Friday Open Thread
Posted by Stuart Staniford on April 14, 2006 - 10:22am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Tags: peak oil [list all tags]
Swannack is critical of Rumsfeld's management style.A quick tour of conservative blogs and news stories failed to turn up any conservative politicians or bloggers defending him. President Bush has said he's doing a fine job, but that's it."Specifically, I feel he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces there," Swannack said in the telephone interview.
"And I believe he has culpability associated with the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and, so, rather than admitting these mistakes, he continually justifies them to the press ... and that really disallows him from moving our strategy forward."
Update [2006-4-15 4:23:54 by Stuart Staniford]:
While we're on the subject of Rumsfeld, there is an extraordinary piece in Salon (you have to watch an ad to read it), who have got hold of an Army inspector general report on prisoner abuse at Guantanomo Bay. More below the fold.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was personally involved in the late 2002 interrogation of a high-value al-Qaida detainee known in intelligence circles as "the 20th hijacker." He also communicated weekly with the man in charge of the interrogation, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the controversial commander of the Guantánamo Bay detention center.The answer would appear to be "yes". Also,During the same period, detainee Mohammed al-Kahtani suffered from what Army investigators have called "degrading and abusive" treatment by soldiers who were following the interrogation plan Rumsfeld had approved. Kahtani was forced to stand naked in front of a female interrogator, was accused of being a homosexual, and was forced to wear women's underwear and to perform "dog tricks" on a leash. He received 18-to-20-hour interrogations during 48 of 54 days.
Little more than two years later, during an investigation into the mistreatment of prisoners at Guantánamo, Rumsfeld expressed puzzlement at the notion that his policies had caused the abuse. "He was going, 'My God, you know, did I authorize putting a bra and underwear on this guy's head?'" recalled Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt, an investigator who interviewed Rumsfeld twice in early 2005.
Schmidt also saw close parallels between the interrogations at Guantánamo, and the photographic evidence of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. "Just for the lack of a camera, it would sure look like Abu Ghraib," Schmidt told the inspector general, in the interview that was conducted in August 2005. At the direction of Pentagon officials, Miller led a mission to Iraq in August 2003 to review detainee operations at Abu Ghraib -- a visit that critics say precipitated the abuse of prisoners there.I am livid. It is deeply humiliating to live in a country where senior officials are this morally degraded. Fire him. Fire him now. And then hopefully some other country can eventually give him a fair trial for his crimes against humanity.
Now tell me, what is our "up or out" policy, and retirement age for generals? Is the current thinking in the Pentagon that the age for "micromanaging" a war is 70+?
(I certainly hope Buffett is keeping a lighter schedule than Rummy.)
It sounds like the Neocons may have now completely overplayed their hand if even the military establishment is turning against them.
"It's a puzzle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma."
"It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."
Made in 1939 by Sir Winston Churchill on a BBC radio broadcast with reference to forcasting the action of Russia.
The fact that Rumsfeld directed and approved such treatment and then assigns blame to the subordinates carrying out that direction will not sit well with the military.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/04/14/rummy/index_np.html
It is interesting that the retired military officers speak out in sequence and do so immediately after publication of Hersh's article.
And I don't buy this "it's not that bad" bullshit at all. There is no excuse, no rationalization for it. NONE. NEVER.
It's too bad that hybrids are racking up far more than 100,000 miles already. Just to name one, this guy racked up 200,000, and:
more here
I think this is a good example of why we all have to be VERY careful in our energy research. Between politically and financially based biases floating around out there in the infosphere, it's incredibly easy to unknowingly trust bad data and reach an absurd conclusion.
Pity we don't have a legal cause of action against such people for lying their behinds off; they have to be lying about us.
It's so far from true that the person who gave that figure should be demoted to janitor. Even my current car, which gets about 40 miles per gallon (of fuel that weighs roughly 7 pounds per gallon) burns its own weight of fuel every 23,000 miles or so; call it 6 times over a 150,000 mile lifespan. For its life-cycle energy consumption to be 50% in the manufacturing, it would have had to require another 6 times its weight in oil (roughly 12 tons) to make.
Maybe innumerates in public life should have to take and pass a course in practical math analysis before being allowed to return to their jobs, and this fact should have to be made public along with the errata. ;-)
Of course a Hummer carrying 6 ppl instead of 6 ppl in their Priuses, is much more green.
We all know though that most Americans won't carpool unless a gun is to their head, in fact that's almost the definiation of a carjacking: Gun is presented, 2nd person enters car.
"If there is an aerial bombing of Iran, I believe it is inevitable it will go nuclear. The intention is there, the advisors are there, the nuclear policies and the weapons are there. The excuses to make it "acceptable" to the American public are there. The President has sole authority to order the use of nuclear weapons, Congress has no say. The chain of command doesn't go through the Joint Chiefs of Staff that may oppose it as Hersh mentions: it goes directly from Bush and Rumsfeld to commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands such as Gen. Abizaid and Gen. Cartwright. Unless those individuals disobey orders, there is no way to stop it.
