Gen. Franks' Book

From Instapundit.com:

"TOMMY FRANKS' NEW BOOK, AMERICAN SOLDIER, IS NUMBER ONE on the New York Times bestseller list, but it's not getting a lot of attention. Max Boot explains:

"It is a good read, thanks to the work of veteran ghostwriter Malcolm McConnell; the early sections on Franks's blue-collar upbringing and Vietnam service are particularly affecting. But it has not made as much of a media splash as some other accounts of the administration, because it is not hostile to George W. Bush.

To the contrary, American Soldier rebuts some criticisms directed against the president. Bush has been accused, for instance, of taking his eye off Afghanistan by ordering the plan for a possible war with Iraq in the fall of 2001. Franks writes that, given the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, this was a sensible request, and that "our mission in Afghanistan never suffered" as a result.

Scores of pundits have accused the administration of lying, or at least distorting the evidence, about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But Franks reveals that the leaders of Egypt and Jordan told him that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons. Though no weapon of mass destruction was ever found, he writes, "I do not regret my role in disarming Iraq and removing its Baathist regime."

Another charge made against the administration is that political appointees failed to give the generals enough troops in either Afghanistan or Iraq. In fact, Franks writes, it was his own choice to employ limited forces in order to avoid getting bogged down. Instead of relying on sheer size, he thought surprise and speed were the keys to victory -- a judgment largely vindicated by events."

I hate to buy into a theory as seemingly simplistic and cynical as "if it makes Bush look good, it'll be buried" -- but I can't deny its explanatory power."

Documentaries and Reality TV

Documentaries are cool, but there usually isn't much money in them.

As anyone who knows me already knows, I was not impressed by Fahrenheit 911. I found it trite, unintellectual, and insulting. With the exception of the raw footage from Baghdad, it was a waste of time at best, and a manipulative trick at worst. A friend of mine suggested that even though the movie might be biased and dumb, at least it would get people interested in an important issue. I agree with this only in an abstract way. I think people had to be interested in politics/the-war-in-Iraq before they decided to buy a ticket for the movie, and all the movie really would get them interested in are made-up non-issues. However, I agree with the basic idea that it's better (but only slightly) for people to be watching a documentary, however un-intellectual, than a movie that never purports to have any intellectual component in the first place.

What my friend said did lead me to another idea, though. Maybe this movie's financial success will help bring some real, quality documentaries to the big screen. Since the Fahrenheit 911 craze began, I have heard about Control Room from lots of people and heard that it's excellent. I've also heard about this new documentary called Nine Innings from 9/11 that looks good. If Fahrenheit 911 causes a general upswing in enthusiasm about documentaries, I guess that would be a silver lining to the otherwise dark cloud that it was.

European selfishness

I was reading this article today and it really struck me as representing an amazing selfishness on the part of Germany. Germany didn't support the US in Iraq, even though it owes the US its very existence (in its modern form, at least). It didn't even help bear the financial burden for reconstructing Iraq in any signficant way, even though it stands to benefit greatly from a stable, democratic Iraq.But now the Germans are upset that the US is going to move soldiers out of Germany? They're worried that people in Germany will lose jobs. This is probably true, but it's insane. The Germans are upset because not as much of the US military budget is going to go into the pockets of their restaurant owners, service employees, defense contractors, etc? If you're not a good ally, that's what you get. You can't deny support to US military goals and then cry foul when the US military wants to stop giving you money. Another way to put it is that you can't rely on the US to fight the wars you have no stomach for, absorb the immigrants that you don't want in your country, AND prop up your economy. That's so selfish.

You can't have it both ways

"ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- The effort by U.S. officials to justify raising the terror alert level last week may have shut down an important source of information that has already led to a series of al Qaeda arrests, Pakistani intelligence sources have said."

