The Big Picture | War/Defense

Question Everything

Sunday, April 20, 2008 | 07:30 PM

Why so skeptical?

I hear that question way too often. The short answer is that after a few decades on Wall Street, you learn that when ~~a lot of~~ any money is at stake, people quite easily become completely and totally full of bullshit.

This is why I (to quote someone else) "consistently doubt everything, especially government and mainstream media, and asks questions that have readers asking their own questions."

The most egregious example in recent memory landed on the front page of the Sunday NYT:

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

Go read the full article -- but not on a full stomach . . .

Source:
Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon’s Hidden Hand
DAVID BARSTOW
NYT, April 20, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html

Active Denial System: non-lethal, directed-energy weapon

Monday, March 03, 2008 | 05:00 AM

in Science | War/Defense | Web/Tech

Fascinating report on the Pentagon's Active Denial System, a/k/a the Pentagon Ray-gun:

Quick excerpt:

What if we told you the Pentagon has a ray gun? And what if we told you it can stop a person in his tracks without killing or even injuring him? Well, it’s true. You can’t see it, you can't hear it, but as CBS News correspondent David Martin experienced first hand, you can feel it.

Pentagon officials call it a major breakthrough which could change the rules of war and save huge numbers of lives in Iraq. But it's still not there. That because in the middle of a war, the military just can't bring itself to trust a weapon that doesn't kill.

Sources:
The Pentagon's Ray Gun
David Martin
CBS 60 Minutes, March 2, 2008
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/29/60minutes/main3891865.shtml

Active Denial System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System

HALLOWEEN AIEEEEEEEEEEEE

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 | 05:30 PM

I got your wall-o-worry right here:

Source:
HALLOWEEN AIEEEEEEEEEEEE- EEE
Daryl Cagle. Cagle Cartoons

Triggers & Tipping Points

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 | 07:23 AM

in Economy | Investing | Markets | Psychology/Sentiment | War/Defense

Futures are higher this morning on positive earnings news, strength in Asian and European bourses, and a dearth of any new credit disasters. (It is also the last day of the month).

As we mentioned yesterday, investors should watch the quality of this overall bounce, keeping a close eye on volume and breadth, to determine the next move beyond this week.

While there was plenty of teeth-gnashing angst over this very minor correction, I have not seen the sort of capitulatory panic that typically marks the end of a major selloff.

Some commentators have pointed to Thursday as a 90/10 day -- more than 90% of the volume was to the down side -- but historically, that marks a bottom only when it comes after a long decline. A 90/10 down day within 5% of a high has never been shown to be a reliable buy signal.

Considering that we have yet to see a 10% SPX or Dow correction in this 5 year old Bull, what might actually cause that major dislocation? MarketWatch's in-house curmudgeon, Paul Farrell, gives us a menu to choose from:

1. War/military defense budget busting

2. Real estate bubble raging

3. Foreign trade imbalance, trillions new debt

4. China's economy overheating

5. Private-equity credit imploding

6. 'Homeland Insecurity' failures

7. Hedge funds hurting retirement plans

8. Oil rocketing toward $100 a barrel

9. Weak U.S. dollar keeps sinking

10. Federal budget deficits

11. Social Security entitlements

12. Medicare's massive deficits

13. Health-care-insurance deficit

14. Climate change fuels global wars

15. Personal savings shortfall

16. Consumer debt surging

17. Corporate pension defaults

18. Local government pension deficits

19. International credibility deficit

20. Washington politics in endless gridlock

I find 7 of these (in italics) that represent serious threats, some short term, some long term.

Which of these are real threats? Which are hyped up and already discounted by Mr. Market? What unknowns have been omitted from the list? The comments await your insights . . .

