perfidy

My esteemed coblogger Ross has in the past dismissed the word "idiotarian" as trite, empty, and cheap, and rightly so in my opinion. As he is currently embroiled in a sharp exchange with some of the guys at Winds of Change that turns partially on that very matter, I hereby propose Judson's Law:

As a weblog discussion on politics grows longer, the probability of a participant calling another an "idiotarian" approaches one.

This is of course supported by Judson's Corollary:

In a weblog discussion, the first participant to call another an "idiotarian" automatically concedes defeat thereby.

[wik] Ok, ok ok. It was me who said that the word"idiotarian" was trite, empty and cheap. I editorialized a bit. Ross simply said it was meaningless and I ran with it. But, speaking as a historian, I can tell you the past is all in how you choose to remember it, and I like my version better. With apologies to Ross. I still owe you that twelvepack.

Rocket Jones is spreading the news about the Mars airplane that is under development by Aurora Flight Sciences: 

An exploration vehicle like this would vastly expand our ability to explore Mars. Rather than being limited to a very small area near the landing site, we would be able to cover hundreds of square miles at close range. A very cool thing, indeed. 

[wik] And yes, I was too lazy to make up my own clever title.

That's true, apparently, if you're Trent Telenko. I guess they're everywhere. Here is my rambling response...lunchtime is limited today, and therefore so is my ability to polish the words.

Dear Trent: Good Lord. Where do you get the balls to tell me that I pretend 9/11 didn't happen? I guess it's simple enough if you just enjoy making it up as you go. Find me anything I've ever written that implies that. I live in Washington DC. I was here on that day. I spent a good-sized part of it terrified because the person I cared about more than anything in the world was in a State Department building, and rumors were floating around about another plane, and that a car bomb had gone off, destroying the building, and I didn't know what had happened to her. So save your "9/11 means nothing" bullshit for a little rally of like-minded jackboot-steppers. It's not applicable to me, and frankly it's not generally applicable at all. You debase yourself every time you imply it about another person.

Ah, calm.

Perhaps you're referring to the fact that my _reaction_ to 9/11 is different from yours. Once again, I'm not sure how you know, exactly, what my reaction is.

I don't pretend that a death cult is not involved, because a death cult _is_ involved, plain as day. I don't write that Arab culture isn't sick, because I happen to think that in many ways, it is. Perhaps you are confusing what I have actually written with something else?

You and I differ on whether genocide and atrocities are necessary to remedy the situation. There is no simple outcome to this; there is no absolute "logical conclusion" to be had from the facts at hand (or at least those at my disposal). Good god, man, we're dealing with social sciences and human beings, here. Nothing is predictable; nothing is certain.

Which side of the February 26, 1993 divide are you on? THAT was the wake up call, and there may have been earlier ones. That was when Islamic terrorism crossed the line in clear effort. They've had the will to do this for a very long time now. 9/11 was the first operation that accomplished its goals at scale.

You miss the point of this discussion in a spectacular way. Iraq is not the issue, and never has been. The issue is resource allocation and effective means of defense against the super-empowered angry man, and states who defend him. If we set aside all other issues, I could certainly support military intervention in Iraq, for simple "it's the right thing to do" reasons.

We're in the middle of a spending several hundred billion dollars to effect change in Iraq. We don't really know how that's going to turn out -- it's a risk, right now. The benefits are highly nebulous and off in the future. Kay's testimony and report shows that the country did not have significant WMD (or any at all, for that matter). Alarmingly, though, he found that there are some pretty "smart" guys running around in the middle east who might be able to create certain kinds of WMD, whose talents are for sale. What could they build? Low-tech nuclear, possibly biological, certainly chemical. Where will they go now? They will go places where we do not have monitoring.

Each of these capabilities will, over the next century, become progressively more available to smaller and smaller groups. I conclude that we _will_ suffer from this form of terrorism; and there is no way to stop it.

