:: Event Horizon ::

:: Friday, August 09, 2002 ::

More on the amazing Mr. Murawiec from Slate, including (drum roll here) his PowerPoint presentation to the Defense Advisory Board. It makes for interesting reading. Thank you Slate!

:: Joel 4:40 PM [+] ::
...

Ashcroft Asked to Target Online Song Swappers
According to this Reuters report, 19 U.S. lawmakers have asked Attorney General John Ashcroft to go after Internet users who download songs and copyrighted material, raising the possibility of jail time for digital-music fans..."Such an effort is increasingly important as online theft of our nation's creative works is a growing threat to our culture and economy," they said. A threat? I find it absurd that in a time of war lawmakers consider swapping songs over the Net to be a threat to our way of life. Let the record show that the following lawmakers are bravely defending the republic against the sinister threat to America posed by music fans: Delaware Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden; Wisconsin Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner; Virginia Democratic Rep. Bobby Scott; Michigan Democratic Rep. John Conyers; North Carolina Republican Rep. Howard Coble; and California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

:: Joel 2:42 PM [+] ::
...

Don't Shoot the Messenger
I am not surprised that the Pentagon, White House and State Department are all rushing to distance themselves from the Defense Advisory Board briefing in which Laurent Muraweic, senior international policy analyst with the RAND Corporation, recommended harsh measures if Saudi Arabia refused to stop funding Islamofascists. What does surprise me is that the RAND Corporation itself is now distancing itself from Muraweic, saying his views to not reflect the views of the think tank, and that he was acting in an individual capacity. I find this disturbing on several levels.

First, I find it a bit disingenuous for these officials to suggest that Murawiec is some random Joe Citizen who just happened to be presenting his own private views to current and past leaders of the defense community. One does not receive an invitation to address this group without the proper credentials and institutional backing. According to his George Washington University faculty web page, Murawiec is, "a senior international policy analyst with the RAND Corporation in Washington, D.C. His main research areas concern the Revolution in Military Affairs, Information Warfare Theory, and applying anthropology to strategy. He earned his B.A., Phil and M.A.Phil from the Sorbonne University in Paris. A foreign correspondent for a major French business weekly in Germany, he co-founded and managed GeoPol Services SA, a consulting company in Geneva, Switzerland, which advised major multinational corporations and banks. He was an adviser to the French Ministry of Defense prior to joining RAND. He taught the history of economic planning at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales in Paris. He translated Clausewitz’s De la Guerre [On War] into French (Perrin, 1999). His book La Guerre au XXIè siècle (Odile Jacob, 2000) dealt with the “RMA.” His new book, L’Esprit des Nations: cultures and geopolitics appears in March 2002 in Paris." It appears that Murawiec is well qualified to offer his insight to high level decision-makers and should not be so casually dismissed.

Second, I've noticed that the Pentagon, White House and State Department, in rushing to reassure all (and especially Saudi Arabia) that Muraweic's views are not their own, are underscoring their opposition to his policy recommendations, not his assessment of Saudi Arabia's support for Islamofascists. I can't help but wonder if they concede that Saudi Arabia does in fact support terrorists, and that this support has not diminished since 9-11? If they concede this, but reject Murawiec's recommended ultimatum, then what policy options do they favor beyond the status quo?

Finally, I object to the collective embarrassment expressed by our various government agencies, who once again are making The Leak the story instead of the substance of the information leaked. I really think they should give the public more credit, we understand that options and contingencies are studied in great detail, but that does not mean they will ever be acted upon. What if Saudi Arabia is an enemy? What if the House of Saud falls and is replaced by Islamofascists? Our decision-makers would be derelict in their duty if they did not consider such possibilities. While I don't think that the U.S. should rush out and seize Saudi oil wells, I do hope that there is a mission plan to do that if the need arises. The Defense Advisory Board should be commended for their willingness to consider all possibilities and RAND should be commended for supporting a scholar who challenges preconceptions.

I urge RAND to publish Muraweic's full report as a public service. The American public and the government and people of Saudi Arabia are entitled to see what argument Mr. Murawiec made in support of his conclusions.

:: Joel 3:54 PM [+] ::
...

Unlimited Presidential Powers
According to the New York Times, "the Bush administration seems to be trying to establish the principle that any American citizen alleged to be an enemy combatant could be detained indefinitely without charges or counsel." I have no problem with the detainment of foreign visitors, but citizenship has its privileges. There is still due process, there is still innocent until proven guilty. The Constitution is still the law of the land. If we abandon what makes us American we have already lost the war. Perhaps it's time to take a collective refresher course on the U.S. Constitution.

:: Joel 2:21 PM [+] ::
...

