Monday Mash-Up for July 30, 2007

~ Matt Armstrong

If you want another example of America’s failure to understand the importance of building a bigger and badder Internet infrastructure (hell the report I referenced misses the fundamental requirement!), compare the US e-Government initiative and the UK’s. It isn’t pretty.

“Universal internet access is vital if we are not only to avoid social divisions over the new economy but to create a knowledge economy of the future which is for everyone. Because it’s likely that the internet will be as ubiquitous and as normal as electricity is today. For business. Or for individuals.” – former Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2000

There are advantages to technology, although this example doesn’t include a resolution, in “the F-16 Does What?” segment Noah Schachtman clipped from Michael Yon’s post from .

Bourbon and Lawndarts and SWJ (don’t skip the comments on SWJ’s post) both have good posts on passing up H.R. McMaster, author of the superb Dereliction of Duty and COIN expert, for a promotion.

Foreign Policy cites the latest Pew Global Attitudes Survey showing Muslim support for suicide terrorism is waning. Think the attack on Iraqi soccer fans will be included in a public diplomacy campaign? What about an information operation?

Jason at ArmchairGeneralist also looks at American readiness today, another installment in his ongoing series titled “They’re Breaking My Army.”

Phil Carter posts on the growing girth of Americans and asks about its impact on recruiting in the future.

Paul Kretkowski at the Beacon posted his comments on the DNI Open Source Conference.

Steve Aftergood of FAS noted the Army has revisited its manual on Civil Affairs.

Lastly, adding to my earlier post IEDs as a Weapons of Strategic Influence, Noah writes on JIEDDO’s “strategic flaw” using an insider study (Word doc).

However, what the paper concludes, ultimately, is that the American effort against improvised bombs has been an “unsatisfactory performance [with] an incomplete strategy.”  What’s more, the JIEDDO-led struggle against the hand-made explosives has a “strategic flaw” that may keep the U.S. from ever gaining the upper hand on the bombers, Adamson notes: The lack of authority to knock bureaucratic heads.  He recommends instead establishing a separate, Executive Branch agency with a “laser-like concentration on the hostile use of IEDs.”   

Ideally, every element of the U.S. government would be teaming up to fight IEDs, Adamson writes.  Spies would be uncovering rings of bombers; FBI investigators would be helping examine forensic evidence; diplomats would be applying political pressure to catch bombers; other countries could even be chipping in, offering their own experience with improvised explosives. 

In practice, however, such coordination has been uneven, at best. The  “IA [interagency] process lacks a comprehensive strategy for defeating the global IED threat.”  Outside of the military, few agencies have viewed bomb-beating “as essential to their collective or unilateral missions.”  So they have given the problem short shrift.  For example, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms decided that, “due to resource constraints, [it] could not support greater involvement with DOD’s [the Department of Defense’s] IED effort,” Adamson notes.  Same goes for the nation’s spies.  “Internal reform and mission overload in the IC [intelligence community] cripple[d] its capacity for additional effort.”

Update on the America’s Crusader Castle in Baghdad

~ Matt Armstrong

What’s the latest on the American crusader castle nearing completion in Baghdad you ask? Well, it’s Congressional testimony on the slave-like conditions of the construction workers.  

So, let me get this straight. We build a large fortress in the middle of a foreign capital we occupy, and call it an embassy. We do everything we can to ostracize the locals with this secret construction, including making sure the site very visibly has 24/7 electricity while the rest of the country doesn’t (let alone Baghdad). (Let’s not ignore Bremer’s decision that Baghdad should no longer enjoy a preference for electricity.) We import labor from elsewhere in the world, because we don’t trust the locals whom we supposedly are working to build up to be partners, from countries with strategic stability issues. The workers, who are deceived on where they will work, are mistreated and paid poor wages. And then, the construction is so shoddy, the security force can’t move in.

What a brilliant demonstration of not just short-sightedness, but also of the utter failure of our leadership to comprehend the image we construct around the world.

To work just one point, would it have really have cost so much to pay the foreign workers a good wage (relative to their home country)? This would have not only increased moral, possibly increasing work quality, but also possibly bought off their families at home who benefit from American “largess”.

Perhaps largess isn’t the right word since the embassy, the largest in the world by far, is too small.