We can delay, perhaps. A massive onslaught of violence and posturing against Middle Eastern culture will achieve some delay. Arab culture and radical Islam seem to be the primary generators of violence on the face of the planet, at the moment. Religious intolerance is stunning difficult to root out and eliminate. We must find a way to generate massive intolerance _within_ Arab culture to the cancer in its midst, to create the ultimate solution. That is an open problem.

The singular focal point of _secular_ Middle Eastern anger at America involves Israel. Given the resources we are expending and have expended on Iraq, can we find a better use? I believe we can. Invading Iraq to provide an example of how an Arab state _could_ be is POINTLESS without some benign resolution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. You can set up any democracy you want in Iraq, and anything you do of merit will be poisoned by that fundamental conflict. Note that I do NOT advocate a particular solution to that conflict, at this point -- I advocate a specific OUTCOME. Anything that achieves an outcome of stability, separation, and relative peace is acceptable.

Longer term, I view decentralization as the only defense against the progressive danger of WMD. I conclude that over the long run, free cities cannot be defended from the terrorism of the super-empowered angry man. We must study our infrastructure and create many points of strength, where we currently have single points of weakness. We must, by government intervention if necessary, decentralize our financial and political systems.

We live on a vast continent, and it's time we took advantage of that.

A couple of random notes:

WMD are either state-sponsored or not. Tens of thousands of Russian nuclear missiles aimed at the US are a civilization-ending threat (not to mention life-on-the-planet-ending). One nuclear weapon, detonated in a city, is an immeasurable tragedy and horror, but not a civilization ending event. Eliminating state-sponsored terrorism is a critical goal. Clearly, military operations in Afghanistan accomplished this goal. Just as clearly, the massive expenditures in Iraq are not justified with a corresponding reduction in terrorist capabilities or potential.

When I look at the list you use to "qualify" Iraq for invasion, what strikes me is how precisely Saudi Arabia maps into it. I find it very hard to believe that somewhere in SA, we would not find a rich man, funding a clever man, to build a horror. Certainly, SA is a primary source of funding for the "death cult" that is attempting to propagate itself around the globe.

The easiest form of terrorism is to simply fill a van with explosives, drive it next to a building, and detonate it. This technique could easily be used to kill tens of thousands of people in America. It wouldn't necessarily kill them all at once, but if a series of bombings were to take place, the effect might be even stronger. Why have we not seen this form of attack? Don't tell me it's because the INS is doing its job. That's a joke. I'm really not sure why we haven't see more domestic terrorism, but I think the answer is twofold: First, there just really aren't all that many of these suicidal nutjobs. Second, when said carefully trained nutjobs arrive in America, blend in, and possibly make friends, quite a large number of them realize that they've been living a lie, and fade away.

My basic, but uninformed solution for the Israeli/Palestinian crisis: Build the wall. Put it on the green line. Evict or imprison Arafat and his cronies. PAY for the relocation of Israeli settlers back into Israel proper. PAY to establish an economy in Palestine. With some meaningful self-direction, a decent economy, and secular causes _removed_, the radicals will find themselves on the receiving end of massive internal hostility. Inform Israel that their military aid is contingent upon acceptance (at no cost) of this offer. Inform the new Palestine (or whatever the hell they call themselves), that _any_ spending on a formal military will be met with an increase in military aid to Israel double the expenditure, and a cessation of any economic aid whatsoever. Create "truth" commissions on both sides, offering amnesty for detailed information, cessation of activites, and surrender of all war materiel. Place Jerusalem under UN authority, making it an independent "sub-state", with its own elected council, evenly divided along religious lines. The oath of office is a binding oath to preach non-violence and tolerance. Build desalination plants on the coast and convey the water to the new palestine. Create a UN-sponsored, secular education system in the new palestine. Fund it so no family will ever need to send a child to a religious school again. Do I want to reward terrorism by just _giving_ people all this? Hell, no. But I want more terrorism even less. And for my global strategy, I need Israel and suroundings to be peaceful and prosperous, on both sides.

