The DOD recently decided to continue not awarding the Purple Heart to solders with post traumatic stress disorder. The blogosphere has been set aflame with the debate over the issue with one side arguing that this would make a substantial step toward acknowledgment, reducing stigma, and treatment of the disease within the military, and the other side trying hard to find new ways to say that PTSD doesn't exist while not overtly saying that.
This was followed the next day with the revelation that military suicides have reached a new record and have surpassed the rate of suicide in the general population. The close timing gave me pause to think about the significance of the two stories in relation to each other. I am not saying that awarding a medal for having PTSD would reduce suicide among military veterans. I just think that there needs to be a better way of serving those who have done their service to protect us. Having veterans among my family, friends, and co-workers, I have found that many of the combat vets are too proud too seek help even when they need it. You would think that psychologists could find a way to communicate directly with a soldier's experience and explain that getting treatment doesn't detract from their valor or self reliance. But I am not a soldier and I don't have any answers. I just don't like the toll that the psychological wounds of war are taking.
Whether you supported John McCain, Ron Paul, or even Brian Moore, the real Socialist candidate, congratulations are certainly in order for the winner of the 2008 Presidential Election, Barack Obama, there are more than a few questions he needs to answer almost immediately. Sure, he can have a few days to bask in the glory of the acceptance of an entire nation-state, if not the entire world, but try to keep it short. Some of these questions may have already been answered in campaign promises, but as the last few presidential campaigns have demonstrated, promises can be forgotten so easily, and so these need to be asked. So without further avail, in no particular order, are the list of questions we here at the Fringe Element would like to see Barack Obama answer.
Will you promise not to lie to the American people, even if the truth will hurt your political aspirations?
Will you move the U.S.A.'s foreign policy away from the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes into foreign countries?
Will you free the West Memphis Three and Mumia Abu-Jamal?
Do you plan to amend the FISA Act and discontinue the NSA's domestic surveillance programs?
Will you use neutral experts to evaluate science and policy before committing tax money to any specific plans and regulations?
Your running mate is famous for having been the reason for the creation of PGP encryption. Will you enunciate a series of principles governing your administration's relationship to the internet, and will you continue to support net neutrality? Furthermore, will you enforce net neutrality regulations with civil and criminal penalties?
Do you realize and acknowledge that infrastructure, the environment, the economy, taxes, energy, crime, prisons, and drugs are all interrelated facets of one national domestic problem that must be solved with a cohesive effort and a comprehensive policy?
How do you plan to address the ongoing global economic crisis? Do you want to convene a Bretton Woods II, or try to create a novel set of policies?
How will you direct your appointed Treasurer to manage the funds under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act? Will you direct these funds to help homeowners or businesses?
Will the focus of whatever economic plan you craft be to create jobs, like Franklin Delano Roosevelt with his New Deal, or to help corporations?
How do you plan to regulate big business? That is to say, how do you plan to regulate corporations so that no corporation is "too big to fail"?
How do you plan to encourage the creation and growth of small businesses while protecting the public interest?
Do you plan to trim down the budget of the Department of Defense? Or, if not, at least demand better accountability of funds that are spent?
How will you encourage private, self-interested companies to develop alternatives to fossil fuels and solutions for our energy crisis?
How do you plan to address the shortage in funds in the Social Security trust that were promised to the now-retiring baby boomer generation?
Do you plan to continue the War on Drugs?
To what extent, if any, are you going to restructure the military-industrial complex?
To what extent, if any, are you going to restructure the prison-industrial complex?
What measures do you plan to take in fostering a so-called green economy?
What is your plan for addressing America's crumbling infrastructure?
Do you plan on re-tasking the FBI from its current counter-terrorism mission to being more focused on domestic crime, such as white collar crime and political corruption?
Do you promise not to politicize the Justice Department and the various U.S. Attorneys?
What type of Judge will you appoint to the Supreme Court if given the chance?
How do you plan to address the Bush Administration's last minute changes to federal regulations governing such matters as consumer safety and the management of federal lands, and such bureaucracies as the Environmental Protection Agency?
Do you plan to drill for oil and natural gas offshore and in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge?
How do you plan to address the growing shortage of lending for college students and their families?
Do you have any plan to provide health care for all American citizens?
Are you going to follow-up on Vice President-elect Joe Biden's promise to prosecute former members of the Bush Administration for their various allegend misdemeanors and felonies?
Do you plan to continue to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons?
Would you be interested in negotiating a multilateral treaty governing Space, the Internet, and other facets of information warfare?
Will you continue to address terrorism as a national security issue, or view it as a problem of criminal justice?
