to the point of impossibility.
Yes, people do win the Lotto, and the US does occasionally get things right. But just as the Editor can't count on winning, neither can the American people count on their government to get basics right.
This 28-mile fence is a technology and management failure, so it is not as if something unexpected came up. It was touted by the Administration as "the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history."
Well, for most of American history there has been little border security. And we wonder if the administration will now say: "the biggest hi-tech border security failure in American history."
The thing with Americans is that the minute anyone says "hi-tech" their reasoning shuts down and the lust part of their brains activate. There is only one way to shut down the border: a simple fence, seeded with sensors that are used not to replace humans but to supplement them. The Indians have a fairly decent fence with Pakistan, and they use about 50 men per kilometer. Of course, only a fraction of those men are actually on the border at any given time because you need men for different shifts, and you have to allow for illness, vacation and emergency leave, training, administration such as cooks, supply personnel, mechanics, signalmen and so on. Perhaps there are 5-8 men on the fence at any given time; they need all the help they can get from sensors, but under no condition can you reduce the manpower with sensors.
The US-Mexico border is 3200-kilometers. You'd have to extend it at least 200-kms on each side to account for the sea frontier, but lets forget that for now. For the land border, you'll need 150,000 border agents. Don't even think of doing it with less.
Having said that, we brace for the whining and weeping in the land of Egypt. 150,000 agents at $100,000 per agent per year including all overheads is $15-billion. Our reaction is: so? What's the big deal? Do you want border security or don't you want border security? You think you can buy it for a couple of billion dollars a year? Dream on America, dream on.
If you don't want border security, here's another suggestion. Give each Mexican state provisional status in an expanded US of A. We leave others to work out the details. As each state attains an economic well-being where people don't want to migrate, make it a full member of the USA.
Here's a little secret that Americans may not appreciate. It's likely 95% of migrants, legal or legal, come to the US to better their standard of living. Don't believe us? Find out how many Scandinavians and Australians migrate here for reasons other than marriage or some restriction in transacting some kind of business with the US that makes it neccessary to get a Green Card or citizenship.
Give the Mexicans something comparable to a US standard of living, and are they nuts to leave their land, their family ties, their identity to come to America? Believe it or not, people, the answer to that is "No". There is nothing more powerful than the attachment to the country you grew up on. There is nothing more wrenching than having to leave it behind just because you can get better wages in another country.

0230 GMT February 28, 2008

China Breaks West's Hydrocarbon Embargo Against Iran Reader Marcopetroni sends an article http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=11628&size=A that says China is to buy gas from Iran's North Pars fields, These hold 2.27-trillion-cubinc meters, and China will buy 34 million-cubic- meters a day. Iran's Khuzestan oil field hold 33-billion barrels and produce just 25,000-barrels-per day because of the West's oil technology embargo. Teheran does not have the modern technology is needs for these oilfields, nor to extract oil from the Caspian. China will presumably provide technology for the new oil fields.
So everyone who did not see this coming needs to stand in the corner with a "I Am A Dunce" cap. We don't think anyone with an IQ of 80 or above will be standing in the corner, but who knows.
So can we expect the Chinese at some point to start aiding Iran in the defense of its oil fields - read defense of Iran? For China Iran will become a major supplier, and just as the US defends the Gulf for its oil, China too will face the same imperative with reference to Iran.
Indian MOD Returns 70% Of Arms Purchase Budget To Finance Ministry The equipment situation for the Indian armed forces has gone to heck and beyond. The Air Force, for example, is down to something like 50% of its sanctioned combat squadron strength because of the delays in buying replacement aircraft. So for 2007-08, the MOD received $10-billion for arms purchases. MOD spent $3-billion.
Under the Indian budget system, money not spent has to be returned to the Finance Ministry. So those of us who thought India has a defense budget of ~$22-billion last fiscal year were wrong, the authorization may have been that, but spending was almost 30% lower.
This absurdity has been going on for years. Why? Well, in 1984 the then Prime Minister (actually his lady wife) took a substantial kickback to buy the Bofors 155mm howitzer. The French, who had an inferior gun, quietly briefed the right persons about the bribery. Shame on the French, because they too regularly paid bribes. It's kind of peculiar to say: "I'm going to turn you in because you didn't accept my bribe", but that's the French for you."
Thanks to the scandal that erupted, only the first 400 of 1600 guns was purchased. Almost 25 years later, Indian artillery has still not been modernized because no one wants to approve purchase of the Bofors gun, which is about the only sensible solution.
But forget Bofors. No bureaucrat wants to sign any purchase order if s/he can avoid it because they don't want to be falsely accused of accepting bribes. We do not have figures handy - perhaps an Indian reader can send them to us - but we think in the last five years alone something like $20-billion has not been spent. For example, a deal for BAE Hawk jet trainers took 27 years before the first 8 trainers landed up. Meanwhile, Air Force pilots kept falling out of the sky because they lacked an advanced jet trainer, and went straight from unremarkable light jet trainers to the unforgiving MiG-21. Again, we don't know how many pilots died because of training deficiencies - the Air Force has never released the figures and your Editor has not been back in 18 years.
On India, however, none of this maters. Life is cheap, and talk is the norm. India wants to be the world's next superpower; we'd be delighted if the Indians could explain how they plan this when they cannot even spend the money authorized for modernization of equipment that is 30-40 years old.
Taliban Control 10% Of Afghanistan says the US Director of National Intelligence. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/27/afghan.assessment/index.html So is this going to be another story of how just a few weeks ago NATO was boasting the Taliban controlled no land in Afghanistan?
Indeed it is not. This is an article with a lot of eye-rolling and "there you go agains". It almost seems that the old American virtue of plain talk is deader than the dodo, and Americans cannot open their mouths without spinning. And this is the case with the DNI. There are so many things wrong with his statement that we hardly know where to begin.
First, how does he define control? The Afghan Government itself controls very little of Afghanistan, so what is the big deal here? Notice we are not criticizing the Afghan government because for reasons beyond the scope of this discussion, earlier governments had the same problem.
Second, shouldn't DNI/NATO give the Taliban kudos for having learned the art of war so well from the Americans? Americans don't believe in controlling ground, they believe in killing the enemy. If they did believe in controlling ground, they would have sent 250-400,000 troops to Iraq, and 150-200,000 to Afghanistan. So if the Taliban control only 10%, they are to be congratulated. Chairman Mao would certainly praise them, because like the Scarlet Pimpernel, they are here, they are there, those dem elusive Talibans. NATO moves in, they move out. NATO moves out, they move in. So and so forth - our readers know all this stuff about guerilla tactics, no needs to repeat it.
Third, if you reverse the definition and say: how much ground does the government not control in any form, you are likely looking at 30-40% at the minimum. And if you go further and say: how much ground does the government not control for 24 hours a day you likely get between 60-70%.
The other day the Washington Post had a lengthy article on the Taliban in one area of Afghanistan. For six years NATO made good progress in this particularly area, of which Tarin Kot is the central place. Then one day the villagers just starting fleeing the are, not to return. The Taliban had returned. Six years of work undone in a few weeks. Now, do the Taliban control the area? No, not in the sense the DNI means, because there's Dutch troops all over the place. But does the Dutch writ run? No, the Taliban's writ runs - ask the remaining villagers. Are there Taliban roadblocks, a Taliban police force, a Taliban administrative HQ and all that stuff? Nope.
Nary a Taliban to be seen except when they decide to fire a few shots at the Dutch only to push off before things get serious.
But neither the Afghan government nor NATO control this area.
So Mr. DNI, can you for once give us all the bad news straight? When you spin, what happens is the gullible American public - and equally gullible us since we lost our people in Afghanistan - thinks all is well. Then they get a big shock when something so big goes wrong that cannot be spun. Their reaction is not: "we need more troops there", they say "the government has been lying to us, Lets get the heck out of there."
Sound familiar? If you're an old timer, it should. Second Indochina. The US government fibbed so much that when the Americans were really, truly winning, and the 1975 invasion came, the American people and Congress said: "so if we're winning how come there's 200,000 Vietnamese regulars invading the South? we are so out of here." We dont recall if the government tried to explain that the guerilla war was won, which is what the US set out to do, but this was a straight across-the-frontier massed conventional offensive against a sovereign nation. It doesn't matter if the government tried to explain, because 80% of the people would have said: "Talk to the hand."
There are consequences to lying, spinning, hiding unpleasant facts.
By the way, nothing terrible happened to our people in Afghanistan. They simply found out that they could get a ton more money working for other people, including directly for the American government. Honestly, we couldn't pay them a dime more than we were because we didn't have the money. We had - and still have but not for Afghanistan - great intel. But we've never been able to sell it or ourselves. So complete frauds are being paid millions of dollars, while Orbat is literally and figuratively emptying the vacuum cleaner for change.

