Another school massacre, this time at a community college in Oregon. Completely irrational and unpredictable, committed by a young man with a history of mental illness. His mother owned a lot of guns. Both of them bought them legally and passed background checks.
The president of the community college probably will take a lot of grief for not having armed guards on his campus. He shouldn't. Oregon has a homicide rate of 2.0 murders per 100,000. It is like a European country. An attack like this is very rare and can't be planned for.
We are having another useless debate on gun control. But short of taking lots of guns out of circulation and making it really hard to buy them, I don't know what impact policy would have. Krauthammer probably has it right here: Another massacre, another charade
I favor background checks and making it harder to buy guns. Maybe this prevent some random nuts from getting them. But it probably won't have stopped the latest massacre, or Sandy Hook. Maybe we should be making more aggressive interventions against mentally ill people. (But not many of them are violent.)
I back the second amendment, although I think people who amass a lot of guns are a little weird. Maybe it represents another manifestation of what I call "the security paradox:" we are actually much safer, but we feel less safe.
Violent crime is going down, without us doing much of anything. See the latest FBI Uniform Crime Report. Crime in the U.S. America is getting safer. This is no consolation to the victims and their families in Oregon, I know.
Friday, October 9, 2015
Friday, September 18, 2015
The Eternal Vietnam War
Last week I attended a Vietnam panel hosted by Rice University's Baker Institute. It featured the reminiscences of four acclaimed novelists and memoirists--Philip Caputo, Tim O'Brien, Larry Heinemann, and Tobias Wolf--whose war experiences kicked off their writing careers. They read from their works and took questions from the audience. I enjoyed the presentations.
But the question that kept eating at me is: how different would these presentations have been had we won? Would the four have focused so much on the corruption, the lost of innocence, the brutality, and the sheer "sinfulness," as O'Brien put it, of the experience?
Take a book like E. B. Sledge's "With the Old Breed," about his Marine experience in two island campaigns in WWII. It is a straightforward, honest book. Sledge looks at everything with a colder eye. But I would say there is no cynicism or irony here--There was a job to be done, and this is the nasty things we had to go through to do it. I think "This Kind of War" by T.R. Fehrenbach, about Korea, is the same way. Even the books on the Iraq war seem less inward-looking and self-absorbed.
Perhaps it is a generational thing on how we look at war. There was something touching about the way O'Brien after all these years is still obsessed with the Viet Cong fighter he killed. But his experience was not unique to Vietnam. Likewise Heinemann, who was a draftee and didn't want to be there. There were lots of guys like that in World War II, but no one really cared so much about what they thought.
Maybe if the novelists had felt the cause was better they would have written different books.
The event was moderated by an Annapolis graduate and attended by other veterans and many ROTC cadets and midshipmen. Guys and gals, don't be warmongers; but don't be pacifists, either.
But the question that kept eating at me is: how different would these presentations have been had we won? Would the four have focused so much on the corruption, the lost of innocence, the brutality, and the sheer "sinfulness," as O'Brien put it, of the experience?
Take a book like E. B. Sledge's "With the Old Breed," about his Marine experience in two island campaigns in WWII. It is a straightforward, honest book. Sledge looks at everything with a colder eye. But I would say there is no cynicism or irony here--There was a job to be done, and this is the nasty things we had to go through to do it. I think "This Kind of War" by T.R. Fehrenbach, about Korea, is the same way. Even the books on the Iraq war seem less inward-looking and self-absorbed.
Perhaps it is a generational thing on how we look at war. There was something touching about the way O'Brien after all these years is still obsessed with the Viet Cong fighter he killed. But his experience was not unique to Vietnam. Likewise Heinemann, who was a draftee and didn't want to be there. There were lots of guys like that in World War II, but no one really cared so much about what they thought.
Maybe if the novelists had felt the cause was better they would have written different books.
The event was moderated by an Annapolis graduate and attended by other veterans and many ROTC cadets and midshipmen. Guys and gals, don't be warmongers; but don't be pacifists, either.
Friday, September 11, 2015
We Need to Get Over 9/11
September 11, 2001 might be the most famous date in US history. Can you think of another event that just goes by three numerals and a slash? July 4 is important too, but technically we weren't a country yet.
