inignoct wrote:
] ] A cargo worker whose photograph of flag-draped coffins
] ] bearing the remains of U.S. soldiers was published on a
] ] newspaper's front page was fired by the military
] ] contractor that employed her.
] ]
] ] Tami Silicio, 50, was fired Wednesday by Maytag Aircraft
] ] Corp. after military officials raised ''very specific
] ] concerns'' related to the photograph, said William L.
] ] Silva, Maytag president. The photo was taken in Kuwait.
]
] The picture can be found here :
] http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2001906044.jpg

I'm just memeing Kerry's post here. I don't have much to add. There is an interesting question here. Societies with informational superiority are less likely to be violent because they are apt to have a better understanding of the cost. This is a long term good, but right now you have a problem with information poor societies which don't understand the human cost of violence. This is another good arguement for pursuing internet access in the third world, even if it results in 419 spam.

RE: Boston.com / News / Nation / Woman fired by military contractor for published photograph of flag-draped U.S. coffins

] This is not only odd, but also it has substantial
] political implications for Bush and the United States.
] First, by providing no coherent answer, he leaves himself
] open to critics who are ascribing motives to his policy
] -- everything from controlling the world's oil supply, to
] the familial passion to destroy Saddam Hussein, to a
] Jewish world conspiracy. The Bush administration, having
] created an intellectual vacuum, can't complain when
] others, trying to understand what the administration is
] doing, gin up these theories. The administration has
] asked for it.

Stratfor lays out Bush's mistakes. One wonders if maybe Stratfor's explanation is just another ginned up theory.

Stratfor: Why won't Bush provide a coherent justification for Iraq?!

Al-Sadr is, in fact, al-Sistani's pawn. Perhaps more precisely, al-Sadr is al-Sistani's ace in the hole.

Gaming Out Iraq

I agree with Marie's take on this, but I'm linking Jeremy's version because its not a PDF. Its well understood that this information was available before 9/11. Drastic changes to the makeup of institutions we not called for. Existing security mechanisms had worked prior to that point. The biggest red herring was the 1993 WTC bombing. Did they make organizational changes then to address the fact that they didn't predict that. Also, the embassy bombings and the U.S.S. Cole. Why didn't they foresee these things. Were they repairing that problem?

These, of course, are questions for the Clinton Administration... Also, there are questions that we should have been asking then, and not now, when we were busy fussing about interns.

Text of Presidential Daily Briefing from August 6, 2001

] U.S.-led forces in Iraq risk being drawn into an urban
] guerrilla conflict they are ill-prepared to fight and
] which will probably cost many more lives, military
] experts say.

Man, the news is just bad bad bad... We have a poor track record with urban guerrilla war (and our enemies know it).

US may be sucked into urban conflict

] A Moroccan man who is the only person ever convicted of
] aiding the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers was freed by a court
] in Hamburg Wednesday pending a retrial.

Well, the "lets detain them without trial" crowd just got an arrow in it's quiver. I hope he really is innocent. Otherwise this is an incredible foul up.

Court Frees Moroccan Convicted In 9/11 Case (washingtonpost.com)

] Beyond the repeated errors in administering the No-Fly
] program and the inability of air travellers to have those
] errors corrected, many passengers on the No-Fly list have
] expressed concern that they may have been singled out
] because of their ethnicity, religion or political
] activity. Their concern is heightened by the fact that
] the lists appear to have been shared widely among U.S.
] law enforcement agencies, internationally and with the
] U.S. military.

ACLU picks up Gilmore's standard. Secret laws are incompatible with democracy.

[Politech] ACLU sues over Feds secret no-fly lists

] But to hold Bush's eight months in office as
] having been more responsible for al Qaeda's emergence
] than Clinton's eight years in office -- not to mention the
] Carter and Reagan administrations' responsibility for encouraging
] militant Islam -- strikes us as strange reasoning. Sept. 11 was
] planned, and it was being implemented while Clinton was president.
] Bush simply adopted wholesale -- and extended -- Clinton's
] errors.
]
] This is not an argument for Clinton or Bush. Given the
] mood of the country, it is unlikely that any president would have
] done much differently.

