We are within the next few hours going to execute Saddam Hussein. We have within the past few days occupied Mogadishu through our Ethiopian proxies. There are probably a bunch of happy neocons around.
Unfortunately, executing Saddam will achieve nothing except the further alienation of Iraq's Sunni Arabs. They will note that Shiite death squads go around unpunished. Hell, they run the departments where law and order is supposed to be delivered. If the Sunnis have any doubt as to how the New Order is going to work in Iraq, Saddam's execution is going to clarify things for them. People talk about the expected "spike" in violence. The "spikes" seem to go up but never come as far down. Expect more of the same.
And in beautiful downtown Mogadishu, who exactly do we expect to take over? After it all falls apart, and the largely Christian Ethiopians have gone home, and what was once the effective national government has been dispersed, and the warlords return to their traditional pastimes of rape and pillage, will the United States face less threat from extreme Islam than it did last week?
There's a pattern here. There are times when it's better to have an effective government that you don't like that no government. We got rid of Saddam and are about to kill him. We've driven out the Islamic Union. Things are doubtless now going to be peachy. Details to follow.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Consistency, a hobgoblin that does not bother small minds on the far Right
The peace activists who were just rescued in Iraq have been denounced on far right talk radio for not sufficiently thanking their rescuers. They were on record, before they were kidnapping, as stating that violence in Iraq was due to the Coalition troops and if captured, they didn't want to be rescued.
Afterwards, they stuck to their story. Why shouldn't they? They really believe the teachings of Christ in a fairly literal way. This is in contrast with the so-called Christian fundamentalists, who believe exactly what the Bible says except where it talks about "Thou shalt not kill," and the part about not trying to get rich. Shouldn't Christian Peacemakers be allowed to practice their faith?
Now it seems that another one wants to go back. The following comes from an online article based on BBC coverage:
Despite the kidnappings, another CPT member, Jan Benvie has told BBC News she intends to go to the country in July.
She said she did not accept her presence should mean an extra responsibility for the security forces.
Let her go, I say. And if she gets kidnapped, leave her alone. American soldiers are being asked to die in Iraq in defense of an American belief system. Pacifists should be allowed the same right.
Afterwards, they stuck to their story. Why shouldn't they? They really believe the teachings of Christ in a fairly literal way. This is in contrast with the so-called Christian fundamentalists, who believe exactly what the Bible says except where it talks about "Thou shalt not kill," and the part about not trying to get rich. Shouldn't Christian Peacemakers be allowed to practice their faith?
Now it seems that another one wants to go back. The following comes from an online article based on BBC coverage:
She said she did not accept her presence should mean an extra responsibility for the security forces.
Let her go, I say. And if she gets kidnapped, leave her alone. American soldiers are being asked to die in Iraq in defense of an American belief system. Pacifists should be allowed the same right.
Who are the terrorists now?
Even the US Ambassador to Iraq now thinks the "militias" are killing more than the insurgents. Of course, by "militias," we mean the Shiite dominated police. It's not happening in Kurdistan. It's also not surprising, statistically, that if you piss of the Shiites, they will wreak more havoc than the Sunni arabs because they outnumber them 3:1.
However, all this begs the question, who are the terrorists in Iraq that we're fighting? The Bush doctrine of a universal fight against terrorism involves a rough definition of what a terrorist is. It includes state-run terror, which is how we roped Saddam into the definition. We now see that semi-official death squads are involved in ethnic cleansing. We supported intervention in Yugoslavia for that reason.
Now, of course, it's a little trickier since we trained them. Except the ones who got trained in Iran. Which brings up the fact that in the 1980's, we were supplying support to Saddam against the Iranians, so the "remnant Baathists" in Iraq may owe some of their training to the US as well. Not to mention the jihadists from Afghanistan.
Am I trying to make a point here? Yes. Let's get out now.
However, all this begs the question, who are the terrorists in Iraq that we're fighting? The Bush doctrine of a universal fight against terrorism involves a rough definition of what a terrorist is. It includes state-run terror, which is how we roped Saddam into the definition. We now see that semi-official death squads are involved in ethnic cleansing. We supported intervention in Yugoslavia for that reason.
