Armchair Generalist

US Positions on Israel's Attacks

There has been some great commentary on the Israel-Palestine issue at The War in Context, Sic Semper Tyrannis, and other sites, so I'm going to keep this one relatively short. Glenn Greenwald had this observation that, while the majority of the United States citizens really don't want to take sides in this conflict, the members of Congress certainly are (and perhaps not surprisingly). One has to ask the question, are our representatives doing right by us by this action?

Anyone minimally objective and well-intentioned finds Hamas rocket attacks on random Israeli civilians to be highly objectionable and wrong, but even among those who do, one finds a wide range of views regarding the Israeli offensive.  But not among America's political leadership.  There, one finds total, lockstep uniformity almost more unyielding than what one finds among Israeli leaders themselves -- as though Israel's wars are, by definition, America's wars; its enemies are our enemies; its disputes and conflicts and interests are, inherently, ours; and America's only duty when Israel fights is to support it uncritically.
-------------
Americans shouldn't be in the position of endlessly debating Israel's security situation and its endless religious and territorial conflicts with its neighbors.  That should be for Israeli citizens to do, not for Americans.  But that distinction -- between the U.S. and Israel -- barely exists because our political leaders have all but eliminated it, and have thus imposed on U.S. citizens responsibility for the acts of Israel.

And make no mistake, we do have a responsibility for the acts of Israel. At the least, as Glenn points out near the bottom, our military-industrial complex has provided the bombs, not just for Gaza, but also that fine little adventure in Lebanon a few years ago. Information on the GBU-39 munitions follow:

The GPS-guided GBU-39 is said to be one of the most accurate bombs in the world. The 113 kg. bomb has the same penetration capabilities as a normal 900 kg. bomb, although it has only 22.7 kg. of explosives. At just 1.75 meters long, its small size increases the number of bombs an aircraft can carry and the number of targets it can attack in a sortie.

Tests conducted in the US have proven that the bomb is capable of penetrating at least 90 cm. of steel-reinforced concrete. The GBU-39 can be used in adverse weather conditions and has a standoff range of more than 110 km. due to pop-out wings.
--------------
Yiftah Shapir, from the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, said the GBU-39 is one of the most advanced in the world and would improve Israel's standoff fire capabilities.

"The bomb is extremely accurate," he said. "All you have to do is punch in the coordinates, fire and forget."

He said they could be used to attack Iranian underground facilities like Natanz but that they could only penetrate a few meters.

"Hundreds of these would have to be used in an attack on Natanz for it to be successful," Shapir said.

So when you wonder why America's image in the Middle East is so tarnished, consider the enabler role that our nation plays in Israel's actions. As Matt Yglesias points out, the option to just decry both sides in this conflict while in practice heavily favoring the one really ought not be considered an option.

Don't Get MAD - Get MARS

DefenseNews had an interesting editorial a little while ago on the challenge of developing a modern nuclear weapons strategy. As you may know, if you follow this blog, it's a point of contention between the executive and legislative branches of government today. It's a new idea, to replace the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) theory of the Cold War with a Measured Assured Response Strategy (MARS) for a more complex world today.

Treaties and agreements can slow the spread of nuclear weapons, but there is little likelihood of completely halting proliferation. And because the chaos that followed the initial victory in Iraq suggests Western democracies will no longer launch pre-emptive invasions, any nation prepared to oppose world opinion will be able to pursue nuclear warheads without undue fear of a pre-emptive strike.

This inability or reluctance of the West to act, coupled with the realization by hostile states that their own weaponry could provide an effective deterrence, may encourage these nations to acquire nuclear devices. It is almost certain that nonstate terrorists who manage to acquire a nuclear weapon would be incapable of being deterred through the threat of retaliation.

What is crystal clear is that the new security situation is far too complex to be the responsibility principally of the State Department and DoD. The MARS policy would combine diplomacy, defense, international agreements, intelligence and other approaches. This activity falls within the purview of the national security adviser, who needs to be supported by an assistant adviser for nuclear policy.

While missiles are not the only means of attacking Western democracies, it is prudent to have some defense against them, particularly since so many nations are going to great lengths to acquire these capabilities. A more effective BMD would also provide a disincentive to invest in offensive missiles while improving protection should an attack be launched.