Source:
New contest: Pick one big tipping point
You decide: which of 20 triggers will end 'aging bull'
Paul B. Farrell
MarketWatch, 7:54 PM ET Jul 30, 2007
http://tinyurl.com/yo264y

Crude Remains Strong Despite Inventory Build

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 | 03:30 PM

in Commodities | Energy | Index/ETFs | Psychology/Sentiment | War/Defense

Light Crude Oil (CL, NYMEX)
Daily Commodity Futures Price Chart: July, 2007

chart courtesy of TFC Commodity Charts

Crude closed at $68.86 (August 2007) today -- down 68 cents -- and the new futures contract starts tomorrow.

Since I have been ranting today -- I remain firmly convinced that:

- Energy is not only a matter of economics, but a matter of National Security;
- Subsidies for Oil and Ethanol need to be replaced with subsidies for Solar;
- CAFE standards need to be raised;
- Expedited processing for Nuclear Power plant permits should be issued

I own a V8 (automatic), a straight 6 (6 speed), and a 4 cylinder (5 speed) -- so I am the last person to preach we all need to shift to Vespas and biofuels. But its pretty apparent to even a gas hog like me that we need to do something other than send billions of dollars to terrorist nations each and every single month.

Source: Pat Oliphant via Yahoo!

The Return of Geopolitical Risk

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 | 07:10 AM

One of the more intriguing things about the market period we are living in has been the way Markets have shaken off all manners of risk. I couldn't tell if it was a sign of strength (resiliency) or weakness (evidence of complacency).

All manner of risky activity has been shrugged off as if it didn't matter.

We even noted on Monday that Oil and Gas had ticked up in price, with premium (high test) selling for more than $3 and Oil tickiling $64. That obviously didn't concern Mr. Market last week, nor did the Fed's evident concern with the decaying economy and creeping Real Estate problems.

Now, it appears that glimmers of recognition of all that risk is returning, courtesy of Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines. Last night, Oil spiked $5, "rumors that Iran fired on U.S. Navy warships." Other rumors of an immiment Iran attack by the Brits aided by the U.S. were reported.

With a little luck, this situation gets resolved with no shots fired, but I suspect that may not suit the unpopular President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- nothing rallies the populace around an unpopular president like an attack on the nation from abroad.

Oil has backed off from those lofty prices, but it remains over our previously noted resistance level of $64.

Bloomberg is reporting that:

"Oil rose for a seventh day in New York, climbing close to $65 a barrel, on concern a dispute over Iran's capture of British servicemen would escalate, disrupting supplies from the Middle East.

Oil surged $5 in seven minutes late yesterday on speculation the U.K. would mount a rescue attempt, and rose today by more than $2 a barrel. U.S. stockpiles of gasoline were already falling before the standoff between Britain and Iran, and analysts expect the Department of Energy to report today they fell again last week, the seventh straight decline...

Almost a quarter of the world's oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway between Iran and Oman at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. Relations between Iran, which sits on the world's second-largest proven reserves, and western governments are already frayed because of the country's nuclear program."

I have no idea where Oil will go, but if this situation escalates further, the direction will be higher. Mike Panzner charts a potential move in Oil up to $77:

We may or may not see that type of a move. However,it is increasingly obvious (to me at least) that Obliviousness may no longer be a rewarding investment posture.

Sources:
Oil Rises a Seventh Day, Climbs Near $65 on U.K.-Iran Standoff
Grant Smith
Bloomberg, March 28 2007
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aTlE415EaKJM&r

Aim Higher

Monday, February 19, 2007 | 08:34 AM

in Financial Press | Politics | War/Defense

I recieved an email this weekend.

Its a photo of a US Servicement holding a little Iraqi girl.

The caption accompanying the photo was oh so very telling

"Why isn't this all over the news? If he had done something wrong, it surely would be!"

Unfortunately, the discourse over the war has been reduced to swapping emotional images and lamenting the PR battle. It saddens me, because it shows how far we have fallen from grace.

To answer the emailer's question, it is not all over the newspapers because its not news. The good guys are supposed to do things like this. Its only news when the bad guys do this.

