"The Burden of Command"

MSNBC interview with NY News reporter James Gordon Meek.

Owning Two Wars -- and the Presidency

A few weeks ago in the WSJ, Peggy Noonan wrote of the moment in which a President 'owns' his Presidency. (The context was, in typical Noonan fashion, passive/aggressive partisanship: At what point does the public make Obama responsible for the economy? Her answer: right about now.)

In the last two weeks, it appears that Obama has taken ownership of the role of Commander-in-Chief. In the early morning of Thursday, October 29th, the President paid a late night visit to Dover Air Force Base as the bodies of 18 American servicemen who had died in Afghanistan were returned home.

A week ago, on Thursday, November 5th, thirteen people were killed (and almost 30 wounded) by alleged gunman Nidal M. Hasan. Although Obama's immediate response was criticized by some, his speech on Tuesday at the Fort Hood memorial service was well-received.

And finally, yesterday, he laid a wreath at Arlington for the first time as President, and then stopped by Section 60 of the Cemetery; the visit was recounted in a moving piece by a journalist who was there "off duty."

Against the backdrop of a pending decision on strategy in Afghanistan, Obama seems to have grown into the role of C-in-C this past fortnight.

And his actions over the past few weeks bring into sharper relief the outrageousness of the "dithering" statement by former VP Dick Cheney.

There's an App for That?!?!

The growing proliferation of robots (corresponding to the ubiquity of technology and/or drop(s) in prices) continues.

The latest example: as mentioned earlier, a lab at MIT has developed a application for the iPhone that allows a user to connect to a relatively cheap ($5,000 or so) quad-rotor helicopter available from Ascending Technologies GmbH.

What is key to the application is that the robot is finding 'its own way.' As demonstrated in the video, the user simply identifies an end point, and the mini-UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) plots its path to the target. (Presumably avoiding obstacles, like the vertical column seen in the video, in the process.)

The UAV is equipped with a camera, making the military applications obvious: seeing around corners, looking at the top of roofs for snipers, examining possible IEDs. But the availability of the components (and lost cost thereof) will mean that 'bad guys' will also have the technology. In addition, one could imagine civilian users who might also use the device for less-than-admirable ends.

In her talk on Tuesday, Dr. Cummings alluded to the Federal Aviation Administration's concern about these micro UAVs. Indeed, the FAA has started to issue regulations and related certificates for such UAVs: Honeywell received one of the first certificates in 2005 to test an untethered UAV on the Laguna Indian Reservation (about 45 miles from Albuquerque); interestingly, the FAA, in issuing such a certificate, evaluates the airworthiness of the entire system, not just the drone. Among the FAA's current requirements, there must be a ground observer or an accompanying “chase” aircraft must maintain visual contact with the drone, to insure that there is no interference with other aircraft. In February 2007, the FAA published medical certification requirements for pilots who are 'operating' UAVs.

This field will clearly continue to grow, and the FAAs ability to safely manage US airspace will be an ongoing challenge. Introduction of such mini UAVs in a battlefield situation (over Afghanistan or Pakistan, for example) will require coordination between various service.

(As an aside, radio-controlled (RC) model aircraft are subject to other rules, and are not supposed to be flown more than 400 feet off the ground.)

Wired for War

"Wired for War", by P.W. Singer, is a far broader book that the title indicates (although the subtitle -- The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century does give some indication.) Rather than limit his inquiry into the the current state of the robotics world, Singer covers the entire gamut of how wars will be fought in the next century.

But he does spend some (first) exploring the current state of the world. He identifies two current robots: PackBot, built by iRobot; and Talon and its "pissed-off big brother" SWORDS (Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection System) built by Foster-Miller.

Singer considers himself a child of pop culture, and references to film, books, and even video games are littered throughout the text. Some of the references are direct, as when he wonders whether Star War's C-3PO will be the future shape of robots; others are more obscure. But Singer is at his best when he can merge the influence of science fiction -- from Asimov to the original Star Trek; from James Cameron (director of Terminator) to J.K. Rowling (the 'invisability cloak' described in Harry Potter is inspiring scientists today -- to show how culture influences scientists and their expectations of and for robotics.

Singer also wonders and writes about the role that robots will play in the warrior culture. Separation of the warrior from his opponent has long been a theme of technologic advance (after all, even Japanese samurai eventually acknowledged that their swords were no match for a peasant with a gun). But Singer notes that the very fact of "going to war" -- heading off to a distant place where the laws of normal society are suspended -- no longer applies when a Predator drone can be flown over Afghanistan by an operator who can finish his mission and be home in time for dinner.