I have been thinking about something that I know is controversial, and I struggle with it. It is a formal policy of assassination. Essentially, any _public_ religious figure who _publicly_ advocates "death to america (or another western country)" AND demonstrably and provably supports terrorism, through guidance or resources or some such, without repudiation of those statements, is subject to this policy. Anywhere in the world, any time. The uttering of "death to america" puts us on notice of intent to kill our citizens, from a particular individual. It may be necessary to generate an equal and opposite reaction.

Minister GeekLethal handcrafts some authentic evil with the assistance of his faithful minion, the demon whose name is Baphmotep Lingurian but on our plane of existence is known as Miss Cutiepie Fuzzle Kitty: 

The prescription drug benefit will cost $540 billion instead of the $400 billion we were promised. I didn't see that coming.

I will interrupt my self-imposed blogging hiatus to ask an important question:

I just received a spam to my personal account with the subject line, "glory dental shakespearian phosphate." Just what is the pitch here, and what could they possibly be selling (purple monkey dishwasher)?

[wik] Another one... from an entity calling itself "Rosanna Betts" with the subject line "altar shannon orville widgeon ." Sure! I'll buy one!

[alsø wik] Yet another... from someone called "Dr. Howard Dean, M.D."... it sez "Two days left - rally with Governor Dean." What the hell is that all about?

[alsø alsø wik] Via rocketjones I find this post from plasticbag.org, in which our hero takes spam literally at its word and busts out the photoshop to show the world. Witness!

Hi-larious!!

[wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?] The foregoing was merely an attempt to make perfidy.org load even slower.

I wouldn't even think of trying to compete in music writing with Johno, but as a long-time (suffering) fan of electronic music, I thought I might put together a list of notable stuff...you can't really go wrong with any of this.

1. Orbital - "Orbital 2". The "brown" CD. Classic mid-nineties, easily the most polished effort of its time, and therefore somewhat timeless. "there is a twist in space"

2. Tangerine Dream - "Poland". Get the import, 2 CD version. An absolute classic; a landmark political and musical event. One of the finest long-form electronic concerts ever.

3. Underworld - "dubnobasswithmyheadman". Spooky, weird, depressing, and brilliant. Later Underworld is more polished and even better, but this is a key recording and lead-in to what they became.

4. LFO - "Advance". Brilliant early, experimental recording. Ridiculously difficult to find, and proportionally fantastic. Found this when it was attached to the computer game "Hardwar"; it was one of the first games to have "serious" music with it.

5. Junkie XL - "Big Sounds of the Drags". One of the grooviest "dance" CDs ever. It's a bit of a bridge between listening music and dance, though -- tracks are danceable but just plain fantastic listening. Brilliant production.

6. Assemblage 23 - "Defiance". Good late-model melodic industrial...showing you where that genre has gone. Doesn't really stand up with the rest of this list, but is useful as a touchstone for this style.

7. Aphex Twin - "Selected Ambient Works 85-92". Xtal, oh xtal. Singular, beautiful, ethereal...and really the last thing by Richard James I actually liked. A landmark.

8. Alpinestars - "B.A.S.I.C.". The best new "retro" electronic out there...along with its followup "White Noise". Brand new music that has groovy analog shit in it.

9. Sasha - "Airdrawndagger". Hated it the first time I heard it, as I was expecting something different. Picked it up again 6 months later because I couuld still remember some of it, and I've loved it ever since. This is one of my highest recommendations on the list, and the first "DJ" CD I've really respected. Unless you count Tom Holkenberg (Junkie XL) as a DJ.

10. Morel - "Queen of the Highway". Enveloping, dark, groovy, and local. Just what the doctor ordered. Morel worked with Deep Dish, and the searing, unstoppable beat of this CD smooths out the harshness (in meaning, not tone) of the lyrics.