The moral of this entry is you can't have it both ways. There are a bunch of people in this country who sit around and second guess things that they have no business second guessing and know nothing about. I can't belive I was reading headlines talking about people questioning whether or not the country needed to be at orange alert as a result of information uncovered in Pakistan (and other places) recently. YOU AREN'T A COUNTER-TERRORIST EXPERT. If you don't trust that the CIA can handle that stuff, then vote for people who want to rearrange the CIA or make oversight committees. Don't sit around and act like somehow you understand better than the trained professionals. When you demand all kinds of justification and don't let elected representatives REPRESENT you, you compel them to do things like leak information so that they can prove they know what they're doing. Now, admittedly, whoever leaked the name of this guy before it was time should not have done so, but it would have been a lot easier for him not to leak anything if there weren't people breathing down his neck every time he tried to do his job.

Ode to Sharon

As many of you know, Sharon and Ben Lum have been in Washington, D.C. for the last couple years. I always felt honored to know both Ben and Sharon while we were in college. They have not been idle while residing in our nation’s capitol. Sharon is constantly on the move. As Ben will soon be moving back to his native California and Sharon will be coming to visit, I thought I would take this opportunity to bring you all up to speed on what Sharon has been doing. Sharon sure has been in the headlines a lot lately! The headlines formed such a coherent story that I simply integrated them right into my narrative, putting them in bold text so you can see how many headlines track Sharon’s every movement and action.

Background:
Sharon was born at Kfar Mala on February 27, 1928. During the 1948 War of Independence, she commanded an infantry company in the Alexandroni Brigade. These two things are obvious. Anyone who knows Sharon knows them already. But let’s get on to what’s happening now – today.

Sharon’s deadly gamble:
Sharon woos UTJ. This, understandably, made Ben very angry. But when he confronted Sharon about this, Sharon firm on negotiations. He waited about an hour for her to cool off, but Sharon won't be pushed into new talks. Ben’s anger grew and grew. It culminated when Sharon’s minority government ‘slapped.’ Sharon’s immediate, domestic response was seen by many as heavy handed. She stopped doing the dishes. Sharon, Labor Alliance Apparently Off. Ben knew that he was Sharon’s leading lady, but lately he sure didn’t feel like it. He wondered why she was doing all these confrontational things.

Then he found out, Sharon bribe inquiry may reopen. Then it all made sense. Ben started to feel bad that he had slapped Sharon. He knew she was a good person because Sharon Shows Concern for the Elderly. Unfortunately Ben’s machinations against Sharon could not be unstarted. His plan was already in the works. Everyone realized this when Former official targets Sharon. But Sharon wasn’t alone in her resistance. Sharon faces fight to fortify his party, but Jewish Agency Decides to Help Sharon. Eventually, and despite the fact that: Evidence clearly shows that Sharon took bribes, Ben decided that Sharon needs new friends. He immediately solicited a pair of guys he knew from work. Bush and Sharon Should Work With Arafat. Ben immediately recognized that this was working. He found out that Sharon won’t be charged and this staved off Sharon’s Disengagement Plan. Finally the good news came: Sharon’s bribery charges dropped.

One soap operatic struggle of Sharon’s life was drawing to a close, but Sharon still had many important things on her plate. For example, Sharon Wants a Better Presence in Front of High Court Bench. Also, recently, Bush, Chirac, and Sharon are winners of “Islamophobia Awards 2004.” Knowing Sharon is an honor, indeed!

Naivite => Arrogance

I saw a bumper sticker today that said, "Terrorism is a symptom, not the disease."

I would like to argue that this is an arrogant way of thinking. Here are some building blocks:

1) The idea that terrorism is a symptom implies a belief that terrorism is an understandable reaction to something, be it a policy, cultural imperialism, or whatever. This is not an obviously unreasonable thing to think. At some times terrorism is a very legitimate response. The French Resistance was undoubtedly viewed as "terrorism" of a sort, but few people around today question the legitimacy of blowing up bridges to slow the Nazi advance. The key is that terrorism is seen as a response to an external stimulus.

2) External stimuli ALWAYS exist. Unless you live in the only country in your known universe, you are affected by your neighbors. Sometimes they attack you outright. Sometimes you trade with them and have petty disagreements about tariffs.

