Advantaging the Offense

http://www.isegoria.net/2012/12/anyone-can-be-a-sniper/

First a commercially available drone aircraft for $1200, now this thing. Counterinsurgency looks like a less and less attractive career.

Doing It Wrong

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/books/review/the-generals-by-thomas-e-ricks.html

Bureaucracy is an animal that operates in the same inefficient, self-expansionary fashion whether it finds itself in an entitlement environment, a military environment, or a regulatory environment. In the instance here investigated, regardless of the stakes, quite content to ignore the lives lost and billions squandered, our military bureaucracy grinds on blindly and brutally, led by the madmen charged with our political fate.

This is the Way the World Ends

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/magazine/how-ready-are-we-for-bioterrorism.html?pagewanted=1&ref=magazine&adxnnlx=1320145648-K5idnXUdyKqBqlIIQsGvhw

The Bio-Defense establishment’s official position seems to be that a smallpox outbreak would be the worst case scenario bioattack. The article mentions a simulation of such an attack done a few years ago, which concluded that a million Americans would die. Calling this the “worst case” might be right if the simulation were modified to “a genetically engineered smallpox outbreak”—the toll would be higher. No one knows by how much!

Diseases can be “improved” for virulence or communicability or survivability or vaccine resistance or treatment resistance—or, theoretically, any other imaginable traits—by means of genetic manipulations. This has been possible since the 70s. And, today, it’s not even difficult to modify diseases. It is difficult, however, to achieve genetic modifications that will produce desired results. That is, transposing genes within an organism’s DNA, as a mechanical operation, is cheap and easy. Finding out which modifications will “improve” the beast remains difficult and expensive because so many non-linear variables come into play, and precise calculation of their interactions is impossible—the Soviets had to do extensive animal testing to determine what effects various modifications would have when exposed to animal immune systems and the natural environment. So, the worst case might involve a more virulent, more communicable disease not susceptible to conventional treatment, a disease that might kill far more than a million Americans. Even back in the 60s, per the article, before genetic engineering was possible, America had achieved weaponized tularemia (presumably by means of rapid, selective, experimentally-guided evolution) to the point that 50 pounds of it, properly disseminated, would wipe out 60% of a megacity.  

Protection against crude attacks with unmodified agents may well provide a high probability of effective defense for a couple more decades (though something more than a black swan risk is present already). The Muslim world is unlikely to muster anything but amateur-hour efforts within this time frame. Attacks from other quarters are improbable. But, back to the lingering black swans. The thing is, there are multiple black swan risks out there. A sample of contingencies: an accidental release of a bio-agent from a government lab (dozens of governments work on dangerous pathogens, offensively or defensively, and America alone has dozens of such labs), a pathogen developed in an “entrepreneur’s” garage and released, a deliberate release into the environment that escapes intended limits (eg, a controlled test of pathogen characteristics), a government employee deliberately steals, then sells or releases a bio-agent.   

The article discusses the dilemma of whether to focus resources on vaccine defenses or therapeutic defenses. Yet it fails to mention one of the prime determinants of the relative efficacy of these two approaches: the impact of the threat of genetically modified disease agents. Do vaccines against the variola major strain of small pox, for example, have a high probability of success against a genetically modified variant of the disease? And how difficult, in the context of a bio-arms race, would it be to develop small pox variants that would resist a known, stockpiled vaccine? I suspect the answers to these questions, if they’ve been considered and if they’re knowable, are classified.

The article concludes with a hint at the clash between political decision-making processes and cost-benefit processes. What translates into political capital tends to starve ugly, obscure issues until the piper comes round at last. “How to balance the unlikely but catastrophic potential of bioterror with the steady advance of natural disease is one of the most puzzling challenges for biodefense policy going forward.” This is an unavoidable question, except I would say the “steady retreat of natural disease.” The only significant inroads natural disease has made in the last 100 years are those related to poor nutrition—consequent upon mere stupidity (including the stupidity or conspiracy of doctors) and torpor. Natheless, sichlike common health issues, never out of sight and never out of mind, exert great gravitational pull on the common politician.  