Despite the fact that Henry Kissinger and others have advocated a long-term goal of denuclearization, all the major nuclear powers seem to consider retention of nuclear offensive weapons essential. None, however, have outlined a policy indicating how such systems might preserve their security in the new environment.

It's not the most fleshed out or academic discussion on nuclear weapons policy that I've seen, but it does have the advantage of being different and yet comprehensive of the new challenges of today's nuclear weapons states.

The Fickle Mainstream Media

The New York Times observes that the major broadcasting companies are no longer interested in sending full-time correspondents to Iraq. It seems that the news just isn't that exciting, even given the 130,000 US troops still in theater.

Michael Yon, an independent reporter who relies on contributions from Internet users to report from both areas of conflict, has already perceived a shift in both media and reader attention from Iraq to Afghanistan. “Afghanistan was the forgotten war; that’s what they were calling it, actually,” he said. “Now it’s swapping places with Iraq.”

For Mr. Yon and others who continue to cover Iraq, the cutbacks are a disheartening reminder of the war’s diminishing profile at a time when about 130,000 United States service members remain on duty there. More than 4,200 Americans and an undetermined number of Iraqis have died in fighting there since 2003.

ABC, CBS and NBC declined to speak on the record about their news coverage decisions. But representatives for the networks emphasized that they would continue to cover the war and said the staff adjustments reflected the evolution of the conflict in Iraq from a story primarily about violence to one about reconstruction and politics.

Cheap, ignorant bastards - not as if this isn't an important news issue. The conflict and the stories here aren't done yet. Fortunately, we can always go to the BBC to get the news that the US broadcasters don't appreciate.

UPDATE: And for that matter, the major US broadcasters don't seem to think much of events in Gaza.

"Stunningly Superficial"

In which Zbig schools Joe Scarborough on Israeli-Palestinian affairs.

Chertoff's Broken Record

As much as I've liked many of Secretary Mike Chertoff's good efforts to get the Department of Homeland Security straightened out, I will not miss his repeated insistence that we're all just inches away from being overwhelmed by terrorists and their "existential threats" to the US government. And, of course, where would we be without a warning that CBRN terrorism is just a question of when, not if?

Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear attacks are considered the most dangerous threats that could be carried out against the U.S. But those threats are also the most unlikely because it is so difficult for Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups to acquire the necessary materials, according to the internal Homeland Security Threat Assessment for the years 2008-13.

The Al Qaeda network continues to focus on U.S. targets vulnerable to major economic losses, casualties and political "turmoil," the assessment says.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said this month that the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction remained "the highest priority at the federal level." Speaking to reporters early this month, he said more people, such as terrorists, will learn how to make dirty bombs and biological and chemical weapons. "The other side is going to continue to learn more about doing things," he said.
----------
Intelligence officials predict that in the next five years, terrorists will try to conduct a destructive biological attack.

Officials are concerned about the possibility of infections to thousands of U.S. citizens, overwhelming regional healthcare systems.

There could also be dire economic effects from worker illnesses and deaths. Officials are most concerned about biological agents stolen from labs or other storage facilities, such as anthrax.

"The threat of terrorism and the threat of extremist ideologies has not abated," Chertoff said in a year-end address last week. "This threat has not evaporated, and we can't turn the page on it."

Yes, the possibility of a terrorist attack within the United States is always there. And there is a more remote chance that it could be a CBRN incident that takes place. But gods above, I will be so happy when we have political officials who don't feel the need to raise the specter of CBRN terrorism at every opportunity to keep the populace (and congressional politicians) in fear of a nebulous threat. You see continued examples such as the federal/state fusion centers where the alleged threat just doesn't seem to support the investments. 

We ought to take reasonable and sustainable measures to reduce the overall risk of terrorism. Our current strategies to plan for and respond to bioterrorism and radiological dirty bombs, both calling for vast networks of point detectors, are badly flawed and need to be shelved. We could easily remove those ugly Jersey barriers that surround so many federal buildings in Washington DC and northern Virginia if we targeted specific terrorist groups instead of going into bunker mentality to every possible hazard. But that will take adult leadership... that is coming, soon.