Does 9/11 deserve to be this famous? I think not. Maybe it would be better if we started moving on...
I don't mean forget. I mean get over the grief and the fear, and the belief that Islamist terrorism represents some kind of existential threat to the US, and that is it getting worse, and if we let down our guard for a minute, the raghead bastards will be at our throats.
But continuing to harp on 9/11, we give these guys way more credit than they deserve. And ever deserved.
They pulled off the worse single terrorist assault in history. But gained nothing in the process. The perpetrators are dead, the evil guru dead, and tactical mastermind is in jail forever. Al Qaeda is in ruins and has no chance of ever making a comeback.
Is Islamist terrorism worse, as Rudy Giuliani argued in today's WSJ? Not even close.
Their airplane caper cannot be repeated. Terrorists in the US are reduced to "lone wolf" attacks and most of these get caught before they get started. Islamists commit many atrocities abroad, mostly against fellow Muslims.
The incident rate of terrorism against US citizens is extremely low. Last year there were 18 fatalities attributed to terrorism in the US. Five occurred in one attack, by a white couple in Las Vegas shouting "revolution." They killed two cops in cold blood, and other bystanders. In NYC, a psychotic killed two cops in a patrol car.
A few of these incidents were by individuals who identified as Muslim. One of these criminals was responsible for three attacks across the country. In two instances, white supremacists were to blame.
Eighteen deaths at the hands of terrorists is bad. But to give you some perspective, every year 500-600 Americans die from self-inflicted accidental gun shots.
All terrorist attacks are unacceptable. We should stay vigilant and continue to adequately resource the police, intelligence, and military units going after terrorists. But constantly exaggerating the threat plays into the terrorists' hands by perpetuating a climate of fear.
Does 9/11 deserve to be this famous? I think not. Maybe it would be better if we started moving on...
I don't mean forget. I mean get over the grief and the fear, and the belief that Islamist terrorism represents some kind of existential threat to the US, and that is it getting worse, and if we let down our guard for a minute, the raghead bastards will be at our throats.
But continuing to harp on 9/11, we give these guys way more credit than they deserve. And ever deserved.
They pulled off the worse single terrorist assault in history. But gained nothing in the process. The perpetrators are dead, the evil guru dead, and tactical mastermind is in jail forever. Al Qaeda is in ruins and has no chance of ever making a comeback.
Is Islamist terrorism worse, as Rudy Giuliani argued in today's WSJ? Not even close.
Their airplane caper cannot be repeated. Terrorists in the US are reduced to "lone wolf" attacks and most of these get caught before they get started. Islamists commit many atrocities abroad, mostly against fellow Muslims.
The incident rate of terrorism against US citizens is extremely low. Last year there were 18 fatalities attributed to terrorism in the US. Five occurred in one attack, by a white couple in Las Vegas shouting "revolution." They killed two cops in cold blood, and other bystanders. In NYC, a psychotic killed two cops in a patrol car.
A few of these incidents were by individuals who identified as Muslim. One of these criminals was responsible for three attacks across the country. In two instances, white supremacists were to blame.
Eighteen deaths at the hands of terrorists is bad. But to give you some perspective, every year 500-600 Americans die from self-inflicted accidental gun shots.
All terrorist attacks are unacceptable. We should stay vigilant and continue to adequately resource the police, intelligence, and military units going after terrorists. But constantly exaggerating the threat plays into the terrorists' hands by perpetuating a climate of fear.
Thursday, September 10, 2015
Iran's Dirty War Against US Troops
The Iranian Quds Force supplied explosively-formed penetrators (EFPs) as part of roadside bombs to kill American troops in Iraq. We sustained more than 1,000 casualties from these weapons. How Many Troops Did Iran Kill?
EFPs are essentially a copper cone that is fitted to the bomb. The bomb's detonation turns the cone into a molten jet of metal, which can penetrate armored vehicles.
There has been some debate over the number of troops killed or wounded by this device. But these were only used in areas in which Iranian-backed Shia militias had control. Most of our heavy fighting was against Sunni insurgents, and they produced the most casualties, probably at least 10 times have the Shia militias produced.