Another part of the problem seems to be a matter of bureaucratic influence on policy decisions—like this Fauci genius spending 70% of biodefense funding on common diseases afflicting public health. Fauci is a public health bureaucrat, not a defense bureaucrat—so he spends what he can on public health. Bureaucrats generally fit the mold of defective wind-up toys—little action, no thought. Also, moving up a notch to the political sphere, it’s lovely to discover that Obama has ended centralized direction of biodefense. What we have is a few part-timers in the White House overseeing the program and trying to coordinate multiple mutually antagonistic bureaucracies. Well, I suppose it’s over-optimistic to expect Obama to take an interest in something other than handouts and labor unions.   

After such knowledge, what forgiveness? Think now
History has many cunning passages, contrived corridors
And issues, deceives with whispering ambitions,
Guides us by vanities. Think now
She gives when our attention is distracted
And what she gives, gives with such supple confusions
That the giving famishes the craving. Gives too late
What’s not believed in, or if still believed,
In memory only, reconsidered passion. Gives too soon
Into weak hands, what’s thought can be dispensed with
Till the refusal propagates a fear. Think
Neither fear nor courage saves us. Unnatural vices
Are fathered by our heroism. Virtues
Are forced upon us by our impudent crimes.
These tears are shaken from the wrath-bearing tree.

--Gerontion

Checking in on Our Brilliant Anti-Terror Strategy

A new book is out on Afghanistan, The Wrong War: Grit, Strategy, and the Way Out of Afghanistan by Alan West, reviewed by Dexter Filkins, the excellent war correspondent for the NY Times. West is a combat veteran and former officer who's observed the war from the ground. Here's the review's the key section:

His basic argument can be summed up like this: American soldiers and Marines are very good at counterinsurgency, and they are breaking their hearts, and losing their lives, doing it so hard. But the central premise of counterinsurgency doctrine holds that if the Americans sacrifice on behalf of the Afghan government, then the Afghan people will risk their lives for that same government in return. They will fight the Taliban, finger the informants hiding among them and transform themselves into authentic leaders who spurn death and temptation.
This isn’t happening. What we have created instead, West shows, is a vast culture of dependency: Americans are fighting and dying, while the Afghans by and large stand by and do nothing to help them. Afghanistan’s leaders, from the presidential palace in Kabul to the river valleys in the Pashtun heartland, are enriching themselves, often criminally, on America’s largesse. The Taliban, whatever else they do, fight hard and for very little reward...Most important, the Afghan people, though almost certainly opposed to a Taliban redux, are equally wary of both the Americans and their Afghan “leaders.”...The Afghans are waiting to see who prevails, but prevailing is impossible without their help.

Our soldiers should not be asked to sacrifice their lives in this war year after year.

And there are far more productive things we can do with $100 billion a year (at least, in theory) than dump it in Afghanistan. By the way, the charity-induced corruption reminds me forcefully of our welfare state and its ongoing destruction of the character of the lower orders most exposed to it. Afghanistan might just be the dumbest war we've ever fought--impressive considering the other contenders.

Cheek Turning on Principle

A Congressional military advisory commission just recommended that women be permitted in combat units.

Decadence develops when there is a perceived lack of serious threats.

Hence, the military comes to be seen as a playground for bureaucrats, careerists, politicians, and a free-for-all for all members of the thought police and social(ist) engineers. This is much more of a problem than the gay thing, opposition to which at this point is absurd in addition to being militarily groundless.

