Showing posts with label American armed forces. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American armed forces. Show all posts

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Dead Marines in Chattanooga, Living with Change

Maybe you've seen the headlines:


(From AP, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
("Police were deployed on the Amnicola Highway near the US Navy reserve centre in Chattanooga"
(BBC News))
"Chattanooga shootings: Four Marines killed at Tennessee US Navy centres"
BBC News (July 16, 2015)

"Four US Marines have been killed after shootings at two US Navy buildings in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

"The local district lawyer said the two incidents were being investigated as an 'act of domestic terrorism'.

"Chattanooga city police said it was the same gunman at both locations and confirmed he had been killed.

"The gunman was identified as 24-year-old Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez by an unnamed official, according to the AP news agency.

"He is believed to have been born in Kuwait, but it is unclear whether he was a US or Kuwaiti citizen.

"Reports said armed police have been deployed to the house where he lived, a few miles outside Chattanooga in Hixson, and neighbours were being evacuated.

"FBI agent Ed Reinhold, who is leading the investigation, said the first shooting occurred at about 10:45 local time (14:45 GMT) at a US Navy recruitment centre in the east of the city.

"After opening fire on the building, the gunman then fled the scene in a Ford Mustang and was pursued by Chattanooga police, Mr Reinhold told reporters.

"He was shot dead after a gunfight at a US Navy reserve centre about seven miles (10 km) away on Amnicola Highway...."
This isn't, I'm quite certain, a major milestone in world history. Ten thousand years from now, I'd be surprised if more than a few antiquarians knew that Chattanooga even existed: or Tennessee, for that matter.

On the other hand, five folks are now dead: that is significant, at least for their families and friends. That is a personal tragedy for those involved, and may deserve the international news coverage it is getting.

Since the victims were serving in the United States armed forces, and the killer's name, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, identifies him with an ethnic group that's had its share of terrorism-related deaths and killings — the district attorney may be right. This does look like "domestic terrorism."

The killer's motives may be hard to figure out, since he's dead: and my guess is that we're not looking at part of a coordinated attack on the United States.

For all I know, this might be a simple holdup gone horribly wrong. It's remotely possible that Mr. Abdulazeez mistook the Marine recruiting office for a convenience store, and panicked when he discovered that there was no cash register to pilfer.

No, I don't think that's the case.

My guess is that Mr. Abdulazeez decided that America was a threat to his faith, that God wanted him to kill Marines, or something equally daft.

If that's true, it does not, in my considered opinion, prove that all Muslims hate Americans, or that America threatens Islam, or that Marines should be killed. It does, I think, show that individuals can do very bad things for daft reasons. (A Catholic Citizen in America, June 21, 2015)

Drunk Driving, Names, a Yearbook, and the Irish



(From BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(Location of Chattanooga, Tennessee)

We're learning more about the killer. Apparently Mr. Abdulazeez had been arrested for drunk driving, earlier this year. That was in Chattanooga, too: and may not have much of anything to do with today's killings.

It looks like Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez was born somewhere in the Middle East. He's 24 years old. A local newspaper said that someone with his name graduated from a local high school and left a message in a school yearbook: "My name causes national security alerts. What does yours do?" (BBC News)

I'm slightly sympathetic toward folks who feel that they're unfairly suspected of crimes. I've used my Irish ancestry as an example of America's occasionally-grudging tolerance of non-English, non-Protestant Americans.

I figure that we'll eventually get used to the idea that folks from Latin America and the Middle East are no more — or less — of a threat than the Irish. By then, tightly-wound Americans will probably be upset about folks arriving from some other part of the world.

At least, I hope so.

Me? I'll be concerned if folks stop wanting to come to America. From my viewpoint, we can always use folks with fresh ideas, enthusiasm, and a new set of customs. Of course, I'm almost half-Irish: and that's where I started this tangent.

The President, Celebrities, Experts, and All That


It's about two hours after I started writing this. The family's eaten our evening meal, and I see that America's president made the usual 'this is a bad thing' statement.

There's news that the killer lived in Hixson, a few miles from Chattanooga, that police raided the house,and "an AP reporter said two women were led away in handcuffs." (BBC News)

That sounds reasonable, although I don't know what it means. Being "led away" by police simply means what the words say. I've been "led away" and searched by police — for good reason — but I've never been a threat to American lives.

I'd say "never been a threat to national security:" but since I don't think whoever is president at the moment is always right — or wrong, question the Supreme Court's infallibility, and don't vote a straight party ticket: some folks might see me as a loose cannon.

If this follows the usual pattern, over the next 24 to 48 hours we'll read about assorted other national and state leaders saying pretty much what the president did. Celebrities will make more-or-less-regrettable statements, and the usual gaggle of "experts" will weigh in on how this attack proves that they're smarter than anyone else.

I'll grant that I've got my own opinions about what happened.

I'm reasonably sure that local, state, and federal law enforcement folks are sorting through evidence and statements: and will eventually learn what happened. They may even discover why these killings started. I don't have blind faith in any of the agencies or people involved: but I don't automatically assume that they're plotting against me, either. That's why I'm inclined to believe this:
"FBI Statement on Shootings at Military Facilities in Chattanooga, Tennessee"
FBI National Press Office, Washington, D.C. (July 16, 2015)

"The FBI's Knoxville Field Office, along with the Chattanooga Police Department and other law enforcement partners, are working jointly to investigate today’s shootings at a military recruitment center and a reserve center in Chattanooga, Tennessee in which four individuals were killed and three injured. The shooter, Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez, 24, is also deceased. While it would be premature to speculate on the motives of the shooter at this time, we will conduct a thorough investigation of this tragedy and provide updates as they are available."

It's a Big World


Predictably, there's the usual rumor that ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham) planned the killings, or knew about them before they happened. That may be true, or not. Right now, I don't know.

It's likely that Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez's motives were at least partly religious, ethnic, or patriotic. That doesn't prove that religion kills, or that everybody who's not a Norwegian-Irish-Scots-American like me is a threat to blue-eyed people, or that nations shouldn't exist.

When someone goes off the rails, the motive generally seems to be something that's emotionally engaging: like religion, ethnicity, national origin, or sex.