The good work of a US Military officer, a small kindness in a war zone -- thats what is expected of us. We are Americans, and in case you forgot, we are the GOOD guys. We are expected to do good deeds -- it is who we are.

We saved the world from anarchy in the early parts of the last century, from Fascism in the middle of the century, from Communism later in the Century.

The United States has time and again saved the world from evil -- and yet never before have any of us complained about the "PR" of our actions Our list of global accomplishments and good deeds goes on and on. There was a concern for the results, not media imagery. This is a subtle but important point.

Can you imagine partisans whining that US Servicemen had freed the camp victims at Auschwitz -- but there wasn't enough coverage, it wasn't front page news? That rebuilding of Germany and Japan after WWII wasn't getting enough airplay? The foodlifts to Africa, the inventions of life saving medicines, the racing to comfort earthquake victims, tsunami survivors, disasters anywhere on the planet neneded to be exploited further? Back then did anyone cry "Hey, where's our credit?!"

Absolutely not -- you shut your mouth and you got the job done. The results mattered more than the image.

That was a different era. We had leaders of great intellect, courage, and judgement. They surrounded themselves with the best and the brightest. They purposefully kept aides around them who challenged their views, thought strategically, mapped out all possible consequences, believed in Science. They were pragmatic, not idealogues; they were experienced experts, not partisans.

Too many people have lowered their standards to a point that is absurd. Hey, everyone, we repainted a school in Baghdad!

Talk about the soft prejudice of low expectations. Is that what our measure of greatness has become?

I regularly appreciate all of the great deeds done by US Servicemen, working with insufficient equipment under a great hardship. We've donated old cell phones to servicemen, participated in raising money for armor. Do not misinterpret this as anything but supportive of the troops in harm's way.

But recognize who we are talking about: These are the US Marines, the greatest fighting unit in the history of mankind! These are Air Force officers, flying the most sophisticated and powerful weaponry know to the planet. US Army personnel, Navy sailors -- these aren't just any military -- these people make up the Armed Forces of the United States of America! Does the emailer complaining about the lack of media coverage understand the history of these institutions, what they have accomplished over the past 2 centuries? I think he does not. Because if he did, he would not be as concerned about a single gentle kindness, about the imagery, about the PR, rather than the actual war itself.

The Marines understand war and their obligations within a conflict; that's why Semper Fi -- Always Faithful -- is their philosophy. The Air Force says "Aim Higher" -- because their philosophy is to achieve greater and greater results, as opposed to media spin.

No, my dear emailer, you have forgotten who we are and what we are all about. A good deed by a US serviceman is what WE DO ANYWAY. In case you didn't know, we are the GOOD GUYS. If this not being in a newspaper is what upsets you, than you NO LONGER GET IT. This is what the United States is all about. This is what is expected of us. This is the standard we aspire to. This is who we are.

Follow the advice of the Armed Services. Worry less about the PR, and more about what really matters. "Aim Higher."

Rumsfeld Remembrance

Friday, November 17, 2006 | 04:15 PM

in Television | War/Defense

A little Friday afternoon fun, via Craig Ferguson and Rumsfeld Remembrance

See also: The New Yorker in The Downfall of Donald H. Rumsfeld;

The Angry Yuppies

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 | 02:04 PM

in Economy | Politics | War/Defense

Interesting MSNBC discussion on how the wealthy voted against GOP:

MSNBC Broadcast 11/13/06

Judging Rummy

Thursday, November 09, 2006 | 09:46 AM

in Politics | Psychology/Sentiment | War/Defense

I am utterly perplexed why this happened NOW instead of 2 months ago -- at least from a political perspective.

The WSJ polled readers, asking: How would you grade Rumsfeld's performance as defense secretary?

The amazing thing is that 23% of those polled gave Rumsfeld an "A" or a "B." I guess all that talk about personal responsiblility was just so much more ideological bullshit . . .