The best quote I’ve read (sorry, but I forgot who wrote it) on the US Embassy: it’s like Fort Apache in the middle of Indian country, except this time the Indians have mortars. For more on security of the embassy, read Jason’s post.

DOD Blogger Outreach update

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 12 Comments

Briefly: It took 23 minutes for Noah to connect Jason and myself with the PAO in charge of the “exclusive” Blogger Roundtable. We’re in and already information is flowing. This morning, the PAO sent details on the Center for Combating Terrorism report referenced in today’s NYT article by William Glaberson.

In hindsight, it seems Silverstein and Grim were both talking beyond each other. Perhaps over generalized, but tell me how many of the “Left” actually care to listen to DOD information? How many of the “Right” actually hear the concerns of the Left? From my experience, this is typical of American polarization. It is also contrary to my experience while attending a Welsh university just a few years ago where I enjoyed long conversations with friends from the (far) Left to the Right at the same time about American foreign policy and global security. Try that in the US and you’ll quickly devolve from a factual discussion to an emotional screamfest.

Resurrecting history: facing the unknown, destructive and negative threat

~ Matt Armstrong

In what would become known as the “Long Telegram” sent 9pm, February 22, 1946, to the Secretary of State, George Kennan ended with “practical deductions” that are worth reading in today’s environment. 

(1) Our first step must be to apprehend, and recognize for what it is, the nature of the movement with which we are dealing. We must study it with same courage, detachment, objectivity, and same determination not to be emotionally provoked or unseated by it, with which doctor studies unruly and unreasonable individual.

(2) We must see that our public is educated to realities of Russian situation. I cannot over-emphasize importance of this. Press cannot do this alone. It must be done mainly by Government, which is necessarily more experienced and better informed on practical problems involved. In this we need not be deterred by [ugliness?] of picture. I am convinced that there would be far less hysterical anti-Sovietism in our country today if realities of this situation were better understood by our people. There is nothing as dangerous or as terrifying as the unknown….

(3) Much depends on health and vigor of our own society. World communism is like malignant parasite which feeds only on diseased tissue. This is point at which domestic and foreign policies meets Every courageous and incisive measure to solve internal problems of our own society, to improve self-confidence, discipline, morale and community spirit of our own people, is a diplomatic victory over Moscow worth a thousand diplomatic notes and joint communiqués. If we cannot abandon fatalism and indifference in face of deficiencies of our own society, Moscow will profit–Moscow cannot help profiting by them in its foreign policies.

(4) We must formulate and put forward for other nations a much more positive and constructive picture of sort of world we would like to see than we have put forward in past. It is not enough to urge people to develop political processes similar to our own…

(5) Finally we must have courage and self-confidence to cling to our own methods and conceptions of human society. After Al, the greatest danger that can befall us in coping with this problem of Soviet communism, is that we shall allow ourselves to become like those with whom we are coping.

For those who frame the modern conflict in Cold War images, it might be useful to remember the real designs and purposes of early Cold War policies. For those who think public diplomacy is simply a beauty contest to hopefully “win hearts”, should go back to the aggressive “five-dollar, five syllable” foundation of public diplomacy as a psychological struggle for minds and wills against an enemy who understood perception management.

Tour update: Rasmussen and Cofidis are out

~ Matt Armstrong

Damn. Damn. Damn. I noted earlier that Rasmussen missed four tests over the last two years and was on thin ice. Today, after today’s grueling 218.5km ride with two beyond category climbs, two cat 1 climbs, and a cat 3 climb, Rabobank kicked Rasmussen off the team. His Tour is done. The reason: he lied about his whereabouts when he was supposed to be tested. As the BBC reports:

The Danish Cycling Union said last week Rasmussen had been warned for missing two random controls earlier this year and banned him from September’s world championships and the 2008 Olympic Games.

It later emerged he had already been warned twice by the International Cycling Union (UCI) for missing two separate random tests in the past 18 months.

Rabobank manager Theo de Rooy said he was aware of the missed tests and revealed he fined Rasmussen 10,000 Euros (£6,720)….

Tour de France director Christian Prudhomme said: “The important thing is not that he has been sacked by his team but that he will not be at the start of the stage tomorrow.

“We cannot say that Rasmussen cheated, but his flippancy and his lies on his whereabouts had become unbearable.

“I at the very least do not feel that I have been dishonoured.

“One cannot mock the Tour de France impunitively like those riders,” he added, referring to Rasmussen, Moreni and Vinokourov.