But I don't think that Mr. Abdulazeez's actions prove that all Muslims, or Middle Easterners, are terrorists: any more than Anders Behring Breivik's and Dylann Roof's actions prove that everyone with European ancestry is a killer.

It's true that right now quite a few folks are extremely upset at how the world's changing. Mr. Roof, for example, seems convinced that folks with African ancestry are threatening "his" country. Mr. Abdulazeez may have had a similar opinion about Marines.

In a way, these killers are right. Sort of.

The America I grew up in has changed, a lot. Not only have we had an Irish president: folks who don't even look British are moving to this country. I don't mind: but some folks do.

Mr. Abdulazeez is too young to remember the 'good old days' before steam power, television, and the Geneva Conventions, but he may have grown up around folks who yearn for their 'good old days.' Today's world may be a terrifying place for folks who aren't comfortable around anyone who is not from their extended family.

Small wonder that some Muslims are acting like some 'regular Americans' have, lashing out at folks who aren't just like themselves. (A Catholic Citizen in America, September 11, 2014)

That doesn't, I think, excuse folks who kill others for having the 'wrong' faith, or ancestry. And it certainly does not make it okay for me to hate folks who aren't just like me.

If I expect others to let me live, even though I'm not just like them: I'd better show them the same courtesy. I've talked about love, hate, and building a better world, mostly in another blog:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Washington Navy Shipyard: Death, Security, and Voices

What happened at the Washington Navy Shipyard yesterday morning is starting to look less like a terrorist attack, and more like what the CDC calls workplace violence:
  • "Occupational Violence"
    Workplace Safety & Health Topics;
    The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH);
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
After killing a dozen people, Aaron Alexis was killed in a confrontation with authorities. Families are mourning their dead, law enforcement and national security outfits are working at sorting out what happened and why, and journalists are cranking out copy for news services.1

News and Views

I don't have a boss and a deadline, for which I'm duly grateful. I suspect that many reporters aren't as daft as their work suggests.

When your job depends on submitting a fixed number of words in less than enough time, researching a story could be difficult. Add to that the knowledge that editors expect to see 'proof' that whatever happened supports their preferred reality: I'm glad I'm not a journalist.

Happily, we no longer depend on old-school information gatekeepers. And that's another topic. (August 14, 2009)

I won't pretend to be "unbiased" in the sense of having underlying set of assumptions about reality. I do, however, try to distinguish between facts and assumptions. More topics.

He Heard Voices

It's possible that someone used Aaron Alexis, exploiting his reported mental problems. The Associated Press says he'd been treated for paranoia, had trouble sleeping and heard voices in his head. Someone like that could be encouraged to act against his own best interests.

Someone may be trying to convince others that Aaron Alexis was sent by the CIA, Big Oil, Al Qaeda, or lizard men. I don't think so, but I'm one of those folks who enjoy conspiracy theories in fiction: not as a basis for public policy

Applying Occam's Razor, I think it's much more likely that Aaron Alexis acted alone.

On the other hand, I hope that investigators are looking very carefully at Mr. Alexis' life, particularly the last few years. I don't think lizard men are behind those deaths: but as I said, someone could have used Aaron Alexis as a weapon.

Security

Aaron Alexis almost certainly got into one building using an employee pass, but had to shoot his way into another. The pass he apparently used was either his own, or one he shouldn't have had.

I've seen both possibilities reported as facts. Like I said, I don't have a boss and editors telling me what to write: so I don't know if he had a pass, and if so whose it was.

Either way, he shouldn't have been able to get onto a naval base with those weapons. Apparently employees don't have to go through a metal detector on their way in. That may have saved some money, and kept "privacy advocates" happy: but in this case it was a lethal oversight.

After what happened yesterday, it's obvious that Mr. Alexis shouldn't have been allowed into the Washington Naval Shipyard yesterday. He probably shouldn't have been allowed to get a job with a subcontractor that brought him to the base in the first place.

That's obvious today. How obvious it would have been when he was hired: I don't know.

Mr. Alexis' general discharge from the Navy was upgraded to an honorable discharge because there wasn't enough evidence backing up misconduct charges. Maybe the charges were bogus, and he really is a victim of discrimination: maybe not. I don't know.

However, if half of what's been reported about his background is accurate, Aaron Alexis shouldn't have been given clearance to work on computer upgrades at a major military base. With my background, I probably wouldn't get that sort of clearance: even if I had the necessary skills.

Computers, Guns, and Keeping Up

Since Aaron Alexis was working with The Experts on a computer upgrade, it's possible that he had the skills and access necessary to provide himself with a valid-looking employee pass that he shouldn't have had. If that's the case, The Experts, Hewlett Packard and the Pentagon should take a hard look at their security.

We use technology today that was literally science fiction in my youth. Thanks to my eclectic job history, I've kept up with most of the major developments. Folks my age, whose successful career paths led them to positions of importance? I'm not sure that some of them really understand the Information Age. Still more topics.

Unlike some of my contemporaries, I like tech: and think that people use tools to do things, not the other way around.

Technology and Free Will

I don't think guns made a sleep-deprive paranoiac kill a dozen people. Human beings were quite capable of acting badly for uncounted ages before firearms, and I think we'll continue to be trouble when an assault rifle is displayed alongside a crossbow and a palstave in some museum.

I have no problem with people using dangerous technology like LP gas, guns, or computers. I also think that every society needs to find common-sense ways to control how they're used. (June 27, 2008)

Somewhat-related posts:
1 From the news:

(FBI, via CNN, used w/o permission.)
"The FBI identified Aaron Alexis, a 34-year-old military contractor from Texas, as the dead suspect involved in the shooting rampage at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday, September 16. Authorities said at least 12 people -- and the suspect -- were killed in the shooting."

"Vetting military contractors: How did Navy Yard gunman get in?"
Josh Levs, with Drew Griffin, Mariano Castillo; CNN (September 17, 2013)

"The shooter at the Washington Navy Yard had a 'pattern of misconduct' as a Navy reservist, had sporadic run-ins with the law, and had contacted two Veterans Administration hospitals for apparent psychological issues, sources have told CNN.

"Somehow, none of that prevented Aaron Alexis from getting clearance to the Washington Navy Yard as a subcontractor.

"In the wake of the horrific incident that left 12 victims and the gunman dead, lawmakers and military experts are calling out the vetting process for contractors and subcontractors. Did the military even know the things about Alexis that news agencies managed to find out within hours?

"Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican who serves on the Intelligence Committee, said she now questions 'the kind of vetting contractors do.'

" 'Washington needs a lot more answers,' Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-Washington, said in an interview Tuesday with CNN.

"The incidents in Alexis' past 'should have been a red flag that maybe we need to delve a little deeper into this individual,' said retired Navy Cmdr. Kirk Lippold.

"The Navy had sought to give him a 'general discharge' due to at least eight incidents of misconduct while on duty, but ultimately had to give him an honorable discharge due to lack of evidence to support the sterner measure, a U.S. defense official said Tuesday.

"But he went on to work for a group called The Experts, which was subcontracting with Hewlett Packard on a large military contract.

"With security clearance, he worked from September 2012 through January in Japan. His clearance was renewed in July, and he worked at facilities in Rhode Island, North Carolina and Virginia for weeks at a time upgrading computer systems, according to Thomas E. Hoshko, CEO of The Experts...."
"DC gunman was suffering host of mental issues prior to shooting, report says"
FoxNews.com (September 17, 2013)

"Navy veteran Aaron Alexis, who killed 12 people at a Navy building in Washington Monday morning, had been suffering a host of serious mental issues, including paranoia and a sleep disorder, law enforcement officials told the Associated Press.

"Alexis had been hearing voices in his head and had been treated since August by the Veterans Administration for his mental problems, the officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the criminal investigation in the case was continuing.

"Alexis, 34, was discharged from the Navy two years ago after serving hitches in Texas and Illinois....

"...He most likely gained entry into the facility with a CAC card, or a common access card. The system does not require workers to pass through a metal detector and usually only requires employees to show the card. Senior military officials tell Fox News that he most likely shot his way into building 197, because that building requires a separate pass he did not have.

"Washington Mayor Vincent Gray said there was still no motive for the shootings and no indication of terrorism 'although we haven't ruled that out.'

"While some neighbors and acquaintances described him as 'nice,' his father once told detectives in Seattle that his son had anger management problems related to post-traumatic stress brought on by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He also complained about the Navy and being a victim of discrimination...."
"Navy Yard: Aaron Alexis 'treated for mental health' "
BBC News (September 17, 2013)

"The ex-US Navy reservist who killed 12 people and wounded eight at a Washington DC Navy installation had received treatment for mental health issues, US media have reported.

"Aaron Alexis, 34, was treated for paranoia, trouble sleeping and hearing voices, the Associated Press reported.

"A contractor for the Navy, he had a valid pass for the secure site at the Washington Navy Yard, authorities said.

"Alexis was shot and killed by police during the attack...."
"Authorities question vetting of Washington gunman who killed 12"
Mark Hosenball and Ian Simpson, Reuters (September 17, 2013)

"Washington authorities questioned on Tuesday how a U.S. military veteran with a history of violence and mental problems could have gotten clearance to enter a Navy base where he killed 12 people before police shot him dead.

"The suspect, Aaron Alexis, 34, a Navy contractor from Fort Worth, Texas, entered Washington Navy Yard on Monday morning and opened fire, spreading panic at the base just a mile and a half from the U.S. Capitol and three miles from the White House.

"Investigators are still trying to determine the shooter's motive. Alexis had been given clearance to enter the base on the Anacostia River, despite two gun-related brushes with the law and a discharge from the Navy Reserve in 2011 after a series of misconduct issues.

"A federal law enforcement source told Reuters Alexis had a history of mental problems but gave no details. CNN reported that Alexis had contacted two Veterans Administration hospitals recently and was believed to be seeking psychological help.

" 'It really is hard to believe that someone with a record as checkered as this man could conceivably get, you know, clearance to get ... credentials to be able to get on the base,' Washington Mayor Vincent Gray told CNN.

"He said automatic U.S. budget cuts known as sequestration could have led to skimping on vetting that would have barred Alexis from the heavily guarded base...."
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, September 16, 2013

Washington Navy Shipyard: Monday Morning's Off to a Bad Start


(Reuters, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
So far, BBC News seems to have the best summary of what's happened:
  • A gunman has killed at least four people at the Washington Navy Yard, a naval installation in the US capital, officials say
  • Police were called to the scene after reports of shooting at 0820 local time (1320 GMT)
  • Police say that one gunman is deceased and two additional suspects wearing military-style uniforms may still be at large
  • US President Barack Obama has been briefed on the matter by top officials
  • All times in GMT
    (BBC News)

"Going Postal??"

At about 8:20 this morning, Washington D.C. time, someone started shooting at people in the Washington Navy Yard. When news reports started, I thought that maybe one of the 3,000 or so folks who work there decided that today would be a good time to 'get even' with fellow-workers.

It's been a long time since "going postal" became a regrettable stress-management option.

What I've Heard

Now it looks like more than one person has been attacking folks at offices of the Chief of Naval Operations and other naval commands.

Based on what I've heard and read in the news, it looks like more than one person decided to attack the Washington Navy Yard, and that we don't know why they made that decision.

The only victims I've heard identified so far is police officer and one of the shooters. How many people are wounded or killed: those numbers are changing, which isn't a surprise this early in the situation.

Motive?

What motive the attackers have is important: but I don't know what it is. There isn't enough information available. I'm pretty sure that right now nobody except the attackers know why morning routines got disrupted. If they had associates, those folks know, too.

A half-century back, I wouldn't have been finding out so much this fast. When news did start filtering through, some folks would insist that commies were to blame; others would blame racists or blacks.

Today, I suppose some have already decided that Muslims are to blame. White supremacists probably wouldn't have been accused, since one shooter's ancestors came from Africa and another's from Europe.

At least one of the attackers is wearing something that looks like olive drab military garb: so someone has probably decided that the American military is to blame.

That's not as silly as it might seem, at least to folks who assume that the Pentagon, CIA, and 'they' are conspiring to do something dreadful. With that mindset, the attack could be seen as infighting or a plot to sway public opinion.

Keeping Track

I'm upset about this attack.

I can understand someone being disgruntled with working conditions, or not approving of American policy, or believing that the Federal government shouldn't act the way it does. But that's no excuse for hurting or killing people.

