The climate science is in. The need for action is indisputable. The goal is clear. Or is it? Consider these few examples:
- The
ZIP It
Given that each ZIP code in the United States of America specifies a unique state, why do you need to specify a state whenever you’re filling out address fields to make a credit card purchase on the internet? Given the vagaries of brick-and-mortar mail delivery, especially in the pre-digital age, providing superfluous information on your envelop no doubt makes things easier for the postal service and provides some chance of rescue in the event of erroneous addressing. But whatever program processes your form after you hit “okay” ought to be able to infer the rest of the information from — 04616 is Brooklin, ME; 10003 is New York, NY; 20009 is Washington, DC — from the ZIP code alone rather than giving you an error message and demanding that you fill in the blanks.
The Case for PMCs?
I should say that I agree with the spirit of Reihan Salam’s argument that the egregious problems we’ve had with private military contractors in Iraq should serve, as such, to discredit the PMC problem. That the PMCs working in Iraq operate in a legal black hole is, in my mind, a huge problem but also an eminently solvable one.
That said, I’m not actually seeing the specific compelling argument in favor of such widespread use of PMCs. The arguments Reihan adduces sound to me like good arguments in favor of a professional military staffed by volunteers which, of course, is what we have.
I do, however, sometimes feel like there may be a decent case for something like the UN hiring PMCs do conduct certain kinds of humanitarian options. It’s pretty obvious why a standing UN military force might be a useful thing to have (could deploy quickly into a crisis as soon as the Security Council authorized it, etc.) and also pretty clear why you’re not likely to see one created. One could, however, much more easily imagine the Security Council creating a standing budget that could be used to fly a crack team of PMCs in somewhere to guard a refugee camp or impose a no-fly zone. Other times, this seems like a terrible idea: does Africa really need more mercenaries?
Boehner: Using Children For Political Messaging Is ‘Beyond The Pale,’ Unless I Do It
This week’s Democratic Radio Address will be delivered by a 12-year-old boy named Graeme Frost. Graeme was in a severe car accident three years ago, and received care under the SCHIP program.
In his address, Graeme will tell the story of how he “was in a coma for a week and couldn’t eat or stand up or even talk at first.” But, using coverage provided under SCHIP, Graeme received treatment that allowed him to return to school and begin to lead a normal life again.
A spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) sharply criticized Graeme’s appearance:
To use an innocent young child as a human shield and misrepresent the position of the president of the United States is, frankly, beyond the pale.
If there’s one thing Boehner just won’t tolerate, it’s politicians employing children for political purposes…
The SCHIP bill sent to Bush for authorization would provide essential medical care for four million children like Graeme Frost. Yet John Boehner seems more interested in playing partisan games than in supporting expansion of a program that is “widely regarded as one of the country’s greatest social policy successes.”
In The Navy
This is just one hilarious slide in an endlessly hilarious Navy PowerPoint presentation about how to convince the kids these days to join the military. Read Noah Schachtman and Entropic Memes for more. According to their own data, the real issue here actually has nothing to do with MySpace or emoticons and everything to do with the fact that the war in Iraq has — correctly — made military service look less appealing to people than it once did.
It’s one thing to ask people to sacrifice and risk their lives for a worthy cause, but it becomes another thing entirely when the main mission facing the military is fruitless war that appears to be continuing mostly to salve the egos of politicians.
Amtrack
Doesn’t it seem like Amtrak ought to buy Amtrack.com — I was really confused there for a minute. And now that I think about it, given that trains travel on tracks, shouldn’t Amtrak be called “Amtrack.” The name we’ve got seems more appropriate for Denmark or something.
Counterterrorism Analyst Raises Doubts About Alleged Death Of Top Al Qaeda Leader
Yesterday, the U.S. military announced that it had recently killed Abu Usama al-Tunisi, billed as “one of the most senior leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq.”
ThinkProgress noted yesterday that there was evidence to suggest al-Tunisi may have been killed a year ago. An online posted published in May 2006 by al Qaeda supporters hailed the “martyrdom” of al-Tunisi. A translation of the martyrdom message was posted online by terrorism analyst Evan Kohlmann in July 2006.
We left open the possibility that “there could have been two different Abu Usama al-Tunisis.” Writing on the Counterterrorism Blog, Kohlmann has weighed in to try to resolve the discrepancy:
Is it possible that there are two separate Abu Usama al-Tunisis serving as commanders for Al-Qaida in Iraq? Perhaps… but the likelihood of this incredible coincidence rapidly plummets when one considers that both of these men have been identically described as the commander of Al-Qaida’s Aeisha Brigade and active in the area of al-Yusifiya.
Indeed, the military announcement yesterday and the “martyrdom” announcement one year ago relate the same background information about al-Tunisi. Kohlmann continues:
If we put aside this theory, we are left with quite limited possibilities. It would seem that either Al-Qaida supporters were engaged in a deliberate misinformation campaign on their own password-protected chat forums, or else the U.S. military has potentially been the victim of questionable intelligence.
It should be further noted that Al-Qaida has prided itself in the past on providing accurate and timely information concerning the “martyrdom” of its military commanders. When former Al-Qaida commander Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. airstrike in mid-2006, the same Al-Hesbah Network [the network that reported al-Tunisi's death] was one of the first sources to correctly confirm the news of his death on behalf of Al-Qaida.
Given all the reasons Kohlmann suggests for doubting the military’s claims, there should have been a responsibility on the part of journalists to double-check this story before reporting it. However, today’s mentions of al-Tunisi in the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Associated Press fail to resolve — much less mention — this important discrepancy.
UPDATE: After doubts were raised about the recent death of al-Tunisi, counterterrorism analyst Evan Kohlmann wrote of confirmation that Tunisi did in fact die in a raid recently.
