Armchair Generalist

FEMA - How to Help Individuals Help Themselves

I noticed this article about FEMA's attempts to get individuals to prepare themselves for potential disasters and terrorist incidents. If the public is better informed and prepared, it could save lives in those future emergencies. But there are challenges.

Results from the national survey have important implications for the development of more effective communication and outreach strategies to achieve greater levels of preparedness and participation, the agency says. For example, the results indicate that 30 percent of Americans have not prepared because they think that emergency responders will help them and that more than 60 percent expect to rely on emergency responders in the first 72 hours following a disaster. While government will execute its functions, communications to the public should convey a more realistic understanding of emergency response capacity and emphasize the importance of self-reliance. FEMA concludes that messaging should thus speak to a shared responsibility and stress that everyone has a role to play in preparedness and response.
-----------
The survey results indicate that individuals’ perceived utility of preparing and their confidence in their ability to respond varies significantly by disaster type. Only 7 percent of individuals felt that nothing they did would help them handle a natural disaster, whereas 35 percent felt nothing they did would help them in an act of terrorism, such as a biological, chemical, radiological, or explosive attack. All-hazards terminology may mask important nuances relative to conveying personal preparedness guidance for specific hazards. The report thus says it is important to emphasize the survivability of manmade disasters and the relevant protective measures for these hazards.

I've always worried more about whether the states and local communities are truly prepared, or if they are instead just assuming FEMA and DOD will bail them out. It certainly is cheaper to assume the latter, and as long as there aren't any catastrophes, the strategy wins out. I would suggest also that less dramatic rhetoric about the certainty of a future bioterrorist incident and drama about 10-kt nuclear bombs in major cities would go a long way to allowing individuals to think that they could in fact take steps to prepare themselves for potential catastrophes. Just a thought.

Cordesman on Afghanistan

Tony Cordesman has a short op-ed in today's Washington Post titled "How to Lose in Afghanistan." He is bemoaning the lack of forward momentum by the Obama administration in its efforts to prosecute the war in Afghanistan.

The appointments this summer of Karl Eikenberry as ambassador to Afghanistan and McChrystal as commander of U.S. and allied forces have created a team that can reverse this situation. In fact, given the rising unpopularity of the war and Taliban successes, they are our last hope of victory. Yet they can win only if they are allowed to manage both the civil and military sides of the conflict without constant micromanagement from Washington or traveling envoys. They must be given both the time to act and the resources and authority they feel they need. No other path offers a chance of a secure and stable Afghanistan free of terrorist and jihadist control and sanctuaries.
-------------
Unfortunately, strong elements in the White House, State Department and other agencies seem determined to ignore these realities. They are pressuring the president to direct Eikenberry and McChrystal to come to Washington to present a broad set of strategic concepts rather than specific requests for troops, more civilians, money and an integrated civil-military plan for action. They are pushing to prevent a fully integrated civil-military effort, and to avoid giving Eikenberry and McChrystal all the authority they need to try to force more unity of effort from allied forces and the U.N.-led aid effort.

Cordesman has lots of advice - the only things he doesn't address in his column is what exactly constitutes "winning" - is it unconditional surrender by the Taliban? an effective Afghan government and army? stable borders with its neighbors? And of course, he doesn't offer opinions on exactly how much this will cost and how many more years it would take to "win." Little things.

He's done better with analyses of how to "fix" things in Iraq. It's disappointing that he can't do the same with Afghanistan, understanding that there is an element of national strategy missing here. That is to say, we still don't know what we want for Afghanistan. If it includes stabilizing the government and giving it effective security forces while battling the Taliban and drug lords while seeking out bin Laden, we're going to be there for a very long time and even then, there's no guarantee of "winning." I don't think that's an acceptable political position here in the United States, and that's the real challenge. We need a better set of objectives, ones that are practical, affordable, and achievable. 