3) No policy on the part of a country could ever make all people outside that country happy. No country that I know of comes anywhere close to keeping all of its own citizens happy. The US comes the closest in many ways. Despite disagreements, people seem still to be glad they live in the US instead of somewhere else - at least most people most of the time.

Let's take these three premises in reverse order and see where they lead. Since no country's actions will always make its neighbors happy, and those actions will undoubtedly reverberate in, and be felt by, other countries, terrorism is an understandable and basically inevitable response, on the part of the "losers" in any given situation.

I assert that believing this shows a fundamental arrogance on the part of the believer. If they believe that the terrorism going on now is justified, they must believe that it is a legitimate response to the policies of the US (or some other Western countries). If this terrorism is a legitimate response, then the US should presumably have pursued a different policy which would not have "created" terrorism abroad. But therein lies the rub. What policy wouldn't create terrorists? Supporting Saddam Hussein, even tacitly, would encourage Islamic Revolutionaries who want to supplant him to attack the US. Supporting the opposition to Saddam Hussein makes the US a target for his supporters (read: insurgents). Lest you think that we could have stayed out of this altogether, think about this problem:Before the first gulf war, Saddam killed innocent allies of the US (Kuwaitis). After the Gulf war, he tried to assassinate the former US President. Vladimir Putin has recently revealed that in the last several years Russian intelligence has gotten wind of multiple plots by Iraqi agents to attack targets in the United States. We didn't go to Iraq for fun to steal their oil. We had little choice but to deal with the situation there.

EITHER WAY SOMEONE IS GOING TO BE PISSED OFF.

If you believe that there are actions that the US could take which would somehow stave off terrorism against us, you are failing to take into account the multidude of differences between people OUTSIDE the United States. Some of them are diametrically opposed to one another. Peaceniks are mad when we encourage rebel insurgencies and they're mad when we try to counter them. This is naive and stupid. You can't have it both ways. The only way I can see that someone can believe that radical Islamist, anti-American terrorism is justified is to essentially say they Iraq was right and Iran was wrong, or vice versa. It's to say that the Palestinians are right and the Israelis are wrong, or vice versa. Many people have called me arrogant, but I don't pretend that I understand the Israel-Palestine problem so well that I know who's "right" and who's "wrong." But to believe there are choices the US could make which would prevent terrorism is to assume that there is one right answer to the Israel-Palestine problem.

According to dictionary.com, arrogant means "Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others". For someone living in the United States to think that some certain policy is so "right" that no one would rebel against it and be driven to terrorism seems quite arrogant to me.

To the person with the bumper sticker: I guess terrorism is a symptom. It's a symptom of a diseased mind that believes problems are solved by bombing innocent people riding the bus. Arrogance is a disease, too. Believing that you know better and everyone else out there just doesn't get it is arrogant. Maybe there's a reason why you're not the president of the United States, you idiot.

Israeli Disengagement

For several months I have been very undecided about Sharon's disengagement plan. I was unsure how it fit in with the "roadmap", whether it was simply a land grab, and how it could ever pass muster in the Likud party. Obviously the referendum has shown it didn't, in fact, carry a majority of Likud support. After reading about it and thinking about it for a long time, I have decided to tentatively support the disengagement plan.

The tipping point for me came from reading "Does Sharon Have a Plan?" by Hillel Halkin in the June, 2004 issue of Commentary. While the article is neither very detailed nor particularly well researched, it does make a powerful common-sense argument.

Four years of intifada has increasingly forced me to agree with the cynics that a peaceful, negotiated, two-state compromise seems about as unlikely as a peaceful single state for Jews and Arabs to share.

My dad pointed out that the disengagement plan still doesn't really solve the problem of what to do with Jerusalem, ever a sticking a point. I wonder if, even if the disengagement were to succeed, it would not simply re-focus terrorist attacks on Jerusalem.

Even though it may not solve the Jerusalem issue, the disengagement plan is necessary because it will begin to acclimate Israeli hardliners to the evacuation of settlements, which is inevitable.

