'Terminator'-style Military Robots?

Attention given to military robots by the mainstream press attention has increased recently. Drones such as the Predator, a robotic drone (actually semi-autonomous, as it is actually tele-operated) have become an increasing part of the "G**T"(*)

Then just last week, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee disclosed that Predators have been operating out of a base located on Pakistani soil, causing a diplomatic row last week. And shortly after that disclosure, a drone attack killed 30 people in Pakistan, although the intended target (a Taliban leader) was apparently not killed.

On the heels of all of that comes a new report issued by the Office of Naval Research (part of the US Navy) and by three scientists at Cal Poly (Patrick Lin, PhD., George Bekey, PhD., and Keith Abney, M.A.) The study, entitled “Autonomous Military Robots: Risk, Ethics, And Design” appears to be the first of its kind produced by the military on the ethics of military robots, and covers a wide range of topics.

The mainstream press has picked up on the potential for a robot turning (or being turned) against its makers. The Times of London quotes one of the report’s authors, Patrick Lin, as saying “There is a common misconception that robots will do only what we have programmed them to do.”

FoxNews is running (as of this writing) a similar story on the report, entitled "Experts Warn of 'Terminator'-Style Military-Robot Rebellion."

The onus for the ONR Report may be the increasing use of robots by the military, a trend that will only increase in coming years. According to the ONR report, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 requires that by “2010, one-third of all operational deep-strike aircraft must be unmanned, and by 2015, one-third of all ground combat vehicles must be unmanned.”

The Report also explores the role that the Laws of War (LOW) (generally) and Rules of Engagement (ROE) (specific with respect to a mission or engagement) may play with an autonomous robot. While certain of the LOW/ROE may be challenged by autonomous robots (for example, who bears responsibility for a battlefield decision by a robot), the authors also indicate that unemotional robots may be less likely to commit atrocities.

The entire report is available here.

(*)- The struggle against terrorism that may become 'formerly known as' the "Global War on Terror"

Angler vs. Backseat

"Angler" is Vice President Dick Cheney's current Secret Service codename. (It is also the title of Bart Gelman's new book on Cheney.)

When he was Chief-of-Staff to Gerald Ford, his codename was "Backseat." His background -- a staffer at the highest level -- has given him an unprecedented ability to manipulate the White House staffing process. And his unprecedented access to a President who disdains details (according to Gelman's account.)

"Backseat" spent his formative years learning the ways of bureaucratic Washington: major policy decisions effected well below the "principal" (cabinet) or "POTUS" (Presidential) level; controlling a meeting by controlling the agenda; inserting allies throughout government to insure timely information is being reported back; and 'reaching down' through the layers of government to see real, raw information -- direct and unfiltered. (This last modus operandi was not limited to Iraqi or al Queda intelligence.)

As "Angler", Cheney was able to taking staffing to the next level. Unlike staff -- or even Cabinet principals -- the vice president cannot be fired. Further, Cheney scheduled regular lunches with 43, without any other staff; such unfettered access is the holy grail of White House personnel.

As "Angler", Cheney also removed himself -- and his thinking -- from political calculations. Gellman shows only one example of politics playing a role in Cheney's actions, and even that -- the use of the Klamath River for irrigation -- was more by accident. Cheney's Western-sensibility, and instinctive opposition to federal governmental intervention, ended up being good local politics in Oregon. But such political ramifications were by accident -- Gellman makes it clear that the politics were often the last thing from Cheney's mind.

Perhaps it is this element of "Angler" that is most interesting and surprising. For a person a heartbeat away from the peak of political power, Vice President Cheney seemingly spends no time thinking about politics. Indeed, highly political initiatives -- like funding for faith-based programs or No Child Left Behind -- are ignored by "Angler." The ultimate political insider has been transformed into a constitutional officer who rarely, if ever, considers grubby day-to-day politics.

World Series Champs & Hall of Famers (1991 - 2000)

2000 - New York Yankees (No HOFers yet; possible HOFers include P Mariano Rivera (197 out of 100 on Bill James' HOF Monitor), SS Derek Jeter (235/100), P Roger Clemens (331/100), OF Bernie Williams (133/100)).