Now, of course, it's a little trickier since we trained them. Except the ones who got trained in Iran. Which brings up the fact that in the 1980's, we were supplying support to Saddam against the Iranians, so the "remnant Baathists" in Iraq may owe some of their training to the US as well. Not to mention the jihadists from Afghanistan.
Am I trying to make a point here? Yes. Let's get out now.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Alice in Iraqiland
Joost Hiltermann, writing in the Baltimore Sun, has put forward four steps to save Iraq from distintegration. Juan Cole mentions him, although it isn't obvious if it's approvingly or not.
I hope not, since I generally appreciate Cole's realism. Hiltermann's four points are:
That's the gist of it. Cole describes Hiltermann as "veteran," which sounds like the guy should know what's up in Iraq, but his four points have been US policy for years and all four are proving to be unachievable. What's the point in laying them out again?
Perhaps the logic is to demonstrate that the disintegration of Iraq is now inevitable and that the US should simply try to figure out the least damaging exit strategy. If these are essential and all are out of the question, let's go home! George Will called on President Bush to give Americans the unvarnished truth. I doubt he meant that we've lost and should high tail it out of town. Americans are approaching that realization, but you don't sell newspapers or attract TV audiences by being pessimistic before the time is ripe.
I've been saying for three years and I'll say it again that Iraq will fail over two non-negotiable issues -- control of Kirkuk and control of Baghdad. The Kurds have wanted nothing from Iraq except to be out of it and they need Kirkuk. They got it from the constitution last fall and they aren't going to negotiate it away now. Nobody has anything to offer them that's worth as much.
This is a national destiny issue and the Kurds won't back down. The Iraqi arabs are going to be very unhappy as are the Turks, which may make life very interesting for the US, a NATO ally of Turkey. There could easily be civil war over Kirkuk with a dangerous international flavor.
If not, then the Sunni arabs will have lost one of the two things they need to obtain and Baghdad will loom even larger. They need to control Baghdad, which in turn must control some semblance of national government with oil revenue from the South. That's not going to happen peacefully.
There are three groups and two oil regions. The historic ruling group, which has abused and oppressed the other two for decades, is the one with no oil in its natural geographic base. This isn't going to be settled amicably. Every day brings us closer to the inevitable civil war. Let's get out now.
I hope not, since I generally appreciate Cole's realism. Hiltermann's four points are:
- Iraqi political leaders renounce violence and so inform their followers,
- an inclusive and representative government must be formed,
- the constitution must be revised to meet everyone's objectives, and
- the security forces must be trained by the US to replace the militias.
That's the gist of it. Cole describes Hiltermann as "veteran," which sounds like the guy should know what's up in Iraq, but his four points have been US policy for years and all four are proving to be unachievable. What's the point in laying them out again?
Perhaps the logic is to demonstrate that the disintegration of Iraq is now inevitable and that the US should simply try to figure out the least damaging exit strategy. If these are essential and all are out of the question, let's go home! George Will called on President Bush to give Americans the unvarnished truth. I doubt he meant that we've lost and should high tail it out of town. Americans are approaching that realization, but you don't sell newspapers or attract TV audiences by being pessimistic before the time is ripe.
I've been saying for three years and I'll say it again that Iraq will fail over two non-negotiable issues -- control of Kirkuk and control of Baghdad. The Kurds have wanted nothing from Iraq except to be out of it and they need Kirkuk. They got it from the constitution last fall and they aren't going to negotiate it away now. Nobody has anything to offer them that's worth as much.
This is a national destiny issue and the Kurds won't back down. The Iraqi arabs are going to be very unhappy as are the Turks, which may make life very interesting for the US, a NATO ally of Turkey. There could easily be civil war over Kirkuk with a dangerous international flavor.
If not, then the Sunni arabs will have lost one of the two things they need to obtain and Baghdad will loom even larger. They need to control Baghdad, which in turn must control some semblance of national government with oil revenue from the South. That's not going to happen peacefully.