Israel and Palestine

I can't take it any longer. It is time for me to jump into the Israel-Palestine fray. First, let me throw out some resources. Jim Lerner (Zach's dad) pointed me to a PowerPoint presentation that, while perhaps overly dramatic, is all too accurate. Please watch the presentation. It includes information that people should know. For more information, check out some of the following articles/sources:

“Arab-American Perceptions of U.S. Policy Toward the Middle East” - a good and informative article Another Arab Perspective - a piece of crap essay that illustrates how misguided the positions of many of the Arabs and Muslim extremists are.

Here is the complete text of "The Clash of Civilizations" by Samuel Huntington. If I had to pick one general purpose, academic source for this subject, I think Huntington would be it.

This is a good comprehensive resource, and this is the best way I've found to keep up to date on what's going on (in addition to reading the headlines).

For more in-depth reading on the subject, check out From Beirut to Jerusalem by Thomas Friedman. He's a good author, and his books aren't too dry.

Ok. Now that that's out of the way, on to my analysis. It is going to take A LONG TIME and be VERY HARD to solve the problems there. By solve the problems I don't just mean reduce the violence, but rather create an environment in which violence will not soon erupt again. I am going to lay down my interpretation of what is and has been going on in and around Israel lately. I recognize that many disagree with me. I understand and appreciate that. I am however, very interested in this subject, and somewhat education on it. Knowing that, you may take my views for what they're worth to you.

Arafat is a terrorist. There really isn't a way around this. At first, he was openly a terrorist. Then, after the Oslo accords in 1993, he became this more official figure and everyone hoped he wouldn't engage in terrorism anymore. Whether or not he actually plots bombings I don't know. He does, though, secure weapons and intelligence, through his organizations, for suicide bombers. He also encourages and incites bombers in his public addresses and writings. He also appears to have ties to militants all over the world, including some in Iraq, Syria, and Iran. He supports terrorism. People are often quick to point out that Israel attacks Palestinians with its tanks and attack choppers, but the Palestinians have nothing to fight back with but homemade bombs. This may be true, in some ways, but it's no excuse. Israel isn't trying to take over all of the Middle East. They aren't going out and killing civilians on purpose. Trust me, if they were, they could do a much better job of it. Some Arabs DO want to take over all of Israel. Also, sending a child or an 18-year-old girl with a bomb strapped to her into a marketplace to blow up innocent people is much different from trying to catch guerilla soldiers, and accidentally shooting the people amongst whom they hide, even if you aren't too careful about who gets in the way. I'm sure Israel has done some ugly things in this conflict - but are they really more ugly than suicide bombings? They're probably less ugly.

So the question becomes: Why don't we deal with him like other terrorists? Even Israel is afraid to kill him. He is a hero to lots of Palestinians. He is also the only authority in the region. Mostly this is because dissidents are suppressed and a calculated system of indoctrination is at work in Palestine. The news there is so biased it's hard to believe anyone pays attention to it, but they do, because EVERYTHING they hear is equally biased, and this just reinforces their biases.

Clearly, I agree with that presentation very much. I don't think it's a complete picture of what's going on, but I do think that the info it presents is pretty accurate. My understanding is that there are two camps within the US administration right now. One side believes Arafat is a good-for-nothing inciter, and no negotiations should happen with him unless he reigns in terrorism and stops being two-faced about it. Lots of members of Congress seem to agree with this position. The other side, the one that the State Dept. seems to hold, and that the President is more or less going along with, is that, despite the moral ambiguity associated with not branding Arafat a terrorist, the Middle East is too explosive for us NOT to deal with Arafat as a head of state. The destabilizing tendencies there are the biggest and most immediate problem, and must be dealt with. The UN is no help, and neither is the EU.