It is unclear if Team Rabobank will start tomorrow.

And, the rider who tested positive after Stage 11 was Cristian Moreni of Team Cofidis. The team of Brit Bradley Wiggins, who had been doing well, withdrew from the race   

“One mindless individual has put everybody at risk and it is a shame.”

London’s mayor Ken Livingstone, who watched Wiggins in the prologue, said: “This is deeply disappointing for Bradley Wiggins, who has had a fantastic Tour de France.

Perhaps this new tactic of withdrawing the whole team and not just ejecting a rider will put more pressure on teammates not to waste everyone’s time. Sponsors will definitely put a lot more pressure on riders to be clean.

Damn.

Tour de France

~ Matt Armstrong

This morning’s Vs coverage began with a rant by Al Trautwig on moral scandals in sports this month alone and in general. From the historic homerun record about to fall to a known steroid user to the sick dog-killing quarterback. He referenced the known use of enhanced performances in Ironman and recent allegations of their use in golf.

Missing from Al’s monologue and the following discussion by the rest of the Vs commentators was any reference to the allegations and suspicion against race leader Rasmussen, who was jeered when signing in for today’s stage. Rasmussen, who missed four tests in the past two years, was dropped from his national team last week. The Tour organizers have said if they would have known this, Rasmussen’s team, Rabobank, to withdraw him before the race start.

Alexandre Vinokourov may be innocent, but two tests on two days showed a positive and unlike Lance Armstrong, there is no undercurrent to take him down or friction between the ASO/L’Equippe and the rider. This is terrible news, but unfortunately the use of illegal enhancements is endemic by the peloton and must be addressed, even if it can never be completely cleaned up.

What happened? His dad’s blood is one allegation, which Vino smartly countered:

“I heard that I made a transfusion with my father’s blood,” Vinokourov said. “That’s absurd, I can tell you that with his blood, I would have tested positive for vodka.”

I haven’t heard anyone mention the terrific impact the withdrawal has had on Andreas Klöden.

At this time, we’re waiting to hear the identity of presumably another rider who tested positive on Stage 11.

On a positive note, if you’re online now, listen to live Eurosport coverage here. Listen to the the audio of their TV coverage while watching a GPS-feed map of lead, chase, and peloton. It’s sweet, plus the commentary is constant, deeper, and overall superior to some other options you may have.

On the Blogger Outreach (updated)

~ Matt Armstrong

There’s been a backlash against Ken Silverstein’s post on the Pentagon’s Blogger Outreach program. It may be that the one paragraph I pulled and questioned may not be entirely accurate. That said, the rest of the post still stands questioning to the role and purpose of Public Affairs. For a discussion on PA, see the comments on my original post.

See Silverstein’s update today. The intent of the blogger roundtable seems to be perception management by the Administration to. Charlie Quidnunc at wizbang, responding to Silverstein’s asking “how they would feel if a group of handpicked, administration-friendly liberal bloggers had done the same thing during the Clinton years,” said

Isn’t that what happens every day to the journalists covering Iraq? (Note the snicker quotes for Mike Drummond.) Don’t they just parrot all the Democratic talking points spreading anti-administration gospel? We’re just fighting back against their spin.

Not the best choice of words by Quidnunc, but perhaps befitting of the reality. 

MountainRunner isn’t playing politics here but simply highlighting the overt political manipulations by the Pentagon’s public affairs apparatus (see Catharsis’s comments on OCPA on my earlier post). I agree with the need to get the word out of successes. Like a tree falling in the forest, if no one knows you’re winning, you’re not winning.

That said, the Blogger Roundtable seems to be a function of perception management more than PA, not having sat in on one and based on Silversteins arguments, which are more persuasive than Grim’s. Now granted the Roundtable can’t include every blog out there, but Quidnunc and others seem to parrot the undesirability of a contrarian view an themselves implicitly parrot the “you’re with us or against us” mantra.  

So let me modify Silverstein’s question to his readers: is it the Pentagon’s responsibility or duty to influence US domestic public opinion?

The US military is sworn to uphold the Constitution and is beholden to two masters: the President as well as the Congress. Since World War II, the uniformed military has realized its place in between these two and manipulated the relationship extensively. However, the creators and managers of the Roundtable are civilian appointees, not uniformed personnel. Does this change your answer?