0230 GMT February 27, 2008

Kenya: Kofi Annan Suspends Mission After one month of negotiations, the former UN Secretary General says that he has not gotten anywhere and is suspending his missions. He says the government and opposition leaders have to engage and resolve the matter of power sharing themselves.
Raul Castro Will Bring Change says the International Herald Tribune, even as it acknowledges that the Cuban people themselves don't think he will.
The IHT http://iht.com/articles/2008/02/26/america/cuba.php notes that the first person Raul Castro met was neither Mr. Chavez, nor Chinese officials, but with the Pope's envoy. He has also said government needs to shrink. He is known as an efficient go-getter instead of a romantic talker like his brother. He has allowed a newspaper to expose government corruption, and said that people cannot live on the salaries they earn.
Nonetheless, IHT says Raul has decided he cannot stray too far from his brother's policies. The way we read the article, "as yet" should be appended to that last sentence. This makes sense. His brother is still very much alive, and the Old Guard remains in power. Raul may be wise to take only small steps at this time because radically altering five-decade-old policies overnight could also cause chaos.
Indian Defense Budget To Increase To $40-billion in the next 5 years according to Press Trust of India, quoting Indian industry surveys. For 2007-08 the budget was ~$25-billion: the appreciation of the rupee against the dollar makes direct comparisons direct; we have used a rate of 39 rupees to the US dollar.
The market for equipment purchases is estimated at between $50-billion and $100-billion over the next five years.
Killer Robots Next Terrorist Weapon says a British AI scientist quoted by Reuters. He says for about $500 you can now make a small drone with a GPS unit. The US has 4000 robots in Iraq, is deploying more, and several nations are working on robots. Once the genie is out of the bottle, once robots are out there, it's just a matter of time before terrorists duplicate some of the technology.
We agree with him: a bunch of engineering-smart high-schoolers can make decent robots using non-military-grade hardware, so why not terrorists.
Of course, we'd say to the scientist this technology really does work both ways. Robots - particularly micro- and soon nanobots are neat stuff to off unwanted people. Then you'll have to safeguard against criminal groups getting a hold of the technology.
Reloads for ABM/SAM Systems" From Brian Brown You asked whether ABM reloads were available and stated that you were unsure about the Standard-3. In terms of the Standard-3, while a ship may not carry reloads at sea, it has the capability to carry a formidable number of missiles. The Arleigh Burke class, for example, has 90 vertical launch silos, which can carry a mix of Standard, Harpoon, Tomahawk, and other missile systems. Standard-3 uses the same Mk-41 vertical launch system as other versions of Standard, and as the other missiles mentioned use. Thus, theoretically, an Arleigh Burke class destroyer could carry 90 Standard-3's, but as a practical matter would need to carry a number of other missiles for other functions, thus reducing its capacity to carry ABM systems.
Mr. Brown has a good point, and applicable even more so to the Ticonderoga cruisers, which carry 127 missiles. The Standard 3 is, however, a boost phase interceptor. While its good a large number of missiles can be maintained, we would really like to see more long-range interceptors. MEADS can intercept at theoretical distances of 600-miles, but that is not the same thing. We have to assume the US is not going to put up a show system capable of shooting down a few warheads. Either it will install more-long range interceptors, or it will create a capability to counter a non-Russia enemy breakout, or it is working on something else - or it could be all three.
Reloads for ABM/SAM Systems: From Lou In a Hawk Battery, there was 6 launchers, each launcher had 3 missiles. There was in storage on the launch site, 36 more missiles. The theory being that the launchers would be reloaded in turn.
There was only one loader (tracked) at each site I was assigned.
The missile storage area was not that well protected, nowhere near the level used for aircraft bunkers on AF bases.

0230 GMT February 26, 2008

Are US ABM Launcher Reloadable? We wonder if our readers have any wisdom to offer on this question. When the US defended its airspace with the Nike-Ajax and Nike-Hercules, if we recall right, the launchers had reloads, three missile per launcher (two reloads) .
This question is not an idle one. The Czech Republic is get one battery of 10 launchers. If the launchers cannot be reloaded, that's just ten shots. If they can be reloaded, that's 20 or 30 shots, which a lot more substantive.
Under the 1972 ABM Treaty, reloads were not allowed. Now that the US has withdrawn from the Treaty, its a logical inference that the prohibition against reloads is gone. But it sure would be nice to get some confirmation rather then rely on inferences.
Of course, other components of the ABM system such as Patriot and MEADS have reloads; we are unsure about the Standard 3.
Pakistan Yesterday we said "The defeat of President Musharraf's regime may actually help the US by forcing a reversal of America's disastrous policies with regard to Pakistan." This needs a bit of explanation.
The US wants Pakistan to fight Taliban and Al Qaeda extremists within Pakistan. Though it's usual to label all extremists in Pakistan under the rubric of Al Qaeda and Taliban, many Pakistani terror groups don't have their origins with either, for example, the groups that fought India in Kashmir 1987-2005. But presumably the US wants these gone too, because you cant tell India:"yes, we're best buddies, but really the anti-India terror groups are none of our concern." At that point you will see India withdrawing from the GWOT.
But as far as Pakistan is concerned, neither the Taliban, nor AQ, nor the anti-India groups are extremists. Both further Pakistan's foreign/security policy.
As for AQ, the Muslims really do believe in brotherhood. This may seem odd to Americans, but Pakistan does not get any advantage or gain from hosting AQ. In fact, it gets a lot of grief from the West. But Pakistanis as good Muslims believe that when a brother asks for help or hospitality, particularly in a matter as important as religion, they are obligated to assist, even if it gains them nothing and costs them much.
So when America asks Pakistan to destroy groups Washington considers extremist, it is asking Pakistan to act against its own interest. And when the US allies with the military, it creates a double problem, because the military is patriotic, and does not see why it is called on to fight against brothers at the behest of America.
Pakistan's internal polity is a volatile mix of competing/conflicting interests that Orbat.com cannot presume to explain the major threads. All we can say is that when the US jumps into this volatile mix, it becomes a massive wild elephant, charging this way and that, trampling everyone in sight in pursuit of its own objectives, and with no concern or interest what it is doing to Pakistan.
The United States had Pakistan backed up against a wall, and this was a very dangerous situation. We say "was", because now you have three actors who are neither beholden to the Americans, nor particularly interested in keeping them happy at a great cost to themselves.
The new Chief of Army Staff is his own man. While he likes the military assistance his army gets from America, and while he is happy to eliminate any extremist who acts against Pakistan, that is as far as he will go.
Similarly, Mrs. Bhutto's widower and Nawaz Sharif are not Americaphiles. Their upbringing is not UK-US as was the case for Mrs. Bhutto. Their roots are in Pakistan. Like most politicians in South Asia, they can be bought. But again, they will not go against Pakistan's national interest.
These three men will act as a speed-breaker against the heedlessly on-rushing Americans. The US will have to slow down, give much more consideration to how American policies impact Pakistan, and to compromise on its "you're either for us or against us" line.
Why is this good? Because American intervention was helping destroy Pakistan. A fragmented, chaotic Pakistan would become such a problem that the GWOT would have been lost in a major theatre.
Now, Pakistan's greater stability does not help the US in the GWOT, because stability means following the old South Asian principle of live and let live. Pakistan is like to negotiate agreements with the Taliban/AQ along the lines of: you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone. And with reference to the Americans, please lower your key: do what you have to, but be more discreet.
Still, a breakup of Pakistan under multiple stresses to which the US was adding in a major way is a far worse outcome than limited Pakistani cooperation in the GWOT.
If you talk to the Pakistanis, they deride the American effort in Afghanistan. They say "US/NATO care so little about Afghanistan that they send a few ten thousand troops from an alliance which has four times Pakistan's population. Instead, they make us fight our brothers, because they are such cowards that cannot do their own fighting." As far as Pakistanis are concerned, Afghanistan is America's problem, not theirs. They are no longer in the colonial era, when the colonial master pit one Pakistani tribe against another, so that a soldier in - say - the Punjab Regiment was fighting his own people. They are sick and tired of being bullied, and their resistance to helping America at the cost of their own interests is getting stronger every day.
America has to understand it cannot bribe the Pakistani elite to become its servant. It has to do the Afghan job itself, even if the source of the infection lies in Pakistan.
And let us be utterly frank. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan is so important to America that it is willing to do everything neccessary to win. All America has done is send a few hundred thousands to an endless war, and to pay for it with money borrowed from future generations.
This is no sacrifice. No Pakistani with any pride will accept it.
The new political set up in Pakistan is a great opportunity for America to rethink what are its objectives in Afghanistan and what it needs to achieve them. Our solutions - sending 100,000 more troops to Afghanistan- will never be accepted. In which case, America had better face reality and buy off the Taliban/AQ. Getting Pakistan to do that job will not work.