That'll get you started. Every CD on this list is utterly different from the others; they are all good representatives of their sub-genres...so buy, damn you!

AMac, who has recently graced our comments, recommends this symposium from Slate, which includes Berman; and Michael Totten links to this Dissent Magazine piece by Berman.

I have to say that I'm impressed by his writing, and thinking. Go read them, and we'll talk more about this tomorrow.

Here's a report that the Army has been authorized to increase its manpower by 30,000 under an emergency authority expected to last four years. The Army and Defense Department have rejected calls for permanent increases, saying that it is too early for permanent increases that would interfere with efforts to streamline and modernize the Army.

Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have been making ever more insistant demands that the Army increase its size. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker said a permanent increase would force the Army to expand permanently before it had made needed structural and operating changes.

While I recognize the need to make those changes, there is little question that we need to have more people in uniform. A couple more divisions' worth in the army, plus the necessary support troops is a minimum. We need to have troops for our current commitments, such as in Korea, for any emergency, such as in Iraq; more troops to relieve troops committed to an emergency; and for good measure even more troops to deal with another emergency. We only have enough for the first two, and the pressure on our soldiers in terms of lengthy deployments and the like will mean that a lot of them will not be reenlisting. This will create even greater problems in the future is this problem is not addressed now.

Wretchard, of the Belmont Club has also taken up the topic of the possibility of US action in Lebanon. I discussed this earlier, but Wrethard goes into a little more detail, and provides us with some more sources.

The Jerusalem Post article rightly suggests that any US special forces deployment would inevitably bring then into direct conflict with the Syrian occupiers of Lebanon and the sponsors the Hezbollah. Their use would perforce be accompanied by the organization and training of indigenous Lebanese auxiliaries, a feature of all US special forces campaigns from Indochina to Afghanistan. The special forces would be supported by air units and fire support, plus light infantry to prevent a repetition of the "Blackhawk Down" scenario. Units could draw on equipment already prepositioned in Israel, located in the mysterious Sites 51, 53 and 54. All in all, it would create a strategic nightmare for Damascus. With Americans in the Bekaa 40 km west of downtown Damascus -- less than a marathon run, the Israeli army on the Golan Heights a mere 60 km south of the capital and American forces on the Iraqi border 300 km to the east and Turkey on the northern border, the Assad regime would be literally encircled.

The US probably feels that it has the Iraqi problem in hand and may want to maintain the operational tempo in its wider campaign against the Middle Eastern dictatorships. An American deployment to the Bekaa would open a new low-intensity warfare front which would resemble a cross between the campaign in Afghanistan and the recent anti-Saddam counterinsurgency in Iraq. In the light of recent experience, the Pentagon may feel confident in challenging the Syrians and Hezbollah to what has become a familiar operation of war with a known cost and proven methods. But to the Syrians, Americans in the Bekaa will be a mortal threat, which they must prevent or repel. If they cannot, the spring of 2005 will see a new regime in Lebanon hostile to Syria and their Hezbollah lackeys in flight. It would also sound the death-knell of Arafat's Palestinian Authority, which will be boxed in and probably beset by American-sponsored auxiliaries. A successful campaign to topple Syria would in turn mean American control of a continuous swath of territory between the Mediterranean and the Iranian border. It would cut off the Arabian Peninsula to the north and squeeze Saudi Arabia and Yemen onto American deployments on the Horn of Africa -- of which the Washington Post's report of a return to Somalia would be a part.

Will it happen? Wait and see. Can it happen. Yes it can.

We have already been chasing insurgents over the border, so only the scope of the operation would really come as a surprise to the Syrians. There is little that they could do to prevent it. Keeping the fire hot under the nations that support terror is a very good thing. Our actions in Iraq led to the capitulation of Libya's Qaddaffi, but we do not want other state supporters of terrorism to think that we will stop with Iraq. Actions like this, along with a Presidential statement of support for the democracy movement in Iran would go a long way indeed to further our cause.