COIN Is Hard - Especially in Afghanistan

The Christian Science Monitor has a good article about counterinsurgency tactics in Afghanistan, and in particular, the Provisional Reconstruction Teams (PRTs). But at the end of seven years, one has to ask - was it all too little, too late? Are there any long-term positive effects from the actions of these PRTs?

"There is a fundamental problem here," says Edward Luttwak, a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank. "No Afghan can bring himself to believe foreigners are in the country for anything but a nefarious reason." These projects, he says, might well be welcomed by some locals – but they are "basically a waste of time.

"This is a struggle that will be won when we provide effective armed security for Afghans. That is what is appreciated," he continues. "Sure, we can give them schools and chocolate and they will be happy. But if the Taliban then come back to the village with guns and we don't protect them, they stop being interested in our projects."

The PRT soldiers defend their mission. "I am better at fighting the enemy than building footbridges, that's for sure," says Nuristan PRT's 1st Sgt. Willie Mitchell, a South Carolinian who has seen combat in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq. "But ... this building ... it's the only way we can think of to move forward."

"We have not made it worse," he concludes quietly. "I have walked these hills, and I know we have brought some change for the better ... at least I have to believe that."

We can throw more troops and more money at this enormous challenge, but one has to ask, is it really an accomplishable task? Are we trying to change a culture that just isn't ready for democracy? The military can stabilize the country, but it will take much more to change it. If we weren't mired in Iraq for so many years, it might even be an achievable objective. Now, I just don't know if America has the patience and the fortitude.

O'Hanlon's Uncommon Sense

Michael O'Hanlon scores an uncommon hit in talking about the need to address the challenge of nuclear deterrence. He says, fire up the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program and use it as part of the nonproliferation program. It can support the goal of reducing the stockpile while retaining a capable defense infrastructure.

Obama's Catch-22 appears to be to either lose the support of his defense secretary and most Republicans on a crucial arms control vote, or to reverse a campaign pledge and pursue what the world is likely to view as a renewed U.S. drive for nuclear modernization while asking others to show restraint. This double standard infuriates nonnuclear states and weakens our ability to gain support for tougher nonproliferation rules and sanctions on proliferating countries such as Iran and North Korea.

Thankfully, there is another option. The right strategy has two elements: redefine the RRW program as a remanufacture of an older design, and delay that program to allow Obama to create momentum for arms control.

Redefining the RRW might seem like semantics but is, in fact, a reasonable move. The United States developed more conservative weapons designs in the early years of the nuclear era that might be usable. Even if they had to be modified, the designs would remain more "old" than "new." Moreover, building such warheads would not create new capabilities for American war planners but would deprive them of some targeting options they possess today, while emphasizing safety and reliability.

Delaying pursuit of this remanufacturing program would not present a problem. We have little reason to think that today's nuclear arsenal is unreliable. Already, a $5 billion annual program to ensure good stockpile stewardship and reliability is monitoring weapons and remanufacturing parts that show signs of age. Bomb designers are more concerned about the arsenal 25 or 50 years from now; if we delay a few years in building more conservative designs, deterrence will not suffer.

He makes sense - at least, from my moderate perspective. That's amazing, considering his track record, but even blind pigs find the occasional acorn in the forest.

Israel's Arrogance

Surprising many nations leaders, Israel has not only initiated a massively imbalanced attack on a largely civilian section of the Gaza Strip, its forces intend to continue the attacks. The Palestinians have suffered more than 280 dead and 600 wounded, as compared to one Israeli citizen dead from a rocket attack on Saturday. At what stage do we need to ask, what the hell are you doing, O Israel?

After the sharp shock of the massive air assault that took Hamas by surprise on Saturday, Israel appeared to be setting in for a longer haul. The government on Sunday approved the emergency call up of thousands of army reservists in preparation for a possible ground operation as Israeli troops, tanks, armored personnel carriers and D-9 armored bulldozers amassed at points all along the border with Gaza.

Speaking before the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said the army “will deepen and broaden its actions as needed” and “will continue to act.”