There are three groups and two oil regions. The historic ruling group, which has abused and oppressed the other two for decades, is the one with no oil in its natural geographic base. This isn't going to be settled amicably. Every day brings us closer to the inevitable civil war. Let's get out now.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Pfaff makes sense on Iran as usual
William Pfaff continues to write calmly and rationally about issues that tend to disturb so many editorial writers in this country. He recently commented that the prospect of Iran getting nuclear weapons is a non-issue. I especially liked his brief comment about the security issues connected with a state providing nukes to non-state terrorists.
Think about it. Countries take steps to prevent people, mostly their own citizens but including anyone else on their soil, from doing dangerous things. They license automobile drivers. They station police within easy range of banks.
Now imagine the danger inherent in letting psychologically unstable people get their hands on nuclear weapons. Governments have their own enemies within the borders of their countries. A workable nuclear bomb would be hard to get across an international border, but much easier to stuff into a Ryder truck and drive to a domestic location. The logistics of getting a nuke into the hands of al-Qaeda so as to pose a threat to foreigners only are daunting.
For states themselves, nukes are strictly defensive. The North Koreans may bluster, but they know that if they ever lobbed a live one at anyone, the United States would turn Pyongyang into a glowing heap of radioactive dust in an hour. A nuclear armed Iran is not a pleasant prospect. But then, any Iran is not a particularly pleasant prospect under its current regime. Being nuclear armed is not enough worse to start an actual war over.
Iran's claim to have only peaceful intentions for its nuclear program is laughable. They need nuclear power for their economy? They sell gasoline to their citizens for about ten US cents a liter. Not exactly the policy of a country concerned about its energy supplies. On the other hand, we don't have much room to talk. Bush now wants us to develop cars that run on booze. Maybe he'll hire Kate Moss as a consultant.
Think about it. Countries take steps to prevent people, mostly their own citizens but including anyone else on their soil, from doing dangerous things. They license automobile drivers. They station police within easy range of banks.
Now imagine the danger inherent in letting psychologically unstable people get their hands on nuclear weapons. Governments have their own enemies within the borders of their countries. A workable nuclear bomb would be hard to get across an international border, but much easier to stuff into a Ryder truck and drive to a domestic location. The logistics of getting a nuke into the hands of al-Qaeda so as to pose a threat to foreigners only are daunting.
For states themselves, nukes are strictly defensive. The North Koreans may bluster, but they know that if they ever lobbed a live one at anyone, the United States would turn Pyongyang into a glowing heap of radioactive dust in an hour. A nuclear armed Iran is not a pleasant prospect. But then, any Iran is not a particularly pleasant prospect under its current regime. Being nuclear armed is not enough worse to start an actual war over.
Iran's claim to have only peaceful intentions for its nuclear program is laughable. They need nuclear power for their economy? They sell gasoline to their citizens for about ten US cents a liter. Not exactly the policy of a country concerned about its energy supplies. On the other hand, we don't have much room to talk. Bush now wants us to develop cars that run on booze. Maybe he'll hire Kate Moss as a consultant.
When we think of Hamas, let's think about IRA
The American press is stressing out over the prospect of Hamas forming the next government of Palestine. Meanwhile, other reports make it appear that the Irish Republican Army is sticking to its agreement to disarm and disavow violence.
One should remember that not long ago, the IRA was committed to removing the last British soldier from Ireland and considered the occupier and their collaborators to be fair game, whether in Ireland or England, and viewed collateral damages to be an acceptable price whether they were men, women, or children. Now they've given that up. Things change.
Think about China. The Chinese Communist Party has come so far down the road to capitalism that they make Wal-Mart look like a social services agency. Things change. Hamas in power is not going to be Hamas in basements packing explosives into vests. This is actually going to make life more difficult for the chauvinist element of Israeli politics, but it shouldn't be a problem for the United States.