But still. The Iranians were waging a dirty war against us in Iraq. No mistaking that.
(And yet, I still agree with the nuclear negotiations. This is realism, folks.)
EFPs are essentially a copper cone that is fitted to the bomb. The bomb's detonation turns the cone into a molten jet of metal, which can penetrate armored vehicles.
There has been some debate over the number of troops killed or wounded by this device. But these were only used in areas in which Iranian-backed Shia militias had control. Most of our heavy fighting was against Sunni insurgents, and they produced the most casualties, probably at least 10 times have the Shia militias produced.
But still. The Iranians were waging a dirty war against us in Iraq. No mistaking that.
(And yet, I still agree with the nuclear negotiations. This is realism, folks.)
Thursday, August 27, 2015
Conservatives Making Fools of Themselves Over the Iran Agreement
Enough already! Here's a piece from the Federalist saying the whole Iran deal will come a cropper because Iran will escort inspectors at Parchin, its military base. The flaw in the Iran Deal even a child could see. Nothing from the author's background suggests any expertise on these issues. But that doesn't stop conservative pundits from making fools of themselves.
Lots of problems with the piece. I might start by saying as a military base, Parchin has always been outside the normal areas for IAEA inspection. Iran was in its legal right to deny inspectors there, and everyone knew it. But no one thought it was doing anything on the nuclear program there for a long time. So why spend any time focusing on it?
Actually, Parchin is not key to this problem. The key is the amount of fissile material Iran is allowed to have. Iran already was past threshold for nuclear weapons. The deal is to roll this back. Might work; might not. But doing nothing meant Iran was already there!
Also, conservative pundits: stop reminding us how nasty Iran is. We got it! We negotiated with the Russians for years over this nuclear stuff--and maintain diplomatic relations with them--even though we knew they were supporting insurgencies and, yes, terrorism. This is different, okay?!?
Dare I say that Trump has been the only Republican candidate who has made sense on this issue? He said he would ensure Iran lives up to the deal. Right! (Even Trump gets it. Have conservatives gone nuts?)
Lots of problems with the piece. I might start by saying as a military base, Parchin has always been outside the normal areas for IAEA inspection. Iran was in its legal right to deny inspectors there, and everyone knew it. But no one thought it was doing anything on the nuclear program there for a long time. So why spend any time focusing on it?
Actually, Parchin is not key to this problem. The key is the amount of fissile material Iran is allowed to have. Iran already was past threshold for nuclear weapons. The deal is to roll this back. Might work; might not. But doing nothing meant Iran was already there!
Also, conservative pundits: stop reminding us how nasty Iran is. We got it! We negotiated with the Russians for years over this nuclear stuff--and maintain diplomatic relations with them--even though we knew they were supporting insurgencies and, yes, terrorism. This is different, okay?!?
Dare I say that Trump has been the only Republican candidate who has made sense on this issue? He said he would ensure Iran lives up to the deal. Right! (Even Trump gets it. Have conservatives gone nuts?)
Monday, August 10, 2015
The Iran Deal Will Work
I've reprinted below the best explanation I could find defending the new Iran deal. Energy Secretary Moniz is a nuclear scientist and helped negotiate the agreement. I think we got more from the Iranians than I would have expected going in. If they break this deal, they can expect very tough sanctions and a loss of global support. They'll be the bad guys, not us.
Ernest Moniz: Why the Iran deal will work
The Tribune Editorial Board has expressed skepticism about the Iran nuclear deal. An editorial Sunday claimed that the deal allows Iran to keep secret some of its earlier nuclear weapons program and hinders full access to nuclear sites by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Unfortunately, the Tribune editorial cites problems that don't exist and demands new conditions that aren't necessary. Let me explain.
This deal between the United States and other great powers and Iran commits Iran not to develop or acquire a nuclear weapon. President Barack Obama and, I expect, future presidents will hold Iran to this commitment. Congress shares this resolve.
It expands the current two- to three-month breakout period to at least a year — enough time for a strong allied preventive response — and will not provide sanctions relief until Iran complies with the nuclear restrictions in the JCPOA.
Quite the opposite of enabling Iran to move to a bomb, it pulls Iran away from the threshold of being able to do so.