Halberstam, The Best and the Brightest, commenting on an individual's 1950 article "Why We Lost China" - "China was ours, and it was something to lose; it was an assumption which was to haunt foreign policy makers for years to come. Countries were ours, we could lose them; a President was faced with the blackmail of losing a country."

Killing European Missile Defense

European news suggests that the proposed US missile defense sites in the Czech Republic and Poland aren't going to be built after all. That's a great thing in my mind - saving four billion dollars for a premature weapon system that's designed for a nuclear missile that hasn't been built. From DefenseNews:

Washington will scrap plans to put anti-missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic and is looking at alternatives including Israel and Turkey, a Polish newspaper reported Aug. 27, citing U.S. officials.

The U.S. plan, intended for defense against attacks from Iran, has met with fierce objections from Russia, which regarded the eastern European bases as a threat to its own security.

Leading Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza cited administration officials and lobbyists in Washington in support of its story.

Pro-missile shield lobbyist Riki Ellison said the signals from the Pentagon were "absolutely clear," with U.S. authorities scouting for alternatives sites, the paper reported.

The State Dept says it's not true, but I agree with Rob Farley and Matt Yglesias when they both say that this is, if accurate news, a good thing. If Obama gave it to Medvedev as a down payment for arms control, all the better. The Polish and Czech governments never wanted this as "protection" from Russia; it was a good thing for them to get closer ties with the US government and it was easy money for them. But Iran's not going to be firing missiles at Europe - it's an insane notion. Let's move past this embarrassment. 

Casual Fridays

The T-11 Parachute : Soldiers Speak from PEO Soldier on Vimeo.

Via DefenseTech, the Army PEO Soldier has some fantastic videos - this one is about a new parachute design. Reminds me of the most terrifying thing I ever did in the military - leaving a perfectly good plane five times. 

Holder Won't Investigate This

Is Using A Minotaur To Gore Detainees A Form Of Torture?

Hat tip to Rob Farley. And to Rob, no, Mind Flayers are also not eligible for use in torture sessions. It clearly says so right there in the Player's Handbook.

Al Qaeda's Bio Threat - Not So Much

I caught this snippet of information on the "success" of the CIA's "enhanced interrogation tactics" (a.k.a. torture) - mainly that it didn't do that much to stop al Qaeda's BW program. Not because the tactics weren't harsh enough, but rather because the program was bullshit from the start.

The 2004 CIA report, titled "Khalid Shaykh Muhammad: Preeminent Source On Al-Qa'ida," stated that "reporting from KSM has greatly advanced our understanding of al-Qa'ida's anthrax program," in particular about the role of a Malaysian scientist named Yazid Sufaat who was recruited by al Qaeda to research biological weapons. Sufaat, a biochemistry graduate of California State University, Sacramento, set up Green Laboratory Medicine Company for al Qaeda in southern Afghanistan in 2001 as a front company through which it was hoped that the terrorist group would acquire anthrax and other biological agents that could be used as weapons.

But what the CIA did not say in its 2004 report is that Sufaat was never able to buy or produce the right strain of anthrax suitable for a weapon. And so though KSM might have helped the CIA understand something of al Qaeda's anthrax program, either he had little understanding of the science of biological weapons, and/or agency officials who wrote the report were also similarly handicapped. In fact, al Qaeda's anthrax program was a big dud that never produced anything remotely threatening, a point that the CIA report is silent on.

For all the bullshit we have to hear about bioterrorism and "it's not a question of if but when" and how we're going to see a bioattack in the next five years, it's just amazing how there's no actual evidence or intel to support the rhetoric. And that pretty much kills the BS justification for torturing detainees in the first place.

UPDATE: George Smith reminds us that this is not new news - most of us legitimate CBRN professionals understood this basic fact in 2006 (if not earlier).

