AMARGOSA VALLEY, Nev. — In a rural corner of Nevada reeling from the recession, a bit of salvation seemed to arrive last year. A German developer, Solar Millennium, announced plans to build two large solar farms here that would harness the sun to generate electricity, creating hundreds of jobs.

But then things got messy. The company revealed that its preferred method of cooling the power plants would consume 1.3 billion gallons of water a year, about 20 percent of this desert valley’s available water.

NY Times

"It's Deja Vu all over again" Yogi Berra

Unfortunately, we still refuse to have a national discussion about Vietnam and not just about our casualties- US Armed Forces 58,202 Killed In Action 304,704 Wounded In Action, 1,948 Missing in Action (Nov.7, 2001). The most tragic omission? We never bothered to own up to what actually happened TO Vietnam, Armed Forces of South Vietnam 233,748 Killed In Action 1,169,763 Wounded In Action. One million North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong killed, three million Vietnamese civilians killed. Who are we that we can ignore our responsibility for such chaos? And what are the consequences of such belligerence? Such ignorance? The question is staring at us again in Afghanistan and Iraq. Where do Islamic radicals get their weapons and ammunition? Does a country ever secure the blessings of liberty by the actions of foreigners? Can centuries of isolation, theocracy and tradition be supplanted by military might or intrigue? In ten years? 30? 50? Ever? Indeed the doves ARE right.

November 30, 2008

'The Doves Were Right' By RICHARD HOLBROOKE

LESSONS IN DISASTER

McGeorge Bundy and the Path to War in Vietnam

By Gordon M. Goldstein

300 pp. Times Books/ Henry Holt & Company. $25

In 1961, John Fitzgerald Kennedy brought to Washington a new generation of pragmatic young activists who came to be known as the New Frontiersmen. When the journalist Theodore White later wrote a memorable photo essay about them for Life magazine, he called them the "action-intellectuals."

The most celebrated were Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara and McGeorge Bundy, whose title - modest by today's standards - was special assistant to the president for national security affairs, but whose importance was great (today the position has a more grandiose title - national security adviser). Mc­Namara, of course, became one of the most controversial public servants in modern times, while Bundy got less attention, except for Kai Bird's excellent 1998 dual biography of him and his ­brother William (who had served as assistant secretary of state for East Asia).

 But in "Lessons in Disaster," Gordon Goldstein's highly unusual book, Bundy emerges as the most interesting figure in the Vietnam tragedy - less for his unfortunate part in prosecuting the war than for his agonized search 30 years later to understand himself.

Bundy was the quintessential Eastern Establishment Republican, a member of a family that traced its Boston roots back to 1639. His ties to Groton (where he graduated first in his class), Yale and then Harvard were deep. At the age of 27, he wrote, to national acclaim, the 'memoirs" of former Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson. In 1953, Bundy became dean of the faculty at Harvard - an astonishing responsibility for someone still only 34. Even David Halberstam, who would play so important a role in the public demolition of Bundy's reputation in his classic, "The Best and the Brightest," admitted that "Bundy was a magnificent dean" who played with the faculty "like a cat with mice."

Continued: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/books/review/Holbrooke-t.html

THE most intriguing, and possibly most fateful, news of last week could not be found in the health care horse-trading in Congress, or in the international zoo at the United Nations, or in the Iran slapdown in Pittsburgh. It was an item tucked into a blog at ABCNews.com. George Stephanopoulos reported that the new “must-read book” for President Obama’s war team is “Lessons in Disaster” by Gordon M. Goldstein, a foreign-policy scholar who had collaborated with McGeorge Bundy, the Kennedy-Johnson national security adviser, on writing a Robert McNamara-style mea culpa about his role as an architect of the Vietnam War.

Bundy left his memoir unfinished at his death in 1996. Goldstein’s book, drawn from Bundy’s ruminations and deep new research, is full of fresh information on how the best and the brightest led America into the fiasco. “Lessons in Disaster” caused only a modest stir when published in November, but The Times Book Review cheered it as “an extraordinary cautionary tale for all Americans.” The reviewer was, of all people, the diplomat Richard Holbrooke, whose career began in Vietnam and who would later be charged with the Afghanistan-Pakistan crisis by the new Obama administration.

Holbrooke’s verdict on “Lessons in Disaster” was not only correct but more prescient than even he could have imagined. This book’s intimate account of White House decision-making is almost literally being replayed in Washington (with Holbrooke himself as a principal actor) as the new president sets a course for the war in Afghanistan. The time for all Americans to catch up with this extraordinary cautionary tale is now.

Analogies between Vietnam and Afghanistan are the rage these days. Some are wrong, inexact or speculative. We don’t know whether Afghanistan would be a quagmire, let alone that it could remotely bulk up to the war in Vietnam, which, at its peak, involved 535,000 American troops. But what happened after L.B.J. Americanized the war in 1965 is Vietnam’s apocalyptic climax. What’s most relevant to our moment is the war’s and Goldstein’s first chapter, set in 1961. That’s where we see the hawkish young President Kennedy wrestling with Vietnam during his first months in office.

Most Americans, looking at a globe, would be hard pressed to find Afghanistan. Americans on the whole know very little about the land or its people — and care even less. They know we’re at war over there, wherever it is, but if you were to ask what a Pashtun is or mention the name Abdullah Abdullah you would most likely get a blank stare.

Americans’ minds are on other things, like trying to figure out why, if the Great Recession is over, as Ben Bernanke seems to believe, the employment landscape still looks like a toxic waste dump.