US Invasion in Iraq

Monday, November 06, 2006 | 08:00 PM

in War/Defense

Christophe Vorlet's interesting artwork on the US participation in the War:

Fascinating work . . .

Our piddlingly tiny Defense Budget

Friday, October 20, 2006 | 07:05 AM

in Data Analysis | War/Defense

I want to bring a different tack to our usually fun forays into Data Analysis: Instead of me railing about some statistical aberation, smoke coming out of my ears as I type, I want you, dear readers, to exercise those muscles.

For this, we go to a reliable source of bad data: The WSJ's OpEd page.

While editorials are by nature supposed to be opinion pieces, over time I have noted that this page has a tendency to disconnect from reality when it comes to mathematics, data, statistics. At times, the word dissembling comes to mind.

Feel free to agree or disagree with the premise of the commentary. But this is not a political exercise. Instead, I am looking for ways you find that the data has been spun or misinterpreted or otherwise omitted in support of this argument.

You may also feel free to argue the data is correct, or that the Op-Ed understates the facts. Either way, focus on the data.

Professors of Economics, Statistics, and Mathematics can feel free to make this a regular part of their curriculum. And don't limit yourself to the WSJ: The NYT, WP, LAT are all fair game. But I keep coming back to the WSJ OpEd for their long standing tendency to use economic or budgetary data, and then to distort it.

No matter: Lets see how strong your powers of observations are: Identify the errors in this Op Ed:

Our Small Defense Budget
October 20, 2006; Page A12 http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009124

The full text is at the free Opinion Journal site.

NOTE: I do not want to make this about politics, but, rather, about how data is tortured for political ends. The most political this could get is perhaps how the WSJ Op-Ed page advocated for tax cuts during the war or things along that line which impact the budget -- but not the political arguments.

Make the focus on numbers, not partisanship.

Call this crowdsourcing: If anyone wants to reference charts, tables, etc, feel free to do so, and I will gather them all in a follow up post next week.

Outrage!

Thursday, September 28, 2006 | 05:38 AM

in Politics | War/Defense

I was speaking with Kudlow yesterday before the show, and he loved a cartoon I had sent him (via Weedon):

It would certainly benefit Moderate practioners of Islam if they were to recognize the disrepute the radical Islamofascists (is that really a word?) brings to their religon. Even the Pope apologized for the holocaust and the Spanish Inquistion. I hope we don't have to wait 400 years to hear moderates condemn the violence somewhat louder . . .

9/11 Overdose

Saturday, September 09, 2006 | 10:00 AM

in Economy | Financial Press | War/Defense

I've been assembling this weekend's linkfest -- and I started to feel a little quesy. I couldn't figure out what it was, and then it dawned on me: 9/11 overdose.

We are in for a total excess of "celebrations" -- is that the right word? -- of the 5th anniversary of 9/11.

That would be Wood, for you married couples. Instead of wood, we get tasteless Mini-series, crass comedic novels, fictionlized dramatizations, front page columns, magazine stories galore: The U.S. media, following the ugly lead of politicians, is about to engage in a full on festival of September 11th commericalization.

Its already cloying; 9/11 is now at risk for becoming another holiday, like Halloween or Columbus day. Macy*s will have a white sale, halftime at football games will do a video montage (aftr the 9/11tailgate party in the parking lot), speeches will be given, barbecues consumed. Take what has been already been done to Christmas: Sterilize, mass produce, fictionalize, and repackage it into one giant opportunistic shopping orgy.

Thanks, but no thanks.

I don't want to see any of these things -- don't want to buy the book, see the mini-series, read the column. Shit, I don't even want write about it. I already told my own personal recollection from a day of horror. That's more than enough.

What asshole thought up making a commerative 9/11 coin? -- and would they please choke on their own vomit in their sleep? (Thanks). A fictionlized version of events? Fictionlized? Are you shitting me? Can't we have a more dignified way to honor our dead?