One should remember that not long ago, the IRA was committed to removing the last British soldier from Ireland and considered the occupier and their collaborators to be fair game, whether in Ireland or England, and viewed collateral damages to be an acceptable price whether they were men, women, or children. Now they've given that up. Things change.
Think about China. The Chinese Communist Party has come so far down the road to capitalism that they make Wal-Mart look like a social services agency. Things change. Hamas in power is not going to be Hamas in basements packing explosives into vests. This is actually going to make life more difficult for the chauvinist element of Israeli politics, but it shouldn't be a problem for the United States.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Roy Blunt, as in Dull, Obtuse
Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri is an announced candidate for the job of majority leader in the US House of Representatives. I live in Florence, Oregon, population about 8000. It's 15 miles from Mapleton, population about 1000. Almost two years ago, I wrote the following:
Congressman Roy Blunt, the third ranking Republican member, told a joke to the Missouri Republican Convention. "How many Frenchmen would it take," he asked," to defend Paris? It's not known. It's never been tried." The audience laughed and applauded.
I was in France in September, 2001. I recall vividly a monument in a small French village, definitely smaller than Florence, perhaps the size of Mapleton. It commemorated the young people from the parish who had died defending their homeland in the Great War. There were more than 50 names.
On September 11, fewer than 3000 Americans died. Between July, 1914, and November, 1918, the French lost 1,357,000 defending Paris. In proportion to their smaller population, they lost as many as we have lost in the war on terrorism. Every day. For 50 months.
During the battle of Verdun in northern France, a ton of high explosive was dropped on every square yard. Decades later, nothing grew there. A half century later, one could still sometimes see green chlorine gas collecting in the bottoms of old shell craters after rain.
The French know something about death during war. They know something about chemical warfare. Representative Blunt, who represents the Ozarks, is the sort of person who gives hicks a bad name.
If this moron is the best that the Republican Party can find to lead them in Congress, they deserve to lose control in November.
I was in France in September, 2001. I recall vividly a monument in a small French village, definitely smaller than Florence, perhaps the size of Mapleton. It commemorated the young people from the parish who had died defending their homeland in the Great War. There were more than 50 names.
On September 11, fewer than 3000 Americans died. Between July, 1914, and November, 1918, the French lost 1,357,000 defending Paris. In proportion to their smaller population, they lost as many as we have lost in the war on terrorism. Every day. For 50 months.
During the battle of Verdun in northern France, a ton of high explosive was dropped on every square yard. Decades later, nothing grew there. A half century later, one could still sometimes see green chlorine gas collecting in the bottoms of old shell craters after rain.
The French know something about death during war. They know something about chemical warfare. Representative Blunt, who represents the Ozarks, is the sort of person who gives hicks a bad name.
If this moron is the best that the Republican Party can find to lead them in Congress, they deserve to lose control in November.
Spooner predicts Iraq cost at $100 trillion!!!
Not really, but as long as we're playing competitive prognostication, why not take a kick at the can. I'm on record as estimating that the cost of the Iraq invasion will be about a half trillion dollars. I'm sort of taking the official guesses of a couple hundred billion and adding a large fudge factor.
But I have been completely upstaged by a new study that says it could be a couple trillion. "Economists say ..." begins the headline in the Boston Globe. It sounds so much more authoritative than "Astrologers predict ..." but it isn't a lot better founded.
The problem is that the study has wandered into "economic impacts," a practice that has less and less connection with reality as the subject gets larger and larger. The economic impact of a new mill being built in a small town may make some sense. The gross long-term impact of the war in all its guises? Compared to what?
Two trillion dollars is a big number. I have the same reaction to it as I do to the prediction of rising oceans due to global warming. I've been hearing about this for 20 years. I live next to the ocean. If the problem will eventually become huge, then it should by now be noticeable. It isn't.
The study (although I haven't seen the details) evidently includes a consideration of the impact on US productivity. This is perhaps based on calling up guardsmen and reservists and thereby removing important skills from the civilian economy. Unfortunately for the study, productivity has continued to rise while we've been at war.