Do you plan to rehabilitate ties with Russia?
Are you going to continue with the installation of the missile defense shield, especially in the Czeck Republic and Poland?
Do you plan to change America's foreign policy in regards to the Republic of Georgia?
Do you plan to change government policy as it relates to selling weapons to foreign nations?
What will be your administration's policy towards Israel? Are you going to take meaningful steps in creating a Palestinian state or otherwise realizing peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians?
Will you denounce Israeli settlements in the West Bank that have been recognized as illegal under international law?
You have already expressed a willingness to negotiate with the government of the Republic of Iran directly, but will you continue to enforce unilateral sanctions placed upon that country by the Bush Administration?
How long is your timeline for pulling American troops out of Iraq?
What is your plan for Afghanistan? Will you follow-up on your promise of deploying additional troops to the region? How will you address the concerns of the Afghani government about civilian casualties?
You have also addressed a willingness to address the various problems in Pakistan, such as the Taliban haven along its shared border with Afghanistan, but will you direct the Department of Defense to continue using Predator drone missile strikes into Pakistani territory to kill militants? Will you continue to support the Pakistani government's campaign to fight the aforementioned militants in the form of cash payments and limited training, or will you try a different approach? Do you have any plan for addressing Pakistan's foreign exchange problem?
Do you plan to convene peace talks between Pakistan, India, and the People's Republic of China over the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir?
Do you have any plan to address the ongoing civil war in Sri Lanka?
Do you plan to engage in talks with the military government of Myanmar?
At the risk of asking too large of a question, what will be your administration's policy towards the People's Republic of China? Will you continue to sell armaments to Taiwan?
Do you have any plan to address the ongoing violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo?
How do you plan to address piracy in the Gulf of Aden based in Somalia?
Do you have any plan to engage in talks with Robert Mugabe's government and alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe?
Do you plan to continue the DEA's coca eradication program in South America?
Do you plan to lift the embargo on Cuba?
How do you plan to mend ties between the U.S.A. and Latin America?
Do you have any ideas for combating the rise in drug-related violence in Mexico?
I just read the most insane article regarding humanitarian aid I have ever seen. At first I thought that this must be from the Onion but it turns out this is not satire, this is from Time. Its from fucking Time! Christ on a fucking unicycle!
First paragraph; "How dare a foreign government exercise its sovereignty and refuse our great aid?"
Second paragraph; "If they won't accept our paltry hand-out we shall force it on them with violence!"
I sent them a little feedback. You have to believe me that I was trying my damndest not to sound like a crazy person but if you have read anything on this blog you already know how hard a time I have with that. Here is my editorial reply.
"The entire premise of this article seems like a thought that isn't even reasonable enough to rise to the surface of an intelligent person's mind. How did it become a Time article? The very idea that the U.S. should invade a country because they won't let us provide disaster relief to them is completely absurd. This is the kind of juvenile warmongering that one would expect from the far right of the blogosphere because it is too insane for Fox News. Just because a country is governed by evil men does not give us the right to violate their sovereignty."
Defense Secretary Robert Gates just finished a six day tour of Asia, selling weapons systems to India and Indonesia, primarily, completely ignoring Pres. Eisenhower's warning. (posted at bottom)
In a speech given to Indonesian Council on World Affiars (part 1 and part 2), Sec. Gates emphasized the role of Indonesia in leading the region, while affirming the U.S.' role as arms dealer. Since normalizing military ties in 2005, the Indonesian military has benefited from increasingly generous military subsidies, in an effort to compete with Vladmir Putin's 2007 negotiations. In particular, the Department of Defense has begun using "1206" authority and the Global Train and Equip program to help bolster Indonesian military capabilities against a supposed terrorist threat. Although I don't see what naval installations and F-16s have to do with fighting individual extremists.
In nuclear India, Sec. Gates sought expanded military ties, along with, as you might have guessed, more arms sales. Besides the much sought after F-16, negotiations are also reportedly underway to include India in the missile defense shield that the Pentagon is trying to set up around Asia. This foreign policy of trying to be allies with both India and Pakistan at the same time is going to come to a head at some point. The longer the establish waits to produce productive changes in policy, the more violent the anti-U.S. backlash in Pakistan. Any worries about how a dangerous arms race could emerge between the two largest emerging economies in the world, stem from overlooking the inherently profitable nature of arms races, as each side tries to outdo the other in expenditures of treasure.
In another sign of attempting to graft foreign governments into our informal empire and the machinery that powers it, the Iraqi Army is switching from the AK-47 to the M-16. Besides the obvious cultural and political ramifications of this, between spare parts and replacements, arms manufacturers in the United States stand to make a big pile of money off of this.