The unity of purpose by the signatories — China, Russia, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the European Union and the United States — should not be underestimated.
It is rooted in a self-interest in preserving a strong nonproliferation regime based on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It was this unity of the international community that imposed severe economic sanctions on Iran for the purpose of forcing negotiations that would eliminate the Iranian nuclear weapon threat.
This gives us confidence that the international community would again be united in a swift and strong response to Iranian cheating toward a nuclear weapon.
The flip side is that a unilateral undercutting of the JCPOA by the United States would instantaneously squander our position of advantage gained through years of diplomacy.
The JCPOA blocks Iran's pathways to the nuclear material needed for a nuclear weapon. It drastically reduces Iran's enriched uranium stockpile, currently enough for at least 10 weapons, by 98 percent and eliminates all stockpiled 20 percent-enriched uranium not required for its current research reactor.
It cuts back installed centrifuges by well over two-thirds, allows enrichment only with Iran's least capable centrifuge for 10 years and nearly eliminates the extensive ongoing research and development program on the next-generation centrifuge for that period.
Iran will convert the Arak reactor, capable of producing enough weapons-grade plutonium for one to two weapons per year, to produce an order of magnitude less plutonium. For added protection, Iran will send out of the country all spent fuel that could be used for plutonium production.
It also establishes unprecedented verification measures.
At all of Iran's nuclear facilities, IAEA inspectors will have regular access with short notice. At undeclared locations, inspectors will have access in as few as 24 hours.
If Iran tries to stall, this agreement provides a first: a process to provide access within a fixed time, 24 days — well within our window of high confidence to detect the traces of nuclear materials used. This includes military sites suspected of nuclear related activity.
The IAEA will be able to use advanced monitoring technologies, many developed at U.S. labs. The Los Alamos lab also provides training courses for every IAEA inspector. As the director of national intelligence has said, while no agreement could give us 100 percent certainty, the JCPOA gives us better visibility into Iran's program, providing a strong deterrent to cheating.
The Tribune editorial's characterization of secret side deals is a myth. The JCPOA requires Iran to finally cooperate with the IAEA to allow it to complete its work on the possible military dimensions of Iran's previous nuclear activity and to carry out its responsibilities by Oct. 15.
As with any country, the IAEA then works out a confidential protocol to carry out the needed inspections. The IAEA can then complete its report, which has been many years in the making, by mid-December for submission to its board of governors, including the United States.
The entire global nonproliferation regime rests on countries' willingness to share their sensitive nuclear information with the IAEA and in turn the assurance that the organization will safeguard that information.
In order for the IAEA to accomplish its critical nuclear security and nonproliferation work in the 188 countries that are parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the IAEA must uphold its reputation as an impartial and independent organization.
Make no mistake, Iran was a nuclear threshold state before the negotiations, and this deal moves it back from that threshold.
The United States remains the world's economic, military and diplomatic leader, and Israel and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries remain our friends and allies in the region. This deal draws on that collective strength to ensure that Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz was a negotiator on the nuclear agreement with Iran.
Unfortunately, the Tribune editorial cites problems that don't exist and demands new conditions that aren't necessary. Let me explain.
This deal between the United States and other great powers and Iran commits Iran not to develop or acquire a nuclear weapon. President Barack Obama and, I expect, future presidents will hold Iran to this commitment. Congress shares this resolve.
It expands the current two- to three-month breakout period to at least a year — enough time for a strong allied preventive response — and will not provide sanctions relief until Iran complies with the nuclear restrictions in the JCPOA.
Quite the opposite of enabling Iran to move to a bomb, it pulls Iran away from the threshold of being able to do so.
The unity of purpose by the signatories — China, Russia, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the European Union and the United States — should not be underestimated.
It is rooted in a self-interest in preserving a strong nonproliferation regime based on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It was this unity of the international community that imposed severe economic sanctions on Iran for the purpose of forcing negotiations that would eliminate the Iranian nuclear weapon threat.
This gives us confidence that the international community would again be united in a swift and strong response to Iranian cheating toward a nuclear weapon.
The flip side is that a unilateral undercutting of the JCPOA by the United States would instantaneously squander our position of advantage gained through years of diplomacy.