The greatest tragedy of the post-9/11 period has been the failure of our nation's leaders to bring the country nation together. There was an enormous opportunity to take advantage of the crisis to unify the population and work together. That moment was lost. When the history of this period gets written 50 years from now, and blame gets apportioned for that, it will be none too flattering the collection of buffooons and incompetents (of both parties).

And people ask me why I am so cycnical . . .

U.S. Economy, post 9/11

Saturday, September 09, 2006 | 06:20 AM

in Economy | War/Defense

Source:
Economic Fears After 9/11 Proved Mostly Unfounded
Firms Didn't Pile on Guards And Inventories, nor Did Delays Clog U.S. Ports
But Oil Has a 'Terror Premium'
JON E. HILSENRATH and LIAM PLEVEN
WSJ, September 9, 2006; Page A1
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115776485374658406.html

Conviction, Sentiment, and Market Moving Rumors

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 | 04:30 PM

in Investing | Markets | Technical Analysis | War/Defense

Rev Shark and I have disagreed on the Sentiment Question -- are there too many Bears, or too many Bulls? -- several times over the past few months. However, I am starting to come around to his position that market participants are becoming on average fairly dour.

Whether this is a change in the market, or a change in me, I cannot say. And any conclusions drawn in August are suspect, given the ultra-light volume -- at 3pm, less than a billion shares changed hands on the the NYSE -- and the 3rd string rookies manning the terminals.

But despite all that, one really has to marvel over the lack of conviction today. After the dissappointing (but not unexpected) housing data came out today, the market seemed to falter a bit, but then it recovered.

It wasn't until CNBC announced the Bloomberg headline of an Iranian nuclear breakthrough (See this story at TSCM) that markets seem to have stumbled more significantly.

Now, I dont 'believe a word of that, and I assume most others don't either. If many people did, then the market would be selling off much harder than it is.

But I am surprised at the ready willingness to dump stocks on so flimsy an announcement by the Iranians the day AFTER their UN deadline passed. Its exactly the sort of thing you would expect to hear from them.

The fast triggered response is pretty widespread, with up/down volume -- what little there actually is -- rather negative. So while I want to be cautios about reading too much into anything this (and next) week, I still find the lack of conviction rather surprising.

Maybe Rev is right after all . . .

Marines' Cookbook

Friday, June 30, 2006 | 11:30 AM

in War/Defense

via Baghdad ER:

Kudos to Weber for sponsoring this cookbook: Weber's Command of the Grill: A Cookbook Raises Money for Charities That Directly Benefit Wounded or Killed Marines and Their Families

The story is here: Command of the Grill (PDF)

Story via Yahoo

Good News / Bad News

Thursday, June 08, 2006 | 06:58 AM

in Markets | Psychology/Sentiment | War/Defense

They finally got the Sonofabitch C&%*sucker Zarqawi. About time.

That's the good news; the bad news is, markets don't seem to care much; Futures are down pretty significantly, as Japan sold off 3%, with most of Europe down 2%. Crude slipped below $70.

This suggests a few things to me:

1) The forces in place taking markets lower are beyond the reach of short term news;
2) Iraq has become such a debacle that the death of a significant scumbag is not that important;
3) The short term swings in the price of Oil, which hasn't been appreciably below $60 very much for most of the past 2 months, is less significant to markets than previously believed.

Today will be interesting -- watch for rally attempts in the futures pit, and a shot at reversing the sell off intraday.

UPDATE JUNE 8, 2006 7:32am

I hadn't seen anyone discuss this, but the Bovespa in Brazil got shellacked yesterday -- The ETF was whacked 4.15% . . .

Rating Iraq Policy

Tuesday, March 14, 2006 | 09:45 AM

in Politics | War/Defense

I am always surprised when a WSJ poll appears to contradict the expected rightward tilt of its readership.

Today's poll is no different.

The results are intriguing, and very divided: 69% of those who participated in the poll gave the President's Iraq leadership a "D" or an "F." Only 12% gave his Iraq leadership an "A" (hardcore partisans / delusional ), while another 12% give him a "B." Only 7% landed in the midpoint of "C."

