In ur X, Y-ing ur Z at The Conjecturer.
Defense & The War
- Mark your calendars: GIT Rockin’, the Battle of the GovernmentIT Bands, is coming up on October 18 at the State Theater in Falls Church. It is for both rockers and enthusiasts, but I know what I’m looking forward to: The DISA-Peering Act, and not at all subtle play on DISA, the fabled defense agency renown for supposedly hiring hackers who tried to break into the Pentagon’s network. So… see you there?
- Yes, we could talk about the Cold War when Russia tries buzzing Scotland with a T-95MS, or we could discuss how those planes are so dilapidated they’re more of a danger to their crews than to the UK. Maybe, as David Axe suggests, these are reactionary patrols… but I wouldn’t say so, except for the single Guam incident. Russia has been trying to fly its birds like this since at least 1999; they just only now have the money to maintain them, sort of.
- The Vatican/Embassy we’ve built in Baghdad—one of the more offensive symbols of brute imperialism we’ve managed to concoct, is already a disaster.
- So the CIA is indeed capable of self-criticism. That’s nice. My question is: what have they done to correct these obvious flaws since? If the classified sections of the report don’t answer this, then it’s still a big ol’ waste of time, for they now know just how deeply ineffective they are… that is to say, no better than psychics.
- How have EFPs changed the Iraqi battlespace? And are we looking at an increase in casualties as the proportion of EFPs to IEDs rises, sort of a genie-out-of-the-bottle effect? I really hope not. Then again, by now we should all know hope is not a strategy. Building MRAPs isn’t the answer—an EFP can poke through it just as easily as it can poke through tank armor. A fundamental shift in strategy needs to take place, which, unfortunately, you won’t see much of at JIEDDO.
Around the World
- What I continue to love about The Economist is how they not only can’t be bothered to understand the countries they write about, but apparently they can’t be bothered to remain consistent within individual articles. While discussing “what to do” about Pakistan, they don’t actually get around to discussing what to do, aside from talking about whether or not Musharraf should be pressured or allowed to remain in power. Maybe they’ll hire me as a correspondent to rectify this.
- A curiously translated article is, I think, saying that Kazakhstan is borrowing from Russia’s playbook and inventing environmental concerns to seize a major stake in a foreigner-financed oil operation. I think.
- A surprisingly candid take on how Beijing will pretend to be beautiful for the Olympics. It’s like prom, only it matters.
- A rare protest in Burma. The arrested protesters face up to 20 years in jail.
- What’s up with Tajikistan? In grand strategy terms, it’s fairly insignificant—few natural resources, little arable land, warlords aplenty, though bordered by Afghanistan and China. It is ruled by a curious man with a penchant for bizarre rules. It is also yet another place where China is making significant progress with the people there, building up stores of, for lack of a better term, “good vibrations.” Because who needs friends when you can invade other countries at will?
- I hadn’t thought of this, but Russia’s thin skin is actually something to laugh about. The idea—Russia as petulant teenager—reminds me of a paper I wrote (long ago) for Russian history, in which I describe the 20th century as being ruled by “children with nuclear weapons.” Seems darkly apropos, somehow.
- I was protesting Gwen Stefani’s exposed midriff, not because it violates ever-sacred Islamic mores, but because it was plain old tacky. I’m curious to know which Michelle Malkin prefers: women celebrating their sexuality, as Stefani does, or covering it up to appease religious conservatives, as Malkin advocates for a domestic audience? Why is one surrender and the other just prudent morality?
Back at Home
- I’ve played around a bit with Google’s new astronomy widget, and so far it’s pretty neat. Then again, I’ve been an amateur astronomer since I was 6 or so and stole my dad’s binoculars when I went on a scouting trip so I could sneak out and look at the stars away from the city. I also tried majoring in it for a time, but didn’t quite have the math intuition.
- I like it when the police use secret agents to incite violence at an otherwise peaceful gathering. Because nothing says liberty like a good beating.
- This is why politics is such a losing game in this country: “[Jonathan] Chait can choose to make this an ideological food fight, but it is not. This is a story about media and how it functions… It has been pointed out to me that Chait’s story appeared in the print version of TNR and therefore closed before the Miniter/Pajamas Media story.” But still, it’s about how media functions, get it? You need to respond to hit pieces before they’re published, or your magazine is skirting the issue! Because, do not forget, this is about how media functions. And if it was on Drudge, then it’s news, man.
So you get to criticize the CIA, but I don’t. I get it, I see the score. I am now going to go and sulk in my room.
I have asked before, and while I don’t expect much (nothing against you, thus my question is to you.) I just think it is a bunch of very tough calls. So here it goes, what to do about Pakistan?
That particular complaint about his piece may not be valid but that is hardly the thrust of people’s issue with his post, and it has been acknowledged by Simon (the losers game is the fact that most wouldn’t acknowledge it) and his acknowledgment points out his complaint is still valid about the TNR’s handling of it in general (nothing about responding before it was published, but after) and the main thrust of the complaint against the piece still stands. If I point out to an editor the day after a football game that they got the name of the player who fumbled wrong, I don’t get to act as if they should retract the whole story including who won or lost. Simon had a point challenged, he dealt with it.
In fact, might I argue that when you do handle something correctly and people ridicule you, in defense of people who have handled things atrociously, that that is why politics has become a losers game.
I’m honestly forgetting when I said you couldn’t criticize the CIA.
About Pakistan, I’m of the firm belief that holding free, fair, and open elections will result in a democrat assuming the Presidency. If the government can then break the hold of the Army over domestic policy, and make it subordinate to the civilian government, I think it has a real chance of becoming a functional country. The problem is how to break the hold of the Army — remember part of the reason Musharraf is in power now is because he tried to start a war in Kashmir, and the fallout humiliated Nawaz Sharif so much he couldn’t resist the coup. There are several ways to break the Army’s hold on the government, all of which require a tremendous amount of space and a great deal of research (i.e. more than is worth putting in here), but the point is, in broad strokes, a series of solutions for “what to do” could be laid out…. a courtesy the Economist doesn’t seem to consider necessary to extend to its readers these days.
And about Simon’s post – he changed what his post was after he realized he didn’t have a case. It was complaining about Jonathan Chait’s non-response, and once he realized Chait’s essay was written before the Miniter piece, he had to change it to a general critique of TNR. That last bit is probably valid, but it doesn’t make Simon’s case any better, considering his complaint was that “real” journalists are sloppy and don’t do their homework.