Since there is almost certainly more than one person involved in the attack, It's also very likely that the motive isn't related to someone's dissatisfaction with a job.

Given the meager facts we have so far, I could cobble together a nostalgic tale involving crazed white guys going after blacks who work for the Navy; explaining the black shooter as one of a team of secret commandos dedicated to spreading law, order, and the American way - - - or the other way around.

That, I think, would be an almost complete waste of time: mine and yours.

Instead, I'll get back to what I was working on before, and check in on the news at intervals.


(BBC News, used w/o permission.)

Background: Washington Navy Shipyard

The Washington Navy Shipyard started as a shipyard, was re-purposed as an ordinance, and now is a ceremonial and administrative center for the United States Navy.

In the news:
Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, July 7, 2013

POW/MIA Search SNAFU, and European Junkets

I have some respect for America's armed forces. They deal with a very unpleasant reality: that occasionally force is needed to protect the lives and well-being of Americans and others.

America's military also, for the most part, deals with and corrects blunders and deliberate malfeasance committed by its members. (January 4, 2009; June 30, 2008)

That said, this reeks:
"...The internal report by Paul M. Cole was never meant to be made public. It is unsparing in its criticisms:

"--In recent years the process by which JPAC gathers bones and other material useful for identifications has "collapsed" and is now "acutely dysfunctional."

"--JPAC is finding too few investigative leads, resulting in too few collections of human remains to come even close to achieving Congress's demand for a minimum 200 identifications per year by 2015. Of the 80 identifications that JPAC's Central Identification Laboratory made in 2012, only 35 were derived from remains recovered by JPAC. Thirty-eight of the 80 were either handed over unilaterally by other governments or were disinterred from a U.S. military cemetery. Seven were from a combination of those sources.

"--Some search teams are sent into the field, particularly in Europe, on what amount to boondoggles. No one is held to account for 'a pattern of foreign travel, accommodations and activities paid for by public funds that are ultimately unnecessary, excessive, inefficient or unproductive.' Some refer to this as 'military tourism.'

"--JPAC lacks a comprehensive list of the people for whom it is searching. Its main database is incomplete and 'riddled with unreliable data.'

"--'Sketch maps' used by the JPAC teams looking for remains on the battlefield are 'chronically unreliable,' leaving the teams 'cartigraphically blind.' Cole likened this to 19th century military field operations.

"Absent prompt and significant change, 'the descent from dysfunction to total failure ... is inevitable,' Cole concluded.

"He directed most of his criticism at the field operations that collect bones and other material, as opposed to the laboratory scientists at JPAC who use that material to identify the remains. Cole is a management consultant and recognized research expert in the field of accounting for war remains; he still works at JPAC...."
(Associated Press, via FoxNews.com (July 7, 2013))
Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

America is Not at War With the Marines

On the whole, I like living in America. I also think this country has a political system that's not the worst ever devised by humanity.

Which isn't quite the same as thinking that democracy always produces desirable results - and that other forms of government are always bad:On a related topic, Americans have a presidential election coming up this November. I plan to vote. This time around, I think it's particularly important: because apparently the lunatics are running this particular asylum.

An Apparent Attack, and Disarming Those Big, Rough, Marines

The good news is that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is okay. The bad news is that, if an apparent attack had been a little better planned - some obliging soul had seen to it that all the big, rough, dangerous United States Marines in Mr. Panetta's vicinity - - - had been disarmed.

I - am - not - making - this - up.
"Military source calls incident at Afghanistan airport an 'attempted attack' "
FoxNews.com (March 14, 2012)

"A military source tells Fox News the strange incident on the tarmac Wednesday at Camp Bastion that occurred moments before Defense Secretary Leon Panetta arrived via C-17 was an attempted attack.

"This official could not say whether the local Afghan involved knew Panetta was about to arrive, but he could say it certainly wasn't any type of accident.

"Fox News has learned the attacker was an Afghan interpreter who was carrying gasoline and a lighter with him in the pickup truck, which he managed to steal from a British service member. The coalition service member was injured during the incident, possibly run over by the truck...."
That article is about the apparent attack.

This is why I think Mr. Panetta was very, very lucky:
"Soldiers asked to disarm during Leon Panetta speech"
The Telegraph (March 15, 2012)(not a typo: it's 'tomorrow' on the other side of the Atlantic now)

"US soldiers were asked to disarm during a speech by Leon Panetta, the American defence secretary, in a sign of grown concern over spates of seemingly random violence in Afghanistan.

"Less than a week after a US staff sergeant allegedly massacred 16 civilians in Kandahar, American soldiers were banned from bringing guns into a talk by Mr Panetta at a base in Helmand province.

"Around 200 troops who had gathered in a tent at Camp Leatherneck were told 'something had come to light' and asked abruptly to file outside and lay down their automatic rifles and 9mm pistols.

" 'Somebody got itchy, that's all I've got to say. Somebody got itchy - we just adjust,' said the sergeant who was told to clear the hall of weapons.

"Major General Mark Gurganus later said he gave the order because Afghan troops attending the talk were unarmed and he wanted the policy to be consistent for all....."
I don't blame General Gurganus. Like anyone else in the United States Armed forces, the hierarchy he's in has a civilian at the top. There may even have been a rational motive for 'consistently' disarming everybody around Mr. Panetta.

With the possible exception of anyone who might want to hurt the American official: and wasn't as dedicated to following the rules as Marines are.

Someone really ought to tell the lot that's running America just now: We're NOT AT WAR WITH THE UNITED STATES MARINES. The American military is not, except in the minds of some politically-correct diehards from the '60s, the enemy.

A tip of the hat to @darsen003, on Twitter, for the heads-up on the Telegraph article.

Somewhat-related posts:
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Noted: New York State Education Department: "The Military ... Doesn't Count"

This isn't, quite, about the war on terror. I think the New York State Department of Education's policy comes from an attitude that's - regrettable:
"Schools rip DOE's military disservice"
Susan Edelman, New York Post (March 4, 2012)

"City principals are up in arms over a new plan that gives bonus points this year to high schools based on graduates going to college - but doesn’t count those who join the military.

"Department of Education officials met with a group of principals last week to explain changes in Progress Reports coming out this fall. Schools that send more kids to community or baccalaureate colleges within six to 18 months will get extra credit.