>

Question of the Day: How do you grade Bush's leadership of the Iraq war so far this year
click for larger graphic

Perhaps the readership of the WSJ is more pragmatic than idealogical -- or maybe they are simply less conservative than I assumed.

UPDATE: March 14, 2006 11:04am

Interesting comment from a friend at TIAA/Cref, who tells me I misunderstand the President as a Republican; She claims he is really a radical conservative, and Wall Street prefers gridlock/centrisim to anything radical.

Sources:
Bush's Approval Ratings Slip In the Latest Harris Poll
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE
March 14, 2006
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114226947992696718.html

Read it Here First: Iraq war could top $2 trillion

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 | 02:40 PM

in Economy | War/Defense

On the eve of War, I released a study "Not-So-Hidden Agenda: Strategic and Economic Assessments of U.S. led Invasion in the Middle East."

It detailed what I believed were "rational" reasons were for invading Iraq (complex, but not WMD related), how long it could last (10 years) and how muich it would cost ($1 trillion dollars).

My cost projection was viewed as outsized, even ridiculous.

Turns out I may have been too conservative in my projections:

"The cost of the Iraq war could top $2 trillion after factoring in long-term healthcare for wounded US veterans, rebuilding a worn-down military, and accounting for other unforeseen bills and economic losses, according to a new analysis to be presented today in Boston.

The estimate by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes far exceeds projections made by the Bush administration.

The figure is more than four times what the war was expected to cost through 2006 -- around $500 billion, according to congressional budget data.

The new study is billed as a detailed analysis not only of the potential costs of sustaining the operation in Iraq for at least several more years, but also the expenses likely to be incurred by taxpayers long after US troops withdraw."

Go figure . . .

Source:
Economists say cost of war could top $2 trillion
Tally exceeds White House projections
Bryan Bender
Boston Globe, January 8, 2006
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/01/08/
economists_say_cost_of_war_could_top_2_trillion/?p1=MEWell_Pos4

Intel versus Strategy Failure

Friday, October 28, 2005 | 07:03 AM

in Politics | War/Defense

Some people have been suggesting that the investigation into the Plamegate affair is the source of the market's woes.

I totally disagree.

However, given that this is all anyone can talk about, its time for a brief respite from Economics to take a short sojourn into the world of politics:

With indictments imminent in the Plamegate case, there's a lot of focus on those 16 words in the State of the Union speech, and the false basis for war. But we should be focusing not on the alleged excuses, but on the underlying policy error: The Iraq War was a massive failure in strategic planning -- and not, as the media has suggested, an intelligence failure.

Whether WMDs were found or not, the entire strategic policy making process was apparently obsessed with Saddam. This pushed aside the more pressing issue of fighting Terrorism. Do not lose sight of how foolishly dangerous this was.

Yes, there were also staggering execution problems, including wrong troop levels, a lack of follow through, little coalition building, no post-war planning, etc., but lets put those aside for the moment.

At the heart of the Fitzgerald investigation was the WH retaliation against the Wilsons for pointing out ginned up INTEL. But we should be focusing less on today's news, and more on the terrible strategic thinking (or lack thereof) that led to the decision to invade Iraq.

This was not an intelligence failure (in either sense of the word) -- it was a failure of judgement, a reflection of the worst kind off decision making at the very highest levels.

And this criticism isn't a case of 20/20 hind sight: No less an authority than Brent Scowcraft, national security adviser under President Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, warned the administration and the public about this erroneous thinking. Seven months before the invasion, he penned a WSJ Op/Ed alerting us to these issues. Scowcraft correctly identifies that a War on Saddam would be a huge distraction form what should be our biggest priority: fighting terrorism.