The war is presumed to have a bad long-term impact on the federal government's finances. Here's a contrarian thought. The war will cause a fiscal crisis that will force Americans to deal with the entitlement problems facing the country. The Social Security crisis looming two decades hence will be avoided.
Sheer speculation? Of course. It's all speculation. I could probably hit $500 trillion if I tossed in the compounded additional interest expense for 500 years. It might earn me my fifteen minutes of fame.
But I have been completely upstaged by a new study that says it could be a couple trillion. "Economists say ..." begins the headline in the Boston Globe. It sounds so much more authoritative than "Astrologers predict ..." but it isn't a lot better founded.
The problem is that the study has wandered into "economic impacts," a practice that has less and less connection with reality as the subject gets larger and larger. The economic impact of a new mill being built in a small town may make some sense. The gross long-term impact of the war in all its guises? Compared to what?
Two trillion dollars is a big number. I have the same reaction to it as I do to the prediction of rising oceans due to global warming. I've been hearing about this for 20 years. I live next to the ocean. If the problem will eventually become huge, then it should by now be noticeable. It isn't.
The study (although I haven't seen the details) evidently includes a consideration of the impact on US productivity. This is perhaps based on calling up guardsmen and reservists and thereby removing important skills from the civilian economy. Unfortunately for the study, productivity has continued to rise while we've been at war.
The war is presumed to have a bad long-term impact on the federal government's finances. Here's a contrarian thought. The war will cause a fiscal crisis that will force Americans to deal with the entitlement problems facing the country. The Social Security crisis looming two decades hence will be avoided.
Sheer speculation? Of course. It's all speculation. I could probably hit $500 trillion if I tossed in the compounded additional interest expense for 500 years. It might earn me my fifteen minutes of fame.
A dozen is a dozen is a dozen. Except in the Media.
Twelve American servicemen have been killed in a helicopter crash in Iraq. It will make the news today and perhaps tomorrow. Twelve miners died in a coal mine in West Virginia, and it has been covered extensively, every day, in our local newspaper for a week. We're nowhere near West Virginia.
Twelve people in California are killed on the highways on a typical day. Every day, all year. Unless it was somebody famous, a dozen traffic deaths wouldn't be much noticed in California, and not at all outside the state.
Twelve people in California are killed on the highways on a typical day. Every day, all year. Unless it was somebody famous, a dozen traffic deaths wouldn't be much noticed in California, and not at all outside the state.
GOP: Without DeLay without delay
Tom Delay is out. I'm actually surprised there have not been more puns on his name. It may be an indication of the fear he engendered in so many people. Anyway, he's gone and good riddance.
His letter to fellow GOP solons, giving up his idea of regaining power, reeked of hypocrisy. According to the story,
In a letter to colleagues on Saturday, DeLay said that he had always "acted in an ethical manner within the rules of our body and the laws of our land" and that he was "fully confident time will bear this out."
A more objective statement would have been that he has been advised by a well compensated lawyer that no action of his to date has been technically sufficient to result in a conviction, although that may change.
Ethical? His wife accepts $115,000 for a grade-school homework assignment about the preferred charities of congressman, from a "charity" that does no charitable work but takes money from Russian oil oligarchs who want (and get) some kind words from DeLay. No problem here, I guess.
All of this from a guy who lead the campaign to impeach Bill Clinton for lying about sex. Here's just a random thought. How many congressmen would be left if we eliminated every one of them who has lied to his wife about sex? I think the ranks would be badly depleted. God's ministry would probably also pass into new hands if we eliminated all the preachers who have been banging church secretaries.
I always like to think there's a rule (if not quite a moral) to be learned from such experiences. Maybe it's that whenever someone says he's more ethical than the ordinary guy, you should watch your back and keep a hand on your wallet. But that's really not a new rule.
His letter to fellow GOP solons, giving up his idea of regaining power, reeked of hypocrisy. According to the story,
A more objective statement would have been that he has been advised by a well compensated lawyer that no action of his to date has been technically sufficient to result in a conviction, although that may change.