At dusk Israeli fighter jets bombed over 40 tunnels along Gaza’s border with Egypt. The Israeli military said the tunnels that were attacked, on the Gaza side of the border, were used for smuggling weapons, explosives and fugitives. Palestinians and Israeli officials say there are hundreds of tunnels running beneath the border. Gazans also use many of them to import consumer goods and fuel in order to get around the Israeli-imposed economic blockade.
---------
Israel has said that its goal is not to reoccupy Gaza, which it left unilaterally in 2005, but as Prime Minister Ehud Olmert put it on Sunday, to “restore normal life and quiet to residents of the South.”

Hamas is sworn to Israel’s destruction. It won Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006 and forcibly took control of Gaza the next year. An Egyptian-brokered six-month truce between Israel and Hamas, always shaky, began to seriously unravel in early November and expired altogether ten days ago.

I understand that Hamas is not helping by its stupidity in continuing the rocket attacks and refusing to back off its goals of destroying Israel. However, Israel's deliberate slaughter casual disregard of noncombatant deaths, aimed to ensure that its southern citizens can sleep easy at night, is equally idiotic. And of course, our government plays the fool by blaming Hamas for Israel's overreaction. It's not enough for the Bush administration to have failed in stablizing Iraq, engaging Iran, assisting Lebanon, and negotiating with Syria - it has to fail throughout the entire Middle East region.

If Obama had any sense, he'd tell the Israeli government to cease operations or face the immediate end of all US financial aid to its government - civil, military, whatever. Its continued and deliberate failure to make any progress on the two-nation solution is abismal. It's about time our government stop aiding and abetting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and start stabilizing the Middle East region.

UPDATE: Hilzoy more articulately expresses my point of view. Rob Farley also hits the nail on the head.

UPDATE 2: Edited based on Jay's comment (thanks, Jay).

UK Gives Up Its Nuke Production

Ray sent me this interesting article prior to the holidays, suggesting that the United Kingdom has given up its control over the production of nuclear warheads. Seems that the government must be really hard up for money to make this deal. It's an interesting position, to be sure.

The government has sold its last remaining shares in the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment in Berkshire to an American company.

The move means Britain no longer has any stake in the production of its Trident nuclear warheads.
-----------
The sale of British Nuclear Fuels' stake means Jacobs has control of one third of Aldermaston's operating company, AWE Management.

The other two thirds were already in private hands. They are split equally between American defence giant Lockheed Martin and the British plc Serco.

Aldermaston is responsible for the production of warheads for the Trident nuclear deterrent programme and its planned replacement.

The UK government insists that there is no such problem, all is well. Parliament isn't so happy, though. Of course, the ArmsControlWonk is watching intently.

I think it comes as a shock to most people on either side of the Atlantic when they learn how much the UK depends on the United States for its nuclear deterrent. Even I was a little taken aback during my visit to Aldermaston when Don Cook, the Managing Director of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, began to address us in his flat American accent.

I thought “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Couldn’t they have found someone British?”

My thoughts exactly. My suggestion, UK cousins? Don't let private US companies control this important aspect of your deterrence capability. It's not in your best interest. Hell, we can't agree on what to do with our nukes, why trust us with yours?

UPDATE: Cheryl Rofer warns us about the danger of allowing a private company to become a nuclear power in its own right.

Chem Demil Update

The Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal System has completed the destruction of all of its VX nerve agent (originally about 828 tons). It only has mustard agent left (about 980 tons) at the Anniston Army Depot now.

The depot's chemical weapons incinerator burned the final land mine loaded with VX nerve agent less than 5 1/2 years after it began destroying a total of about 293,000 gallons of deadly VX and another nerve agent, sarin.

The last of the sarin was destroyed in 2006.

The munitions were stored for nearly five decades in dirt-covered bunkers on the sprawling installation. The depot is home to the nation's only chemical weapons incinerator located in a populated area.

Thousands of projectiles, mortars and large containers filled with less-lethal mustard agent are the only remaining chemical weapons stored on the post, located in Calhoun County about 50 miles east of Birmingham.

While mustard agent can cause blistering and burns, it is far less dangerous than chemicals like VX and sarin that affect the nervous system.

"It's a good Christmas gift for all of Calhoun County, good holiday cheer that we don't have to worry about those chemical weapons anymore," Anniston Mayor Gene Robinson said. "The mustard gas is totally different from the nerve gas, so the threat to the population of this county is over."