A Couple of Pieces

A couple of laudably uncharacteristics articles from the NY Times.   Here is a demonstration of how the government can exceed its usual mandate of merely wasting obscene amounts of other people's money (the great commonality of Washington and Wall Street) and enter into a new business: wasting other people's lives. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/opinion/21fleming.html?src=me&ref=homepage   And here we have an odd political perspective: a Times article that is relatively objective about the teachers unions (objectivity paints an ugly picture) and shows by what sly maneuverings Obama has attempted to reform their priorities to achieve a some reasonable balance between their selfish unionist obsessions and educational quality. Personally, I think Obama will push the unions further than they've ever been pushed before--because he can and because, by doing so, he may be able to score a rare political victory. After all, who else can they turn to? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/magazine/23Race-t.html?hpw

An Impressive Step

http://www.physorg.com/news180620740.html

It must be a tremendous encouragement for the patient to have this outlet. Plus which, if speech can be read from the mind, other paralytics, especially the far more common quadriplegics, will have opportunities for increased independence and interaction in the world.

On the other hand, this must also be on the military's radar. It approaches the condition of mind-reading. That would be a neat trick for intel agencies all over the globe.

How to One-Up Bush

Obama has apparently approved drone strikes in Baluchistan, which is part of Pakistan proper and which has not been hit previously. It looks like Obama wants to demonstrate that he has bigger balls than Bush. This move will widen the war and presents the clear risk of creating more enemies in Pakistan and destabilizing that nation. But, if you really intend to win in Afghanistan, this is a necessary gamble. Bush never took it. He was content to park a division over there and claim the situation was improving (which it wasn't). I give credit to Obama for decisive action and follow-through--if you are going to fight a war, do not fight it half-assed. It remains to be seen whether still more troops will be needed--if they are, Obama will have to send them to avoid falling into the half-assed trap. I said this with Bush's Iraq war for years, and he finally authorized a decisive surge that led to military (though not political) success. The same was true in Vietnam. We did not do and were not at any time willing to do what was necessary to win--therefore we should not have gone in or, at the very least, once we determined that the requirements of victory exceeded our appetite for risk, we should have pulled out expeditiously. Now, despite all this commendation, I retain serious misgivings about our likelihood of success in Afghanistan. The great obstacle to our goals is the prevalence of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Pakistan and the near impossibility of eradicating them from the border regions. Thus far, Obama is pressing forward with the strategy he has chosen without any weakening qualifications of consequence. Unfortunately, I think he chose the wrong gamble--we should get out of there and try to finance the best political groups that remain behind and press hard on Pakistan to use its influence to prevent a Taliban reconquering. Here's a discussion: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/al-qaeda-in-the-crosshairs/?hp

Some New Animals

http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/new-air-force-drones-in-pakistan-061709 I do not believe exploding flies and exploding snakes are necessarily good things to have in the world. They may eliminate the possibility of successful guerilla warfare--a form of human liberty that birthed this nation. And, as weapons increase in power, freedom is leeched away either by the government or by the condition of anarchy.

Insanity Unloosed

Notes from a professor at the Naval Academy: http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/opn/2009/06/14-47/Guest-Column-The-cost-of-a-diverse-Naval-Academy.html Apparently the military brass thinks that the most important aspect in the training of Navy and Marine officers is well-balanced racial diversity. Not competence, not leadership, not patriotism--instead we prioritize racial politics above all these things and thereby sacrifice lives and treasure and, perhaps, victory. Also, I think this program has been unconstitutional since 2003. Part of the problem is that the guys at the top of the military hierarchy these days are just spineless bureaucrats who never saw combat--they all came in after Vietnam and they're just careerists--not leaders. And they're letting political corruption and bullshit political correctness corrode our military efficiency. Not only do they fail to fight this trend, they boast of it as if it's a success. Success for whom? Worthless bureaucrats and convocations of resenters. And neither political party makes a peep in face of it. I wonder which would be the better option: secession or Australia? I might prefer secession since that way I'd have a chance to shoot some of the people who rendered secession necessary. Hey, maybe the Palins aren't as dumb as I thought--after all, they have been known to show up at meetings of the Alaska secession movement.