0230 GMT February 25, 2008

Apologies for the delay: your editor was getting beat-up by Mrs. R, which must be his favorite way to spend time since he always insists on getting back into the ring for another losing match.

Pakistan Once again the US is in the unenviable situation of getting what it wanted, this time a democratic Pakistan. It is not that the US could not see itself as collaborating with a semi-authoritarian regime; after all, it happily deals with China every day, and there is nothing semi about China's authoritarianism.
Rather, Americans genuinely believed that the best way of solving Pakistan's internal problems and getting the nation's cooperation in the GWOT was a democratic regime.
The US was half right, because a democratic regime is indeed the best way to solve Pakistan's internal problems, providing it is stable and wise. But solutions to Pakistan's internal problems do not necessarily help the United States in the GWOT.
On this case, the coalition of Pakistan's political parties has decided the best way to deal with the tribal question is negotiations, not more crackdowns, so we are back to the previous situation where Islamabad leaves the tribes alone to do their own thing, and their own thing is not to shower love and kisseys on America.
So there is a lot of moaning and groaning among Americans that the US now faces a difficult situation in Pakistan.
We disagree. The defeat of President Musharraf's regime may actually help the US by forcing a reversal of America's disastrous policies with regard to Pakistan.
More on this in the next update.
Ralph Nader Enters Presidential Race saying that if the Democrats cannot win by a landslide this year, they should "just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form." [CNN 6:09 PM EST 2/24/2008.]
He thus rejected charges that he will act as a spoiler for the Democratic chances of winning in November.
Mrs. Clinton commented that he had cost Mr. Al Gore the election in 2000, and she hoped he would not hurt the Democrats, but America was a free country.
Earlier Mr. Obama had said that while he respected Mr. Nader for his considerable contributions to society, Mr. Nader unfortunately believed that anyone not in complete agreement with his positions was wrong.
The Republicans, of course, are pleased because, as is being said, it is unlikely anyone who is inclined to vote for Senator John McCain would vote for Mr. Nader.

0230 GMT February 24, 2008

Al-Sadr Extends Truce Another 6-Months gladdening the hearts of the US and Iraq governments while causing grief to some followers who want to get on with the fight against Sunnis and Americans. Al-Sadr is said to have used the first 6-months of the truce to purge his Mahadi Army of out-of-control elements that were threatening his authority. He explained to his followers while extending the truce that he did not want to give the Americans a pretext to attack his army.
Now, when we must have said a jillion times the US must put military operations second to political accommodations, why are we unhappy when the US is indeed doing just that re. Sadr?
Only because we don't trust this man. To imagine he has suddenly become a defender of Sunnis and a reliable partner of America in curbing sectarian violence is to mislead ourselves. He still wants to take over Iraq, for the first time combining secular and religious power in one person, himself.
We believe that when five extra brigades went to Iraq, he realized the game was up in his stronghold, Sadr City in Baghdad and that the US was getting ready to destroy him. His retreat is only temporary. Moreover, we believe Iran persuaded him to stand down on the concept that the best way to get America out of Iraq soonest is to avoid aggravating them.
Perhaps we are wrong and perhaps the optimists are right that he has changed his spots and decided to abandon violence in favor of electoral politics. We'd like to see some evidence, though. Agreeing not to attack US troops for another six months is no evidence of anything except that he is waiting for the US to draw down its forces. When he realizes the US plans to keep 15 brigades in Iraq through 2008, he might change his mind. So let us see what happens.
Zimbabwe's January Inflation Hits 100,000% an increase from December's 67,000% says BBC. 80% of the country lives in poverty and 3-million citizens have fled to neighboring countries.
Meanwhile, President Mugabe is thriving. Due to the failure of the opposition to stay united, he is likely to win a sixth term as president. In any case, since the polls will be rigged it doesn't matter if the opposition is united.
B-2 Crashes at Guam This is first ever reported crash for the stealth bomber. Assuming one plane is kept for testing, this one loss means 5% of the US's stealth bomber capability is now kaput.
280-MW Solar Power Project For Arizona A Spanish company is teaming up a local partner for this plant. Three points of interest.
First, this is not a photo-voltaic installation. The sun's heat is focused by mirrors and put to heating a fluid which is then used in generators. The fluid stays hot long enough that the plant works also at night.
Second, at $3500-per-installed kilowatt excluding government subsidies, and with no raw material to be paid for, the plant is near competitive with coal plants. These cost around $1200/kilowatt, but you require 3-million tons of coal a year for the plant (lower end estimate) and that's $150-million right there at the current price of ~$50/ton for coal. But without doubt a carbon tax is on the way; US banks are factoring a price of $20-40/ton of carbon-dioxide into their estimates for the viability of new coal plants. One ton of coal produces 3-tons of CO2 [http://cbll.net/articles/coal-question] so even if you sequester two-thirds of the CO2 - and we don't know how much that increases capital costs - at a mid-range we could be paying $80/ton for coal. That means in just 8 years the solar plant's capital cost of 3X coal plant is paid for. We are not counting interest, this is back of the envelope calculation.
Third, very roughly, the Spanish technology requires one square mile of land per 100-MW. If you wanted to phase out all fossil fuels for power generation in the US, ~800-Gigawatts [http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html] you'd need to put ~8,000-square-miles under solar plants. Arizona and New Mexico combined have about 240,000-square-milesof land, so this is doable.
The problem is with the US insistence on lavish energy usage - 1 Terawatt of generating capacity for 300-million people - as well as the NIMBY syndrome as well as the insistence on protecting the smallest animal species, 8000-square-miles of land is going to be a problem.
Americans don't get upset about the 5,000-square-miles a year lost to population growth: adding one person requires one acre of land, US population grows at 1.1% a year or ~3-million at this time http://dieoff.org/page40.htm but you can imagine the screaming if people in Arizona/New Mexico are told 8000-square-miles land is required. You will be impacting a lot of communities.

