June 2019

S M T W T F S
      1
234 5678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Monday, June 14th, 2004 06:16 pm
The Icon: It's the DD(X), the US Navy's 21st-Century Destroyer. As some folks may or may not know, I've been working in the Defense field for some time. My group at work is in the process of firming up the product line brochure and communications plan for Navy PEO Ships. I happen to really like that photo (the bigger one is beautiful) so it's my current icon of choice. (My father also happens to be a senior systems engineer on the DD(X) program for another firm.)

Cleveland Indians outfielder, Coco Crisp, may have the coolest name in sports.

NBA Finals: For anyone on this list that actually follows pro-ball, I must admit I'm pretty shocked at just how much of an ass-whipping the Pistons are laying on the Lakers. Almost as shocking as Tom Tolbert and his hideous 1970's style plaid suits - so ugly even Herb Tarleck wouldn't wear them.

Last Friday: My thanks for those who offered empathy for my complaints. As it turned out, I'm a big whiny crybaby, with nothing much to moan about. The office was empty, I got tons of work done, and there was zero traffic on the roads after all.

Ralph Wiley died last night of a heart attack at the age of 52. For those who don't follow sports, you probably won't know or care. Wiley wrote 28 cover articles for Sports Illustrated, had a column on ESPN.Com Page 2, and was the author of several books including Why Black People Tend to Shout. Wiley was funny, sharp, and witty - one of the rare sports commentators who could speak in vernacular without being lame, who could offer social commentary without seeming like a pompous blowhard, and who had genuine insight. I'll miss reading him.
Sunday, June 20th, 2004 20:05 (UTC)
SDI was by and large part of Reagan’s overall strategy to spend the Soviet Union into the ground.

We like to say that now. That's not quite the truth. They funded SDI because they really believed in it, and because they really wanted it. Spending the Soviet Union into the ground was something of a discovery along the way. Long after we had any need to spend anyone into the ground, there is prominent backing for NMD. Back in '97, when I was writing on it, the Rumsfeld Commission was calling as loudly for NMD as they possibly could. Despite most threat studies, and scientific backing - if not for the priority shift caused by the WoT, it'd still be a top priority program.

Prior to WWII we didn’t have a massive defense industry. We mobilized civilian industry to create the things we needed.

On that score, one of the problematic issues is America's declining industrial base. The US has shifted further and further to an information-service based economy, and that fuels a lot of insecurity about the availability for a manufacturing base should one prove necessary. You could see that sentiment in the steel tariff debate. While the overall economic interest of the vast majority of the citizens of the country was best served by the decline in domestic steel production (and those steelworkers being transformed into other sectors) a lot of folks question whether America should have interdependence in that. It's a far greater worry if we take this to defense industries.

I think there's a certain degree of legitimacy to those concerns. The economy will run fine without a large military-industrial sector. But it might not be an economy with much of an industrial sector.

That’s why we have the UN. If we balance the load between all members and not act unilaterally when we don’t get our way, that body will function as it is supposed to.

There are areas the UN is very well suited to, but warfighting isn't one of them. I think the UN has performed well in Peacekeeping roles. But during active hostilities, I don't think it can work well. Certainly, the international system works better if the US operates hand-in-hand with a vast coalition of partners, rather than as a cowboy, but this isn't necessarily an area the UN will ever work well on.

I find it highly ironic and hypocritical that the Neo-Cons, and many others on the Right, who were so dead set against the idea of us taking on that role and engaging in nation building during the Clinton years, are now the ones leading the battle cry about how bringing democracy to Iraq is going to transform the Middle East for freedom.

As do I. Of course, I don't think the NeoCons were really all that concerned with Middle East democracy, because if they were, I think they'd have developed some sort of a plan for the aftermath before they actually went to war. Mostly, I think they very firmly believed they had to topple Iraq, and convinced themselves that everything would work out for the best solely because they believed they were right. Chosen by god, if you will. The talk of "Middle East Democracy" is just more empty rhetoric to prop up what was always just gut-feel policy.