Interesting Wall Street Journal article about my boss who's retiring on Thursday 12/31. Coincidentally, his last day with the office will be my last day with the office.
Eric
Saturday, 26 December 2009
Fun with autotune
The Gregory Brothers have a series of these on youtube. Funny stuff.
Add: 14AUG11 New York Times Sunday magazine article on the Gregory Brothers.
Eric
Sunday, 13 December 2009
Blackwater contractors helped fight terrorists in Iraq
EXCERPT: "One former Blackwater guard recalled a meeting in Baghdad in 2004 in which Erik Prince addressed a group of Blackwater guards working with the C.I.A. At the meeting in an air hangar used by Blackwater, the guard said, Mr. Prince encouraged the Blackwater personnel “to do whatever it takes” to help the C.I.A. with the intensifying insurgency, the former guard recalled."
Blackwater contractors helped fight terrorists in Iraq. Good thing, right? To my dismay, this story is being reported as a scandal.
The situation in 2004-2006 Iraq was critical and worsening. The terrorists were escalating their campaign and trying their hardest to collapse the fragile, post-Saddam Iraq with massive death and destruction. Iraqi society was tearing apart and people were dying in the streets by the hundreds. With the insurgency in Iraq reaching its height, the highest imperative for our side was to do everything we could do in order to protect Iraq and the Iraqi people from the terrorists. The Blackwater contractors, already hired and on the ground, were at least as well prepared as their overwhelmed counterparts in the CIA and US military. As the NY Times article describes the Blackwater contractors, "many of them [were] former members of units of the Navy Seals or Army Delta Force".
Despite the exigent circumstances of 2004-2006 Iraq, Representative Rush D. Holt believes the use of Blackwater contractors was "a scandal" and "very troubling to a lot of people.”
I disagree with Representative Holt. Not using the best people who were available on the ground at that time under those circumstances in Iraq would have qualified as 'very troubling' and a 'scandal'. Those Blackwater contractors should be commended, instead of treated as criminals. They weren't hired to fight terrorists in Iraq, but in an emergency situation, the Blackwater contractors understood the importance of the mission and the dangers faced by their short-handed government comrades. They responded like soldiers and placed their lives in more danger by volunteering their abilities to help their comrades and serve the greater good for their nation and Iraq.
Blackwater helping to fight terrorists in 2004-2006 Iraq: right. Rep Holt: wrong.
Eric (400th post!)
Blackwater contractors helped fight terrorists in Iraq. Good thing, right? To my dismay, this story is being reported as a scandal.
The situation in 2004-2006 Iraq was critical and worsening. The terrorists were escalating their campaign and trying their hardest to collapse the fragile, post-Saddam Iraq with massive death and destruction. Iraqi society was tearing apart and people were dying in the streets by the hundreds. With the insurgency in Iraq reaching its height, the highest imperative for our side was to do everything we could do in order to protect Iraq and the Iraqi people from the terrorists. The Blackwater contractors, already hired and on the ground, were at least as well prepared as their overwhelmed counterparts in the CIA and US military. As the NY Times article describes the Blackwater contractors, "many of them [were] former members of units of the Navy Seals or Army Delta Force".
Despite the exigent circumstances of 2004-2006 Iraq, Representative Rush D. Holt believes the use of Blackwater contractors was "a scandal" and "very troubling to a lot of people.”
I disagree with Representative Holt. Not using the best people who were available on the ground at that time under those circumstances in Iraq would have qualified as 'very troubling' and a 'scandal'. Those Blackwater contractors should be commended, instead of treated as criminals. They weren't hired to fight terrorists in Iraq, but in an emergency situation, the Blackwater contractors understood the importance of the mission and the dangers faced by their short-handed government comrades. They responded like soldiers and placed their lives in more danger by volunteering their abilities to help their comrades and serve the greater good for their nation and Iraq.
Blackwater helping to fight terrorists in 2004-2006 Iraq: right. Rep Holt: wrong.
Eric (400th post!)
Friday, 11 December 2009
Closer reading of Nobel speech: Obama redefined "just war" and justified Iraq intervention
Many columns and blog posts about President Obama's Nobel speech have mistaken this statement as his operating definition of "just war":
Eric
The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.In fact, the president considers that definition obsolete and used it as a reference point to redefine "just war" for the 9/11 generation to include American-led liberal military interventions:
And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace. . . . So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.Some pundits have also tried to find a criticism of the Iraq intervention in the speech. However, in defining “just war” for the 9/11 generation, Obama actually raised all the justifications for the Iraq intervention, though conspicuously without citing Operation Iraqi Freedom. The president’s message was plain: when non-military means fail to achieve the “imperatives of peace” - which is what happened for Saddam’s Iraq - then the “instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace”. Compare the following criteria for military intervention from President Obama's Nobel speech to the justifications for taking military action against Saddam's Iraq in President Clinton's 1998 speech and President Bush's 2002 speech:
To begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation.Add: "stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region" and the above paragraph about development and security match our post-war efforts, most notably the COIN "Surge", to build the peace in Iraq after regime change. I posted comments about Obama's speech and OIF on The Strategist blog, which belongs to a poli sci guy.
Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait -- a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.
And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.
I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.
America's commitment to global security will never waver.
First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.
One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons
But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.
The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.
For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict.
It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can't aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.
Eric
Thursday, 10 December 2009
Jeremy Lin
Harvard senior Jeremy Lin is the starting point guard for the Harvard Crimson and featured in this ESPN article. I've read about him before, so I'm surprised I haven't already written a post about him. His parents are Taiwanese immigrants and he was born and raised in California. The Harvard background isn't what makes him special. Many Taiwanese American kids make it to Harvard and the Ivy League at large. (Heck, even I'm an Ivy League grad.) Jeremy stands out for his athletic achievement as a basketball player at a position at a level where a Taiwanese American of his background is entirely unexpected. Before his MVP level play at Harvard, he was the California high school basketball player of the year among a host of other awards and achievements. There's even talk he might make it onto an NBA squad.
According to the ESPN article, he just wants to be known as a basketball player. Well, like it or not, he's a role model, he's representing us, and we're all rooting for him. On Jan 29, Harvard will be playing at Columbia at 7:00 PM. Gotta be there.
31JAN10 update: I watched him play in person at Columbia on Friday. I paid $10 for a standing room only seat ticket, but was able to get a decent seat in the bleachers. Tepid game from Lin. He only had one memorable assist, one memorable drive and one memorable 3-pointer, and Harvard still won by 30. Many Asian Harvard alumni and family came to watch.
Eric
According to the ESPN article, he just wants to be known as a basketball player. Well, like it or not, he's a role model, he's representing us, and we're all rooting for him. On Jan 29, Harvard will be playing at Columbia at 7:00 PM. Gotta be there.
31JAN10 update: I watched him play in person at Columbia on Friday. I paid $10 for a standing room only seat ticket, but was able to get a decent seat in the bleachers. Tepid game from Lin. He only had one memorable assist, one memorable drive and one memorable 3-pointer, and Harvard still won by 30. Many Asian Harvard alumni and family came to watch.
Eric
Wednesday, 9 December 2009
President Obama accepting the Nobel Peace Prize today: golden opportunity to advance Pax Americana
Today, President Obama will accept his Nobel Peace Prize. When the award was announced, I was suspicious of the Nobel committee's intentions for awarding President Obama the prize over several liberal reformers, similar to 2003 Iranian recipient Shirin Ebadi, from illiberal parts of the world.
The timing, however, has turned out to be fortuitous. Coming so soon after his West Point speech, President Obama has a golden opportunity today in Oslo to uphold our definitively progressive liberal strategy in the War on Terror, define the enemy, and explain why and how we are building peace through war, such as the spectrum of peace operations of COIN. He should give credit to American and allied soldiers as champions in the cause of peace who are confronting intolerable brutal forces. My Feb 2007 Spec article When Anti-War is Anti-Peace is dated, but it's roughly the direction I'd like the president to take. He should also stand up for the liberal reformers from illiberal places who were passed over in order to give him the prize and speak out specifically on Shirin Ebadi and the state of Iran.
Given that President Obama has embraced President Bush's liberal foreign policy, it would be decent of him to share credit with President Bush today, but I doubt that will happen. Nonetheless, I hope President Obama rises to the opportunity on a unique world stage to advance the War on Terror and reinvigorate the global liberalizing influence of Pax Americana.
Update: Speech transcript here.
Grade: B-, or President Obama addressed most of the above key points with his typical rhetorical aplomb, but he spoke broadly about Pax Americana and other liberal ideas in lieu of specifics. For the speech, the president used a pedantic political science tact to lecture about progressive liberalism and Pax Americana as the contextual basis of our foreign policy. He made the point that the conception of war as furthering violence and pacifism as furthering peace is practically unrealistic, although I think he could have made the point more clear. My main disappointment is the speech did not forcefully uphold our liberal strategy in the War on Terror, nor explain COIN and the peace-building role of American and allied militaries in depth. Instead, Obama only generally touched on the peace-keeping role of our soldiers, the need to effectively confront rogue nations and "evil" actors, and the requirement of security for peace.
The speech took many directions and the latter half of the speech especially seemed to lose focus in places. I mean, "law of love"? Maybe political science classes were different when Obama attended Columbia, but I don't recall learning that particular concept as a Columbia poli sci major. By including so many subjects in his speech with so few specifics, I'm not confident he made a lasting impression with the global audience.
President Obama showed again how much he and President Bush are like-minded liberals, although he won't admit it and maybe that's for the best. If liberals around the world are incapable of taking responsibility for their betrayal of liberalism during the Bush administration, then perhaps they can at least rationalize supporting the same liberal policies by attributing them to Obama. Interestingly, President Obama raised every justification for our Iraq intervention without defending Operation Iraqi Freedom by name, perhaps a calculation meant to protect the bases of OIF for his own use while still preserving the global good will for him that's defined by the vilification of Bush.