0230 February 23, 2008

Ralph Nader Considering 3rd Presidential Run says the Associated Press. If so, this will be good news for the GOP. In 2000, Mr. Al Gore lost Florida by 543 votes, and thus the electoral college, throwing the election to Mr. George Bush. 97,000 people on Florida voted for Ralph Nader's Green Party, though he had less chance of winning than the proverbial snowball in the Downstairs place. If 2008 is a close election, Mr. Nader may again play spoiler.
In fairness to Mr. Nader, some argue that it was not his fault Al Gore lost. Aside from the usual problems with the election - no process that large can be run with 100% accuracy and fairness, particularly as US counties and states determine some of the voting rules - some people point to the 12,000 Democrats who voted Republican in Florida, and note that each of the seven other third-parties on the ballot polled more than 543 votes. Thus, it is argued, any of the other third-parties can be blamed.
Unfortunately, this is a leaky argument. It's likely many Republicans voted for Mr. Gore, so we could equally say they seriously damaged Mr. Bush by leaving him so thin a winning margin that no election, no matter how perfect, was sure to be controversial. One third party, the Libertarians, polled 16,000 votes. They cannot be assigned blame for leeching Gore votes, because Libertarians tend to be ultra-conservative. Their damage was likely to Mr. Bush.
That leaves some 25,000 votes possibly pulled from Mr. Gore by the remaining six third-parties. That means Mr. Nader pulled four times as many votes away from the Democrats as all the left-leaning third-parties put together.
Had Mr. Nader not been on the ballot - and overall he took 2.7% of the vote, perhaps 2.7-million ballots which the Democrats could undoubtedly have used - there is scarcely much doubt that Mr. Gore would have won Florida with a healthy margin of several ten thousand votes.
Also please recall New Hampshire with its 4 electoral votes. Had they gone to Mr. Gore, he would have won the election even if he lost Florida. Mr. Gore lost New Hampshire by 7,000 votes, Mr. Nader took 21,000. We've heard it said that 3-6 other states might have tipped for Mr. Gore with Mr. Nader, and at the very least, Mr., Nader forced Mr. Gore to divert valuable resources that could have been better spent in defeating Mr. Bush.
In 2004 Mr. Nader was not a factor: he won just 0.3% of the vote because the Democrats worked hard to throw mines in his path. It is always possible the same thing will happen in 2008.
Our foreign readers should be aware there may be a big problem for the Democrats no matter who is their candidate. There are possibly millions of Democrats who will find Mrs. Clinton unacceptable under conditions, and the same is true for Mr. Obama. If Mr. McCain was an extremist, they would still such it up and vote their party just to foil him. But he is a moderate, and many of those millions might just vote for Mr. McCain so that their bete noire, be it Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama, is not elected.
Point of clarification: the Editor is not a US citizen and is not entitled to vote in any election but the Takoma Park, Maryland municipal election. He consistently declines this "honor" because he believes it is wrong for non-citizens to be given a vote. The most precious thing to a member of a democratic society is her/his vote, and out of respect for American citizens the Editor would never even consider voting in the Takoma Park elections.
Further, had the Editor been eligible to vote, he would in 2000 and 2004 have cast his ballot for Mr. George Bush, albeit with reservation. In 2008 he would cast his vote for Senator John McCain without any reservation at all.
Thus, the above comment is not an apologia for the Democratic party.
The Real Cloak Of Invisibility Readers by now probably know all about the US's "cloaking" research, which has achieved serious success in masking stationary objects. One technique is to cover the object to be hidden with the new light-absorbing materials which are said to prevent reflection of 99.99% of light striking an object.
Now, you don't want simply a black hole because the enemy can look for these extra-dark spots. So researchers have come up with materials that absorb, in practical terms, all light received by an object, while simultaneously bending light from a second object behind the first in a way that you will see the second object but not the first, which remains hidden due to light absorption. Neat.
The effort right now is not so much to make objects disappear completely, but to mask them sufficiently so that they blend into the background. This would adequately serve to defeat enemy PGMs.
Scientists warn that a true Harry Potter cloak is a long ways off. The cloaking materials available today are several inches thick, so if you wore a Harry Potter cloak you likely would not be able to move on account of its weight. Moreover, you will still cast a shadow.
All very well, but we hear rumors that the US Army is indeed working on an invisibility cloak for its soldiers. This cloak would take the color of its surroundings, so that a soldier standing in front of a white-washed building will appear as white as the building, but the minute he half stands in a dark doorway, part of him will be dark and part will remain white. Neat stuff.
Made in China As Mrs. Rikhye continues in a foul mood - she ascribes it to her decision to quit smoking, but she is pleasant as always to anyone who is NOT your editor, so he suspects she is lying - your Editor meekly followed Mrs. Rikhye around Downtown Silver Spring's shopping district. As any red-blooded man knows, under no conditions do you keep a lady intent on shopping company, unless it's your most favorite girl friend and you are buying stuff she wants. You certainly do not accompany your wife on shopping trips, and it just goes to show how low your Editor has sunk in his non-existent love life.
Any way, we stopped at a giant fashion shoe store. This may sound peculiar, but for various reasons your editor actually knows quite a lot about women's clothing and accessories, and he was struck by the uniformly bad quality of the shoes, labeled from $25 to $125 a pair. It struck him to check the insides of the shoes, and in 20 random samples, it turns out every single pair was Made in China.
The Editor is unclear as to what public purpose is served by these tacky shoes, even if they bear the labels of some of America's best-known shoe-makers. It's fine to say "the consumer gets the price savings", but since presumably several hundred thousand American shoe workers no longer have decent jobs, and this is a pattern repeated in almost every major consumer item group, we no longer have the money to buy decent shoes and are forced, therefore, to buy cheap shoes. And cheap shoes cannot be made in America - so we are told, so the companies have to make their shoes in China. We wonder if the shoe companies' profits have gone down in the same proportion? We suspect not, because if a company is making less money from China shoes, why manufacture there. Plus, are shoes is the $50-$125 range all that cheap?
In theory, the American workers displaced from shoes, toys, clothes, what have you, should get jobs in fields where America has a comparative advantage, say high-technology stuff. This theory fails to take into account that most factory workers do not and can not learn skills required for high-tech stuff. So they are working at jobs that pay less. So they're back to being able to afford nothing better than cheap Chinese shoes. Isn't there something self-fulfilling about this?
When your Editor suggested to Mrs. Rikhye she might be better off spending a bit more money on Italian shoes, which still offer great value and great quality, she gave the Editor a "Let's not go there" danger look. It is Mrs. Rikhye's belief that all her problems begin and end with the failure of the Editor to earn a decent salary. She defines decent as a minimum of $200,000. So you can see what people mean when they say Washington people are out of touch with common America.

0230 February 22, 2008

Congratulations, USA on shooting down the satellite on the first try. Of course, the task is easier than zapping warheads because the satellite orbit was known and it was a large vehicle. But missile warheads are red hot and easier for the tracker to pick up than the cold satellite.
Technically, the satellite was a one-off experimental reconsat USA 193 and launched December 14, 2006 by Delta Flight 322, also called NRO L-21. (Acknowledgement: http://kevinforsyth.net/delta/weblog/?p=147 ). You can read about the launch part at http://www.spaceflightnow.com/delta/d322/status.html There as speculation if this was a radarsat because of its orbit, which was similar to the Lacrosse/Onyx radarsat orbits. The last Lacrosse, number 5, was launched April 20, 2005. See http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/nrol-21.htm and http://space.skyrocket.de/index_frame.htm?
Someone reminds us to mention that the satellite, said to be a follow-up to the famous Keyhole 11/12 reconsats, may have have had equipment abroad that could survive reentry beside the propellant tank These satellites cost a billion dollars apiece and have scads of very advanced technology that the US might want to keep out of unfriendly hands.
Much to the Editor's disappointment, nothing landed on his house, so he can't sue anyone for anything. He is told in all the decades of space exploration, only one person has been hit with reentering space debris, and she was not hurt.
The photograph below is from the US Navy via Associated Press. The ship is CG-70 USS Lake Erie, and the missile is the one launched against the satellite. As far as we know, launching Standards causes the ship to roll to one side or the other depending which launcher cell is used. As far as we can see, there is no roll, so was this picture taken at an angle perhaps cropped? There would be no ulterior motive in doing that, the purpose would simply to show a nice camera shot of the missile going straight up. Just wondering.
Also, read http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7257666.stm for some future developments in the military satellite business.