1999 - New York Yankees (none; likely Rivera, Jeter, Clemens, Williams)

1998 - New York Yankees (none; likely Rivera, Jeter, Williams)

1997 - Florida Marlins (none; possible HOFers: P Kevin Brown (93/100); SS Edgar Renteria (94/100))

1996 - New York Yankees (3B Wade Boggs; possible HOFers: Jeter, Rivera, Williams)

1995 - Atlanta Braves 3B Chipper Jones (159.5/100), P Greg Maddux (255/100), P John Smoltz (167/100), P Tom Glavine (176/100))

1994 - Not played

1993 - Toronto Blue Jays (DH Paul Molitor; other likely HOFers: 2B Roberto Alomar (193/100), OF Ricky Henderson (183/100))

1992 - Toronto Blue Jays (DH Dave Winfield; other possible HOFers: Alomar, P Jack Morris (122.5/100; 0-2, 8.44ERA in WS), P David Cone (103/100))

1991 - Minnesota Twins (OF Kirby Puckett; other possible HOFers: Morris, P Rick Aguilera (90(!)/100))

Actual HOFers = 4
Projected HOFers = 27, 9 WS Championship Teams = 3.0 HOF/WS

Note: Morris also on 1993 TOR (7-12, 6.19), but did not pitch in WS.

The Super Bowl of Politics

With two major American spectator sports -- pro football and Presidential politics -- colliding on television this January, it is worth a closer observation.

In football, the rhythm of the regular season gives way to Wild Card Weekend, followed by the Divisional Playoffs and (this upcoming weekend), the Conference Championships. All of that excitement, with TV bringing us a new game from a new location each weekend, leads up to the preeminent sporting event in professional sports: the Super Bowl.

With locations picked years in advance (get your plane tickets for Supe XLV, to be held in the Dallas Metroplex), the location becomes -- for the week leading up to the game -- the sports and entertainment capital of the world. The telecast itself is the ultimate marketing spot for consumer advertisers. Anyone out there remember Bud Bowl?



Presidential politics, in contrast, begins (at least on TV) with the "Super Bowl": Iowa, and to a greater extent, the New Hampshire Primary. While Iowa is dispersed and the caucus system is archaic, New Hampshire (especially this year) provided everything a political junkie could want: two competitive races, a navigable city (Manchester), and a primary that ended up with a surprise ending.

Fox and CNN come up weeks in advance to build elaborate sets and backdrops. You can't drive for 5 minutes in Manchester on the weekend before the Primary without running into a candidate or a national political journalist -- or both. The campaigns themselves, having been in the states for well over a year before Election Day, secure the best venues for their election night speeches. The whole week becomes an elaborate set-piece that culminated with John McCain reprising his NH win in the very same hotel room where he claimed victory in 2000.



But now that the political Super Bowl is over, its off to the equivalent of Wild Card Weekend. The locations move each night, and the campaigns are put together with tape and baling wire. Instead of elaborately staged victory parties, even Mitt Romney looked spontaneous last night with his sleeves rolled up and his hair (or at least 3 strands) slightly askew:



The wildness will continue for at least three more weeks, to February 5th. At that point, perhaps the writers' strike will have been resolved.

Final Rovian Thoughts

The Karl Rove chapter has come to a quiet, anti-climatic end in Washington. Instead of a historic realignment, he contributed to a Republican disaster in the latest mid-term elections, and the legacy of his most famous client -- George W. Bush -- remains enmeshed in the shifting sands of Iraq.

A brand-new postmortem (written before the announcement) by Joshua Green in the Atlantic summarizes the flaw as pursuing the permanent -- and divisive -- campaign into domestic politics:

Entitlement reform is a different animal. More important than reaching a majority is offering political cover to those willing to accept the risk of tampering with cherished programs, and the way to do this is by enlisting the other side. So the fact that Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress after 2002—to Rove, a clinching argument for confrontation—actually lessened the likelihood of entitlement reform. Congressional Republicans didn’t support Rove’s plan in 2003 to tackle Social Security or immigration reform because they didn’t want to pass such things on a party-line vote. History suggested they’d pay a steep price at election time.

Rove was without equal at hard-hitting, partisan campaigns that sought a governing majority of 50.1%; like much else in politics, his greatest strength became his greatest weakness.

Rove's departure brings a thematic end to the Bush Presidency. After tax cuts and 'No Child Behind', the domestic agenda is over. All that is left is the resolution of Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan, and -- perhaps -- Iran.

But Rove must have known that his departure will have serious consequences to the 43 Presidency. So we must ask: Why Now?

A Democratic Primary Being Fought on Foreign Policy?

