Category Archives: Security

NeoCons back to the future

I have to admit I am really confused by the new US neocon strategy to say that they had nothing to do with the failure of the neocon strategy.

Another top neocon, Ken Adelman, had assured the administration in February 2002 that “liberating” Iraq would be a “cakewalk,” but today disavows all responsibility with how the venture has turned out.

There is nothing more annoying than having someone say that a plan is low or even no-risk, and then blame the operator(s) if the plan fails. Reminds me of some big software deals where the salesmen constantly say that everything will just “plug-and-play”, when those who know better understand that they really mean “plug-and-pray”.

Speaking of prayer…

Joshua Muravchik, a leading conservative scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, agreed that the neocon role has been overstated.

“In reality, of course, we don’t wield any of the power that contemporary legend attributes to us. Most of us don’t rise at the crack of dawn to report to powerful jobs in government,” he said in an article in Foreign Policy magazine.

“But it is true that our ideas have influenced the policies of President George W. Bush, as they did those of President Ronald Reagan. That does feel good. Our intellectual contributions helped to defeat Communism in the last century and, God willing, they will help to defeat jihadism in this one.”

In other words, don’t blame us when things fall apart, but we’d sure like to take credit for anything good that happens. Sounds like the sort of consultants you are better off never hiring.

The sad irony to Muravchik’s point is that the Soviet Union unilaterally stood down from the arms race because Gorbachev brought a reasoned and rational focus to his role and called upon Reagan to follow his lead. He started a process whereby the USSR could finally recognize that it had been run so poorly that it was over-committed to the war in Afghanistan, overspending on defense initiatives, and unable to keep up with the economic growth and expansion of the US. He argued for a more diplomatic, less militant, foreign policy, just like he did when he warned that Bush and Blair would regret their decision to invade Iraq.

Frankly, I guess I am truly disappointed by the neocons for mistaking the diplomatic compliance of Reagan and his cooperation with Gorbachev as some kind of clarion call for future half-baked unilateral military intervention into the Middle East. Instead, I thought they would recognize that China’s economic strength and influence in developing markets poses the same challenge to the US that the US once posed to the USSR. I thought they would try to avoid past mistakes (as Gorbachev suggested) rather than become the image of the enemy they thought they destroyed. Perhaps most notably, I do not see how they could have thought that pride and greed are a sound foundation for foreign policy. Harpers provides some insight into how the neocon strategy was a disaster waiting to happen:

The problem is that governments, even neoconservative governments, rarely get the chance to prove their sacred theory right: despite their enormous ideological advances, even George Bush’s Republicans are, in their own minds, perennially sabotaged by meddling Democrats, intractable unions, and alarmist environmentalists.

Iraq was going to change all that. In one place on Earth, the theory would finally be put into practice in its most perfect and uncompromising form. A country of 25 million would not be rebuilt as it was before the war; it would be erased, disappeared. In its place would spring forth a gleaming showroom for laissez-faire economics, a utopia such as the world had never seen. Every policy that liberates multinational corporations to pursue their quest for profit would be put into place: a shrunken state, a flexible workforce, open borders, minimal taxes, no tariffs, no ownership restrictions.

Of course, if you flatten the playing field and erase the rules, you might not like it when someone shows up that you simply can’t beat, or the tide turns from cooperative to contentious hard work and your hope for return on investment was based entirely on implied rules of engagement. This of course raises the question of whether the neocons were just sitting in the back row making suggestions to the Bush administration, or whether they were actively driving the Iraq bus while Bush gamely rode along?

Slate had an interesting opinion piece in 2004 describing the neocon foreign policy role in the Bush administration:

In December 2002, Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser and Vice President Cheney’s national security advisor, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, acting together, maneuvered Condoleezza Rice into appointing Elliott Abrams to the position of special assistant to the president and senior director for the Middle East at the National Security Council. This appointment gave the neocons everything they wanted — the NSC, Executive Office of the President, Office of the Vice President, the Pentagon, a cornered director in George Tenet at CIA, and Wurmser at State.

The neocons had control of the information reaching the president and a channel for their pseudo-intelligence product from Wolfowitz and Feith’s secret Pentagon Office of Special Plans. The only wild card was Colin Powell and State’s elite and independent Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR).

[…]

INR kept telling Powell the truth about Saddam’s nonexistent WMD. State’s Future of Iraq project, led by a career Foreign Service officer, who was cold-shouldered by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, laid out what might happen if we took over control of Iraq. Unfortunately, even the sober minds of INR could not stop Powell from lending his credibility to the “unfortunate error” show at the U.N. Security Council.

