A co-worker’s husband, Justin, who happens to be a hell of a nice guy, was just nominated for the Bronze Star. Incidentally, he had bureaucratically manuvered out of a safe and easy stateside assignment in order to lead an infantry platoon in Iraq.
A good dude.
Senator McCain should send a message that, if elected, he intends to keep Robert Gates as SecDef. The man “gets it” and there are too few like that.
UPDATE:
Favorable reaction to the Gates speech from John Robb, Charlie at Abu Muqawama, Dr. Chet Richards . Purpleslog wants deeds and not words.
Through Twitter, I’ve become familiar with Jeffrey Carr’s excellent blog IntelFusion which covers a range of topics of great interest to readers here. Several recent posts that have caught my eye:
Unrestricted Warfare, the Chinese Box, and the game of Go
In 1999, a seminal work on Chinese military strategy was published by two Senior Colonels of the Peoples Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), SrCol Qiao Liang and SrCol Wang Xiangsui, entitled Chaoxian zhan (translated as “Warfare that exceeds boundaries”).
….In July, 2002, the Asia Times printed a new article by the two Colonels “Chinese box approach to international conflict“. In it, they discuss China’s uber strategy in dealing with specific international issues:
“It is Chinese practice to attack an issue with a framework larger than the issue itself. When a crisis occurs, Chinese leaders first detach from it temporally and spacially. They spend time thinking about the issue before action, thus allowing more room for maneuver in the future. This is somewhat like playing with a magic box: first you pack the specific problem and related factors into a box and then fit it into larger boxes with related problems in different levels. Finally, you come up with a framework of highest generality to harness the whole situation.”
In this article, the authors later allude to the Chinese game of Weiqi (more commonly called by its Japanese name “Go”) and the strategy of the “idle piece”.
Nuclear black market still operating in the DRC
Ever since WWII, when the Democratic Republic of the Congo provided the raw uranium ore for U.S. production of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, various States interested in acquiring nuclear weapons have been attracted to the Congo’s relatively lax export controls for uranium found in its Cobalt and Copper ore. The most recent incident just occured a few days ago :
Security forces in Democratic Republic of Congo’s Katanga province have intercepted a truck transporting radioactive mineral ore bound for export, local authorities said on Friday. The truck, carrying 30 tonnes of copper and cobalt ore for Chinese-run firm Hua-Shin Mining, was stopped at an inspection checkpoint near Kolwezi, one of Congo’s biggest copper belt mining towns, on Wednesday.
Last November, another attempt to smuggle uranium resulted in the radioactive ore being dumped into a river causing serious health concerns for the surrounding population.
Read these posts in full at IntelFusion.
Top Billing! Chirol -“Deterrence and Missile Shield“
Great combo of history, theory and contemporary analysis by Chirol. Well done!
Thomas P.M. Barnett -“Wrong choice on missile defense v. NATO expansion”
Tom weighs in as grand strategist and finds that NATO expansion beats missile defense in Eastern Europe in terms of national interests.
Jeremy Young -“The AHA Should Aid Bloggers, Not Control Them“
Aside from the history aspect, Jeremy’s excellent post illustrates how large, established, professional organizations are plagued with legacy thinking as they struggle to retain ” gatekeeper” status in the advent of Web 2.0. Sound recommendations on Young’s part.
Eide Neurolearning Blog – “Fluid Reasoning from the Right Brain: Children vs. Adults”
More research on the development of analogical/metaphorical reasoning – a critical spark plug for the generation of insights.
No Quarter -“The Chicago Three: Obama, Ayers & Rezko”
Sure, Larry Johnson supports Hillary Clinton but there are few figures on the Democratic Left are more morally questionable than unrepentant Weatherman Underground terrorist – and longtime Obama friend and political backer – Bill Ayers. What was the attraction for Obama to keep counsel with a radically anti-American nut, exactly ?
Given that the Clintons exited the White House with a bushel of free pass pardons to unrepentant and (unlike Ayers) still dangerous FALN members against DOJ and FBI recommendations, a more appropriate question would be to ask why the Left-wing of the Democratic Party has a “terrorist problem”? Why does the undemocratic Left get it’s phone calls returned by liberal Democratic pols like Obama, Clinton, Luis Guiterrez and others?