Stratfor on the present debate in Washington. This seems a little more political then I'm used to from them. (Are they really qualified to make wholesale judgments on the management decisions made by the Bush Administration? If so, why aren't they running for office?)

However, it is interesting and there are a number of realistic observations made that many people on this site could use to read. An observation I found striking: Clinton is blaming his lack of action in the Middle East on the "public's mood." The "public's mood" was very much spun by the government at the time away from the matter at hand. But no one is going to say that in Congress. Maybe they did underestimate the problem. Maybe they were trying to deal with it using some sort of black op that ended up failing. The only certainty is that we'll never know.

[IP] Stratfor: Sorting Through the Accusations

] Al Qaeda would love to see Bush defeated, particularly if
] his defeat could be perceived -- particularly in the
] Islamic world -- as a consequence of the network's
] actions. That means U.S. allies are not the only possible
] targets. Al Qaeda has shown itself to be politically
] sophisticated. If it has operatives in the United States,
] then those operatives have friends who can advise the
] group on U.S. politics. Any attack will give Bush an
] immediate boost. It is a given in U.S. policy that the
] president's support increases during a crisis. It is also
] true that over time that support bleeds off, particularly
] if the president is not seen as moving toward solving the
] problem effectively. It follows that al Qaeda will not
] attack on the eve of the U.S. election, but months
] before, giving the American public time to come to the
] conclusion that Bush is unable to cope with the threat.

Stratfor puts its hat in the ring. This is the first time they've taken a position that I do not find my self entirely agreeing with. That almost certainly means I'm wrong, but I'll say it anyway and we'll see.

I knew they thought Al'Q wanted to topple Bush, but I didn't know why. I don't agree with this. I think that a Democratic president in the U.S. would close the gap with Europe, and thereby elminiate the weakness Al'Q is presently exploiting. (Possibly at the expense of creating other weaknesses, but thats an unknown. Partisanship easily takes you outside the realm of reason here.) In reading Stratfor's reasoning it makes sense. If they could get the Arab world to beleive that they toppled a U.S. president it might do wonders for their credibility, IF people beleived it. Honestly, I think that even if they did have an impact arguements that they are responsible will not be taken credibly, and what they loose strategically in the process (a US/Europe fissure, which most certainly real on the street and in the UN) is worth more then what they'd trade for. This alone is not going to galvanize the arab world into engaging in a war that really no one but a bunch of lunatic fundamentalists is interested in.

I also don't think that any attack in the U.S. is likely to topple Bush. I think more attacks are likely to drive Americans right, and I don't think you'll see them unless it looks like Bush will loose. Not until after the election anyway...

Stratfor's discussion of the fact that this wasn't a suicide operation is interesting. There are many ways to interpret that. Most of the press just isn't thinking about it.

What I think is also interesting is that Al'Q clearly are intelligent military strategists, whilst simultaneously they have very backward, feudal ideas about what political future is best for themselves and their people. Identity based politics knows no intellectual heights. No matter how smart you are, it is still entirely possible (and likely) that your concepts about governance and world order are completely broken. This is because people tend to decide who they are and how they feel before they decide what they think. Everyone has got it backwards. People who are different have thoughts that are outside the range of things we're capable of considering. So we think they must be evil. And so we kill eachother...

Strategic Forecasting: Analysis of Madrid

] Al-Qaida cells operate autonomously with sleeper agents
] among Muslim communities in most western, eastern and
] African countries. Bin Laden's capture -- dead or alive
] -- won't change the correlation of forces between
] terrorists and counter-terrorists. The growing
] wretchedness of West Africa's populations -- over a
] million a year die of malaria in Nigeria alone -- greatly
] facilitates the marabou's mission of recruiting Islamist
] desperadoes.
]
] The toughest among them survive the desert trek to
] Morocco and Algeria and from there take small craft to
] Spain. Their bodies wash up on Spanish beaches every day.
] Those who make it alive into Spain have also made it into
] the European Union.

United Press International: Commentary: Al-Qaida in Africa