Comoros Plans Attack Against Secessionist Anjouan one of the three major islands that comprise this Indian Ocean country. Anjouan voted in its own government June 2007, and despite peaceful efforts to resolve the issue, the islands is still in revolt.
Tanzania, Senegal, Libya and Sudan have agreed to contribute troops to an African Union force to help the government. France will assist with transport for the AU troops.
PRC And Sudan Arms You don't often see us defending the PRC, but we have to ask people to be fair. Sure Sudan represses human rights, but so do a whole bucket of other countries that the west has no problem dealing with. Okay, so Sudan stands accused of genocide in Darfur. But what about Angola, the latest petro-darling of the west, which seems to war against its entire population by starving them of oil money? No need to mention several Central Asian nations that are America's best pals, or Chad, where the ruling tribe has been doing its best to stomp on other tribes. Etc. If the US says in the GWOT it has to deal with governments as they are, not as they like, then no point in beating up PRC for looking to its national security interests by dealing with Sudan.
More to the point, BBC reports the Chinese as saying: 1. They supply 7% of Sudan's arms imports, seven other countries supply 93%. So why is China being picked on? Good point. 2. The Chinese note that Sudan is Africa's third largest arms producer, so with or without Chinese arms it will do as it pleases. The greatest problem faced by Dafuris is from Sudan helicopters, which are not Chinese, and from government-supported tribes, who use nothing more sophisticated than 4-wheel-drive vehicles, and infantry/infantry support weapons. These items Sudan can buy by the ship-load anywhere in the world.
We'd also like to ask human rights people what are they doing about the several genocides in the Congo? Five million people have died in the Congo in intertribal wars. Once you have one people systematically seeking to kill another specific people, you are getting close to genocide.
As for some people's definition that even one killing if it is based on ethnic factors is genocide, can we ask these people to do something useful, like digging holes in the ground and then filling them up?

0230 February 21, 2008

Jose Tejeda On Cuba The exile community is mostly white, but are not
numbered at 1 million (unless you include their descendants). It is true that they were the beneficiaries of the Batista Regime which makes their
alleged democratic credentials hard to believe.
Exile politics for years has been characterized by hysteria. Either you are for their version of "freedom" or you were with Castro. Freedom of speech
in this context did not exist. If you were in Little Havana in the 1980s and were saying anything nice about the Castro Regime then, then you were a prime
candidate for a visit by a couple of thugs armed with 5 gallon gasoline cans. The gasoline was used for setting your house (or apartment or whatever) on fire.
If they "were nice" they would not shoot you offhand.
What I mean by "they" is the exile activist themselves. Many of them are still organized into paramilitary organizations like Alpha 66 who regularly
conduct training out in the Everglades in the hope of one day "invading Cuba". Now to average Joes like you and I this sounds crazy, but that is what politics is like when it's laced with Latin style passion.
I do agree that Cuba did achieve substantial gains in education and health care, but that does not change the fact that Cuba is still a dictatorship. In fact,
the 400 plus year history of Cuba can be described as one long series of military governments with no real democracy to speak of. To have democracy in Cuba, two things will have to happen:
1-Institutions will have to be created from scratch. Right now, the military is the only institution around to provide stability (like Haiti used to). The
Catholic Church could not count as an institution because of its relationship with the former regime, so it's discredited. Institutions like a Supreme court
or a parliament would have to evolve from within Cuba itself, and not imposed from outside.
2-Which leads to this second condition, that the Cuban people themselves would have to want change. I think violent change is out of the question for Cubans otherwise we would have seen a violent revolution decades ago. When I am speaking of Cubans, I mean Cubans in Cuba, not Miami.
After five decades, the exile community in Miami is more of an immigrant community. And even within that community, public opinion is not as monolithic as it was in the 1980s. Now almost half would not object to
lifting an embargo if it would help bring change.
As for Cuban's desire for American culture, that is already a fait accompli. From sports like baseball to boxing, there is little difference culturally between
Cuba and America.
US ASAT Intercept The US says it has to shoot down a satellite that never became operational after launch because it contains a fuel tank full of toxic fuel - intended for the satellite's maneuvering rockets. If this tank should crack on impact with land, an area equal to two football fields could be poisoned!! So it needs to be shot down.
Ohmygoshohmygoshohmygosh runrunrun hidehidehide before the satellite hits hits hits omygosh wherecanwe hide if the intercept fails fails fails! Followed by many loud titters.
Look, Gus (that's Government of the United States), we accept in the interests of national security you cannot tell us everything, but why do you have to give an absolutely tomfool cover story? You've been preparing for this shot feverishly for months. Never heard you say anything about the danger to two football fields before last week. Gus, you say the difference between the PRC ASAT shot and yours is that you are doing it in the open, they did theirs in secret. But, Gus, old buddy old pal, if you had any real concern about the two football fields, there would have been all sorts of discussion over the past few years, with open weighing of options and scientific discussion and all that. We may look like idiots, but that doesn't mean you can take us for idiots.
Gus, you've said you'll have 9 opportunities to shoot down the satellite. At $10-mil per Standard 3, plus the tens of millions of dollars spent to put three warships on station, and the tens of millions (at least) spent in rewriting code and preparing for the test, you're talking about a bill that could reach $60-million according to the press, assuming you hit the think right off, and could exceed $100-million if you don't. All to avoid danger to people on the ground if the satellite lands on ground, and if it lands in a populated area, and if the tank busts open.
Gus, my homie, I'll make you a deal. If the satellite lands on my house in Takoma Park, Maryland, and assuming I am not squashed as flat as pancake, I will sue the pants off you. And then what will I do with the money?
I'll use the money to sue the pants off you for a failure to defend the United States so egregious as to amount to treason, specifically, your failure to:
1. Do your utmost to defend the people of the United States against enemy missile attack in the period 1967-2006; 2. Do your utmost to provide civil defense against nuclear attack - Gus, don't whine, the Swiss and we think the Finns provided shelter for every single citizen; 3. Enter into treaties with an enemy state to deliberately leave your population vulnerable so as to assure the enemy that you have everything to lose should you attack.
Parenthetically, we'd congratulate you on doing the right thing by staging the first known ASAT test in two decades (Aw, Gus, don't be shy, we know you have other means of doing the job, so we wouldn't sue you there). But we are not going to congratulate you, because you are still being Wimpo Grade One in your mealy-mouthed explanation you give to avoid hurting the feelings of the Chinese and Russians. This Political Correctness thing has gone too far because now you don't want to offend people who are your enemies and would thrash you if they could.
If you want our congratulations, stand up like a man or a woman and tell the world: "In the interests of national security, the Government of the United States has decided to stage an ASAT test. We do not owe you any explanations of any kind because we, not you, define what is in our national security or not in our national security. Quite incidentally, but this is really quite irrelevant, in knocking down this satellite, we'll also possibly be averting an exceeding minor environmental disaster, equivalent in scale to a tanker truck half full of dry-cleaning fluid (or whatever). spilling in the middle of Washington DC.
(Actually, better not mention Washington DC. Anything that shortens the life of Washingtoons would undoubtedly meet with loud, enthusiastic cheers all over America.)