History Does Repeat Itself

Because I've heard so many people comment about David Halberstam's book "The Best and The Brightest," I decided that I had to seek this out and start reading it on my daily commute into work. I can't seem to concentrate on Kilkullen's book, it is a complicated read and I think I have to save that one for home reading. But I have to say, less than 50 pages into this text and I'm already hooked. Here's a snippet:

In 1961, when the Kennedy team was already on board and there was great enthusiasm over the new theories of counterinsurgency ... and Vietnam had been chosen as a testing ground, [David] Riesman [the Harvard sociologist] remained uneasy. In mid-1961 he had lunch with two of the more distinguished social scientists in the Kennedy government. On the subject of Vietnam the others talked about limited war iwth the combativeness which marked that particular era, about the possibilities of it, about the American right to practice it, about the very excitement of participating in it. All of this smacked strongly of the arrogance and hubris of the era, and Riesman became more and more upset with the tone and the direction of the conversation ... "You all think you can manage limited wars and that you're dealing with an elite society which is just waiting for your leadership. It's not that way at all," he said. "It's not an Eastern elite society run for Harvard and the Council on Foreign Relations."

Reading that passage just shocks me into the current time and debates on Afghanistan that it makes me really wonder if people fully appreciate that famous quote by George Santayana.

A Really Big Target

I honestly don't see how the Army is going to float this monster and not have it shot down in the first few days of its operation in a combat zone. They must not remember how quickly World War I flying aces got into "balloon-busting" missions.

The U.S. Army yesterday publicly flew for the first time its new Raytheon-developed battlefield blimp designed to detect incoming enemy missiles.

The radar-equipped “JLENS” (for Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System) went airborne in Elizabeth City, N.C., marking the first public appearance of the unmanned craft developed in Tewksbury by Raytheon’s integrated defense systems unit.

The Waltham-based Raytheon, which holds the prime $1.4 billion development contract for what it calls “aerostats,” expects to deliver 12 of the JLENS blimps, each equipped with Raytheon’s radar systems to see up to 340 miles away.

"JLENS" is a nice, short title, easy to remember. I suppose the acronym "JLACMDENSS" was just too long. But really, why not just paint a big red target bullseye on the side of this thing...

British General Chief of Staff Clarifies his Comments

General Sir David Richard, the incoming Chief of Staff for the British army, has taken the moment to clarify his earlier comments about spending 30-40 years in Afghanistan. He didn't really mean constant fighting... that would just be crazy.

While Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth had suggested there would be significant progress in Afghanistan over the next couple of years, making substantial troop withdrawals likely, Dannatt said it was more realistic that Britain would have to keep troops on the front line for up to five more years while Richards mentioned the possibility of Britain being involved in Afghanistan for up to 40 years.

However, he later felt the need to clarify this statement. "I said the whole process in Afghanistan might take as long as 30 to 40 years," he said. "This seems to have been taken by some as meaning that the British Army would be involved in operations like those we are currently engaged in for that duration. I want to nail this once and for all. It is not what I said or what I believe. Afghanistan will need international help for many years to come – for example, through development, governance and security sector reform – and I am sure the UK will play a part in that. But a British military force along current lines should only be needed for a much shorter period."

If you want to learn more about the man, click on the link. Sounds like he knows what the job's about.

Deep Thoughts

If cluster munitions are outlawed, only outlaw nations will have cluster munitions.

Keep American troops safe. Tell your congressperson that our troops have the right to bear (and use) high-tech munitions.

EMP Nutzies Attack

The Washington Independent reports that former Governor Mike Huckabee is now headlining the upcoming "EMP Conference" that the right-wing wack-jobs defense analysts are promoting. It's a sad commentary about a guy who actually had a shot at the Republican nomination for president. It's clear he's given up on showing any potential credibility on national security issues. Former House Leader Newt Gingrich has already reported for duty at the carnival. Michael Crowley at The New Republic explains the background to this issue in this June article.

The EMP commission actually had a point. There is a scientific basis for fears about widespread electric outages, and there is evidence that other countries, possibly including Iran, have studied the technique. "EMP is real," agrees Joe Cirincione, a nuclear weapons expert who now runs a pro-disarmament think tank, the Ploughshares Fund. But, as Cirincione notes, few analysts take the threat very seriously. The odds that Iran or North Korea would prefer a technologically untested Rube Goldberg scheme to merely nuking us seem slim. And any terrorist group able to execute such a plan was probably capable enough to get us one way or another anyhow.