"When a principal asked about points for grads who choose to enlist in the armed forces, he was shot down.

" 'The military isn't college. It doesn't count,' the group was told...."
This looks like more of the bias that's plagued American academia for decades.

In one sense, I don't blame folks who say that "the military isn't college. It doesn't count...." They may sincerely believe that the American military is drafted from the oppressed classes in America: poor, uneducated, minorities. Or that soldiers are brutish thugs who go around torturing and killing all the time.

On the other hand, folks who determine education policy for a state should, I think, know something about education - and today's America. At least those aspects of American culture that relate to education.

Bias: An Equal-Opportunity Issue

Politically-correct education bosses aren't the only sort of folks who can be biased.

I'm just as dissatisfied with 'regular Americans' who seem to regard all Muslims as 'Arabs,' and all Arabs as "Towlheads." Then there's that infamous "they're all Muslims" crack.

If there's a practical reason for penalizing schools that allow students to consider military service: maybe the New York State DOE decision makes sense. Maybe.

It's hard to imagine, though, that discouraging schools from letting students know about military service, which involves practical training and experience, isn't rooted in simple bias.

'Does it matter,' if schools are penalized for allowing students to consider getting out of the classroom before they enter the cubicle? I think it does. Among other things, a young adult who decides to enter military service instead of going straight into college will be exposed to a new culture. And a set of values that is arguably more firmly rooted in reality.

Me? I went straight from high school to college - and stayed there for years. In the '60s and '70s. I eventually figured out why academia didn't always make sense: and that's another topic.

Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, December 23, 2011

Grave Trouble: 64,000 Arlington Dead 'Dishonored' - 64,000!

Arlington National Cemetery is in the news again. It's basically the same record-keeping SNAFU that surfaced before, with more detail. Executives got fired in June of last year, when more than 200 graves were lost. I gather that they weren't literally gone from the cemetery: just that records for them were scrambled.

That's not acceptable.

On the other hand, I'm not all that surprised that something went wrong. I'd better explain that statement.

One and a Half Centuries, More Than a Quarter of a Million Burials

Arlington National Cemetery has been around for about 147 years. Or 148, counting from 1863: when the Union confiscated land owned by General Robert E. Lee. There's a brief history of the cemetery online. Quite a few, actually, including:
A few things have changed since the War Between the States and Reconstruction. Take data storage and information technology, for example. Folks maintained Arlington's records, using pens (quill, fountain, and ballpoint), Typewriters, and Database software.

Laws, customs, and practices involving record keeping changed, too. And most of the folks who ran Arlington in previous decades aren't around to answer questions. I'm not making excuses here: just noting that any sort of inventory control is subject to human error.

Then there's the size of the place:1
  • 147 years in operation
  • 259,978 gravesites
    • More than 300,000 burials
      • Some grave markers have two or more names
I've run into the "30 burials a day" fairly often in the news. That may be accurate, but at 300,000 burials over 147 years, I get an average of about five and a half burials a day over the cemetery's history.

Honoring the Dead, Getting a Grip

Like I said, botching the records of 64,000 folks buried in a cemetery is "not acceptable." I wouldn't like it if it were just 64 cases of sloppy record-keeping.

But that's what this seems to be about, sloppy record-keeping: not having burials that involved tossing the body in a potting shed. Compared to some private-sector cemetery horror stories that hit the news, the Arlington affair is comparatively mild.2

Even the 'unmarked graves' are more a matter of folks in the early 20th century not knowing what late 20th century customs would be:
"...One of the biggest surprises uncovered by the review was that in most of the early 20th century, the cemetery did not include the name of a wife on a headstone when she was buried next to her husband. Under current practices, the name of the spouse is etched onto the back of the headstone.

" [Arlington executive director Kathryn] Condon said the cemetery will correct that by adding the spouse's name to the gravesite. She said it is not only the right thing to do but is also required by law.

"Accounting for the forgotten spouses alone will require thousands of corrections, officials said. In some cases, replacement headstones will be made. In cases where the headstones are considered historic, footstones will be added...."
(Associated Press, via FoxNews.com)
But still - 64,000 is a big number. And I could, by cherry-picking factoids from the news, post something like 'oh, the horror! the horror! SIXTY FOUR THOUSAND BLANK HEADSTONES!!!'

If I shoveled in enough unsupported opinions about the vile wickedness of the American military, I might even be considered 'intelligent' in the 'right' circles.

That's not gonna happen.

It's not that I think U. S. Army brass are supernal beings who routinely take a morning stroll on the Tidal Basin. Stuff happens. Sometimes it's losing track of cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. In this case, it's a botched job of record keeping at a cemetery.

Mistakes happen - and sometimes the 'mistakes' were intentional. Either way, I think it's important to clean up the mess; deal sensibly with whoever was responsible; and take steps to keep the problem from happening again. As far as I can tell, the American military has a pretty good track record for learning from mistakes.

Goodbye Quill Pens, Hello Information Age

I think that, sooner or later, the American Congress will get around to putting the legislative process in an online, searchable, accessible, form. And that's another topic. Meanwhile, it looks like the folks running Arlington have acknowledged the Information Age:"...The most significant part of the review, Condon said, is that the cemetery for the first time has a single, reliable database that will allow officials to fix past mistakes and plan for the future.

"The cemetery is currently testing an interactive, web-based version of its database that will allow visitors to click on a digital map to see gravesites and learn who is buried there, ensuring the cemetery's records are open and accessible going forward.

" 'We'll have 300 million American fact-checkers,' [Gravesite Accountability Task Force co-chair John] Schrader said."

More-or-less-related posts:
In the news:
1 From a description of how the Arlington Cemetery burial records issue is being handled:
"...The process began with a hand count, using simple mechanical clickers, of every gravesite -- 259,978 to be exact. (More than 300,000 people are buried at Arlington, but some grave markers have two or more names.) Then, during the summer, members of the Army's ceremonial Old Guard unit used iPhones to photograph the front and back of every headstone, so the information could be compared against internal records....