0239 February 20, 2008

Fidel Castro Resigns his positions as head of Cuba. An election will take place on Sunday to decide his successor. Opinion is divided on what happens next. Most likely Raul Castro, the president's brother and acting successor, will win the vote. If so there could be change: he is said to be a Do type, not a Talk type like Fidel.
He has also twice in the last 18 months called for talks with the US, and has several times told the Cuban people to tell him what the government should do to improve their lives.
Others say the style may change, but the party's grip on Cuba will remain and no big changes should be expected.
What the US will do remains to be seen. The US has no Cuba policy, it has a Cuban-American policy, letting a couple of million "white" Cubans living in America dictate its actions. If by change the Americans mean a US style democracy and courts where the émigrés can sue for compensation for their property nationalized almost 50 years ago then there will be no change. Cuba had a very exploitive privileged ruling class; the "black" Cubans were happy to see them go. They are now unlikely to agree to denationalization or compensation.
America somehow has convinced itself that Castro's hold over Cuba was strictly on account of his monopoly of state force. This was never the case. Absent the US's constant machinations against Cuba and unremitting hostility, it is possible Castro would not have had the level of support he did. But with the US acting as it has, it legitimized Castro in the eyes of his people.
Incidentally, for all its economic woes and the US embargo, Cuba has lower infantry mortality, higher literacy, and comparable life expectancy than Americans. That's because the Castro regime made health/education a top priority. In the US, of course, inequality in health and education is simply accepted as Divinely ordained, and a surprising number of Americans do not see why there should be universal education in equality in education.
By resigning after 50 years, Castro leaves on his own terms. He does not need to flaunt the message that the US never succeeded in toppling him, because this longest-standing failure in American foreign policy is so obvious. US might want to think about opening up to Cuba instead of waiting for Cuba to open up to the US. It opened up to China and to Vietnam, those nations responded, and most would agree - we think - that the world is a better place.
Let every American who wants to go to Cuba go, and open the floodgates of trade/aid. Get the Cubans hooked on American ideas and goods. We are not saying this is the best thing for them, because American consumerism is not the answer to the world's problems. We are saying that if the US wants to change Cuba, engagement will work better than containment.
How do we know? Well, just look at the past 50 years. Madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Time for America to stop acting crazy.
Pakistan Because we don't understand Pakistan's domestic politics, we did not catch that while the President's party, the PML(Q), has been routed, together with its several allies it has a larger number of seats by far than Mrs. Bhutto's party or Mr. Nawaz Sharif's party. These two will have to ally so they can show more seats than anyone else, which they need to do before being invited to form the next government.
But as far as we are concerned, the return of these two parties, which looted Pakistan and did everything to stamp out its democracy in four governments, is not a good augury. There is no indication whatsoever they will clean up government and strengthen democratic institutions.
Pakistan deserved better than President Musharraf and his thugs, but it certainly did not deserve what it is likely to get, Bhutto/Sharif and their gangs of thugs.
It appears unlikely the two opposition parties can force an impeachment of the President, because his party still has a majority in the Senate.
Meanwhile, we'd like someone to explain why Pakistan's North Kashmir is not allowed to vote. The Pakistanis frequently say that Indian rule in Kashmir is undemocratic, and it is true that whenever Kashmiri leaders have acted to secede the Indian government has cracked down on them - as would the US Government crack down if secession went further than just talk.
It is also true that India has frequently sought to bring to power by any means leaders who support India. But at least Indian Kashmiris get to vote. We don't understand why the Northern Areas are not. Yes, they will vote to secede, because they hate everyone - India, Pakistan, and the rest of Kashmir. But Pakistan can take that option off the table, just as presumably the US will presumably not allow a vote to secede. And if Pakistan wants Indian Kashmiris to be given the right to reject India, it should give its own Kashmiris the right to reject Pakistan. While West Kashmir does get to vote, you cannot bring up the "S" word without severe consequences.

0230 February 19, 2008

[1200 GMT] With 259 of 268 Seats Counted, Bhutto and Nawaz Big Winners with Mrs. Bhutto's party winning 87 seats and Mr. Nawaz Sharif winning 66. The president's party has taken a beating, with just 38 seats plus 19 won by its major ally. Independents and small parties have won 46 seats so we can anticipate much horse trading. [Many results are unofficial; we use Jang and Dawn as our sources.]
While an alliance between Mrs. Bhutto's Party and Mr. Nawaz Sharif's party (former prime minister) may seem logical to ensure an absolute majority, since both suffered under President Musharraf, in our opinion such an alliance will lead to conflict and instability for Pakistan, possibly in as little as 6 months. It would have been better if one or the other got 51% of the seats because that is a stable base, but even Mrs. Bhutto party can expect only one-third of the total seats.
Turnout is still being estimated at less than 40% [Jang says 43%]; a pity, because this could become a historic election for Pakistan. Though the generals do have a way of thwarting history. The present army commander appears serious about taking the army out of political life, but should the army at any point feel the country's stability is threatened, it will intervene again. And unfortunately Pakistani politics have traditionally been so fractious that new instabilities are certain.
South Asian politicians are a notably corrupt lot. For example, the Indian parliament has an estimated 30% members with criminal charges against them. They cannot be disbarred unless they are convicted of serious crimes, and with the weakness of Indian justice outside of the main metropolises, convictions are easy to avoid. In Pakistan you've had the problem of the usual corruption and unprincipled alliances just as in India and Bangladesh, but you also have the 800-lb gorilla in the form of the military. So even when you get stable governments - rare anywhere in South Asia, things can change in a flash.
Nonetheless, congratulations to the Government of Pakistan for having conducted a reasonably peaceful election. Though the usual charges of fraud and intimidation are being hurled around by all sides, the foreign monitors still have said nothing. For all the charges of manipulation, the rout of the President's party indicates this was a reasonably fair election.
UN Ethiopia-Eritrea Force Trapped The UN force inserted between the warring nations was ordered withdrawn to Ethiopia after Eritrea cut off food and fuel supplies. The UN says only six trucks were allowed to leave and the rest of the force is trapped.
Eritrea has come up a wholly unbelievable excuse, saying it doesn't have any supplies to give the force. First, if a supply crisis was looming, Eritrea needed to tell the UN about it, not just stop supplies and say "we're out of stuff". Second, the UN pays for all its supplies, and imports if local shortages exist. So there is no question of being out of anything.
Eritrea's probable cause of discontent is that the UN has not pressured Ethiopia to surrender the border town of Badme as was decided under the terms of a settlement. The Ethiopians, however, have their own reasons for stalling, and the UN is caught in the middle. The UN force is not there to fight anyone or compel anyone, it is there simply to monitor the ceasefire and to ensure no one slips in extra troops into the border zone without being reported.

0230 February 18, 2008

Pakistan Elections Peaceful agencies report. Though 11 people were killed during voting, in the South Asia context this is a negligible figure and belies widespread concerns that the elections would not be peaceful.
Turnout, however, appears low because voters were fearful for their security.
Reuters says that several hundred foreigners monitored the elections. It remains to be seen what comments the monitors may have on the election.
From Prof. Feisal Khan On Islam and the Pakistan Army A couple of points of clarification about what you wrote on Gen. Zia and the Pakistan Army. Gen. Zia was appointed COAS in 1976 and staged a coup in 1977. Zia did not institute Islamism in either Pakistan or the Army, he merely accelerated the process and carried it forward to its logical conclusion.
The process actually began with the introduction of the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly by PM Liaquat Ali Khan in 1949. The Resolution enshrined Islam as the State Religion and mandated that Muslims would live their lives in accordance with the Quran and Sunnah. The Resolution was a part of all three (1956, 1962 and 1973) Constitutions' Preambles and formally added to the body of the 1973 Constitution by Gen. Zia in 1985.
It was Z A Bhutto who declared certain Muslim sects to be nonmuslim, banned alcohol and changed the weekly holiday to Friday. Before Zia the Army had always used Islam as a motivational and unifying force; Zia merely institutionalized and formalized what had been done informally before. While it is certainly true that before Zia senior officers were less overtly religious and more secular and that the Army had an overall 'secular' ethos, the class composition of the officer corps was already changing by the beginning of the 1970s, long before Zia was in a position to influence anything in the Army.
The sons of JCOs, NCOs and ORs, as well as many rankers (much more so than in the Indian Army) were already gaining commissions in large numbers in the 1960s and after 1971, virtually the ONLY ones who wanted to join the Army were them.
Zia, again, did not begin the changeover to an Islamic Army but he certainly accelerated the process.
More Sri Lanka Fighting Underway The Sri Lanka Army continued its advance against LTTE rebels, saying it had killed 68 in the last 72 hours. This is likely an exaggeration.
The toughness of the opposition can be gauged by one victory, where the Sri Lanka Army, supported by artillery, managed to capture just 600-meters of an LTTE bunker line.
We would have liked to provided maps of the fighting, but ever since we were unable to make orbat.com work on a commercial basis, we have lost most of our correspondents. We still manage to update the annual, but little else.
US To Buy - Gasp! -Total of 180 F-22 Raptors That's 1.8 wings' worth at 1 wing equals four squadrons equals 72 aircraft. Apparently the Administration thinks that's plenty. The original plan was for 750, cut to 380, and cut again to 180. If we understand rightly, the Administration feels the US military should focus on CI, which is all well and good, but with just 180 aircraft, no matter how good they are, US air superiority is no longer a given.
In any event, equipping your army for CI does not cost much at all and has nothing to do with what the Air Force and Navy require. And further, by reducing to about 23% of the original requirement, the per units costs are jacked up enormously. You don't want to get to the point every time you lose an F-22 it's a national disaster.
Just as in land warfare you need quantity no matter how good your quality - revisit Iraq for the truth of this proposition, you need quality and quantity for the Air Force and Navy
To read what the readers of Defense Technology are saying, go to http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004005.html?wh=wh The matter seems to have aroused large numbers of people to write in.
Kosovo Declared Independence Yesterday We have nothing to say on this except ask a single question. Why is it okay for Former Republic of Yugoslavia to be split with America's help into six countries - likely to be seven because Bosnia-Herzegovina might split - but wrong for Iraq, an artificial country like Yugoslavia, to break up?
Your Editor Is Feeling Gloomy Today because not only is the current Mrs. Rikhye acting up, as she usually does when she is bored, but today is the birthday of an ex-Mrs.Rikhye and he can't remember which one because there seem to be so many. He is also gloomy because he received an invite for a dinner in Delhi for a gathering of his class and the one junior. All the invitees but one, who is a widower, appear married to their original spouses. The Editor is beginning to think he should have quietly married the girl he was supposed to marry at home, a future marriage approved by all parties. Obviously the Editor's judgment in the matter of women is, shall we be polite, non-existent.