Can you recall when else in our history that: 1) a more respected military leader; 2) so sternly warned an Adminsitration they were on the verge of; 3) making a colossal strategic military error; 4) that would put the country's National Security so at risk; nation's 5) and was so roundly ignored? (I can't)

Here's an except from that 2002 WSJ Op-Ed:

"We need to think through this issue very carefully. We need to analyze the relationship between Iraq and our other pressing priorities--notably the war on terrorism--as well as the best strategy and tactics available were we to move to change the regime in Baghdad.

Saddam's strategic objective appears to be to dominate the Persian Gulf, to control oil from the region, or both. That clearly poses a real threat to key U.S. interests. But there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them.

He is unlikely to risk his investment in weapons of mass destruction, much less his country, by handing such weapons to terrorists who would use them for their own purposes and leave Baghdad as the return address. Threatening to use these weapons for blackmail--much less their actual use--would open him and his entire regime to a devastating response by the U.S. While Saddam is thoroughly evil, he is above all a power-hungry survivor . . .

But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive. The most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism. Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence.

Possibly the most dire consequences would be the effect in the region. The shared view in the region is that Iraq is principally an obsession of the U.S. The obsession of the region, however, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If we were seen to be turning our backs on that bitter conflict--which the region, rightly or wrongly, perceives to be clearly within our power to resolve--in order to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us. We would be seen as ignoring a key interest of the Muslim world in order to satisfy what is seen to be a narrow American interest.
Even without Israeli involvement, the results could well destabilize Arab regimes in the region, ironically facilitating one of Saddam's strategic objectives. At a minimum, it would stifle any cooperation on terrorism, and could even swell the ranks of the terrorists. Conversely, the more progress we make in the war on terrorism, and the more we are seen to be committed to resolving the Israel-Palestinian issue, the greater will be the international support for going after Saddam.

In sum, if we will act in full awareness of the intimate interrelationship of the key issues in the region, keeping counterterrorism as our foremost priority, there is much potential for success across the entire range of our security interests--including Iraq. If we reject a comprehensive perspective, however, we put at risk our campaign against terrorism as well as stability and security in a vital region of the world.

Just something to mull over while the Nation's focus is on the retaliation for outing what was bad INTEL. But the real problem, the bigger issue, the lasting mystery, was a policy failure so massive in scope and nature, that even today we have trouble comprehending how it happened.

Its easier to wrap our little heads around the "bad intel" rationale, then to comprehend the enormity of the failings in so many ways and at the very highest levels.

Had the White House made similar errors in 1939, you would likely be reading this website written in German . . .

Source:
Don't Attack Saddam
It would undermine our antiterror efforts.
BRENT SCOWCROFT
WSJ, Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133

Thinking the unthinkable, predicting the unpredictable

Thursday, September 22, 2005 | 08:22 AM

in Economy | Politics | Science | War/Defense | Web/Tech

The spin these days is that all of these disasters -- 9/11, Iraq Insurgency, New Orleans flood -- were both unthinkable and unpredictable.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

These were all thought of and predicted -- way in advance. I can name at least a dozen private (and public) sector firms that spend all of their waking hours dreaming up stuff like this. Not only was all this foreseeable, but its the subject of deep and regular analyses by some very, very bright people.

Indeed, from the office of strategic planning in the Pentagon, to risk management officers in Re-insurance companies to capital preservation specialists at Futures trading firms to doctors who specialize in pandemics at the NIH, all sorts of these "what-could-go-wrong" analyses occurs everyday. Even Wal-Mart plans distribution and routing strategies around all kinds of planned and sudden unplanned weather interruptions (see our earlier discussion).

On Wall Street, bigger funds consider the "What-if" scenarios all the time. I have participated in stress-testing asset pools with funds running 100s of billions of dollars: What happens if a Nuke goes off in DC, if China invades Taiwan, if various heads of different States are assassinated (including the US President and/or VP), if the Royal House of Saud falls. Nukes are fun, cause there are so many scenarios -- in addition to the dirty bomb problems, there's what if N. Korea accidentally blows up a weapon, if Israel nukes Iran, if Russia admits 5 bombs are unaccounted for. Then there's the accidental US silo disaster, including various alternative misinterpretations (i.e., accident, terrorist, Russian or Chinese espionage, etc.)