Two of these arms manufacturers are reporting profits based on foreign military sales. Boeing (NYSE:BA) and Raytheon (NYSE:RTN) might as well be paying the salary of the SecDef for as much as he contributes to their bottom lines. After all, there would be little money to invent better ways to drop bombs if no one was willing to buy them.
For some additional background information, here is an article about the world's military industrial complex, and the Western world's role in it, which is about 75% of the total by value. And, of course, long overdue, the speech that coined the phrase Military Industrial Complex.
So, by my reckoning the main questions are, who sold these nuclear secrets? And which nuclear secrets were they? Does Israel have the information to make the bunker buster nuke?
The more valid question, though, is how fast can this be ignored by the mainstream media?
On a lighter note, here is a list of close calls involving nuclear weapons during the cold war. #4 is my favorite.
As always, there is a firestorm of news and protest surrounding U.S. foreign arms sales. And, of course, the countries involved are potential flashpoints for future conflicts.
From Iraq comes news that the Defense Department is bolstering its foreign military sales staff in Baghdad. In a program that was already plagued with problems of corruption and mismanagement, the problems were further compounded when the program realized the ridiculous leap in funding levels, from $200 million to $3 billion in only one year. The corruption in the acquisition process already has the potential to sour relations with our NATO ally, Turkey, as weapons bound for Iraqi troops have showed up in the hands of militant fighters fighting for an independent Kurdistan. However, due to the personnel shortage that accompanied the increased workload, the Iraqi government was forced to buy weapons from other countries. Now, members of Congress reportedly want to know whether American money was used to buy Chinese weapons for the Iraqi Army.
Arms sales, in fact, also provide one of the main sticking points between the United States and China, mainly weapons sales to the island of Taiwan. The economic problems that are the most prominent in the domestic, national discourse in U.S. relations with the PRC have been "underlined by the U.S. for years." However, the issue of Taiwan and the foreign arms sales are the basis for the other point of contention between the two superpowers. In fact this year, Section 1206 in the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2007, the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee establishes some pretty firm policies. Emphasis has been added by author.
More importantly, the committee believes that maintaining a balance of power across the Taiwan Strait is critical to ensuring deterrence and preserving peace, security, and stability in Asia. China’s National People’s Congress adopted an anti-secession law that essentially authorizes China’s Central Military Commission to use non-peaceful means against Taiwan if the latter declares independence. The committee is concerned that this law, in conjunction with an excessive military build-up by China, may signal a weakening of deterrence across the Taiwan Strait. The committee believes that the exchange program, by helping to strengthen Taiwan’s defenses, would help preserve and strengthen deterrence, thereby encouraging China and Taiwan to resolve their differences peacefully.
Considering that Chinese military spending is growing to make the PLA one of, if not the, strongest land forces in the world, the logic of the policy is almost self-defeating. The amount of equipment and money necessary to maintain the vision of deterrence expounded by this doctrine is well beyond the means of the United States. Look for this policy to cause problems in the future, as the U.S. is left groping for a new tact to maintain the stability in the region that is so vital to the international shipping lanes. The real question that would help one in thinking of this problem is, what event could happen that would leap the PRC's political elite to abandon the current Nash Equilibrium enjoyed by all parties in the region, in favor of a military strike? To which, the U.S. is bound under law to look upon with "grave concern," as per the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act.
There is a new arms race brewing in South Asia, although not the usual type. In this case, the developed countries of the world are falling over themselves to provide India with the next generation of military equipment. Looking at potential spending reaching $40 billion dollars, it's not hard to imagine why countries would feel interested in the competition. Nicholas Burns, the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs feels so strongly about the subject of U.S.-Indian ties that he wrote an article for the current issue of Foreign Affairs. I particularly enjoy who he actually tries to make the article sound sincere in believing that ideology trumps the buying power of the Indian rupee. Again, the subtext to the entire discussion is long-term ties with India, in the fact of a emerging threat from China in Asia.
Before going onto the next topic, enjoy a little video goodness.
Now, the JDAM is going on sale to countries in the Gulf region, specifically Saudi Arabia, which has caused quite a bipartisan reaction on Capital Hill. One should consider, though, that Israel and its lobby aren't protesting the sale in and of itself, only the fact that sales of this type reduce the strategic and technological edge enjoyed that enforced deterrence and brought stability to the region. The sale is practically dead on arrival.
Finally, in Pakistan, an assassin has taken the life of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, but that shouldn't stand in the way of ever-stronger ties developing between the U.S. and Pakistan. In particular, this event will not interfere in anyway with the proposed $2.1 billion arms deal in progress. Pakistan is slated to purchase18 F-16s of the C and D variants.