Ethical? His wife accepts $115,000 for a grade-school homework assignment about the preferred charities of congressman, from a "charity" that does no charitable work but takes money from Russian oil oligarchs who want (and get) some kind words from DeLay. No problem here, I guess.
All of this from a guy who lead the campaign to impeach Bill Clinton for lying about sex. Here's just a random thought. How many congressmen would be left if we eliminated every one of them who has lied to his wife about sex? I think the ranks would be badly depleted. God's ministry would probably also pass into new hands if we eliminated all the preachers who have been banging church secretaries.
I always like to think there's a rule (if not quite a moral) to be learned from such experiences. Maybe it's that whenever someone says he's more ethical than the ordinary guy, you should watch your back and keep a hand on your wallet. But that's really not a new rule.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Time to amend the US Constitution
The Jack Abrahamoff scandal promises to be the gift that goes on giving for us scandalophiles. The depressing side note is that although quite a few members of Congress may be implicated, the chances of Democrats winning their seats is small because most house seats have now been gerrymandered to be safe for one party or the other.
There's an obvious problem with letting politicians decide the prospects of their losing their own next elections, but it's been perfectly legal at both state and federal levels. Amazingly, when Arnold tried to fix the problem in California, the voters trounced the idea. It fared even worse in Ohio.
In the words of H L Mencken, American politics is dominated by the "boobocracy." Do Americans really want corrupt government by entrenched politicians? Probably not, but most of the time the average voter is too inept to see the connection between "entrenched" and "corrupt." With luck, Abramoff has delivered a teachable moment which can be converted, during the notoriously short attention span of the voting public, into action.
I suggest a constitutional amendment that requires the redrawing of districts for both Congress and state legislatures to be conducted after each decennial census by a panel of retired judges. They should be instructed to consider only the need to create compact districts of nearly equal size, without any consideration to racial, ethnic, economic, or political composition.
This is the political equivalent of the flat tax. The argument for progressive taxation with many exemptions is that the result should be fairer to vulnerable elements of society, but in fact everyone becomes a special interest and the cost may be greater than the benefit.
I'm not a flat tax fan, even though I understand the argument for it. Impartial redistricting, on the other hand, is solid. The preference that politicians feel towards doing the job themselves is obviously self-serving. The idea that minorities are best served by "reserving" some seats in Congress for them by creatively drawing district lines is harder to disprove, except to use Congress as a whole as an example of failure.
If I were a betting man, I'd give 1000:1 against this idea right now. But if we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg, and if it entangles enough Democrats to make it bipartisan, maybe there could be a spasm of political morality. Then, who knows?
There's an obvious problem with letting politicians decide the prospects of their losing their own next elections, but it's been perfectly legal at both state and federal levels. Amazingly, when Arnold tried to fix the problem in California, the voters trounced the idea. It fared even worse in Ohio.
In the words of H L Mencken, American politics is dominated by the "boobocracy." Do Americans really want corrupt government by entrenched politicians? Probably not, but most of the time the average voter is too inept to see the connection between "entrenched" and "corrupt." With luck, Abramoff has delivered a teachable moment which can be converted, during the notoriously short attention span of the voting public, into action.
I suggest a constitutional amendment that requires the redrawing of districts for both Congress and state legislatures to be conducted after each decennial census by a panel of retired judges. They should be instructed to consider only the need to create compact districts of nearly equal size, without any consideration to racial, ethnic, economic, or political composition.
This is the political equivalent of the flat tax. The argument for progressive taxation with many exemptions is that the result should be fairer to vulnerable elements of society, but in fact everyone becomes a special interest and the cost may be greater than the benefit.
I'm not a flat tax fan, even though I understand the argument for it. Impartial redistricting, on the other hand, is solid. The preference that politicians feel towards doing the job themselves is obviously self-serving. The idea that minorities are best served by "reserving" some seats in Congress for them by creatively drawing district lines is harder to disprove, except to use Congress as a whole as an example of failure.