Many political scientist types talk about the importance of institution building in the Palestinian world. Much of the money for this endeavor has come from Europe and the US. In the recent occupations by Israel, much of this infrastructure was destroyed. Unfortunately, this is probably a good thing, because as the presentation illustrates, the institutions there are not those of a free and open society. My personal opinion is that Clinton was naive in dealing with the Palestinians. He was too trusting of Arafat. Despite how politically incorrect this sounds, I believe that the US is doing exactly the right thing right now. They are, to a reasonable extent, allowing Israel to dismantle some of the terrorist infrastructure in these occupied areas, while simultaneously navigating a tense international relations situation. As Israel pulls back, and Arafat sits atop a rejuvenated Palestinian population, the time will be ripe to strike. I think we should go in there, create a demilitarized (except for us) buffer zone, and then invest a large amount of money in rebuilding this new Palestinian state. Arafat will have to go. He needs to be set up for a fall by Saudi Arabia and other like minded nations. They must pressure the Arabs to accept the West's rebuilding plan, which will include the replacement of the Palestinian Authority with a more reasonable government. Then the troops are going to have to stay there for a long time - probably thirty years, because it will take that long before a generation of Palestinians grows up in a world where Israel and Palestine are separate entities, both recognized by Arab neighbors. I think institution building is indeed the key in the new state of Palestine. Arafat does not want to build those institutions; he wants to maintain the status quo at best, and at worst, destroy Israel. We need to use him to get to a point where we can create a Palestine, then get rid of him once and for all.

It always amazes me how high the cost of freedom can be. On a related topic, I'm beginning to believe that, like certain others issues, this issue is FULL of personal biases. So, for the record, I am not Jewish. I don't really practice any religion. I don't have any particular connection to Israel. I am 1/4 Lebanese, but my family there was not Muslim. They were Catholics. I don't feel that I am biased, but I'm sure I have my predispositions, just like anyone else.

Automatic Stabilizers

I was reading an article about private enterprise helping government to produce the kinds of systems and technologies needed in the war on terrorism (ie sensors, identification devices, information sharing technology, etc...). The article makes frequent reference to the relationship of VC's to big business, government, and technological innovation. Somewhere down a ways in the article it mentioned that incubators have fallen out of favor lately, and even suggests a possible role for the government providing "incubation services" to startups. This gives me an idea.

When economic times are tough, what do companies do? One thing they do is lay people off. Another thing they do, because they now have less employees, is vacate office buildings. Sometimes they even sell office equipment, although they probably often put it in storage. This is a big waste, because lots of office equipment obsolesces very quickly.

I am a big fan of automatic stabilizers in the economy. In addition to government spending programs as automatic stabilizers, there are also even more fundamentally automatic stabilization tendencies in a market economy. For example, when the economy is in recession, and interest rates go down, average mortgage payments also go down, increasing disposable income for consumers. What if the government created an automatic stabilization program around incubation. When the economy turns sour, investors are wary of investing in risky new businesses. Whereas the bubble economy was being driven fiercely by internet investment, the number of startups and IPO's now is probably lower than what would be healthy.

So we have too few innovative businesses being funded in a down economy, and we also have vacant office space and displaced workers. What if the government offered a tax break or a subsidy to companies that offered up their extra office space, employees, business services, and equipment to a startup - basically offered to incubate a startup. When the economy was good, it wouldn't be worth it to a big company to spend their time on that, but when the economy turned sour, it might mean the difference between laying people off or keeping them. Obviously, only certain types of firms with certain kinds of expertise would be able to do this. But companies that could certainly do that are companies like Sun Microsystems or HP, which recently laid lots of people off. They have exactly the kind of expertise, employees, and existing systems that an innovative PC hardware engineering firm might need to get off the ground. I would suspect the same relationship might exist with drug companies and biotech startups.

This idea would clearly need a lot more development. What do y'all think?

Money

Karaoke is a funny thing. I've been afflicted with the "Money" craze lately. It's awesome. I've done a little research on the subject, and figured out lots of things. First, I'm going to start with some background information about my new favorite movie, then move on to my analysis of the plot and the stars themselves.

The song they're singing is called "Money" and it's by Wax. It's track 5 on her second album, also titled "Money." That, itself, is a cover of an older song called "Hello, Mr. Monkey" by Arabesque. It's from the 70s. It sounds like it's from the 70s. Email me if you want the Arabesque song. Email me if you have the Wax mp3. I can't find it anywhere. I know one of you Korean people out there has it.