I believe there is a high probability of war with Iran because key people in the administration desperately want it, but I don't believe it is inevitable. I hope there will be a sufficiently large public outburst of opposition, eg thanks to Hersh's and other's revelations, to make it impossible....However I believe there is very little time: an attack may well happen within the next 2 weeks, while Congress is in recess. There is no advantage to those that want it to happen in waiting."
- Any general can resign and thereby not have to carry out illegal or immoral orders.
- There is no way the U.S. is going to attack Iran at this time with bombing that would kill large numbers of Russians, who are currently working there.
- The suggestion that any bombing campaign would go nuclear is not only stupid, it is obviously wrong and clearly reveals either total ignorance of U.S. capability with conventional weapons or purposely slanted and dishonest rhetoric for political reasons--or both.
Iran is a serious and complex problem. It will not go away soon. The notion that the U.S. is gearing up for a quick surprise attack on Iran is baseless.If you take a step back and look at the big picture, the neocon's hearts are just not in it like they were with Iraq. They'd rather spend money on radio broadcasts and warn the public about oil addiction than gear up for another military adventure. Hell, they've put the IAEA at the forfront of negotiations. ElBaradei is a sure bet to recommend to the Security Council that they stay engaged, continue inspections, and avoid driving the Iranians away from the Non Proliferation Treaty.
If you want to know how the "Crisis" with Iran is going to turn out, don't look at Iraq for the "scenario avoidance" gameplan, look to North Korea. Remember that "Crisis". Remember Bush saying that the US would not allow NK to obtain nuclear weapons? The administration misplayed their hand, NK withdrew from the NPT, enriched their Uranium, and started up a Plutonium program. Crisis over. Turn off the PR machine. We'll get back to those 6-party talks right after we solve Social Security...
The Administration probably would like to avoid that progression again. The US has no military option in Iran. The Generals are making that clear. In another 2 weeks the Security Council will call for continued inspections, Radio Condi will crank up in Qatar, and the artificial "Crisis" will be soon forgotten.
It is not clear to me (and I suspect I am not alone) what the decision making process is with respect to striking Iran.
Does the President have a standing authorization to do so?
Is Congress expected to issue a specific "resolution"?
Has the concept of "terrorism" changed our Constitutional schema on war powers?
I am sure there are other questions, but the fact that Cherenkov can suggest the possibility of a "recess" war, much like we have a "recess" political appointments, has merit.
It's not to fix Iraq - that's a lost cause. It's to save the US Army from Iran. The generals know that Rumsfeld is telling Bush that the military can handle Iran. That a little precision bombing will solve the problem. But the military knows it will be more complicated than that. That they will be fighting Iranians in Southern Iraq. That they will need to occupy portions of Iran to protect oil (and military supplies) flowing through the Gulf.
Attacking Iran might mean the end of the USA as a Superpower. The Iranians know it, the US military knows it. Does Bush know it?
Iran would put the icing on the cake.
Front 1. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela as we send an aircraft carrier battle group down there to supposedly influence him (Actually this kind of useless pushing around helps assure Chavez's re-election. Note that Castro's golden anniversary of 50 years in power will arrive soon as the result of pretty much the same sort of thing)
Front 2. Pretty much all of Latin America is rejecting our particular "American libertarian economic model" which truly does little for the majority of latins who are poor but nationalistic. It looks like a dustup could be a-comin.under our noses if we keep pushing the Latins. (I should mention, part of my family is Peruvian) Chavez, the Olanta Humalla/David Garcia runoff in Peru, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Nestor Kirchner, Inacio Lula da Silva in Brazil, Michelle Bachelet in Chile, over 60% of Latin America socialist and seceding from the US economic aproach. Doing things their own way and doing better at taking better care of their poor, and telling the US to take a walk. More going soon. Watch us build a wall with Mexico, keep up with our war in Iraq, (what a help that is!!), and so, help Obrador win Mexico.
Front 3 Iraq. Pretty obvious
Front 4 Iran. Pretty obvious
FRont 5. The US public and senior retired generals like Zinni, Newbold, Odom, and several others speaking out (At long last!!. I also happen to be a US military vet).
Front 6. Al Quaida, likely not the worst of our real problems but who make wonderful politically exploitable and exploited boogeymen .
There are of course more war fronts -- if fronts above do not suffice. For example we are doing our very best to alieate the very same countries that can export 80% of the world's oil. These are the countries who we presumably expect to fuel Hummers and SUV's of the USA as peak oil bears down on us.