DNI – “The Art of Non-learning in the Real World”
Boyd associate Chuck Spinney analyzes the Bush administration in light of grand strategy and history.
That’s it.
My friend Bruce Kesler, who keeps a sharper eye on the fine details of American politics than I do, is dead square right in a recent post at Democracy Project that I reproduce here in full:
Hidden Foreign Contributions Affect US Elections
US election law forbids non-Americans to contribute directly to federal candidates, and qualified donations above $200 are available to public scrutiny. There is a huge loophole – or, more correctly, shroud – over contributions by foreigners to US non-profits, who heavily shape public discussion affecting our elections – and other policies. (There’s, also, some indication that the $200 cut-off for full disclosure of contributions to our campaigns may be another loophole being exploited by some foreigners.)
IRS Form 990 generally requires that non-profits list contributors and their addresses who give $5000 or more. However, non-profits are not required to publicly divulge who they are (with the exception of private foundations and 527’s).
Non-profits include 501(c)(4)’s, which are estimated to spend in 2008 well more than the $424-million that 527’s spent to influence the 2004 elections.
Another area of concern is donations made by foreigners to our universities. Although New York State requires that such contributions be revealed, there is no enforcement and filings are often not made.
In Britain, it is estimated, more funding comes from the MidEast for Islamic Studies departments than from the government.
Ministers labelled Islamic studies a “strategic subject” and said the “effective and accurate teaching” of it in universities could help community cohesion and counter extremism.
Similar concerns have been raised in the US about the influence of MidEast contributors on our universities’ curriculums, and the faculty who influence public discussion. See here and here, for examples.
Former presidents Carter and Clinton have received tens of millions in donations, and more, from foreign sources for their foundations, yet the public knows very little about from whom or how much. Meanwhile, Carter and Clinton take frequent public stands on public policy and candidates for office.
A draft has been released of a revised IRS Form 990. It increases exposure on governance issues, but retains the shroud over contributors to non-profits. At the very least, foreign contributors should be revealed publicly, at least for amounts over the $200 of election laws.
You can send your comments to the IRS during the comment period. It’s as simple as an email to Form990Revision@irs.gov
Bravo to Bruce for highlighting this important but generally unrecognized problem.
One of the ironies of Beltway incumbent preferred campaign finance regulation like the odious McCain-Feingold law is that it manages to combine restrictions of the political activities and free speech rights of American citizens while granting opacity to wealthy foreigners who seek to influence political discourse here through generous donations to foundations, educational organizations, think tanks, universities, presidential libraries and other institutions that shape our intellectual life. It is completely understandable, given the potential impact of American policies on the rest of the world that other states and their sundry notables would seek to make their voice heard here. To a certain extent, when it’s above board public diplomacy and cultural exchanges, it’s even a good thing. What’s unacceptable is that foreign interests can often buy such influence – which is what they are really doing – under the radar or even behind the shield of legal secrecy. If some of our finest universities were people then they would have already had to register as foreign agents a long, long, loooooooong, time ago.
The same might be said of some former presidents. Or of presidential candidates.
The answer here is not to go on a fruitless legal jihad to ban foreign money, which at times does get turned toward humanitarian or genuinely educational purposes but to require radical transparency of our think tanks, universities, charities and other institutions enjoying tax deductible status but are dedicated to indirectly influencing the political process or policy formation. If an American institution or scholar wants to shill for the Wahabbi Lobby by working for a tank on the take from a senior Saudi prince, or accept grants from PLA-affiliated Chinese corporations, Japanese billionaires, mobbed-up Russian “businessmen” or other foreign sources, fine, but a highly visible disclaimer to that fact ought to be mandatory. If Carnegie or AEI or Harvard departments are advising presidential candidates on Mideast policy then contributions emanating from that region are relevant to the discussion.
If accepting the check in public is cause for dismay then there’s a word for what’s really going on:
Graft.
Zenpundit is a blog dedicated to exploring the intersections of foreign policy, history, military theory, national security,strategic thinking, futurism, cognition and a number of other esoteric pursuits.
Customized Web Site & Blog Design