If I were a betting man, I'd give 1000:1 against this idea right now. But if we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg, and if it entangles enough Democrats to make it bipartisan, maybe there could be a spasm of political morality. Then, who knows?
If we need more air raids in Iraq, we should get out
During the past year, the US has turned increasingly to air raids to wage war against Iraqi insurgents without incurring US casualties. Air raids are, unfortunately, blunt instruments, prone to error. In the latest fiasco, we seem to have killed 12 civilians while aiming for three insurgents.
People who give customer service training to places like restaurants and retail stores like to say that customers are much more likely to tell their friends about an instance of bad service than good. Same in war. We're probably rebuilding a school somewhere in Iraq right now, but that's not the headline. It's 12 civilians killed by a US air strike.
Let's be honest. If that house had contained 12 Americans, we wouldn't have bombed it in the hopes of getting 3 insurgents. We don't view Iraqi "collateral damage" as being as important as the lives of Americans.
I'm not saying we should, but we don't and it's no secret from the Iraqis. We're not going to win a war for "hearts and minds" while we regard our allies as less important than ourselves. On the other hand, you can't run an army any other way. Soldiers are trained to kill enemies. There's no practical way to deliver democracy to a hostile population on the point of a bayonet.
So let's get out now.
People who give customer service training to places like restaurants and retail stores like to say that customers are much more likely to tell their friends about an instance of bad service than good. Same in war. We're probably rebuilding a school somewhere in Iraq right now, but that's not the headline. It's 12 civilians killed by a US air strike.
Let's be honest. If that house had contained 12 Americans, we wouldn't have bombed it in the hopes of getting 3 insurgents. We don't view Iraqi "collateral damage" as being as important as the lives of Americans.
I'm not saying we should, but we don't and it's no secret from the Iraqis. We're not going to win a war for "hearts and minds" while we regard our allies as less important than ourselves. On the other hand, you can't run an army any other way. Soldiers are trained to kill enemies. There's no practical way to deliver democracy to a hostile population on the point of a bayonet.
So let's get out now.
Monday, January 02, 2006
Nuclear Waste? Dump it in the Pacific!
There are several problems plaguing the nuclear power industry, but the most intractable seems to be where and how to dispose of waste. People keep looking at locations around the United States and, since no one wants it in their backyard, finding an acceptable site will probably be mired in controversy forever.
A very simple option exists on paper. Wrap it in something fairly solid, take it out somewhere in the Pacific, a thousand miles from the closest inhabited land, and dump it in 13,000 feet of water, the average depth. Then go home and sleep the sleep of the innocent.
What, I hear you cry, don't I care about the purity of our sacred oceans? Somewhat, but in this case, not a lot. Or rather, I know enough about geometry to realize that there is essentially no way for mankind to pollute the volume of water that the oceans contain.
With a great deal of work, we could pollute its two-dimensional surface, although it's hard to do even that over a serious portion. We can, and have, polluted its shorelines, which are one-dimensional. But in three dimensions, our puny efforts could not mess up the ocean an iota.
The volume of water in the oceans is about 1.37 billion cubic kilometers. In scientific notation, 1.37 x 109 km3. Or 1.37 x 1018 m3. Or 362 billion billion gallons.
The DOE estimates that it is storing 100 million gallons of nuclear waste. That would certainly already be diluted and would not consist entirely of radioactive molecules. If you stupidly sank it in a manner that it would leak rapidly, you would be diluting the volume of waste to one part in three trillion. Radioactive molecules would be much less concentrated. Even this assumes that essentially no effort is made to contain the waste, so that it leaks quickly before radioactive decay kills it. Any decent containment process would reduce the impact by orders of magnitude. In short, you could easily get rid of our entire Cold War legacy and it wouldn't even be detectable with current technologies.
Unfortunately, this reasonable solution is banned by a treaty that the United States signed in 1993. Thank you, Bill Clinton.
A very simple option exists on paper. Wrap it in something fairly solid, take it out somewhere in the Pacific, a thousand miles from the closest inhabited land, and dump it in 13,000 feet of water, the average depth. Then go home and sleep the sleep of the innocent.