The JCPOA blocks Iran's pathways to the nuclear material needed for a nuclear weapon. It drastically reduces Iran's enriched uranium stockpile, currently enough for at least 10 weapons, by 98 percent and eliminates all stockpiled 20 percent-enriched uranium not required for its current research reactor.
It cuts back installed centrifuges by well over two-thirds, allows enrichment only with Iran's least capable centrifuge for 10 years and nearly eliminates the extensive ongoing research and development program on the next-generation centrifuge for that period.
It also establishes unprecedented verification measures.
At all of Iran's nuclear facilities, IAEA inspectors will have regular access with short notice. At undeclared locations, inspectors will have access in as few as 24 hours.
If Iran tries to stall, this agreement provides a first: a process to provide access within a fixed time, 24 days — well within our window of high confidence to detect the traces of nuclear materials used. This includes military sites suspected of nuclear related activity.
The IAEA will be able to use advanced monitoring technologies, many developed at U.S. labs. The Los Alamos lab also provides training courses for every IAEA inspector. As the director of national intelligence has said, while no agreement could give us 100 percent certainty, the JCPOA gives us better visibility into Iran's program, providing a strong deterrent to cheating.
The Tribune editorial's characterization of secret side deals is a myth. The JCPOA requires Iran to finally cooperate with the IAEA to allow it to complete its work on the possible military dimensions of Iran's previous nuclear activity and to carry out its responsibilities by Oct. 15.
As with any country, the IAEA then works out a confidential protocol to carry out the needed inspections. The IAEA can then complete its report, which has been many years in the making, by mid-December for submission to its board of governors, including the United States.
In order for the IAEA to accomplish its critical nuclear security and nonproliferation work in the 188 countries that are parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the IAEA must uphold its reputation as an impartial and independent organization.
Make no mistake, Iran was a nuclear threshold state before the negotiations, and this deal moves it back from that threshold.
The United States remains the world's economic, military and diplomatic leader, and Israel and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries remain our friends and allies in the region. This deal draws on that collective strength to ensure that Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz was a negotiator on the nuclear agreement with Iran.
Saturday, August 8, 2015
Dump Trump
Donald Trump, the real estate developer and media personality, is running for president as a Republican. This looks like a Democratic Party "black bag operation" to me. Trump literally holds NO views which could be described as conservative. Some believe Bill Clinton put him up to running; it wouldn't surprise me.
Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly Strassel took Trump down Friday, accusing him accurately of being a overt liberal and a crony capitalist. Yeah, pretty much.
Some columnists like Pat Buchanan have identified Trump with the populist tradition in American politics. He is, but only in the sense that he's running outside the established party system. Otherwise, he is a system player to a tee.
Trump made waves with his incendiary comments about illegal immigration and claims that we wouldn't even be talking about this issue if it weren't for him. He must have missed the Republican primaries in 2011-12; the issue was old hat even then. (As Mighty Whig has noted in prior posts, illegal immigration is well below its historic highs of 15-20 years ago.)
Trump might hang around for awhile. He's a billionaire and totally impervious to criticism or self-reflection. Not even a sex scandal would make a dent on him.
In short, this guy has nothing to offer the American people except for cheap entertainment and voyeurism. This guy's the political equivalent of Caitlyn Jenner.
Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly Strassel took Trump down Friday, accusing him accurately of being a overt liberal and a crony capitalist. Yeah, pretty much.
Some columnists like Pat Buchanan have identified Trump with the populist tradition in American politics. He is, but only in the sense that he's running outside the established party system. Otherwise, he is a system player to a tee.
Trump made waves with his incendiary comments about illegal immigration and claims that we wouldn't even be talking about this issue if it weren't for him. He must have missed the Republican primaries in 2011-12; the issue was old hat even then. (As Mighty Whig has noted in prior posts, illegal immigration is well below its historic highs of 15-20 years ago.)
Trump might hang around for awhile. He's a billionaire and totally impervious to criticism or self-reflection. Not even a sex scandal would make a dent on him.
In short, this guy has nothing to offer the American people except for cheap entertainment and voyeurism. This guy's the political equivalent of Caitlyn Jenner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)