"...John Schrader, co-chair of the Gravesite Accountability Task Force, said recordkeeping methods varied widely over the cemetery's 147-year history, from handwritten logs to index cards, to typewritten forms and two different computer databases. That sometimes compounded problems, as transcription errors were common. To avoid those problems, all of the old records have been scanned and digitized, rather than transcribed, to avoid introducing further errors, he said...."
(Associated Press, via FoxNews.com)
2 Deeds, dastardly and dumb, involving cemeteries:3 Crazy people don't always write like crazy people. I posted a micro-review of some tongue-in-cheek advice in another blog:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, August 28, 2011

Flags at Half-Staff in Minnesota

Driving home through central Minnesota this evening, I noticed several flags flying at half-staff. Those folks were going an extra mile, honoring Sergeant Matthew Allen Harmon:
"Governor Dayton orders flags flown at half-staff in honor of Sergeant Matthew Allen Harmon"
Press release, Office of the Governor Mark Dayton, State of Minnesota (August 26, 2011)

"In honor and remembrance of Sergeant Matthew Allen Harmon, Governor Mark Dayton has ordered all U.S. flags and Minnesota flags to be flown at half-staff at all state and federal buildings in the State of Minnesota, from sunrise until sunset on Saturday, August 27, 2011.

"Sergeant Harmon, of Lengby, was twenty-nine years old, and a 2000 graduate of Fosston High School. He enlisted in the United States Army in 2004. Stationed in Germany, Sergeant Harmon completed two tours of duty in Iraq and was recently deployed to Afghanistan as a member of the 1st Battalion, 2nd Infantry Regiment, 172nd Infantry Brigade. He died a hero on Sunday, August 14, 2011 in Afghanistan.

"At the direction of the Governor, Minnesota flies it's flags at half-staff following the death of Minnesota military personnel killed in the line of duty, on the day of interment."
I've archived a copy of the Minnesota Governor's proclamation regarding Sergeant Matthew Allen Harmon (*.pdf) (August 25, 2011)

My condolences to family and friends of Sergeant Matthew Allen Harmon.

Related posts:
In the news:More:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Delta Air Lines, American Soldiers, and a Baggage SNAFU

My guess is that most folks boarding an airliner don't have an assault rifle, a grenade launcher and a 9-mm. pistol in their carry-on luggage.

But then, most folks boarding an airliner aren't returning from duty in Afghanistan.

It looks like Delta Air Lines took hundreds of dollars from individual soldiers in exchange for letting them carry their luggage into the plane. Or, rather, tried to take.

American soldiers apparently don't usually carry that sort of cash with them - my guess is that somebody in the unit worked out a deal to keep the airline happy and still get everybody home.

On their way back, two soldiers made a short video, and posted it on YouTube. That's it, on your right, reduced to fit this blog's format.I think it's worth listening to. So did quite a few other folks, it seems. By the time I was done with the three-minute interview, 204,583 folks had viewed it.

Not the Best Publicity for Delta

About the best explanation for this mess may be that there was a massive lack of communication, somewhere.

Delta has acknowledged that the incident happened, explained their position: and it looks like the soldiers may eventually get reimbursed for the money they lost. That's nice.

On the other hand, I gather that quite a few families with wage-earners in the military are very much not in the caviar-and-champagne economic bracket. A few hundred dollars gone missing from their budget is not trivial. Even if they'll get the money back. Eventually. Probably.

Botched Communication? Bad Attitude? No Idea

Right now, I don't know why American soldiers had to give money they didn't have - as individuals - in order to get home with their equipment.

There are quite a few possible explanations, including:
  • Poor communication
    • Delta not telling the unit what to expect
    • Someone in the unit not passing the information along
    • Something else
  • Bad attitude - maybe
    • Someone in the outfit offended a clerk
      • Who decided to be inflexible with Delta's rules
    • Someone in Delta
      • Decided to punish the soldiers for being soldiers
      • Was in a snit
      • Assumed that 'all Americans are rich'
        • So they'll never notice the loss
Or maybe something else happened. I really don't know.

American Armed Forces: Imperfect, But Who Isn't?

Finally, I don't think that America's armed forces can do no wrong. I don't think they can do no right, either.

I do know that I'm profoundly glad that there are people with brains and character it takes to be a soldier - who are willing to defend this country. I've posted about that before:Slightly-related posts:News and views:
1 Excerpt from the news:
"Two U.S. soldiers returning home from deployment in Afghanistan said Delta Air Lines charged their unit hundreds of dollars in extra baggage fees – money that many of the soldiers did not have.Staff Sgts. Fred Hilliker and Robert O'Hair filmed a video onboard Flight 1625 and posted it on YouTube.

"They criticized Delta for the additional charges, complaining that the 34 soldiers were charged as much as $2,800 in baggage fees.

" 'We were frustrated with the situation,' O'Hair told Fox News Radio. “Honestly, we were just trying to get home.' O'Hair said the trouble started Tuesday during an 18-hour layover in Baltimore.

"His unit was heading back to Fort Polk, La., after a deployment in Afghanistan. O'Hair said their military orders stated that each soldier was allowed to check up to four bags free of charge. But the Delta agent told the soldiers they would have to pay for the fourth bag.

" 'My extra bag was my weapons case,' he said. 'I had my assault rifle, a grenade launcher and a 9-mm. pistol.'

"According to Delta's website, military personnel flying in coach on travel orders are allowed to only check three bags free of charge...."
(FoxNews.com)
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , ,

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Pentagon's New(ish) Policy About Hack Attacks

First, the bad news: The United States is vulnerable to an attack on our information technology.

Now, the good news: It's possible to defend against a 'cyberattack.' And the American military has been working on ways of dealing with threats to our info tech.

Welcome to the 21st Century

That good news/bad news thing is from my point of view, of course.

I live in this country. I like being able to run a furnace during winter, get air conditioning now and then in the summer, and use the telephone year-round. All of which depend on a power grid and telecommunications system that rely on software and computers.

I think that the Pentagon isn't anywhere near as big a threat to me as, say, Al Qaeda. Which isn't the same as assuming brass hats can do no wrong. (June 18, 2009) The American military isn't perfect. I don't expect that of any human institution. What's remarkable about the people who defend this country is that they routinely and objectively review what's been done - then learn from their mistakes - and successes. (June 30, 2008)

Military Minds, Hackers, and Obligatory Hand-Wringing

News that an attack on America's information technology will be treated as an act of war, like any other attack, will almost certainly hit old-school news media this June.