Now, on to the movie. I'm not an expert on Karaoke, but the production seems pretty nice doesn't it? The backgrounds are cool and somebody uses a little echo effect on their voices and laughter. The fun really begins when Chubby yells "money" for the first time. About 30 seconds into the movie, she starts to get her dance on, too. She does this Chris Tucker-like dance that she expands on later. Around 1:30 Chubby sticks her tongue out. Then, not 15 seconds later, she goes into this bizarre yelling thing. I really, really want to get the Wax mp3 so I can hear how that part sounds on the CD. When she starts her yelling, Skinny goes down. There's another time that she falls, but I can't remember where. She's obviously embarrassed. Chubby manages to get though it, although just barely. A little after 2 minutes, Chubby starts doing what was instantly a classic in my book. She does this weird-ass thing where she hits her hand with her fist, then brings it up to her forehead over and over, quickly. Sometimes this is punctuated by this little finger wiggling thing. At 3 minutes she begins to hack up some phlegm but thinks better of it. Skinny goes down again at 2:30 from laughter. They miss a couple lines of words at this point. But skinny makes an excellent recovery, and does her best singing in the next few lines. At 2:40, when Chubby comes back in, she seems serious about the singing. For once, they sound good together. It also makes the video 100 times better, because it makes it more real. If you haven't noticed, I consider this the climax. Then, to make sure you remember that she's funny, Chubby pulls a Mary Catherine Gallagher, sniffs her armpit, and smells her fingers.

I hope I have answered a few questions about this quirky video. But I have questions of my own! Why does she yell? What are all those weird dances? Why are they dressed so warmly (presumably indoors)? Also, and this takes a good eye to notice, but I think there is a screen on which the two girls can see themselves. Sometimes when Skinny starts cracking up, it looks like she's seeing Chubby on a monitor. Anyone else see what I'm talking about? The monitor would be down and to the left of the camera, from the viewer's POV.

Note: Although I claimed that this was my favorite movie, the Unit 1 prostitute video, and "Ahhh! You scared me!" are still up real high on the list as well.

The BCG

First up is the BCG. No girls, I did not misspell BCBG. So, some time ago, one of my professors told us how the Boston Consulting Group got famous by essentially telling companies to embark on lots of projects, even if the ROI might not be there, because the benefits of learning how to do the project would more than make up for minor profit shortfalls. Anyway, I learned this juicy tidbit in class, and then stopped thinking about it forever. Or so I thought.

Then the other day I was reading slashdot, and I found this article about GNU/Linux and Open-source software / Free software (OSS/FS). The section on TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) is what piqued my interest. Notice how a company can save a gazillion dollars by buying Redhat for $76 (or downloading it for free), instead of purchasing licenses for Windows at approximately one $unbornchild per computer.

My reaction was, "Yeah, but all these IT fools at random places are dumb. They could never manage real Linux servers." They might have an equal amount of downtime with either solution, but at least they could get the Exchange server running. I used to work at the Medical Board of CA, where it takes 20 IT staff to replace a hard drive. I was trying to imagine them migrating hundreds of users over to anything. Then I was thinking about how what they really need is training classes.

Total Cost of Ownership --> Technical Training. Then it donned on me. They could use all the money they were going to save on servers and licenses for said classes. There are lots of comprehensive, 1 week courses out there on Linux server administration and setup for about $2,000. So let's say a company has 400 users, and an IT staff of about 20. If each of them went to 100 hours of classes, that would be something like $120,000. Well, if you would truly save $280,000+ with a OSS/FS solution it might well be worth it - even if you had to pay for lots of training. Not only would you still be saving big bucks, but your IT staff are going to be learning a lot about a real OS at the same time. Three full weeks of training each for 20 people is a lot of classroom time - probably more than most IT depts. do in a whole year for all purposes combined.

Now this is even better than what the BCG is preaching, because it sounds like the ROI could be quick (like 1-2 years), AND a company could be increasing their stock of human capital at the same time.

Just another reason why we should all learn to use the command line.