Archive for April, 2007

The Denoument of Senator John McCain

Friday, April 27th, 2007

October 1st is a “date certain for surrender” argues Senator John McCain in reference to the Congressionally-passed $124 billion funding bill which contains a provision requiring the withdrawal of U.S. troops deployed in Iraq by that date.

It strikes me as terribly ironic that Senator McCain would say this since he has long criticized the Administration for providing inadequate resources to the war–including troops. With the Republican Presidential primaries looming in the far, far distance, President “W” has twisted Senator McCain like a corpse hung by a noose with the simple expedient of the so-called “surge.” Never mind that even at the height of the surge (the bulk of the deployments haven’t even happened yet), about the best our very limited forces on the ground will be able to do is provide a few days of safer shopping in Baghdad. Minor problem–Iraq is a nation–not a synonym for Baghdad. The rest of Iraq gets very short shrift.

So, Senator McCain has been silenced as a critic–too bad for us. The President gets his way and polarizes the debate along party lines. He’s betting he can paint the Democrats as desiring “peace-at-any-price.” That would be fine if the Administration had ever engaged in a meaningful debate with the Democrats (who are not all of one voice as demonstrated by the debate at South Carolina State). However, the “W” and Cheney have always firmly denied the Nation a debate over the course of the war. As a side effect he is now only beginning to realize, he and his Administration will take the full weight of the calamity that will inevitably occur in Iraq.
President “W” gets closer and closer in his pronouncements to using the dreaded Vietnam-Era cliche “light at the end of the tunnel.” Even if he avoids using the words, he’s already referenced Vietnam and his “we need more time” has effectively the same meaning anyway. By chaining himself to this Administration in an effort to curry Republican Primary voters, Senator McCain is once again a prisoner–and this time he may not be released.

Lincoln and Tillman

Tuesday, April 24th, 2007

How do you hold a general or admiral accountable?

Answer: Relieve them of their commands when their performance is no longer satisfactory.

During the Civil War, Lincoln was not nearly as well-endowed as Jefferson Davis was with top army commanders. True, Lincoln had General Winfield Scott who crafted the Anaconda Plan that proved ultimately capable of winning the war. However, General Scott was physically not up to the task of leading an army in the field (he had been a war hero during the War of 1812 and had led the American Army in the invasion of Mexico). So, Lincoln worked with what he had. He stayed in constant contact with his field commanders, and when he determined that performance was not satisfactory, he sacked the offending general.

Fast forward to now: Should Bush really be satisfied with the performance of his generals to date? Well, to answer fairly, President Bush would actually need to be personally familiar with the performance of his generals.

I suspect that, if we’re lucky, the Secretary of Defense has had that honor delegated down to him–sort of a reverse “the buck stops here” approach to leadership. If we’re really unlucky, no one has been delegated that duty at all–not even the President.

It is in this atmosphere that the Tillman fiasco plays out. Kevin Tillman is quite reasonable in expecting and demanding an accounting of how the lies got fabricated about his brother’s death. He is equally reasonable in wanting more than “corrective action.” If someone were really responsible for keeping tabs of the major commands–like Lincoln did, then that someone knows exactly who is responsible. Why is this person not being sacked as we speak?

It seems inescapable that no one keeps tabs on the generals (or admirals) in this administration. So ask yourself, could this country have survived even one year with the “W” as President during the Civil War?

Why call a Mine an “Improvised Explosive Device”?

Saturday, April 21st, 2007

I admit to serving my country in a simpler time. I could look northward up the Schweinfurt Gap (which I could see day or night, awake or asleep, on the ground or far away) and picture two or three corps of Soviet Armor, a forest of artillery tubes, and flocks of Mi helicopters ready to attempt the IGB (Inter-German Border). Of course, every moment we could spare we would have churned the Gap into a “garden” of anti-tank and anti-personnel mines because mines are very cheap and very effective.

We would start with a hasty minefield (just laying the mines on the ground in a pattern) and transition to successively “improved” fields–that was part and parcel of position improvement.

That was then and this is now, you say? True, we’ve ratified a ban on mines, but this still doesn’t explain why we now call them IED’s. If it goes “bang” on an avenue of approach, it’s a mine.

I’ve always had this suspicion that the name change is motivated by the fact that “mine” is now a dirty word. But could it also be because we’re now more uncomfortable with them on the battlefield. As I’ve said, mines were a fact of life in the military world I knew. Any battlefield I was likely to fight on would be liberally coated with them. It’s really bad when the OPFOR’s weapons or tactics make an army uncomfortable. It means that the OPFOR has already psychologically taken the initiative away–and we’re left fighting a war on the OPFOR’s terms.

Call them mines . . .

Cheney is no Bismark

Saturday, April 21st, 2007

It is apparent, from what Pearl and others have said, that the “W” Administration sought to construct a new, aggressive preemptive strike doctrine motivated by a desire to have branches of the Young Republicans run happy little unrestricted free-market capitalist utopias around the globe. I say it is immaterial whether you support this objective or not. Assuming the objective was desirable, I have a few questions for Vice-President Cheney:

1) on what time table did you expect this conversion to take place?

2) how did you expect to do this with a military 25-30% smaller than it was in the Cold War?

3) how could you expect to be able to do it at all without a draft and perhaps a doubling of our active duty units?

4) wouldn’t the risks of achieving these goals increase exponentially over time as the “easiest” regimes were “converted” first–leaving the hardest nuts to crack for last?