Those realities argue overwhelmingly for prudent but unsexy infrastructure protections, not preemptive attacks or advanced technology. "It's horror theater," says Cirincione, "trying to scare Americans into doing something which a rational analysis would stop them from doing." Charles Ferguson, a nuclear engineer at the Council on Foreign Relations, agrees. "[T]here are some important things we can be doing that won't cost much, but that can serve as a vital backup," he says. For instance, Ferguson has advised the New York City Fire Department to keep some backup communications equipment and extra ignition switches for its trucks in electromagnetic pulse-resistant steel cages.

The hawkish right, however, has much bigger things in mind. Although Bartlett himself seems to lack a sub-rosa strategic agenda, he has found common cause among national-security conservatives, about whom the same can't be said. Take, for instance, the spin of Frank Gaffney, perhaps the right's main missile-defense zealot: "[T]he United States must now make a redoubled effort to deploy effective, comprehensive defenses against ballistic missiles that might be used for EMP and other attacks," Gaffney wrote in a 2006 National Review article. Republican Senator Jon Kyl, a key missile-defense champion on Capitol Hill, has held hearings and published a Washington Post op-ed on the EMP threat. The like-minded Wall Street Journal opinion pages have repeatedly flogged the EMP commission's findings. "The only solution to this [EMP] problem," Brian T. Kennedy of the Claremont Institute wrote in an op-ed in the pages last November, "is a robust, multilayered missile-defense system."

Let's be clear about the EMP Nutzies. They have no interest in hardening critical infrastructure or developing redundant capabilities in our electronics industry. It's about rationalizing the hundreds of billions of dollars invested in a national missile defense system against a threat that they've imagined in their minds. It's pretty clear, which makes this "national conference" even more of a joke. And any national Republican politician who joins the circus deserves to be mocked as a phony and a fraud.

Wolfowitz - Asshat Maximus

My first impression when I saw that Foreign Policy magazine had allowed for Paul Wolfowitz to publish a commentary on "Realism" was WHAT THE FUCK over. Of all the people in the world, there are only a few individuals who really don' t deserve a soapbox on which to express their professional opinion. Paul Wolfowitz is definitely one of them.

This is not the place to reargue the Iraq war. So let's stipulate that the issue here is not whether to use military force to promote changes in the nature of states; it's about whether -- and how -- to promote such changes peacefully. On that issue there is a genuine debate between realists and their critics. And a desire for pragmatism should not be confused with a specific foreign-policy doctrine that minimizes the importance of change within states.

Just wow. My head nearly exploded when I read his statement in the first page. Clearly, Mr. Wolfowitz has a desire to justify his actions as DepSecDef during the Bush administration through a "subtle" criticism of the current administration's foreign policy approach. Here's the piece where he tries to set the record straight on the correct approach to foreign policy. He's a real piece of work. Perhaps the most amazing statement he has in this article is that he is a "realist." I guess that depends on one's definition of a "realist" - like consistently underestimating the number of military personnel, funds required, and time involved in nation-building after a US invasion of foreign countries, for instance.  

Interestingly, FP has decided to not allow comments on the article, perhaps fearing the overwhelming flood of attacks against this asshat who, along with Doug "stupidest guy on the planet" Feith and his Dark Lord Don Rumsfeld, threw our military forces into the tar pit that is Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan. I think that it's just disgraceful, considering the fine level of commentary from (most) of their other contributers. But go take a look, tell me what you think.  

UPDATE: Cheryl points to the FP response by four commentators on Wolfie's article.

Semper Faux

From the August 24 edition of MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, Guest host Stewart hammers the "death book" scare tactic.

Another Big Shock - Cheney Lied

Spencer Ackerman does the investigating on the recently released CIA interrogation memos so that you don't have to.