As a campaigner, Obama was mindful of speaking to different audiences and he's continued that trait into his presidency. That was effective when Candidate Obama wanted members of diverse audiences to believe he said what they preferred to hear, which worked very well for him in winning the presidency. At his speech-making best as president, however, he shows thoughtfulness and an understanding of different, even contradictory, sides of an issue from which he forms a rational conclusion. I fear his Nobel Peace Prize speech was delivered more like a campaign speech than a presidential speech and the mash of ideas will fail to convey the clear impressions or take-away points needed to effectively advance American foreign policies with the global audience.
My highest hope for President Obama is as a superior spokesman than uncharismatic President Bush for our nation and the War on Terror, so I hope our president got his point across. But whether he did or not, the president lost a golden opportunity to explain COIN and our progressive liberal strategy in the War on Terror to the world.
Add: Political scientist Walter Russell Meade's reaction. The magazine he refers to, American Interest, may also be worth checking out. I'm not the only person to notice Obama's speech was pedantic - Daniel Drezner points out the IR theories in Obama's speech.
Eric
The timing, however, has turned out to be fortuitous. Coming so soon after his West Point speech, President Obama has a golden opportunity today in Oslo to uphold our definitively progressive liberal strategy in the War on Terror, define the enemy, and explain why and how we are building peace through war, such as the spectrum of peace operations of COIN. He should give credit to American and allied soldiers as champions in the cause of peace who are confronting intolerable brutal forces. My Feb 2007 Spec article When Anti-War is Anti-Peace is dated, but it's roughly the direction I'd like the president to take. He should also stand up for the liberal reformers from illiberal places who were passed over in order to give him the prize and speak out specifically on Shirin Ebadi and the state of Iran.
Given that President Obama has embraced President Bush's liberal foreign policy, it would be decent of him to share credit with President Bush today, but I doubt that will happen. Nonetheless, I hope President Obama rises to the opportunity on a unique world stage to advance the War on Terror and reinvigorate the global liberalizing influence of Pax Americana.
Update: Speech transcript here.
Grade: B-, or President Obama addressed most of the above key points with his typical rhetorical aplomb, but he spoke broadly about Pax Americana and other liberal ideas in lieu of specifics. For the speech, the president used a pedantic political science tact to lecture about progressive liberalism and Pax Americana as the contextual basis of our foreign policy. He made the point that the conception of war as furthering violence and pacifism as furthering peace is practically unrealistic, although I think he could have made the point more clear. My main disappointment is the speech did not forcefully uphold our liberal strategy in the War on Terror, nor explain COIN and the peace-building role of American and allied militaries in depth. Instead, Obama only generally touched on the peace-keeping role of our soldiers, the need to effectively confront rogue nations and "evil" actors, and the requirement of security for peace.
The speech took many directions and the latter half of the speech especially seemed to lose focus in places. I mean, "law of love"? Maybe political science classes were different when Obama attended Columbia, but I don't recall learning that particular concept as a Columbia poli sci major. By including so many subjects in his speech with so few specifics, I'm not confident he made a lasting impression with the global audience.
President Obama showed again how much he and President Bush are like-minded liberals, although he won't admit it and maybe that's for the best. If liberals around the world are incapable of taking responsibility for their betrayal of liberalism during the Bush administration, then perhaps they can at least rationalize supporting the same liberal policies by attributing them to Obama. Interestingly, President Obama raised every justification for our Iraq intervention without defending Operation Iraqi Freedom by name, perhaps a calculation meant to protect the bases of OIF for his own use while still preserving the global good will for him that's defined by the vilification of Bush.
As a campaigner, Obama was mindful of speaking to different audiences and he's continued that trait into his presidency. That was effective when Candidate Obama wanted members of diverse audiences to believe he said what they preferred to hear, which worked very well for him in winning the presidency. At his speech-making best as president, however, he shows thoughtfulness and an understanding of different, even contradictory, sides of an issue from which he forms a rational conclusion. I fear his Nobel Peace Prize speech was delivered more like a campaign speech than a presidential speech and the mash of ideas will fail to convey the clear impressions or take-away points needed to effectively advance American foreign policies with the global audience.
My highest hope for President Obama is as a superior spokesman than uncharismatic President Bush for our nation and the War on Terror, so I hope our president got his point across. But whether he did or not, the president lost a golden opportunity to explain COIN and our progressive liberal strategy in the War on Terror to the world.
Add: Political scientist Walter Russell Meade's reaction. The magazine he refers to, American Interest, may also be worth checking out. I'm not the only person to notice Obama's speech was pedantic - Daniel Drezner points out the IR theories in Obama's speech.
Eric
Raining today
I hope the weather today isn't a sign of doom or death, like it is in the movies. My mom is meeting her team of doctors today. The bad news got worse, but not as bad as it could be. Today will be a definitive step.
Meanwhile, I need to study. It's for me, but in some part, I owe this degree to her, too. Not in the same way as my college degree, though, which I entirely owed to her.
Eric
Meanwhile, I need to study. It's for me, but in some part, I owe this degree to her, too. Not in the same way as my college degree, though, which I entirely owed to her.
Eric
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)