The book also raises the topic related to robotics: artificial intelligence. As systems become more and more sophisticated, human oversight becomes an temporal impediment to resolving a conflict successfully. In other words, if machines are waiting for human approval of a pre-emptive attack, the opportunity will be lost, and the machine (and perhaps one or more humans) will suffer as the result. But the alternative: humans ceding control to machines without "human fail-safe" is a topic that, as Singer records, is not one very many scientists working in the field wish to discuss.

Singer does a admirable job of identifying issues that the new technology will raise. While he doesn't try to predict outcomes, he also points to a future that will continue to challenge us. The book is well-worth reading for those who are looking to quickly grasp a state of the robotics/AI world, as it applies to war-making. And in a post-9/11 environment, defense budgets and political resistance to casualties means that more, not less, resources will be available for placing machines "in harm's way."

A Trip to Where?!?!?

In light of the, um, colorful reception that POTUS-43 received in Baghdad over the weekend (see above)-- even in a controlled environment -- one wonders if the Secret Service is rethinking the wisdom of allowing POTUS-44 to make a speech in an Islamic capital, as has been rumored.

Regardless, the visual will almost certainly be different than the one this summer in Germany, simply because it's unlikely to be in such an unstructured environment:

Carrier

PBS' new 'miniseries', "Carrier" proved (so far) to be in the excellent tradition of the Ken Burns and similar documentaries. The fact that stuck out was the challenges of managing such a diverse group of Americans -- from all different economic, educational, and social backgrounds -- on a floating city that, by the way, is the most powerful weapon in the world today.

The rest of the week should be fascinating.

The Next Campaign Heats Up

Almost five years ago to the day, then-White House chief-of-staff Andrew Card noted that, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."

The Iraq War is not a 'new product', but it clear that a new campaign has begun to try and continue the Administration's efforts there. Yesterday, after months of denying a parallel between Iraq and Vietnam, the President in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, embraced the connection:

Finally, there’s Vietnam. This is a complex and painful subject for many Americans...Then as now, people argued the real problem was America’s presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end.

The argument that America’s presence in Indochina was dangerous had a long pedigree. In 1955, long before the United States had entered the war, Graham Greene wrote a novel called, "The Quiet American." It was set in Saigon, and the main character was a young government agent named Alden Pyle. He was a symbol of American purpose and patriotism -- and dangerous naivete. Another character describes Alden this way: "I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused."

After America entered the Vietnam War, the Graham Greene argument gathered some steam. As a matter of fact, many argued that if we pulled out there would be no consequences for the Vietnamese people...

Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left. There’s no debate in my mind that the veterans from Vietnam deserve the high praise of the United States of America. (Applause.) Whatever your position is on that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America’s withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like "boat people," "re-education camps," and "killing fields."

The President's personal relationship with Vietnam -- and for that matter, that of VP Cheney -- makes the parallel with Vietnam a remarkable one. And he seems to be implying that the killing at the end of the Vietnam conflict could have been avoided if the US had committed to a permanent and on-going presence there, as we did in Korea. Gen. David Patraeus is scheduled to speak, on September 11th no less, to Congress on the status of Iraq. The next (marketing) campaign for Iraq has begun.

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?

More on Iran

With its Iraq strategy still in limbo, the White House is nonetheless turning its sights to Iran, the Guardian (UK) reports this morning. The shift indicates a seeming rise in power of VP Dick Cheney, whose standing has suffered in recent weeks with his claim of being a 'fourth branch' and the commutation of his aide, Scooter Libby.

It is possible that this story has been leaked by the White House to put pressure on Iran to reach some sort of accommodation that allows IAEA inspections, like North Korea over the weekend. But the story also claims that a 'well-placed source in Washington' has said:

"Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."

The GOP and Iraq: More Dripping

Following in the footsteps of Dick Lugar, New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici (who coincidentally -- or not -- is up for re-election next year), moved away from his previous support of the President's policy in Iraq yesterday. And the quotes from Maine's Susan Collins indicate that others may soon follow -- or go further.

And the Senator perhaps most vocal in support of the war, John McCain, has his own election next year -- and there has been no indication that his loyalty to the President on the single most important foreign policy issue of the day has earned his any points, either in the White House or with GOP primary voters.

Dick Lugar, Meet David Stockman

Reliable GOP Senator -- and respected foreign policy mind(*) -- Richard Lugar raised eyebrows on Capitol Hill yesterday when he essentially declared that he has run of patience with the current strategy:

'In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved,' Lugar, R-Ind., said in a Senate floor speech. 'Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term.'