The end result of all of this is that American foreign policy, especially in the case of Pakistan, is being pulled into a cycle of arming one side to counter another threat that may or may not be of its own creation. And while arms sales and military relations reach new highs, things such as civil society and rule of law tend to be left by the way side. The Military Industrial Complex isn't exactly a democratic institution, after all. Those who are in a strong position to regulate this very important facet of foreign policy are focusing on other priorities, to say the least. Instead of controlling the number of arms distributed internationally, they are worried about the transfer of sensitive information, and the ramifications of Globalization on the MIC, but more on that later.
Since the publication on a National Intelligence Estimate about Iran and its nuclear weapon, the Bush administration, by many accounts, seems to be in full strategic retreat. However, as Dan Froomkin from washingtonpost.com reported, W has already started covering his own liability. Since he has had a few more months than the rest of the country to prepare for the release of the NIE, you can be sure that he has already appropriately adjusted his warmongering. Here is a look at how the NIE was produced.
Surprisingly, the news media is still listening to Norman Podhoretz and John Bolton about anything, and specifically in this case, intelligence. Here is a report that relies upon their opinions, yet doesn't point out the problem with citing them as experts. Norman Podhoretz, for instance, made a career of out of being a neoconservative pundit before the heyday of neoconservatism. One of his earliest and best-known works is a racist diatribe about how he hated black people. But, more relevant to the current discussion is his complete lack of experience in the intelligence community. While he may be retired now, he was an original signatory of the "Project for the New American Century," the ideological framework for W's administration and foreign policy, meaning that he is deeply invested in making sure that history has a favorable impression of the administration. John Bolton, for his part, is also intensely involved in the Project. He has made a career for being a diplomat or wandering mouth for conservative presidents. Bolton also has no experience in working in the intelligence community, but does have something of a reputation for cooking intelligence for political purposes. Since the intelligence community is notionally no longer under the thumb of the neoconservatives that make up the decision-making in the W administration, these two old warriors are now resorting to ad hominem attacks on what appears to be dissident voices within the federal bureaucracy. "But I (Norman Podhoretz) entertain an even darker suspicion. It is the intelligence community, which has for so many years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W Bush, is doing it again." Behold, the evolution of spin, now those who pushed the intelligence community to supply, what can most graciously be called, misleading intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, accuse those who are career intelligence officials of politicizing their work.
The Pentagon, for its part, has dispatched the uniformed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, to Israel to speak with their Minister of Defense, Ehud Barak, and their intelligence analysts. During the whirlwind 24 hour visit, Adm. Mullen will probably explain the constitution and the fact that the President doesn't really need the support of the American people to expand the war to Iran, something that would be hard to understand for those who live in a free, demoratic society.
Reps. Peter Hoekstra (MI 2nd) and Jane Harman (CA 36th) published an op-ed today in the Wall Street Journal questioning the quality of the intelligence organization that they were notionally in charge of overseeing as Ranking Members and Chairpersons of the House Intelligence Committee. Defending the mischaracterizations of intelligence on the part of the W administration, "..., intelligence is in many ways an art, not an exact science." In summation, the entire piece reads like an apology for delivery the wrong intelligence, although they also go into a little ad homineming against the intelligence analysts who produced the report (the confidence remark).
Despite there being no threat of a nuke from Iran, Bush wishes to rush ahead with the European Missile Shield. Not to mention, it pisses Russia off. Through all this the old media never mentions the miliary industrial complex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_industrial_complex
Consider this as indicative of the overall situation of the military, the war in Iraq, and the unfortunate enlisted volunteers.
Clearly, the military is almost desperate for people if they are speaking of individual soldiers and their skill sets as "investments." Not to say that every single soldier isn't expensive, but they are having problems recruiting and retaining people and those who have already suffered are suffering more "papercuts."
Around 700 people have gone through just Walter Reed to be treated for serious injuries involving the loss of a limb, not to mention thousands of others who have suffered severe burns and traumatic head injuries. The War in Iraq, due to the nature of the weapons involved has become one of the most brutal bloodbaths in history, and with each side continuously re-inventing the bomb, the death toll stands to climb higher. But, as some may say, the insurgents are fighting a guerrilla war, trying to best us through ten thousand papercuts.
Despite the fact that many of these injuries have cost these men and women their lives livelihoods, they are not especially cared for in the manner that most Americans would expect. The individual Army of One is not particularly significant in and of him or herself, indeed to the impersonal military bureaucracy that is the Department of Defense, their losses are only so many papercuts.