The Wall Street Journal has already published an article about the report.1 That paper has been around since the late 19th century, so in a sense it's 'old school,' but their editors seem to have noticed that class struggles and Yankee imperialism are a trifle dated as relevant topics go. So is "relevance," for that matter - and that's another topic.

In a perfect world, the Pentagon would have noticed America's reliance on information technology - and how an attack could target that technology - years ago. For that matter, in a perfect world we wouldn't need armed forces: and nobody would have decided to fly airliners into New York City's World Trade Center.

I'd like to be wrong about this, but my guess is that we'll read some of the usual complaints:
  • Paranoid generals
  • Threats to our privacy
  • American
    • Arrogance
    • Insensitivity
    • Whatever
And, of course, how any attack on American information technology is our fault. That's probably when Stuxnet will be displayed as an example of American indifference. Or something else that's pretty much icky.

Maybe that sort of knee-jerk response has gone out of fashion. Things change, including biases among the powers that be. Sometimes change comes when the powers that be themselves get swapped out. And that's yet another topic. (May 26, 2011, March 18, 2011)

Dealing With Uncertainty

A concern that's already been raised is, I think, more reasonable: how to tell where an attack on an American information system came from.

Anything involving the Internet will be easy enough to track, in a way. A few years ago, a series of such attacks came from China. Or, rather, servers in China. March 20, 2010, February 22, 2010, October 10, 2008) The Chinese government's official line is that it wasn't them.

They could be right. I don't necessarily think so - but it is possible that whoever planned the various attacks lived in and operated out of, say, Liechtenstein. Or Kenya. Or Paraguay. Or anywhere else in the world with modestly-adequate Internet connections. Trojan horse viruses are nothing new: and a government-run server could be hijacked by one. (Apathetic Lemming of the North (October 3, 2010))

One thing I'm not particularly worried about is a Dr. Strangelove scenario where one (1) lunatic general - American, of course - decides to make it look like China launched yet one more hack attack on America. It could happen, of course: but I'm pretty sure that this country, at least, has learned to be a little more careful than we were back in the "remember the Maine" days.

Perfect, no. But we do, I think, learn.

Why I Believe What I Believe

As I said earlier, I like living in America.

I was born here, so there's a sort of 'this is my home' feeling involved. I've also known folks who weren't born here, and decided to pull up roots and become Americans. I know that this country isn't perfect: but it's one of the nations folks are trying to break into.

I've discussed some of the reasons I think the way I do in another blog: including posts listed in the last quintet of links under "Related posts."

Related posts:
In the news:
1 Excerpt from today's news:
"The Pentagon's first formal cyber strategy, unclassified portions of which are expected to become public next month, represents an early attempt to grapple with a changing world in which a hacker could pose as significant a threat to U.S. nuclear reactors, subways or pipelines as a hostile country's military.

"In part, the Pentagon intends its plan as a warning to potential adversaries of the consequences of attacking the U.S. in this way. 'If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks,' said a military official.

"Recent attacks on the Pentagon's own systems - as well as the sabotaging of Iran's nuclear program via the Stuxnet computer worm-have given new urgency to U.S. efforts to develop a more formalized approach to cyber attacks. ... This weekend Lockheed Martin, a major military contractor, acknowledged that it had been the victim of an infiltration, while playing down its impact.

"The report will also spark a debate over a range of sensitive issues the Pentagon left unaddressed, including whether the U.S. can ever be certain about an attack's origin, and how to define when computer sabotage is serious enough to constitute an act of war....

"...One idea gaining momentum at the Pentagon is the notion of 'equivalence.' If a cyber attack produces the death, damage, destruction or high-level disruption that a traditional military attack would cause, then it would be a candidate for a 'use of force' consideration, which could merit retaliation.

"The Pentagon's document runs about 30 pages in its classified version and 12 pages in the unclassified one. It concludes that the Laws of Armed Conflict - derived from various treaties and customs that, over the years, have come to guide the conduct of war and proportionality of response - apply in cyberspace as in traditional warfare.... The document goes on to describe the Defense Department's dependence on information technology and why it must forge partnerships with other nations and private industry to protect infrastructure.

"The strategy will also state the importance of synchronizing U.S. cyber-war doctrine with that of its allies, and will set out principles for new security policies. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization took an initial step last year when it decided that, in the event of a cyber attack on an ally, it would convene a group to 'consult together' on the attacks, but they wouldn't be required to help each other respond....

"...Pentagon officials believe the most-sophisticated computer attacks require the resources of a government. For instance, the weapons used in a major technological assault, such as taking down a power grid, would likely have been developed with state support, Pentagon officials say.

"The move to formalize the Pentagon's thinking was borne of the military's realization the U.S. has been slow to build up defenses against these kinds of attacks, even as civilian and military infrastructure has grown more dependent on the Internet. The military established a new command last year, headed by the director of the National Security Agency, to consolidate military network security and attack efforts.

"The Pentagon itself was rattled by the 2008 attack.... At the time, Pentagon officials said they believed the attack originated in Russia, although didn't say whether they believed the attacks were connected to the government. Russia has denied involvement.

"The Rules of Armed Conflict that guide traditional wars are derived from a series of international treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions, as well as practices that the U.S. and other nations consider customary international law. But cyber warfare isn't covered by existing treaties. So military officials say they want to seek a consensus among allies about how to proceed.

" 'Act of war' is a political phrase, not a legal term, said Charles Dunlap, a retired Air Force Major General and professor at Duke University law school....
(The Wall Street Journal)
Posted by at 4 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, March 21, 2011

Libya: Nobody's Happy, but It Could Be Worse

Nobody seems to be happy about Libya: with the possible exception of folks in Benghazi, who are now less likely to be wiped out by the Libyan colonel's enforcers - - -

- - - And those elsewhere in Libya who don't think Libya's boss is a good leader, and said so. Their chances of survival are now a tad better than they were before a United Nations Security Council resolution made it legal to inconvenience Colonel Muammar Abu Minyar al-Qadhafi. (or Qaddafi, or Gaddafi)

Arab League Supports No-Fly Zone: or, not

The Arab League supports the no-fly zone - or it doesn't. Either someone did a terrible job of quoting them, or they're saying one thing to foreigners and something else to the home audience. Or something else is happening.