For months, former Vice President Dick Cheney has said that two documents prepared by the CIA, one from 2004 and the other from 2005, would refute critics of the Bush administration’s torture program. He told Fox’s Sean Hannity in April:

“I haven’t talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw, that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country,” Cheney said. “I’ve now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was.”

Those documents were obtained today by The Washington Independent and are available here.  Strikingly, they provide little evidence for Cheney’s claims that the “enhanced interrogation” program run by the CIA provided valuable information. In fact, throughout both documents, many passages — though several are incomplete and circumstantial, actually suggest the opposite of Cheney’s contention: that non-abusive techniques actually helped elicit some of the most important information the documents cite in defending the value of the CIA’s interrogations.

I know, it's just so hard to believe that Dick Cheney had delusional impressions about what the CIA interrogation did and did not do. What a loser.

Funny Stuff

If you don't check out Ironic Times, you're missing some good humor on contemporary affairs.

Report: CIA Hired Blackwater to Carry Out Assassinations
Congress condemns lack of competitive bidding.

Obama Makes First Appointments to Death Panels
Names Lex Luthor, Cruella De Vil, Darth Vader, Ming the Merciless, Dr. No.

I'm Shocked, Shocked to Hear...

that there are more contractors than US troops in Afghanistan, despite SecDef Gate's desire to reduce the military's dependence on contractors.

Even as U.S. troops surge to new highs in Afghanistan they are outnumbered by military contractors working alongside them, according to a Defense Department census due to be distributed to Congress -- illustrating how hard it is for the U.S. to wean itself from the large numbers of war-zone contractors that proved controversial in Iraq.

The number of military contractors in Afghanistan rose to almost 74,000 by June 30, far outnumbering the roughly 58,000 U.S. soldiers on the ground at that point. As the military force in Afghanistan grows further, to a planned 68,000 by the end of the year, the Defense Department expects the ranks of contractors to increase more.

-----------------

The heavy reliance on contractors in Afghanistan signals that a situation that defense planners once considered temporary has become a standard fixture of U.S. military operations.

"For a sustained fight like our current commitments, the U.S. military can't go to war without contractors on the battlefield," said Steven Arnold, a former Army general and retired executive at logistics specialists Ecolog USA and KBR Inc. KBR was formerly owned by Halliburton Co. He added, "For that matter, neither can NATO."

It's just like old times... some things just never change and will never change.

Run Away, Run Away!

Cheryl Rofer alerts me to a past "white powder" scare in Sante Fe, New Mexico. But because she's a pro, she's not too concerned...

Last fall, Litzenberg was the battalion chief for the first SFFD unit on the scene for the Zozobra-related threat. According to the Nov. 6 police report, Santa Fe resident Linda Hansen dialed 911 after receiving a letter titled, “Warning to the People of Santa Fe.” The envelope contained a suspicious white powder.

The letter was written in first person from the point of view of the “Great God of Israel,” who likened Zozobra to a false idol prohibited by the second of the Ten Commandments.

“For at your pagan festival I, the Living God, will open the ground and swallow your people for this horrible thing you do,” The Messengers’ letter states. “This too was done in the day of Moses, for the Israelites built their god (a golden calf) at the base of Mount Sinai.”

SFFD’s hazmat team judged the powder to be “nothing that was a threat to humans,” according to Litzenberg. FBI investigators also arrived on scene, but ultimately the case was assigned to the US Postal Inspection Service.

Yes, the crazies do like to put a good scare into the public. But don't forget, it's only a question of when, not if... coming up on eight years and counting since the Amerithrax incident.

Educating the Media

  It's depressing, at best, when you see top investigative reporters such as Bob Drogin of the LA Times reduced to doing personal stories of Teh Public when it comes to important issues such as the US chemical demilitarization story. Kris Alexander sent me this story about one of the two chemical stockpile sites where the Army has not yet started its disposal operations. Let's document the atrocities.

Behind armed guards in bulletproof booths deep in the Kentucky woods, workers have begun pouring the foundations for a $3-billion complex designed to destroy America's last stockpile of deadly chemical weapons.