Because the Anniston destruction effort has been relatively smooth, it should easily complete its disposal of its stockpile by the 2012 deadline. I do feel compelled to point out that the citizens of Calhoon County received about 1/3 of all the Army's Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program's (CSEPP) funds that went to the states, which means roughly a half billion dollars of equipment, training, and road rebuilding went into the county to prepare the locals for a catastrophe that never happened. Anniston's stockpile was only seven percent of the total US chemical weapons stockpile, but it did have a larger community around it than other chemical depots. The locals were never seriously endangered by the chemical disposal operations, but they had a powerful senator who lobbied hard for their pork.

The two linked article include quotes by incineration foe Craig Williams to the point that destroying the mustard agent will be very hazardous for Alabama's citizens. Feel free to ignore his biased and scientifically-unsupported comments - every one else outside of the news media does

Happy Holidays

On Travel

Talk to you next week. Be safe.

Building a Better Military

I had nearly forgotten my desire to comment on the Center on American Progress's "Building a Military for the 21st Century" report, written by Larry Korb and other analysts. In the interests of full coverage, I wanted to talk about it while the report was still fresh.

Pentagon planners have already begun to warn the incoming administration about the choices it will have to make. A Pentagon advisory group recently notified the president-elect’s office that the Department of Defense, “cannot reset the current force, modernize and transform in all portfolios at the same time. Choices must be made across capabilities and within systems to deliver capability at known prices within a specific period of time.”

In order to make these important decisions, the next administration will first have to evaluate the current state of the military; examine the current composition of the Defense budget; and define the threats, challenges, and role of the U.S. military in the 21st century.

This report is intended not only to serve as a playbook for a new administration and military planners. It also aims to guide policymakers and the general public about what a new administration will need to do to restore American military power while reorienting the military to more effectively and efficiently counter current and future threats. The next administration will inherit a vastly different military than the one bequeathed to President George W. Bush in January of 2001. After nearly six years of war in Iraq and over seven in Afghanistan, the next administration will have to contend with two wars, a military readiness crisis, recruitment and retention problems, mounting equipment shortages, and an out-of-control defense acquisition process.

The basis of this report is about money, because that is the central issue on the table. We can’t afford to reset the force and recover from Iraq, modernize the force with the current major acquisition projects, and continue combat operations at the current pace without massive increases in defense spending. The report suggests that one can adjust personnel policy, modernization plans, and operations and actually save $38.6 billion over the next four years.

Afghanistan Role Reversals

It's funny how the American position in Afghanistan mirrors the Soviet occupation of the 1980s in some regards...

Recent headlines from Afghanistan have read like a history lesson from the Soviet 1980s.

That war "devolved into a fight for control of … the road network," concludes a 1995 US Army study. Militants are now stepping up attacks against American supply routes, destroying some 200 trucks in Pakistan this month.

Anti-Soviet militants controlled "the rural areas," says a former Soviet official. Today's militants have a "permanent presence" in 72 percent of the country, according to a Dec. 8 study.

There are differences between then and now. Yet 20 years later, many problems are similar: The US and NATO control neither the countryside nor the militants' hideouts in Pakistan, and as civilian casualties increase, Afghan anger is mounting.

To succeed, America needs solutions that eluded the Soviets. "It doesn't really matter what you do in Kabul or the provincial capitals," says David Isby, author of "War in a Distant Country – Afghanistan: Invasion and Resistance."

The problem, Mr. Isby adds, is that the Soviets "weren't able to control the grass roots."

Wouldn't it be weird if we found out that the Russians were selling and/or giving their small arms and rockets to the Taliban? Payback can be a bitch...

Anthrax Vaccine - Now Less Shots

Emergent BioSolutions has been successful in convincing the FDA that it can confer immunity from anthrax with five shots now, instead of six shots.

Emergent BioSolutions Inc. (EBS:  News ) announced that FDA has approved its supplemental Biologics License Application or sBLA for Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed or BioThrax to prevent disease caused by Bacillus anthracis. The approval for supplement license was based on an interim analysis of data from a large multicenter study initiated in 2002.

