zenpundit.com » 2005

Archive for 2005

Saturday, November 26th, 2005

MUSINGS

DNI has brought up Martin van Creveld’s Fate of The State several times lately. Reading that [ed. note: Actually I read it several times. It’s worth pondering carefully] combined with recent discussions of the “ Moraldimension of warfare by John Robb, Philip Bobbitt and discussions here on resiliency and moral countermeasures have me thinking about the legitimacy of the American state. Why it has weakened. How to strengthen it, and so on. Inchoate thoughts at present, perhaps tomorrow will bring me some insight.

Also, I’m in an interesting discussion with Aaron over at tdaxp.

Saturday, November 26th, 2005

BLOG CONSOLIDATION ON THE RIGHT

Dr. Demarche and Marc Schulman have joined forces.

Let the Eurosocialists beware their wrath.

Friday, November 25th, 2005

SHOOTING OURSELVES IN THE FOOT WITH BOTH BARRELS: A PLEA FOR SMARTER COUNTERINTELLIGENCE POLICY

The Bush administration is rightly concerned with escalating levels of Chinese espionage against the United States, both military and economic. Particularly troublesome to U.S. officials is the focus of China’s foreign intelligence service on recruiting overseas Chinese who hold American or third party national citizenship. The Chinese are quite aggressive and are already matching the efforts of the old Soviet and East bloc agencies at their peak.

That being said, espionage is a fact of life in international affairs and China’s effort to “swarm” the United States with HUMINT agents is a partial redress for American superiority in SIGINT and IMINT over China. The best answer to China’s efforts is the develppment of a robust, Sinocentric, counterintelligence capability in the American IC. Instead, quite counterproductively, there is a proposal to deal with this problem via a lazy, crude and immeasurably stupid policy of punishing all would-be scientists of Chinese ethnic origin by discouraging their immigration to the United States.

As any competent economist could explain, this proposal, if enacted, will cause 100 times the damage to the U.S. economy and scientific edge that the spies are doing without providing any corresponding national security benefit whatsoever – as China will simply pick up the same information secondhand in Canada, the UK, Australia, Israel, the EU and Japan. Yes, we will cause China’s spooks some inconvenience and expense but the cost to America will be patents not filed, hard science PhDs not graduated, inventions not created and a reverse brain drain – the first in U.S. history- as the best scientists, including native born American ones, go abroad to do first-rate research.

Ironically, if this policy had been in place during WWII it would likely have been Germany that built the atomic bomb and not the United States, as so many critical physicists in the Manhattan Project were technically ” enemy nationals”. Blanket policies are no substitute for cultivating a a cadre of CI officers with the requisite language skills to do the interviews and investigations of suspected spies.

Getting ” deep” language skills is a long term investment in personnel that the Pentagon and the IC would rather not spend any money on as they have ” higher” bureaucratic priorities. So this proposal seeks to fool the Congress and public into believing the espionage problem is being addressed- we won’t increase our competency, we’ll just decrease the number of people who might be spies ! That’ll work ! As if real spies won’t have the patience to jump through the additional bureaucratic hoops to get a visa. Or the Chinese won’t simply start recruiting white guys.

If there was ever the CI equivalent of the “Strategic Hamlet Policy” from the Vietnam War, this one is it.

UPDATE:

Dave at The Glittering Eye has thoughts on China’s Titan Rain PLA cyberespionage program.

More on Titan Rain – here, here and here.

Wednesday, November 23rd, 2005

A DEMONSTRATION IN THE ART OF HORIZONTAL THINKING

Dan of tdaxp has a graphics rich mini-magnum opus entitled ” Globalization is Water: The Magic Cloud“. In it Dan discusses ( and illustrates) the complex connections between:

The Magic Cloud
Fuzzy Logic
Clausewitzian Friction
Darwinism
Analogical Thinking
Tipping Points
Perception
Fundamentalism as a cognitive frame
Phase Dominance
Boydian strategy
PNM Theory
Dynamic vs. Static Modelling
Cognitive Theory
IR Theory
Horizontal Thinking
Insight

Dan left out the kitchen sink and Bayesian Probability analysis but that was about it :o)

Wednesday, November 23rd, 2005

THE PAPER TRAIL OF THE “PAPER OF RECORD”

The New York Times prides itself on being ” the paper of record” for our nation. On foreign policy though their editorial record is not one of consistent principle – unless partisanship and historical amnesia constitute principles. Where the Times stands on a given issue depends a great deal on who is standing in the Oval Office. That is as true today for the Iraq War as much as it was yesterday for the war in Vietnam.

Marc Schulman of The American Future is running a three part series that meticulously traces the evolution of the Times in regard to Iraq and it is a devastating portrait:

“A war can be lost because public opinion turns against its continued prosecution. The New York Times – the self-described “newspaper of record” – is among the world’s most influential opinion leaders. As shown by the cited quotations, the newspaper’s stance on Iraq underwent a complete transformation during the decade separating 1993 and 2003. While its editors never lost their fear of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD), their prescription for countering the threat posed by the weapons was altered beyond recognition. In 1993, by arguing that cease-fire violations nullified U.N. protection, the Times affirmed the right of a victorious party to resume hostilities at its sole discretion if the party it defeated did not abide by the terms of the agreement to which it affixed its signature. Ten years later, the Times reversed its stance, asserting that the United States should not go to war without the approval of the United Nations. In so doing, the Times implicitly argued that going to war with the approval of a multilateral institution took precedence over the use of military force to expeditiously eliminate the threat posed by Iraq’s WMD.

This post, which covers the eight years of the Clinton administration, is the first of three that employ the Times’ editorials to trace and analyze the evolution of the newspaper’s position on Iraq. The second will cover the pre-invasion Bush administration, while the third will deal with the period from the fall of Baghdad to the present.”

Continue reading…

This is an example of blogging at its best, not just citizen-journalism but citizen-history – and I will be linking to each part in Marc’s series.


Switch to our mobile site