I have stated a contrarian view for over a year, half seriously and half jokingly. The view is that "W" was actually put into office as the optimum machiavellian plot by Osama to destroy the USA, where public knowledge of the outside world is sufficiently limited that this could actually work. At least the evidence is supporting this
Couldn't resist this. This could be really funny, if only it weren't so serious.
The end of our nation as we grew up to know it is in the works. My Dad served 21 years in the Air Force and Army and I have lived all over Western Europe, and the USA. It has been bothering me for years and years seeing what has been going on with our once proud Men and Women in the Armed Services. Having gone through a major Moral dropping time in my last job which just so happened to do a lot of Gov't work. (( the lost of a GGI contract bid, having to get totally ISO-Certified just to do Gov't work, and getting new Grading scales for our work, 1 to 3 errors in up to 10,000 data points, really put the stress and moral thrashers on us ))
I expect that I will see a major dropping in the Moral across the Board of those That do REALLY support our Troops If we don't pull out due to the 2007 installment of a new congress, or the 2009 installment of a new president, hopefully Our Troops might get to come home again, but somehow I doubt it.
This war has no front that is why its hard to fight.
I voted for Bush - Kerry and the Dems scare me even more, they gave us the War Powers Act, and their reply to Bush's fighting of the war is to protest that they can do it better - kill more Iraqui kids and conscript more American working-class kids. The idea that maybe there should be NO war is utterly inconcievable to the Dem leadership.
That being said, if Bush or whatever Dem flack we end up with in a few years attacks Iran, that's the end for me. I guess I'll become a fulltime protester. Drop out as much as possible from the economy and protest fulltime. It will be the end for the US as a first-world country anyway, so I might as well get used to getting by on sink baths and patchouli.
It's kinda strange that the Democrats look sillier only because we think they should know better. The Republicans get a free pass, being wrong, but not silly.
Think about it man, that's the reason Bush wants withdrawal to be the next president's problem. It lets him be wrong in history, without having to be silly, or a flip-flopper, or a failure in the present.
I live in Tom DeLay's district and many people, myself included, told pollsters that we were absolutely disgusted with DeLay. Was it the investigations? Not at all. We figure the law will decide if a crime has been committed or not. (I think there has but that was not the point of the pollster's call.) So what has so many of us annoyed at old Tom about his recortd in Congress? Well, a Republican congress and a Republican White House has meant over 14,000 pork barrel projects annually, during which old Tom was speaker of the House and the driving force behind almost all of that pork. I discussed this with my wife, reminding her that the Democrats had peaks of 1500 pork barrel projects annually when they controlled congress. At that point we both concluded that the cure (Republicans) was worse than the disease (Democrats).
The Republicans are very much at risk these days but what's funny is that the Democrats are just mirror images of the Republicans now, at least all those who tend towards leadership roles and who the party will let through the nominating process. So what we'll get from the Democrats is a lukewarm version of GWB (aka Hillary). Mind you, that's probably better than GWB but it's like saying that a 102 degree fever is better than a 105 degree fever. The fever is still there and you're still sick.
That's why I liked Alan's "Freedom Party" platform in the other thread. It's probably way past time for a new political party in the US but such probably can't succeed at a national level given the deliberate blockades thrown into the legal system by the existing parties.
If its sounds far-fetched, consider that even if it has a 5% chance of working thats 5% greater than the chance we have now we traditional corporate governance.
You all wonder how the heck I am online. I am a vagabond in my brother's house. Simple. In a few months I will be an unpaid house fixer. I'll live in a walkable town. I'll have a strong back and able hands and feet. Odd jobs and cash and carry, not such a bad life. Most of you wouldn't live it though, a lot of you can't, I have no kids and no spouse, am fairly healthy at 42 and can forage most places in North America on the plants in the wild.
But I will have a van's load of tools and my two pets, dog and a cat, and for a while a shed to call home.
Ps. I dislike Patchouli, I like citrus and pine scents. Try crushed Winter Sorel (( also a great source of Vitamin C )) or use the many essential oils from a good bulk health food place to scent your sink bath water. I have two spare sinks let me know if you need one.
Get a part time job or something. Don't romanticise the situation. Romantic, adventurous times require practical people.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iran_israel;_ylt=AhnaSrU8LFgtkLv4bE4px.Ss0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYw N0bQ--
This link describes one casus belli.
The UN Resolution expires on April 28th. I expect we will wake on the 29th to a very different world. April 29th is exactly 16 days from the date of an inflammatory Bloomberg headline.
Ahmadinejad wants this conflict as much as Bush does. Both seek increased national acceptance of failed administrations. This is a plot that Shakespere should have written.
The President can take military action without prior approval from Congress. Within 90 days of the start of that conflict he has to obtain both approval and further funding from Congress.
In one of his "signing statements" George II has stated his belief that he has constitutional authority to wage war without seeking any form of Congressional approval whatsoever. He can now claim that since there was no objection to that signing statement that his claim has been accepted by Congress.