The Obama campaign is emailing the above video this afternoon -- taken from last night's AFL-CIO debate -- and arguing that:

Barack challenged the conventional thinking that allowed the Bush administration and its enablers to authorize and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation

At the start of the exchange, Obama makes not-so veiled reference to those who voted for the Iraq war, and then defends his statements earlier this week about circumstances under which he might chase al Queda in northwest Pakistan. Hillary responds by saying that those running for President have a duty not to engage in hypotheticals, especially those that might de-stabilize a putative ally like Pakistan. Dodd then follows up on the same point, and Obama tries to parry.

What is interesting is not just the interaction, but rather the tone; all three contenders are engaged in the details of foreign policy and possible projections of American power. In 2000, the foreign policy discussions seemed to be at the level of 'nation building' and, in the case of George W. Bush, knowing the names of foreign leaders (the (in)famous Andy Hiller pop quiz was held in November, 1999; ironically Pakistan's Gen. Musharraf (who had just seized power in a military coup) was one of the correct 'answers' to Hiller's quiz. In a comparable time in the campaign this year, candidates are discussing the various factions within the Pakistan ruling elite.)

The focus on foreign policy -- and even the knowledge exhibited by the candidates -- has to be a positive for Democrats as a whole, regardless of who wins the nomination, or even this week's dust-up. The future of American foreign policy has to be moved beyond the exit from Iraq, and the sooner the better.

Finally: the Hiller/Bush video is not easily accessible on the web. If the same exchange happened today, it would easily have been one of the most popular YouTube videos of the year.

The End of an Era

The short, unhappy life (or at least Red Sox career) of Willie Mo Pena is in its apparent death throes as the outfielder has cleared waivers, and can be traded to any other team before the end of the month. With the signing of Bobby Kielty to a minor league deal -- but one that allows him to opt out if not promoted within a week -- the writing was on the wall for Pena.

The Sox apparently tried to move Pena at the trading deadline, but could find no takers. Now, the outfielder will probably attract a prospect (read: unknown talent) or two, at most. Although in possession of unquestioned power, Pena never found a place in Boston; he is playing tonight in a likely attempt to 'showcase' his ability.

Although the final chapter will not be set unless and until Pena moves, here's the way it looks tonight:

Pena
2006 24 BOS AL  84G  276AB   36R   83H  15 2B  2 3B  11HR   42RBI   20BB  90K  .301BA  .349OBP  .489SLG
2007 25 BOS AL  68G  147AB   17R   32H   8 2B  1 3B   5HR   16RBI   13BB  55K  .218BA  .290OBP  .388SLG

Arroyo:
2006 29 CIN NL  14W  11L  35G  3CG   1SO   240.7IP  222H   98R   88ER  31HR   64BB  184K 3.29ERA 1.188WHIP
2007 30 CIN NL   4W  12L  23G  1CG   0SO   141.0IP  157H   83R   74ER  14HR   48BB   99K 4.72ERA 1.454WHIP
In 2006, Arroyo also finished 23rd in MVP voting, and was an All-Star.

McCain's Meltdown Continues

The on-going highway accident that is the McCain 2008 campaign continued yesterday, with departure of two more senior aides, on the heels of a not-so-flattering WSJ story earlier in the week about the campaign contracts held by Rick Davis' private company. Mr. Davis is also acting campaign manager.

Unlike previous presidential campaigns (Gore 2000 and Kerry 2004), where staff changes signaled a new direction (and better performance from the respective campaigns), these changes appear to be the sign of despair and disorganization (like Dean post-Iowa in 2004), rather than a candidate making tough choices. At this point, it's hard to see McCain -- who was considered to be the front-runner less than 6 months ago -- righting the ship.

Coos County

Hillary's first NH appearance this weekend received excellent reviews; great front page coverage in the Boston Globe (the "paper of record" for much of Southern New Hampshire, where the vast majority of the votes are). A subtle but savvy decision was the one to make the first appearance in beleaguered Berlin, in northern Coos County.

Berlin (pronounced with an accent on the first syllable) was in tough shape economically back in 1999-2000. Since then, apparently, the last paper mill (there were 4 at one time) has closed, and the city has hemorrhaged jobs.

In 2000, when she began her campaign for the Senate seat, Hillary eschewed the West Side and spent day after day "upstate", listening to the towns and cities that had been left behind in the go-go-1990s. Perhaps with a parallel, Saturday's visit was one of the places in the coasts (and in NH) that directly mirror the experience of the industrial midwest.

All that being said, Hillary promised Berliners that she wouldn't forget them. Query: how do residents of Plattsburgh and Watertown, and other upstate NY towns that were part of the 2000 "listening tour" feel?