The company said the supplement provides for a change in the route of administration and a reduction in the total number of vaccinations. The new schedule for BioThrax is five intramuscular doses at 0, 1, 6, 12 and 18 months, compared with the former schedule of six subcutaneous doses.

This is good news. In addition to costing the military less to administer to troops, it will allow the CDC to stretch its anthrax vaccine stocks for its Strategic National Stockpile at no cost.

Military Leaders in Non-Military Leadership Positions

The Washington Post had a pro and con editorial discussion on the wisdom of giving DOD too much power in foreign affairs and placing retired and active duty general/flag officers into positions other than in the Pentagon. On the con side, Tom Schweich formerly of the State Department, who says that DOD mission creep into other areas is bad.

While serving the State Department in several senior capacities over the past four years, I witnessed firsthand the quiet, de facto military takeover of much of the U.S. government. The first assault on civilian government occurred in faraway places -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- and was, in theory, justified by the exigencies of war.

The White House, which basically let the Defense Department call the budgetary shots, vastly underfunded efforts by the State Department, the Justice Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to train civilian police forces, build functioning judicial systems and provide basic development services to those war-torn countries. For example, after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Justice Department and the State Department said that they needed at least 6,000 police trainers in the country. Pentagon officials told some of my former staffers that they doubted so many would be needed. The civilians' recommendation "was quickly reduced to 1,500 [trainers] by powers-that-be above our pay grade," Gerald F. Burke, a retired major in the Massachusetts State Police who trained Iraqi cops from 2003 to 2006, told Congress last April. Just a few hundred trainers ultimately wound up being fielded, according to Burke's testimony.
-------
As military officers sought to take over the role played by civilian development experts abroad, Pentagon bureaucrats quietly populated the National Security Council and the State Department with their own personnel (some civilians, some consultants, some retired officers, some officers on "detail" from the Pentagon) to ensure that the Defense Department could keep an eye on its rival agencies. Vice President Cheney, himself a former secretary of defense, and his good friend Rumsfeld ensured the success of this seeding effort by some fairly forceful means. At least twice, I saw Cheney staffers show up unannounced at State Department meetings, and I heard other State Department officials grumble about this habit. The Rumsfeld officials could play hardball, sometimes even leaking to the press the results of classified meetings that did not go their way in order to get the decisions reversed. After I got wind of the Pentagon's dislike for the approved interagency anti-drug strategy for Afghanistan, details of the plan quickly wound up in the hands of foreign countries sympathetic to the Pentagon view. I've heard other, similarly troubling stories about leaks of classified information to the press.

I think Schweich is a little off in his review of military officers in leadership positions. I don't have any doubt that retired general/flag officers can get the job done without bowing to the Pentagon. Active generals, such as General Hayden working as the Director, CIA, I'm not so sure about. On the pro side, retired General Wes Clark, who recommends that Democrats take the opportunity to show that they do in fact love the military and its leaders:

Above all, don't think that we are anxious to "use our toys." Forget about the Hollywood dramatics: Soldiers are the last to seek war. We know its personal and professional consequences painfully well. Those in uniform would prefer that President Obama use every other tool and method -- diplomacy, sanctions, calling in the allies -- before sending troops into combat. You're better off leaving political and economic development to others, too. As for crisis response? Please, let the diplomats work their magic first.

But the military will have to show some understanding as well. We don't have a monopoly on knowing what the nation's best interests are. National security now involves such spheres as law enforcement, the economy, the nation's industrial and scientific base and even such matters as health care and civil liberties. The military is just one voice among many.

Nor are our military plans and proposals beyond questioning. There's a lot of judgment involved in strategy and operations, and not a lot of certainty. The military is a cautious institution, and plans and options sometimes reflect just the opinion of the most senior person in the room. Even hard military "requirements" should stand up to public scrutiny. So when new members of Congress, Hill staffers and political appointees question tactics, techniques, troop levels and programs, we have to continue to treat these questions seriously and answer them with respect and diligence.