That pretty-much says to me that the whole debacle is, in fact, more proof of the disaster of neocon strategy. If nothing else, the neocons had successfully gained so much control of the administration that there was virtually only one source of information allowed — that which suited the neocon strategy. Such amazing power coupled with blinkered pride, arguably fueled by Halliburtonesque greed, is hardly the sort of thing you can overlook when wondering where things went wrong. I mean they might have been able to make their plan workable in a utopian country endowed with a strong, secure infrastructure and a friendly yet competitive population (in the real world, the only thing close to that is usually a result of years of friendly and progressive economic/public policy balance — not exactly Iraq under Saddam), but to completely tear down all the rules and regulations of a country, fail to establish a secure foundation, and then just expect a “honeypot” approach to attract more good flies than bad…that totally defies the fundamentals of security, as well as common sense.

Mexico bans US lettuce

I had not heard about this until I read Rep Sam Farr’s letter regarding spinach. Freshcut reports that Mexico recently banned import of US lettuce due to health (security) concerns:

The Mexican government claims the ban is a preventative measure, but gave no timetable for when the ban would be lifted other than to say until U.S. lettuce does not “represent some risk for the health of Mexicans.�

The Monterey County Herald suggests the reaction by Mexico seems to have touched a few nerves:

California lettuce recalled as a precaution Sunday over E. coli fears tested negative for a sometimes deadly strain of the bacteria, company officials said Tuesday.

Yet even as The Nunes Company Inc. gave the all-clear on those 8,355 cartons of lettuce, local politicians and growers reacted in disbelief as Mexico banned the import of all U.S. lettuce as a result of the incident.

[…]

“Mexico telling us that they are not going to eat our lettuce because of possible water contamination would be like the United States banning tourism in Mexico,” said Rep. Sam Farr, D-Carmel, referring to diarrhea travelers sometimes experience in Mexico as a result of the country’s water. “What are they thinking?”

Not exactly how I would compare the risks, but I have to admit it is a colorful analogy. Seems like the supply-chain security card is going to be played more and more by nations wanting to find a convenient way to gain leverage even on their partners/allies. The sad thing is how little reliable information is available on the danger as well as the safety of produce on shelves. Should consumers trust their grocer, should the grocer trust the delivery company, should the delivery company trust the grower…

On Monday night, [John Baillie, president of Baillie Family Farms/Tri-Counties Packing, which grows and sells lettuce and celery] said, he watched an expert on a New York City newscast tell consumers to only buy vegetables that can be cooked.

“The last time I cooked iceberg lettuce, it looked like crap,” Baillie said, sarcastically.

Sam Farr on the Spinach Crisis

Found this letter from Sam Farr interesting…and not just because he misspelled spinach:

MOVING BEYOND THE SPINIACH CRISIS

Rep. Sam Farr

November, 2006

John Steinbeck called the Salinas Valley the “salad bowl of the world.” How true a description – one that can equally apply to every farming region of the Central Coast . This congressional district annually produces more than $3.9 billion in agricultural goods. Monterey County alone produces more than 85 specialty vegetable crops with a value of over $3 billion. Our farmers have worked hard to bring a good, safe product to America ‘s tables. It is in their best business interest to be certain that the food they sell is not tainted at any point during the process – from the time the seed is planted to the moment it arrives on your dinner table. So it was with great fear and disappointment to learn in mid-September of an outbreak of E. coli attributable to fresh spinach grown in and around the Salinas Valley .

This crisis burst into the public spotlight with U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) September 14th advisory that Americans avoid all fresh spinach. In late August, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) began to receive reports of E. coli illnesses in several states. By September 13th, the CDC had received enough reports to link the outbreak to spinach and referred the case to the FDA. Following its advisory, FDA initiated an investigation to trace back the spinach linked to the people stricken with E. coli to the San Juan Bautista plant that packaged it and ultimately to the field in which it was harvested. As I write this, the FDA has yet to release its final investigation report. However, the FDA has released some information in advance – it has genetically linked the strain of E. coli 0157:H7 found in the sick people to nine samples taken from cattle, and in one instance a wild pig, found on one particular unnamed ranch. The release of the report in the coming weeks will give us more details of the actual incident and its known causes.

Of course, our first concern is for the victims. Three people died and approximately two hundred people were known to have been taken ill in twenty-six different states. As the industry, federal regulators, various state institutions, and Congress move forward to repair the damage and prevent another incident, we must not forget the three lives cut short. Each left friends and loved ones behind who will feel the loss for the rest of their lives. And we cannot forget those who were taken ill, many of whom will have lifelong health impacts from their E. coli infections.

At the onset of the crisis in mid September, I acted quickly to understand from FDA and produce industry leaders the nature of the outbreak and push FDA to communicate the safety of consuming spinach and other leafy greens as soon as possible. As the crisis unfolded I worked to have Mexico ‘s unwarranted ban on U.S. lettuce imports lifted. Just two weeks ago, I convened a research strategy conference with California Department of Food and Agriculture Secretary A.G. Kawamura and over 50 key industry, government, and academic leaders.

There is clearly much to be done by all of the major actors in this issue. The produce industry itself, the food safety agencies, and the scientific research community all have parts to play. Congress too has a role to play. In the coming months I will lead the charge in Congress for action on a multi pronged agenda that can help the produce industry move beyond the crisis into a healthier and more prosperous future.