While Lugar's statement is probably the third or fourth biggest political news of the week (after, in no particular order, Dick Cheney's declaration of the Office of the Vice President as being a de facto fourth branch of government; cloture vote on the immigration law; the Washington Post's disclosures about Cheney's procedural end-arounds in the White House, and news about the 2008 GOP candidates (Fred Thompson's lobbying past, Mitt Romney's investment in his own campaign, Rudy's problems with the Catholic Church)), it was not missed by the White House. Apparently, Lugar has been 'invited ' to a sit-down -- or perhaps a visit to David Stockman's woodshed -- at the White House with NSA Stephen Hadley later in the week. No word on whether a 'surge' will be applied to Lugar himself.

(*-Ohio Senator George Voinovich echoed Lugar's remarks today, but the bet here is that Lugar's comments will carry more weight.)

The Battle of Algiers

When one watches the "The Battle of Algiers," it is hard to believe that the issues identified in the movie -- terrorism, reprisal, torture, martial law, Islamic resistance, and the clash of civilizations -- was not more well-known (or more widely-screened) before the war in Iraq. The Pentagon apparently watched it in during 2003 (according to the trailer above), but by that time, the policymakers had already determined to go to war.

(Also interesting: music for "La Battaglia di Algeri" was by Ennio Morricone.)

Photo of the Week (Again)

George Bush awards Presidential Medals of Freedom to George Tenet, Paul Bremer, and Tommy Franks in December, 2004.
Courtesy: MSNBC

Romney on Osama

In an Associated Press story last night, Governor Mitt Romney apparently discounted the importance of catching Osama bin Laden:

[Romney] said the country would be safer by only "a small percentage" and would see "a very insignificant increase in safety" if al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was caught because another terrorist would rise to power. "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person," Romney said.

More on Halberstam

Tributes to David Halberstam continue to be published. In today's New York Times, a long piece putting his ground-breaking Vietnam work into context, and then bringing the experiences forward to today and Iraq:

"I just never thought it was going to work at all,” Mr. Halberstam said of Iraq during a public appearance in New York in January. “I thought that in both Vietnam and Iraq, we were going against history. My view — and I think it was because of Vietnam — was that the forces against us were going to be hostile, that we would not be viewed as liberators. We were going to punch our fist into the largest hornets’ nest in the world."

Update: In an interesting tribute in the Washington Post, Henry Allen closes with:

For those who remember journalism back in a 1970s heyday they can't explain to to the young, Halberstam's death was not just the death of a hero, it was like the death of the great Hollywood stars -- Katharine Hepburn, Clark Gable. Who would replace them? No one has. Maybe no one ever does.

David Halbertsam, RIP

There are tributes and memorials to David Halbertsam (who died in a traffic accident last night in Northern California) all over the web this morning.

In looking back at his career, what stands out are the number of phrases or concepts - Vietnam (in 1965, well before Tet) as a 'quagmire', the 'best and brighest', the 'powers that be' - that he either invented or popularized.

In recent years, his sports books have seemed to have a Boston-bias, from the Ted Williams' Teammates to the profile of Bill Belichick.

He will be missed.

The "I" Word

In this week's Time Magazine, Joe Klein appears to edge close to the 'impeachment' argument, on a 'national interest' line of reasoning. Key quote:

I've tried to be respectful of the man and the office, but the three defining sins of the Bush Administration--arrogance, incompetence, cynicism--are congenital: they're part of his personality. They're not likely to change. And it is increasingly difficult to imagine yet another two years of slow bleed with a leader so clearly unfit to lead.

The strongest argument against impeachment, of course, is Dick Cheney.

UPDATE: He is not, apparently, hinting at impeachment.

Raw Video from Iraq

Well, not totally 'raw'...but pretty compelling: The Multi-National Force's YouTube channel.

Dripping Water 4

The retirement of Army Surgeon General Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley was announced this morning. Kiley was the commanding officer at Walter Reed from 2002 to 2004.

Must Viewing

John McSheffrey's op-ed (about watching the casket of a Iraq casualty being unloaded from his commercial flight) in today's Globe is powerful, but the effect of the accompanying photos (taken by McSheffrey with a camera-phone) is one example of why the on-line reading experience does not always measure up to the real-paper-and-newsprint. Here's hoping the Globe finds a way to get the photos on-line.

Late Update: The Globe has now placed at least one of McSheffrey's grainy -- but poignant -- photos on line with the story.