They're both right, to a degree. Schweich - a former Bush administration official - gripes about how the Bush administration overemphasized the military aspects of foreign policy, but it sounds like it was the civilians in DOD and the White House who were the problems. I don't think the military volunteered to do this extra work, nor do the military leaders want to hold back the State Dept. Gen. Clark points out the obvious - many military leaders make for good leaders through their practice, so it's natural that they might be selected to work these issues. They get stuff done, which is always a good thing. But certainly, military leaders have no lock on those skills, and certainly they can miscalculate and make bad decisions, if not engaged by counterpoints.

Certainly we are in a time where the balance can be adjusted (that is, starting on January 21st). If we can fix the State Dept and use its diplomatic tools effectively, we ought to do so. Let the overstretched DOD get back to its main function of preparing for future conflicts and stop trying to use military forces as generic "all-purpose" tools.

Battlestar Galactica - Three Weeks and Counting

BSG 4.5 trailers are coming out on the SciFi channel - about frakkin' time...

Casual Fridays

I found this nice picture of an M1A1 Radiation Dosage Calculator on the Oak Ridge Associated Universities site. This and other manual radiation dose calculators can be found here. Ahhhh, memories - when we thought Europe was going to be lit up with tactical nukes...

That's the nice thing about nuclear weapons - we know so much about radioactive effects and their duration, everything was calculated down to a science. We had nuclear weapon targeting that built in calculations for building overpressure and lighting forests on fire, in order that a targeteer could avoid those effects if desired. Spin the magic Wiz Wheel, as we called the M1A1 Rad Dose Calc, and determine how long your guys ought to be walking across a radioactive zone.

Chem and bio - so messy, so unpredictable. That's why we had to get rid of chem-bio weapons, but nukes? Nukes are our friends, our backup plans for when conventional operations got too messy. I'm getting too serious now. Back to thinking about the weekend... almost there.

Good-bye, Majel Barrett

It is with great sadness that I must note the passage of the First Lady of Science Fiction, Majel Barrett Roddenberry. She died last night of leukemia at the age of 76.

Roddenberry also played Nurse Christine Chapel in the original "Star Trek" 1960s TV series and had smaller roles in many of its successors. She was the voice of the USS Enterprise computer in almost every incarnation of the series, reprising the role in the "Star Trek" movie directed by J.J. Abrams that is due out in May.

After her husband's death in 1991, Roddenberry continued to promote the "Star Trek" legacy at conventions. She also was the executive producer for two unrelated TV science fiction series, "Andromeda" and "Earth: Final Conflict."

Roddenberry began her acting career in the 1950's with roles on such shows as "Leave It to Beaver," "Bonanza" and "The Lucy Show."

She was a class act. She kept pushing science fiction out to the hungry masses, unlike those who chose rather to appear on tasteless game shows (yeah, I'm talking about you, Shatner).

Federal Bureaucracy Gets Worse

The Bush administration, ever trying to retain its grasp on information within the federal government, offered up a set of new restrictions to replace the "For Official Use Only (FOUO)" designation in 2007. New guidance came out in May 2008, but the "Controlled Unclassified Information" label was limited to "terrorism related information". Al Kamen reports that the Defense Department is getting ready to implement the guidance.

"Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) is the new generic term to be used for information that is not releasable to the public; however, DoD [Department of Defense] components are not to use these new markings until the DoD transition plan is completed and the DoD-level implementation guidance has been published," a Nov. 21 e-mail explained.

" 'For Official Use Only' (FOUO) is being phased out and CUI will replace all current DoD markings used on unclassified information including Privacy Act, and Law Enforcement Sensitive," according to the e-mail. "The purpose is to improve information sharing with state, local, private sector, and foreign partner entities. This will also ensure appropriate safeguarding and dissemination of the Department's sensitive, unclassified information."

The CUI designation doesn't mean you can't get the stuff under the Freedom of Information Act, but it doesn't mean you can, either.

To help officials figure out what can be released, the e-mail says, "All CUI will be categorized into one of three combinations of safeguarding procedures and dissemination controls:

• Controlled with Standard Dissemination;
• Controlled with Specified Dissemination;
• Controlled Enhanced with Specified Dissemination.

 Working groups have been established to continue implementing the transition plan."

Can't issue guidance to change an existing bureaucratic method without a transition plan. Only the federal government could make the complicated process of releasing unclassified information that could be of public interest even more difficult than it is today. The Federation of American Scientists has more background material.