    Research: If one thing is certain, it is that we don’t know nearly enough about E. coli and leafy green food safety. Do we know enough now to take rational steps to prevent problems in the future? The participants in the conference that I mentioned above all agreed that research needed to advance on two broad fronts: long term basic research, and short term applied research to give producers, processors, and regulators practical help in making use of the current state of E. coli knowledge, however incomplete. Given the national scope of the crisis, the FDA’s and CDC’s role in managing it, and its preeminent role in funding ag science and food safety research, the federal government has a responsibility to help fund these research goals. I have already begun working with my colleagues on the Agriculture Appropriates Subcommittee which has budget authority over both the USDA and FDA.

    Market Restoration: The crisis has shaken consumer confidence in fresh produce. A week after FDA lifted its advisory against eating spinach, my staff could not find it in Salinas area grocery stores. More recently, while dining with Secretary Kawamura at a Monterey area restaurant, the wait staff told us that they were not serving spinach – no consumer demand. While the industry has the primary responsibility for marketing its products, I believe the federal and state governments should weigh in to help. From the public involvement of the Governor to an advertising campaign similar to California ‘s “Buy California” effort are all on the table. I am now aggressively exploring federal funding options to help such an effort.

    Compensation: many millions of dollars have been lost by spinach growers and their employees who had no connection with the crisis other than to grow a product that the FDA told the public not to eat. While the federal government cannot restore every dollar lost, I do believe that it has a responsibility to defray some of the economic losses.

    FDA Oversight: Once all the facts are in, I believe it is critical for Congress to ask the right questions about the FDA’s management of this crisis. Did it have sufficient resources on the ground to spot and understand the problem? Did the FDA act appropriately in communicating with the public and industry throughout the crisis? It is important that the whole food safety system learn from this experience so that our food supply is safer and its producers more prosperous.

Much attention has been paid in the last several years to the challenge that the obesity epidemic poses to America ‘s health – both physical and fiscal. In responding to the spinach crisis, we must keep in mind that replacing the French fries and chocolate bars in our diet with fresh fruits and vegetables is a big challenge. It would be a tragedy if in the interests of food safety, we retreat from the gains made in fresh produce consumption and give way to the forces of diabetes, obesity, and heart disease.

Sincerely,

SAM FARR

Member of Congress

I could not find it anywhere online, but it’s a letter to be public, so I thought I’d post it for reference.

Bibles stop bullets, as do breast implants…

Bruce posted a story a few days ago about a “retired veteran and candidate for Oklahoma State School Superintendent” who thinks books are a good way keep school kids from getting shot — by putting the books between the bullet and the kid, literally (pun intended).

The advocate for this plan did not seem to be saying that children should put their faith in school books and thus carry them around with them everywhere they go, as one suggestion was to have a special armor-plated book stored under every desk.

On that note, I can not help but take this one step further and post a recent story that bibles (two small ones, to be exact) also stop bullets:

A 54-year-old Orange Park man credits two small Bibles in his shirt pocket for saving his life when they stopped a bullet.

You know what that means? Schools should be regulated so noone can use any firearm/bullet that is able to penetrate two New Testament shirt-pocket sized bibles. No armor-piercing rounds would be allowed anymore at Wal-Mart, sorry. Ok, but seriously, how unlikely is it that someone aiming at a person carrying trash bags would hit a shirt-pocket sized bible? Would the trash bags have stopped the bullet? And the fact that it took two bibles to stop a bullet might actually suggest that bibles are in need of some improvement.

I probably should not joke about this as it seems the “bibles stop bullets” theory is seriously sought after (hey, the person paid $4!), probably to demonstrate proof of something greater than the physics of transferred energy.

No one seems to have documented how many people carrying bibles were hit by bullets, or even died, in spite of having one (or two) with them. Nevermind that, even the guy in the Oklahoma story describes the scientific method as “just two or three people who had been in the military…took to an open field near Minco to see if a text book could stop a bullet during a school shooting”. What more evidence or data do you need than a few friends from the military shooting stuff out in an open field?

Incidentally, if you read the list of answers to the person looking for “proof” you might notice that someone has provided a list of examples at the end that show things like breast implants, lighters, coins, cell phones, and a few other things also seem to do the job.

So, given the recently revealed harmful nature of breast implants, maybe they can be repurposed to schools. All students would get implants to protect against gunfire, and the breast implant industry could be saved from the financial disaster of releasing products to the public that turn out to be hazardous. Or course Mr. Crozier should probably setup another “scientific test” to verify what size implants would give people the best “fighting chance”. If he does not choose to believe in the implants, maybe he could adopt a pro-environmental approach and mandate children in school wear clothes covered in pockets filled with old phones. Keeps the landfills empty and keeps kids safe; who can argue with that?

Alas, it seems the possibilities for believing in personal safety are endless if you lower expectations far enough.