The Russian Nuclear Bomb in Washington, DC
It's interesting where you can end up when first you start to surf the Net. I had just read an interesting article in the Washington Post about government reluctance to provide emergency preparation info to citizens and was looking for related links on WMD when I came across this article on a web paged called The Memory Hole. This particular entry is about the revelation in Time magazine that JFK knew that the Russians had a nuclear bomb stored in their embassy in Washington. The editor notes that this information is presented by Time in such a way as to downplay the impact this information will make on the public consciousness. The revelation that there was and could still be a working nuclear device in the Russian embassy in DC was not picked up by any other news agency nor did it become a sensational news story. Both the Time revelation and the Washington Post article underscore the lack of faith our government has in the American people. In both cases, decision-makers seem to have concluded that if given the facts, the American people will panic. Panic? When was the last time you read about mass panic? Did people panic on 9-11? I would like to have a government that trusts in the basic decency and solid character of the American people rather than one that withholds information out of fear of mass panic. Just give us the facts, the American people can handle it.

:: Joel 12:38 PM [+] ::
...

The Rush to War
I agree with Richard Falk's three conditions for legitimate war. In his opinion piece in The Nation, Falk suggests that in order for a war to be legitimate, it must be based on three considerations: international law (self-defense as set forth in Article 51 backed by a UN mandate, as in the Gulf War), international morality (humanitarian intervention to prevent genocide or ethnic cleansing) and necessity(the survival and fundamental interests of a state are genuinely threatened and not really covered by international law, as arguably was the case in the war in Afghanistan). I don't, however, agree with his conclusion that "With respect to Iraq, there is no pretense that international law supports such a war." International law recognizes that once hostilities between countries have begun they can only be formally concluded with a peace treaty. The Gulf War was waged by an international coalition of countries led by the United States under the auspices and mandate of the United Nations. The war was fully and legally sanctioned by the Security Council. The Gulf War concluded in 1991 with the signing of a cease-fire agreement. All well and good. Unfortunately, Iraq has violated the agreement many times. In fact, Iraq banished the UN weapons inspectors whose mission was to verify compliance with terms of the cease-fire agreement. Usually, when a cease-fire is violated hostilities are said to have resumed until new cease-fire terms are agreed upon or a formal peace treaty is signed. This has not happened.

I would argue that the Gulf War is still ongoing and that new legal authority for the conduct and conclusion of the war is not needed. When Kuwait, Germany and France voice reluctance to back an American attack on Iraq without Security Council approval, I would reply that the Security Council has already spoken on the matter of Iraq. It is the UN that is being defied by the dictator and it is the UN that should be insisting that the Gulf War be formally concluded with the removal of the dictator. The U.S., as the leader of the UN coalition, has a responsibility to act, the credibility of the collective security system is at stake. After the war, Iraq can be brought back into the family of civilized nations.

This is the compact all nations have with history in the modern age of state sovereignty: none are perpetually banished after defeat in war. Germany and the other Axis powers of WWII were brought back into the family of nations after the war, but only after postwar governments had taken hold. No one would have expected Germany to be brought back into the fold with Hitler still in power, or Japan with the Emperor, or Italy with Mussolini. This is the precedent, this is the pattern. Iraq can stay, Saddam has to go.

:: Joel 2:05 PM [+] ::
...

Briefing Depicted Saudis as Enemies
A stark report from the Rand Corporation presented to the Pentagon has sparked a debate about the relationship between the United States and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. According to the Washington Post, the report "described Saudi Arabia as an enemy of the United States, and recommended that U.S. officials give it an ultimatum to stop backing terrorism or face seizure of its oil fields and its financial assets invested in the United States." I think the report deserves the widest possible dissemination, and it's conclusions the widest possible debate. From what I've read, the report's assessment of Saudi Arabia's actions are accurate, but I'm far from convinced that their policy recommendations would be prudent. From my reading of history, ultimatums rarely succeed in delivering the desired outcome.

:: Joel 12:12 PM [+] ::
...

'Signs' Has Thrilling Opening
Signs was the number one movie at the U.S. box office over the weekend. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. Everyone knows that all those crop circles are the work of Bowers and David Chorley, two British men who admitted to creating the crop circles in 1991. They are like the Santa Clause of crop circles, they go all over the world at night and make circles and then rest during the day. Really.

:: Joel 2:11 PM [+] ::
...

Car Blast Kills One in Israel
Finally, a successful suicide bombing. Well, at least in the sense that the Palestinian bomber only killed himself. This is something that should be encouraged. Perhaps the Palestinians can form crack suicide squads, a la Monty Python, and kill themselves en masse. That way, they make a political statement while they avoid killing civilians.

:: Joel 11:43 AM [+] ::
...