0230 February 18, 2008

From Prof. Feisal Khan On Islam and the Pakistan Army A couple of points of clarification about what you wrote on Gen. Zia and the Pakistan Army. Gen. Zia was appointed COAS in 1976 and staged a coup in 1977. Zia did not institute Islamism in either Pakistan or the Army, he merely accelerated the process and carried it forward to its logical conclusion.
The process actually began with the introduction of the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly by PM Liaquat Ali Khan in 1949. The Resolution enshrined Islam as the State Religion and mandated that Muslims would live their lives in accordance with the Quran and Sunnah. The Resolution was a part of all three (1956, 1962 and 1973) Constitutions' Preambles and formally added to the body of the 1973 Constitution by Gen. Zia in 1985.
It was Z A Bhutto who declared certain Muslim sects to be nonmuslim, banned alcohol and changed the weekly holiday to Friday. Before Zia the Army had always used Islam as a motivational and unifying force; Zia merely institutionalized and formalized what had been done informally before. While it is certainly true that before Zia senior officers were less overtly religious and more secular and that the Army had an overall 'secular' ethos, the class composition of the officer corps was already changing by the beginning of the 1970s, long before Zia was in a position to influence anything in the Army.
The sons of JCOs, NCOs and ORs, as well as many rankers (much more so than in the Indian Army) were already gaining commissions in large numbers in the 1960s and after 1971, virtually the ONLY ones who wanted to join the Army were them.
Zia, again, did not begin the changeover to an Islamic Army but he certainly accelerated the process.
US To Buy - Gasp! -Total of 180 F-22 Raptors That's 1.8 wings' worth at 1 wing equals four squadrons equals 72 aircraft. Apparently the Administration thinks that's plenty. The original plan was for 750, cut to 380, and cut again to 180. If we understand rightly, the Administration feels the US military should focus on CI, which is all well and good, but with just 180 aircraft, no matter how good they are, US air superiority is no longer a given.
In any event, equipping your army for CI does not cost much at all and has nothing to do with what the Air Force and Navy require. And further, by reducing about 23% of the original requirement, the per units costs are jacked up enormously. You don't want to get to the point every time you lose an F-22 it's a national disaster.
Just as in land warfare you need quantity no matter how good your quality - revisit Iraq for the truth of this proposition, you need quality and quantity for the Air Force and Navy
To read what the readers of Defense Technology are saying, go to http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004005.html?wh=wh The matter seems to have aroused large numbers of people to write in.
Kosovo Declared Independence Yesterday We have nothing to say on this except ask a single question. Why is it okay for Former Republic of Yugoslavia to be split with America's help into six countries - likely to be seven because Bosnia-Herzegovina might split - but wrong for Iraq, an artificial country like Yugoslavia, to break up?
Your Editor Is Feeling Gloomy Today because not only is the current Mrs. Rikhye acting up, as she usually does when she is bored, but today is the birthday of an ex-Mrs.Rikhye and he can't remember which one because there seem to be so many. He is also gloomy because he received an invite for a dinner in Delhi for a gathering of his class and the one junior. All the invitees but one, who is a widower, appear married to their original spouses. The Editor is beginning to think he should have quietly married the girl he was supposed to marry at home, a future marriage approved by all parties. Obviously the Editor's judgment in the matter of women is, shall we be polite, non-existent.

0230 February 17, 2008

We have an insightful and brilliant letter from Prof. Feisal Khan on the rise of religion in the Pakistan armed forces. We will run it tomorrow, because we don't want the main article to detract from what he has to say

The Pakistan Army Does Not Need American Training - IV

The US needs a completely different approach to Pakistan, and the approach requires the US to jettison its extremist ideology. Wait a minute, you will see: we're extremists? You are either senile or stupid to say that. The Islamists are extremists, not us.
Not so fast Babaloos. Americans are the only people who think they are moderate. The rest of the world, ranging from the richest western countries to the poorest of the poor, do not see you that way. Your speech, action, intent, whatever, is absolutely extreme. Consider that Americans were the modern world's first revolutionaries. The Founding Fathers espoused an ideology so extreme that as far as the Euros were concerned - and so too the Russians, Chinese, and Japanese, to the extent they had relations with the US - the Americans were a dangerous virus that threatened the whole world. And of course, the American ideal of mass democracy and the rule of law did threaten the world.
At some point in the first half of the 20th Century, the Americans became the reactionaries and they turned to a fight to the death with the new revolutionaries, the communists. But once the communists were finished off, Americans became religious revolutionaries. Their religion consisted of four parts: the traditional religion of God, a return to the old religion of democracy, and the new religions of human rights and consumerism. The difference between 1776 and - say 1976 was, however, a very big difference. For two centuries the Americans did not export their religion of democracy. They wanted to be left alone, and even when they got into the two world wars, it was with great reluctance and foreboding. The US involvement in both world wars was absolutely defensive.
But in the war against communism, the US assumed, for the first time in its history, an offensive posture. With the communists in the trash bin, the US decided the whole world had to be converted to its religion of democracy, human rights, and consumerism, with quite a bit of the old God stuff thrown in.
So folks, you may not think as Americans that you are extremists, but the world sees you as such. It sees you as intolerant, narrow-minded, religious zealots bent on taking over the world.
[To which parenthetically we say what we have always said: hurrah for American totalitarianism and world empire, because it is the only way we will have global peace.]
Because Americans are extremists, what we are going to to propose is not going to be met with loud cries of joy. And what we are going to propose is America should jettison ideology in the GWOT and get real. World War II was the last time America got to win 100% with its enemies ground to dust and unable to lift their heads - or whatever the Bible says about how your enemies are to be treated after defeat. America has to understand the new war cannot be won on America's traditional definitions of victory.
It has to understand that CI is a very messy business, and to paraphrase Mr. Rumsfeld, you accept the victory you can get, not the victory you want. That means compromise, that ugly, evil, malevolent, un-American word.
Because we don't want to give our readers more severe gas pains than they already have reading the last three days, we're going to cut this short.
(a) Accept there is nothing you can do about Pakistan. It has 170-million people and is too big for the US to treat it like, say Panama.
(b) Break the Taliban away from Pakistan by becoming their patron. Give them respect, money, aid, a place at the governing table, and accept Afghanistan is not going to become a shining bastion of democracy. Tell the Taliban and the Afghan people it is their responsibility to govern themselves, but you are always there to help. Tell them "We had no quarrel with you till you have OBL shelter, he's out of Afghanistan, let's forget about him and move on". Explain you will not attack them; in return they have to not attack America. You will be their friend if you will be their friend. Remind yourself you are best buddies with the Saudis, whose entire way of life is completely unacceptable to America. If you can treat the Saudis with respect and forget about their religion/politics/social life, why can't you do the same with the Taliban?
(c) Embrace the Islamic reactionaries/revolutionaries, whatever you want to call them. Sample pitch: "We feel your pain and though we may not agree with your philosophy of life, we understand the regimes who rule you are tyrannical, corrupt, and unjust. From now on, we are on your side."
(d) Jettison existing Mideast and Pakistani regimes They are the problem, not the solution. Join with the Islamists in overthrowing the Saudis, Egyptians, Pakistanis and so on regimes. Sign non-interference treaties with successor regimes. Offer them whatever help they want to ask for, and use only the gentlest, mildest pressure to get small things in return: a bit freer press, slightly more independent courts, some rights for women, and so on.
(e) Peace and harmony will not rule, because the Muslim countries have huge, huge issues to work out that have nothing to do with the US. But the US should withdraw itself from the equation, instead of every year making itself a bigger target by escalating its opposition to the just demands of the Muslim people.
(f) America, you can do this. The Germans and Japanese were your mortal enemies, they are your allies. And don't say "but we utterly defeated them and it's easy to be magnanimous to the loser" because you did not defeat North Vietnam and yet you are good friends, becoming better friends by the day. You did not defeat China, but you are partners on many levels, and please remember, 38,000 Americans died in the Korean War. That is an order of magnitude greater than American dead in the GWOT, and many time more than American dead in 9/11.
(g) We are at no point saying America cannot win the GWOT. But the American people are not prepared to make the sacrifice to win. It will mean 10-20% of the GNP on defense, a draft, and 10,000 or more American dead each year - and it is likely to be a hundred years war.
(h) Given the reality, America has two choices. Stumble along as at present and be defeated, because the American people will not countenance the cost. Or accept that if you beat a man over the head, you will never get him to work with you. Either you should kill him - Germany and Japan - or you should stop using force against him.
Personally - and we really want our readers to understand this - we are all for the killing part. Your Editor had the American disease of fanaticism long before he arrived in America. Once here, he become a true believer in "Unconditional Surrender", and "Better Dead Than Red", and "Better 100-million commies burn in the nuclear fires than one American woman be violated by those godless commies" and "America - Love It Or Leave It". That last was the sticker on his brief case. His anger over Vietnam is purely that the US did not start by put North Vietnam under an air-tight and water-tight blockade, and by blowing the Red River dykes so that a fourth of the north drowned and the rest starved like rats in a drought. He was very angry that the US did not use tactical nuclear weapons to defend Khe Sanh and to stop the 1972 offensive. He was 100% for Gulf II, and was appalled when the US did not continue its advance into Saudi Arabia, did not shoot looters, and a hundred other things.
BUT: the Editor is sufficiently realistic to realize the America of World War II and of the Cold War is not the America of today. Americans talk patriotism, but they have become a greedy, selfish, narcissistic people, intent on satisfying the next consumer/advertising generated impulse. They have become soft, and couldn't sacrifice a bag of potato chips to save themselves or their country. With a few honorable exceptions, Americans are no longer Heroes, they are Big Fat Zeroes. But that is the reality, and it must be accepted. That means accommodation and turning our enemies into friends.
And who knows? Maybe the Big Fat American Zero is right and the Editor is the one who is wrong.