IEDs as “Weapons of Strategic Influence”

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 1 Comment

Armchair Generalist and Plontius discussed IED’s as Weapons of Strategic Influence last month. Some thoughts as Plontius apparently didn’t understand the real, and intended, ability of IEDs to influence public perceptions, and thus opinions, through both direct and indirect actions.

First, Plotinius looked at the mission of the Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO). JIEDDO sees IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) for what they are: tools of influence. IED’s cannot kill enough personnel or destroy enough material to reduce or eliminate American operational capabilities. But through persistence, they can, and have, cause a change in tactics, and posture, to achieve or supplement other informational victories.

IEDs, by forcing a change in tactics and openness alter the effectiveness of American military and civilian personnel. IEDs influence public perception of security not only in Iraq, but around the world, most notably in the United States. As a personal example, the mere suggestion that I might go to Iraq, Wife of MountainRunner immediately responded with a scenario of MountainRunner being killed by an IED. The inability of US forces to protect their own is amplified by insurgent media as well as domestic media, especially as casualties mount.

Continue reading “IEDs as “Weapons of Strategic Influence”
“ →

“We in the United States are in deep technological trouble.”

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 1 Comment

No kidding?! A first-time computer user gets a 40gb connection, Korea enjoys 45mb service (South Korea of course, DPRK does have its own national intranet, but the speed… ?), and meanwhile PeoplePC still advertises dial-up in the US where “high-speed” is considered 3mb-8mb.

But wait, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology doesn’t think America’s backbone is a source of trouble. The three problems are: visas, the lack of grand visions, and the third are pervasive sensor networks (“tiny, self-powered motes that spread through the environment, collecting data on pollution, or climate, or population movements and relay it back to users). Oh, and fourth is a more reliable Internet.

Actually increasing speed requires infrastructure investment, something the Administration clearly thinks is best left up to the private sector (update here).

Thinking robots

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 5 Comments

My mind is on robots right now (it is actually directly on target of the core mission of this blog… more to be revealed later)… follow me there and watch this clip. The beginning is ok, but my favorite is the last third when they start the “Pacific Islander” dancing.

Feeling left out…

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 7 Comments

Ken Silverstein follows up on a previous post of his about… 

a program run by the Pentagon’s Office of Public Affairs. This program seeks to bypass the mainstream press by working directly with a carefully culled list of military analysts, bloggers, and others who can be counted on to parrot the Bush Administration’s line on national security issues.

I’m a milblogger, off the beaten path, but still a milblogger. Heck, I’m even card-carrying (not much a profile, I know, but still…). Well, perhaps I won’t parrot somebody’s line (unless I agree 100%), so I might not have what Silverstein sees as entry creds.

Not to restate the obvious, but OPA isn’t practicing “Public Affairs” as much as “Private Affairs” because, well, they aren’t exactly reaching out the public. I remember debates within the “public diplomacy” crowd that said if it ain’t wide open, it ain’t “public diplomacy”. We know there are similar debates in the PA community. Remember OSI?

If PA is used to speak directly to the US public (PA officers speak to foreign publics, but nevermind that for now) and they have an inherent responsibility to tell the truth, what part of the truth is absent from the OPA conference calls that a simple guy like me can’t be in on?

What does this say about the current purpose of PA? Where does it fit into Strategic Communications, that concept that may be DOD’s answer to Public Diplomacy, a concept that is so poorly defined and executed that a new “theory” of “smart power” is required to return PD to its roots? But perhaps I digress….

Admin note: this post seems as good as any to create a new category on “public affairs” to focus on IO focused on US domestic audiences, a topic I had lumped into PD for simplicity.

Armut Bekämpfen mit “Blackface” (updated)

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 6 Comments

sondernuberhauptnicht Fighting poverty and illiteracy in Africa with blackfaced kids. Brilliant! Why I didn’t think of that? Right, I know why…

Looking at this as a Barnettian (does it sound like “Martian” or “bar-net-ian”?), this is another example of how elements in the Core don’t get the Gap. And like Pink Floyd’s lament that you can’t eat your pudding if you don’t eat your meat, you can’t really help if you don’t understand who you’re helping. (See Brea’s posts on Bono and for real fun consider the requirements of counterinsurgency and the requirements of understanding who, what, and why.)

(BTW- if you have any interest in Africa, read Jen Brea)

pk-100507mit-kraemer