What, I hear you cry, don't I care about the purity of our sacred oceans? Somewhat, but in this case, not a lot. Or rather, I know enough about geometry to realize that there is essentially no way for mankind to pollute the volume of water that the oceans contain.
With a great deal of work, we could pollute its two-dimensional surface, although it's hard to do even that over a serious portion. We can, and have, polluted its shorelines, which are one-dimensional. But in three dimensions, our puny efforts could not mess up the ocean an iota.
The volume of water in the oceans is about 1.37 billion cubic kilometers. In scientific notation, 1.37 x 109 km3. Or 1.37 x 1018 m3. Or 362 billion billion gallons.
The DOE estimates that it is storing 100 million gallons of nuclear waste. That would certainly already be diluted and would not consist entirely of radioactive molecules. If you stupidly sank it in a manner that it would leak rapidly, you would be diluting the volume of waste to one part in three trillion. Radioactive molecules would be much less concentrated. Even this assumes that essentially no effort is made to contain the waste, so that it leaks quickly before radioactive decay kills it. Any decent containment process would reduce the impact by orders of magnitude. In short, you could easily get rid of our entire Cold War legacy and it wouldn't even be detectable with current technologies.
Unfortunately, this reasonable solution is banned by a treaty that the United States signed in 1993. Thank you, Bill Clinton.
This is why Democrats aren't surging
I subscribe to the Register-Guard, the only daily newspaper in Eugene, Oregon. The editors seem to be nice, well meaning sorts with a definite bias toward Blue politics. Like most Democratic politicians, their thinking on Iraq seems hopelessly muddled. Today's editorial was typical.
They begin by saying that the cost, $8 million per hour, is staggering and cannot be sustained. It is staggering, but sustainable. It's about what we lose gambling each year. It's less than we spend on tobacco. We could do it if we wanted to, and we would want to if it was securing our oil supply and thwarting terrorism. We could spend it next year, and every year thereafter.
But we won't, because it is doing neither of those things. The RG correctly notes this and proposes two actions for President Bush to take. One is irrelevant and the other is impossible.
The irrelevant suggestion is that the United States should declare in writing that if the Iraqi government asks it to leave, it will leave. The Iraqi government has had "sovereignty" for a year and a half. What does sovereignty mean if not the right to exclude foreign troops? We might not have taken such a rebuff from our puppet interim government (not that they were ever likely to deliver it), but if the government, quasi-freely elected under a quasi-legitimate constitution, tells us to go, then the game will be up. It doesn't help to put it in writing.
The second suggestion was that we tie our withdrawal to concrete progress. If we were making concrete progress, we'd be leaving! Nothing would make the United States happier than to have the conditions exist for a graceful departure, but since that's not happening, the departure is likely to become less and less graceful. Sooner or later, you get Saigon. Let's get out now.
They begin by saying that the cost, $8 million per hour, is staggering and cannot be sustained. It is staggering, but sustainable. It's about what we lose gambling each year. It's less than we spend on tobacco. We could do it if we wanted to, and we would want to if it was securing our oil supply and thwarting terrorism. We could spend it next year, and every year thereafter.
But we won't, because it is doing neither of those things. The RG correctly notes this and proposes two actions for President Bush to take. One is irrelevant and the other is impossible.
The irrelevant suggestion is that the United States should declare in writing that if the Iraqi government asks it to leave, it will leave. The Iraqi government has had "sovereignty" for a year and a half. What does sovereignty mean if not the right to exclude foreign troops? We might not have taken such a rebuff from our puppet interim government (not that they were ever likely to deliver it), but if the government, quasi-freely elected under a quasi-legitimate constitution, tells us to go, then the game will be up. It doesn't help to put it in writing.
The second suggestion was that we tie our withdrawal to concrete progress. If we were making concrete progress, we'd be leaving! Nothing would make the United States happier than to have the conditions exist for a graceful departure, but since that's not happening, the departure is likely to become less and less graceful. Sooner or later, you get Saigon. Let's get out now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)