0230 February 16, 2008

The Pakistan Army Does Not Need American Training - III

Our argument so far has been that the Pakistanis consider the US the problem, not the Taliban/AQ. Every deeper involvement in the GWOT the Americans force on Pakistan creates a greater backlash. The reason Pakistan is teetering on the edge of disaster is not because of the Taliban/AQ, but because the US has frayed the always fragile and complex power relationships in Pakistan.
If Pakistan collapses, it will solely be because the US has sacrificed the country for America's short term gain. The Americans will, of course, say "Sorry about that" and push off to wreck havoc somewhere else, and the Pakistani people and all of South Asia will be left with the consequences.
Now lets get back to issue of the Taliban, though we are repeating ourselves to the point we bore us. The Taliban was created by Pakistan as a way of bringing Afghanistan under its influence and of gaining strategic depth against India.
Now, nothing the Pakistanis do is simple: they may pretend to visiting Americans that they are just simple soldiers and farmers - tug of the forelock here - but their thinking, like that of their Islamic brethren is amazingly complex and sophisticated. Naturally, Westerners don't see that, because as far as the West is concerned, any nation espousing Islam is backward, and backward means stupid.
The Taliban, backed by the Pakistan Army made amazingly short work of the various opposing Afghan factions. But there were other Pakistani imperatives. Two were: prepare for jihad in Kashmir, and bring all Pushtuns inside Pakistan before the Pakistani and Afghan Pushtuns decided to create their own country. In South Asia the classic strategy against centrifugal forces has traditionally been a outward expansion - India also uses this strategy, sometimes successfully, sometimes not.
When the Taliban made the fatal mistake of refusing to hand over Mr. Bin Laden, America "persuaded" Pakistan to "cooperate" in the GWOT. We will not at this point go into why the Pakistanis allowed themselves to be "persuaded". But, caught between a rock and a hard place, they came up with a strategy they have consistently followed for the last 6 1/2 years, and for decades earlier. This has been to cooperate as minimally with the Americans as is possible, while continuing to pursue their own interests. And their interest, first, second, and always, has been to protect their creation, the Taliban.
Till 2006, their objective of conceding as little as possible to the Americans while pretending to cooperate with them worked, because the Taliban lay low. Incidentally, we want to be unequivocal in stating that clear-thinking Americans in numbers understood exactly what the Pakistanis were doing. If the Americans have their myths about the Pakistanis, the reverse is also true, and while the Americans may look stupid, and often act stupid, they too are every bit as cunning as any Muslim, sometimes even more so. This we'll discuss another time, along with why, when the Americans knew they were being taken for a ride, they continued to deal with Pakistan.
Be that as it may, by 2006 the Taliban had begun their comeback, and the Americans began applying firm and ever-increasing pressure where it hurt. Purely from Pakistan's interests, it would have been much better to kiss the US goodbye. We will explain as soon as possible, perhaps tomorrow, why the Pakistanis did not, and it is not to their credit.
Pakistan was forced to deploy 40,000 troops to the the NWFP. Here the Pakistanis did what they were doing with the US since 9/11: pretend to fight but actually do as little as possible. And this continues today.
Perhaps in our declamations we have overlooked explaining to our audience the traditional, centuries old - perhaps even millennia old - policy that India employed against the mountain people, be it in the NWFP, Kashmir, Nepal, and North East India. This policy, sensibly adopted by Pakistan after its creation, essentially leaves everything to the mountain people except for defense, foreign relations, communications, currency and some odds and ends. The Pakistanis give the mountain people money in various forms, and leave them strictly alone except if the mountain people get too big for their boots. Then the Pakistanis smack the mountain people hard, but immediately make clear they want peace, and the central government is willing to forgive and forget.
Okay, if you are still with us, you will see where this is leading. Increasingly the Americans have forced Pakistan NOT to leave the mountain people alone and to abjure the old-age policy of political accommodation backed by the threat of force. So the mountain people have fought back, but at all times, even in the middle of the fiercest fighting, both sides are engaged in a deep dialog.
On the Taliban side, the dialog goes like this: "you are our friends, our supporters, our mentors. You and we work for common objectives in Afghanistan. Why are you betraying us to the infidel?"
The Pakistanis then say: "We are with you all the way. But the infidel is powerful, and we must bend with the wind. Since he is on the warpath, help us by proceeding about our joint business quietly."
The Taliban reply: "Brother, you kid us, surely. First, we are on the verge of victory in Afghanistan. The infidels are ready to collapse and pull-out, especially the (expletive) Euros. You and us have worked long and hard to win Afghanistan back. And now you want to lay quiet because the infidel is kicking your rear end? Second, be men, and stand up to the Americans, and if the Americans turn against you and start killing you, so what? Death comes to everyone, but the cause cannot be betrayed. The Americans can never intimidate you if you stand up for yourself."
So back and forth the central government and the Taliban go, with one day of desultory fighting for three days of talks. Because the Taliban is a confederation of autonomous groups of fighters, someti