The Army's estimates are that it will hit $4 billion easily before opening in 2017. Part of the reason is because they have to dismantle aging munitions, drain them, chemically neutralize the contents, ship the liquid waste off to be treated, "thermally decontaminate" the metal, and dispose of the explosives, propellant, and dunnage in (assuming) commercial incinerators. Aberdeen and Newport involved neutralizing agent in ton containers, which was much safer and less complicated. The incineration sites cost half as much.

Madison County recently obtained federal funds to give 40,000 special radios to residents and businesses here in the lush, rolling hills of central Kentucky, home to horse farms and tobacco fields. The radios will sound an alarm if a major accident occurs.

"I'm happier now," said Kent Clark, the county judge-executive. "People have finally stood up and noticed that we live next to the country's deadliest stockpile."

The locals around Anniston, Alabama, had tone-alert radios, too. Those who took the time to pick theirs up never used them in more than a decade, and now their concerns are nearly over. But hey, it's about mitigating the perceived threat, not the actual threat, right? As for Madison County Judge Clark - yes, you live to the "country's deadliest stockpile" because EVERYONE ELSE GOT RID OF THEIRS. Asshat. Why don't you tell the nice LA Timesman about the "road improvement projects" you extorted from the Army CSEPP?

Blue Grass is one of six Army installations where chemical weapons are stored. Four currently are incinerating their stockpiles. In the 1980s, Pentagon officials estimated a $600-million price tag to eliminate the toxic arsenals. The estimated cost today: $40 billion.

Actually, it's one of EIGHT state-side Army installations where chemical weapons were stored. The orginal estimate was actually $1.7 billion in 1985, based on engineering estimates and no actual experience. In 1997, the estimate was $12.4 billion with an expected end-date of 2004, which is a much better baseline to use, since that was after the Tooele disposal facility started operations.

Casual Fridays

I think I found my next first-person shooter. Killing Nazis - what's not to like?

Fear Is All They Have

I was quickly thumbing through the WaPo this morning and saw this article related to Obama's plan to move the Gitmo detainees to US prisons. Seems Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) is spending his time away from DC putting fear into the hearts and minds of his constituents. It's what the Republicans do best.

At the time, Munson said he saw the idea as an economic lifeline for the town and the prison, which provides more than 300 jobs. Then he met U.S.  Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) at a cocktail party and quickly changed his mind.

"He told me things that really scared the heck out of me," Munson said. "He told me about soft targets and safe zones, that if they came to this country they would have rights, visitors and friends would come who could be jihadists."

Hoekstra, ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, told those in the crowd that they have much to fear if the detainees are transferred to Standish, a town of 1,500 about 150 miles north of Detroit.
----------
Hoekstra, a co-sponsor of the Keep Terrorists Out of America Act, which opposes the transfer or release in the United States of Guantanamo Bay detainees, was joined at the town hall by Debra Burlingame, co-founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America.

"These detainees aren't like ordinary criminals. Those hardened criminals [in the Standish prison] do not have global jihadi networks," said Burlingame, whose brother was a pilot on the flight that crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. She predicted that detainees would assault and throw bodily fluids at guards, plan attacks on tourists and attract suicide bombers to local gatherings.

Asshats. What is it about right-wingers that they invent these nightmarish scenarios? Is it to comfort them when they decide that it's okay to treat others like shit and that they deserve to be "more equal" than others? I just can't figure it out sometimes, the fearful and emotional twists of rage they get themselves into.

Do you remember Roosevelt's four freedoms speech? One of them was the "Freedom from Fear." The Republicans don't seem to want to give that one to their constituents. Keeping the detainees in US prisons both secures them in safe and secure confinement while they await their hearings, and we have the DOD, DHS, FBI, and CIA to work on keeping the evil, bad terrorists away from your bedrooms. And that way, we don't have to adopt torture and confinement tactics that the Soviet Union and Communist China perfected. The system will work if you let it.