Congress: 'No Fair!'

Here in America, the party crowd on Capitol Hill is complaining that the president should have talked with them. As it is, they haven't leaked tactical and strategic information that everyone from the Libyan colonel to Al Shabaab and Al Qaeda would love to learn.

Process, Protocol, and All That

I've run into someone who apparently thinks that the American president has declared war on Libya - without consulting Congress. Which is a breach of protocol - or would be, if war had been declared.

As far as I can tell, war hasn't been declared - and that's going to upset another set of folks.

Ideally - Things Would be Ideal

I think that, ideally, the Libyan colonel would have decided to retire - La Côte d'Azur is a lovely spot, I understand, and not all that far from Libya - instead of having people who don't think he's the greatest killed.

Also ideally, since the colonel didn't quit while he was ahead, It'd be nice if there was an effective international organization: one comprised of those wise and prudent folks who lead the nations of the world. This - quite hypothetical - body of sages could then formulate an ideal plan to convince the Libyan colonel of the error of his ways. Through sweet reason and tender sentiments.

That scenario is wrong on so many levels - the point is, we're stuck with the United Nations and a collection of national leaders who are possibly less clueless than the rest.

It'll have to do.

This isn't a War: It's a - - - Something Else

A world without war, without poverty, and without acne would be nice. It's not the world we have.

Sadly, the Libyan colonel, and others like him, exist.

Eventually, in my opinion, people like Qadhafi annoy or offend enough of their fellow-rulers, or do something so atrocious, that their position as crazy neighbors can't be tolerated.

That seems to have happened with the Libyan colonel.

There may, once, have been a time when a declaration of war might be written, a mutually-convenient time and place would be determined for the battle - and war would be on.

If that situation ever existed, it doesn't now.

What's happening to Libya now is the result of Qadhafi's remarkable style of leadership having finally snapped the patience of his neighbors. In my opinion.

In turn, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution: which an international coalition is now trying to enforce.

U. N. Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011)

I'll get back to some of the problems with the United Nations, the coalition, the resolution, and human nature, after this excerpt from the resolution:
"...Protection of civilians

"4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

"5. Recognizes the important role of the League of Arab States in matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security in the region, and bearing in mind Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, requests the Member States of the League of Arab States to cooperate with other Member States in the implementation of paragraph 4;

"No Fly Zone

"6. Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians...."
(S/RES/1973 (2011) The situation in Libya)
I can see why news sources aren't discussing this document all that much. It's long - eight pages - and that excerpt is just part of the top half of page three.

Exciting reading, it isn't.

On the other hand, I think it gives a little more insight into just what's going on. I've linked to the resolution, and a UN press release, down in the 'Background' section of this post.

Here's an excerpt from a sort of United Nations press release:
"Libya: Ban welcomes Security Council authorization of measures to protect civilians"
UN News Centre (March 18, 2011)

"Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called for 'immediate action' on the Security Council's authorization of the use of 'all necessary measures' to protect civilians in Libya, terming it a 'historic' affirmation of the global community's responsibility to protect people from their own government's violence.

"The Council yesterday passed a resolution permitting the use of all necessary measures, including the imposition of a no-fly zone, to prevent further attacks and the loss of innocent lives in Libya, where the regime of Muammar al-Qadhafi has conducted a military offensive against citizens seeking his removal from power.

"Following the adoption of the resolution, media reports stated that Libyan authorities had declared a ceasefire. Libyan Foreign Minister Musa Kusa was quoted as saying that the truce was intended to 'to protect civilians.'

"The Arab League last weekend requested the Council to impose a no-fly zone after Mr. Qadhafi was reported to have used warplanes, warships, tanks and artillery to seize back cities taken over after weeks of mass protests by peaceful civilians seeking an end to his 41-year rule.

"Mr. Ban said that in adopting Resolution 1973, the Council had placed great importance on the appeal of the League of Arab States for action...."

The Spider-Flag of the United Nations, Yankee Imperialism, and Lizard Men from Outer Space

Decades back, I remember a politico discussing the "spider-flag of the United Nations" and the threat it posed to America. I was impressed - not all that favorably. My teens and the sixties happened at about the same time, and I thought the United Nations was a pretty good idea at the time.

I still do.

I'd better explain that.

We live in a world where the vast majority of people do not live in America: or any other single nation.

International commerce, and today's information technology, makes it increasingly difficult to ignore 'foreigners,' in my opinion.

I think it makes sense to have a forum where representatives of different nations can hurl epithets at each other. Not because I think that name-calling solves problems: but because the same forum can be used by the folks who actually want to communicate, and solve problems.

Quite a bit of what comes out of the U. N. makes about as much sense, again in my opinion, as the notion that shape-shifting, space-alien lizard people really run the world.

On the other hand, the United Nations is the closest thing we've got to "the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world" that Tennyson imagined in "Locksley Hall." But, offhand, it's the only global organization I can think of that's likely to lend an air of legitimacy to military action against the Libyan colonel and his enforcers.

We don't have to like it: it's arguably the best that's available.

Law, Protocol, and National Sovereignty Matter

I think that some criticisms of the president's actions are legitimate. He could have:
  • Taken action a long time
    • Ago
    • From now
  • Waited until
    • Congress
      • Agreed with him
      • Developed a workable alternative
    • Qadhafi
      • Killed more people
      • Decided to be nice
That's not what happened. I think that the matter of Congress being involved in decisions that affect the American armed forces needs to be discussed. And, I think, probably re-evaluated. And that's another topic, somewhat beyond the scope of this blog.

I think that who gives commands to American armed forces matters. I also think that who gives commands to the armed forces of other countries matters. And I'm glad I don't have to sort out how that's going to work.

I think that the national sovereignty of the United States matters. As does the sovereignty of countries from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. I also think that people like the Libyan colonel have an at-best-dubious claim to the 'sovereign rights of nations.'

It would be nice, I think, if the concern that's been shown for folks who don't support Qadhafi could be shown for their counterparts in Bahrain and Yemen - and that's almost another topic.

I think that quite a few folks in Libya have a much better chance now, of surviving long enough to reform their country, than they did before a coalition started inconveniencing the Libyan colonel's forces.

And that - in my opinion - is not a bad thing.

Related posts about:
News and views:
Background:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.