5) how could you believe that Iraq would convert itself virtually overnight into your model state given no previous stable history? Didn’t it really take the Japanese over two decades to be remade? Didn’t it really take the Germans almost as long?

6) how could you imagine in your most orgiastic day dreams that nation building could be accomplished without any significant reconstruction of the infrastructure? Didn’t the Marshall Plan cost us billions? Wasn’t it worth it?

I doubt the “W” Administration has a single answer for any of these questions, now, 2 years ago, or ever. No, Cheney should not be compared to Bismark. Bismark had a razor-honed idea of what he wanted (a dominant German Empire on the Continent) and how to get it.

In fact, it can be argued that Germany began the long slide into the abyss the moment the Kaiser took the throttle and decided to damn the costs, just get it done.

Sound familiar?

Does There Exist a Living Philosophy?

Saturday, April 21st, 2007

In the modern rush to reduce every philosophical problem to a question of alphabets, syntax and semantics, coupled with the rush of science to every where displaces philosophy: Is there a living philosophy?

In the spirit of the times, “living philosophy” requires some definition.  The temptation is overwhelming to dismiss the question as one of tautology.  A living philosophy, in the Classical sense, is one which can be adopted by an adherent and put to the test.  It is so strange that today’s philosophical discourse is devoid of philosophy as a guide to life.  Rather, modern philosophy is much more concerned with epistemological and linguistic “understanding.”

Is it really true that the teachers of philosophy are content to teach us about predominantly dead Western men without making any new contribution? Has scholarship here been surrendered to the Islamic Brotherhood and other fundamentalist, ultra-orthodoxies?  It seems so.
What we really need in this world is to know how to live, not just how to know or to speak.  One of the attractions of radicals in every persuasion is that they always have the answers on how to live.  The Middle Road might have more adherents if there was something to adhere to.

The Untimely Death of Immediate Action Drills

Friday, April 20th, 2007

Maybe I’m just a perfectionist, but I have certain expectations on what is going to happen when a unit or convoy is ambushed on the road:

1) all vehicles and personnel will leave the road if at all possible and take cover;

2) armored vehicles and vehicles with medium machine guns or better will herring bone out if the direction of the attack is uncertain with weapons ready and pointed outward;

3) if the direction of attack is known/the unit/convoy remains under fire, then ALL weapons are oriented in that direction and the herring bone only proceeds on the engaged side of the formation (vehicles on the un-engaged side will maintain rear security until further ordered);

4) all of this should occur as a matter of drill;

What I see is:

1) weapons remain oriented front even though it is abundantly clear that the unit/convoy is being engaged on one side or the other;

2) vehicles remain on the road (and stopped!) despite the fact that the unit/convoy is being engaged and the road can be assumed to be a kill zone;

3) unit/convoy commander is having to physically place every vehicle and every soldier during the ambush;

4) a sense of urgency while in the kill zone is not being maintained;

Please tell me there are good reasons for the apparent lack of immediate action drill.

The Moral Majority: New Pharisees or Sadducees?

Friday, April 20th, 2007

I remember going to a fundamentalist religious service a few years back. There was nothing atypical about the physical surroundings.

Like many fundamentalist “communities” (it amuses me how methodically many fundamentalists avoid calling any place a “church”) it was built like a warehouse to contain the largest possible number of people. Nor was the multimedia anything special.

The pastor was accompanied by a small band, several projection TV’s, and large speakers throughout.

What was memorable was the pastor’s exhortation that Coca Cola’s firing of several thousand people to cut costs and return benefit to the shareholders was sanctioned by God. I have observed this infection with materialism repeatedly in fundamentalist “gatherings” (again, allergic to services?) . In the time of Jesus, there were also two groups obsessed with materialism: the Pharisees (who wanted none of it) and the Sadducees (who measured a person’s holy worth by it).

So it becomes clear: The Moral Majority (a nice umbrella title for fundamentalists that mostly fits) are the new Sadducees. Wealth and material possessions are to them the new arbiters of holy worth (and the implicit assumption that possessors of same will ‘vert straight to heaven when the time comes). Just look at the vehicles their pastors drive, the houses their pastors live in, and the lavish “production values” used in “gatherings.” This is what they aspire to. And this is religion?

Confused?

Wednesday, April 18th, 2007

You need to register before you can post to this Blog. Since you’re already here, why don’t you read the rest of my blog here.
Register Here

Regretablly, the volume of SPAM I have received has required this.

Additional assistance can be found at:

Working with WordPress

My Ada ports for FreeBSD

Sunday, April 15th, 2007

To check up on my Ada ports, just visit this link:

My FreeBSD Ports

Ada Projects I am Currently Working

Sunday, April 15th, 2007

1) an Ada 2005 version of SGI’s C++ Standard Template Library. Booch Components, package Ada.Containers, and RTI’s Standard Generics Library all claim to implement the STL to some degree. However, each of them has draw backs that I’m trying to eliminate:

a) Booch: limited types and overly close coupling of iterators to containers (resulting in iterators not be reuseable)

b) Ada.Containers: doesn’t implement all the classes; and iterators (called cursors here) are still too tightly bound to containers; also, the abstractions are “blurred” (e.g., “Map” and “Multimap” are one in the same once you use the “include” method.

c) SGL: doesn’t compile under Ada 2005 (primarily due to a nasty habit of trying to pass limited privates as the result of functions–a no-go under Ada 2005.

2) New_Curses: yet another curses binding for Ada.

3) Various ports.