All of this is called strategic planning. Up until recently, it was something that was not only carried out by the private sector and the military, but also at he highest levels of US government. Lately, it seems to have become a lost art.

My personal theory for a lot of what has gone wrong over the past few years is that ideology (i.e., Neo-Con) and faith-based belief systems (insert your choice here) have replaced elbow grease, deep thought, and long term strategizing as the methodology of implementing policy.

Its apparent in the anti-intellectual bend of much of the White House. Is it a surprise that pseudo-science is challenging Science? Not if you have been paying any attention.

The bottom line is that this distasteful, difficult stuff -- planning, strategizing, executing -- matters. It matters to the nation, its population and ultimately, to their safety from all manners of ordinary, natural and extra-ordinary man-made disasters.

This is one of the few times I get to admonish the public and exhort members of both political parties with words such as these:

Figure it out -- or die.

9/11

Sunday, September 11, 2005 | 07:00 PM

in Psychology/Sentiment | War/Defense

In keeping with my 9/11 tradition, I am not going to write anything new on this; I've already had my say.

Instead, I will merely redirect you to 3 other sites:

• 200 Jump, Fall, Leap, Dive and Plunge to Death From WTC stead of burning to death.
http://www.rangerjarhead.com/911jumpers

• Another Year Gone http://cunningrealist.blogspot.com/2005/09/another-year-gone.html

• Ray Dougherty in Manhattan http://www.alum.dartmouth.org/classes/62/bombdough.htm

Be advised that the "Jump rather than Burn" page is rather disturbing . . .

Will the US Economy Become a Victim of the Iraq War?

Thursday, July 21, 2005 | 06:14 AM

in Economy | War/Defense

War is not only Hell -- but Hellishly expensive:

"In September 2002, the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan research arm of Congress, estimated that the war would cost $1.5 billion to $4 billion per month. In fact, it costs between $5 billion and $8 billion per month.

The Pentagon says the "burn rate" -- the operating costs of the wars -- has averaged $5.6 billion per month in the current fiscal year, but that does not include some costs for maintenance and replacement of equipment and some training and reconstruction costs, experts say."

Recall our Pre-War Analysis from March 19, 2003 (Not-So-Hidden Agenda: Strategic and Economic Assessments of U.S. led Invasion in the Middle East) -- we predicted the War in Iraq would last up to 10 years and cost $1 trillion dollars over that decade. That length and expense was (at the time) considered an outlier, far beyond other expectations.

Now, almost 2 1/2 years later, other analyses are (finally) catching up. A recent study from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments upgrades the estimates of what the war will cost to ~3/4 of a trilllion dollars (so we are getting closer to my $ trillion dollar estimate).

"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already cost taxpayers $314 billion, and the Congressional Budget Office projects additional expenses of perhaps $450 billion over the next 10 years.

That could make the combined campaigns, especially the war in Iraq, the most expensive military effort in the last 60 years, causing even some conservative experts to criticize the open-ended commitment to an elusive goal. The concern is that the soaring costs, given little weight before now, could play a growing role in U.S. strategic decisions because of the fiscal impact.

"Osama (bin Laden) doesn't have to win; he will just bleed us to death," said Michael Scheuer, a former counterterrorism official at the CIA who led the pursuit of bin Laden and recently retired after writing two books critical of the Clinton and Bush administrations. "He's well on his way to doing it."

The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonpartisan Washington think tank, has estimated that the Korean War cost about $430 billion and the Vietnam War cost about $600 billion, in current dollars. According to the latest estimates, the cost of the war in Iraq could exceed $700 billion.

Put simply, critics say, the war is not making the United States safer and is harming U.S. taxpayers