A New York Times/CBS News poll found that eight years after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, there is a general feeling of disenchantment with our military involvement there and a desire to bring it to an end. About half of all Americans believe that the war has had no effect on the threat of terrorism, and a majority want the troops out of there in two years.

Americans are tired of the war. Some of the young people currently being outfitted for combat were just 10 or 11 years old when Al Qaeda struck the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001. They are heading off to a conflict that most Americans are no longer interested in. The difference between the public’s take on this war and that of the nation’s top civilian and military leadership is both stunning and ominous.

"General Hoar drew upon his experience with CENTCOM in the days leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq to stress the importance of allied cooperation, notably the ability to base military operations from Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey, as key to success in the region.   As U.S. strategy for the invasion coalesced, Hoar expressed misgivings, in particular regarding the number of troops committed to the operation.

A year after the official cessation of hostilities, Hoar continued to maintain that coalition forces did not have enough troops on the ground to accomplish their mission.  In December 2003, Hoar stated that Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, "...doesn't know much about the business he's in".  In testimony before the Senate committee on foreign relations on May 19, 2004, he stated regarding the situation in Iraq, "I believe we are absolutely on the brink of failure. We are looking into the abyss"

On September 7, 2004, Hoar and seven other retired officers wrote an open letter to President Bush expressing their concern over the number of allegations of abuse of prisoners in U.S. military custody.  In it they wrote:

The Miami Herald

September 11, 2009

BY CHARLES C. KRULAK and JOSEPH P. HOAR

In the fear that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Americans were told that defeating Al Qaeda would require us to ``take off the gloves.'' As a former commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps and a retired commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command, we knew that was a recipe for disaster.

But we never imagined that we would feel duty-bound to publicly denounce a vice president of the United States, a man who has served our country for many years. In light of the irresponsible statements recently made by former Vice President Dick Cheney, however, we feel we must repudiate his dangerous ideas -- and his scare tactics.

We have seen how ill-conceived policies that ignored military law on the treatment of enemy prisoners hindered our ability to defeat al Qaeda. We have seen American troops die at the hands of foreign fighters recruited with stories about tortured Muslim detainees at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. And yet Cheney and others who orchestrated America's disastrous trip to ``the dark side'' continue to assert -- against all evidence -- that torture ``worked'' and that our country is better off for having gone there.

In an interview with Fox News Sunday, Cheney applauded the ``enhanced interrogation techniques'' -- what we used to call ``war crimes'' because they violated the Geneva Conventions, which the United States instigated and has followed for 60 years. Cheney insisted the abusive techniques were ``absolutely essential in saving thousands of American lives and preventing further attacks against the United States.'' He claimed they were ``directly responsible for the fact that for eight years, we had no further mass casualty attacks against the United States. It was good policy . . . It worked very, very well.''

Repeating these assertions doesn't make them true. We now see that the best intelligence, which led to the capture of Saddam Hussein and the elimination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was produced by professional interrogations using non-coercive techniques. When the abuse began, prisoners told interrogators whatever they thought would make it stop.

Torture is as likely to produce lies as the truth. And it did.

What leaders say matters. So when it comes to light, as it did recently, that U.S. interrogators staged mock executions and held a whirling electric drill close to the body of a naked, hooded detainee, and the former vice president winks and nods, it matters.

The Bush administration had already degraded the rules of war by authorizing techniques that violated the Geneva Conventions and shocked the conscience of the world. Now Cheney has publicly condoned the abuse that went beyond even those weakened standards, leading us down a slippery slope of lawlessness. Rules about the humane treatment of prisoners exist precisely to deter those in the field from taking matters into their own hands. They protect our nation's honor.

To argue that honorable conduct is only required against an honorable enemy degrades the Americans who must carry out the orders. As military professionals, we know that complex situational ethics cannot be applied during the stress of combat. The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality. Moral equivocation about abuse at the top of the chain of command travels through the ranks at warp speed.

On Aug. 24, the United States took an important step toward moral clarity and the rule of law when a special task force recommended that in the future, the Army interrogation manual should be the single standard for all agencies of the U.S. government.

The unanimous decision represents an unusual consensus among the defense, intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security agencies. Members of the task force had access to every scrap of intelligence, yet they drew the opposite conclusion from Cheney's. They concluded that far from making us safer, cruelty betrays American values and harms U.S. national security.

On this solemn day we pause to remember those who lost their lives on 9/11. As our leaders work to prevent terrorists from again striking on our soil, they should remember the fundamental precept of counterinsurgency we've relearned in Afghanistan and Iraq: Undermine the enemy's legitimacy while building our own. These wars will not be won on the battlefield. They will be won in the hearts of young men who decide not to sign up to be fighters and young women who decline to be suicide bombers. If Americans torture and it comes to light -- as it inevitably will -- it embitters and alienates the very people we need most.

Our current commander-in-chief understands this. The task force recommendations take us a step closer to restoring the rule of law and the standards of human dignity that made us who we are as a nation. Repudiating torture and other cruelty helps keep us from being sent on fools' errands by bad intelligence. And in the end, that makes us all safer.

Charles C. Krulak was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994.

.......for they shall have peace. Jesus H. Christ

FYI, we spend $600 billion a year on defense plus supplemental funding in the $ billions.  China is #2 at $71 billion.  There ought to be a law against throwing gasoline on a fire.  MC

"Almost every weekend, there are cocktails and closed-door presentations in the suites of New Delhi's five-star hotels, hosted by retired admirals and generals from the U.S. armed forces who now work for defense firms, such as Raytheon and Northrop Grumman." Who better than a general to promote weapons systems? That's all they're really good for, with the exception of begging for more troops and explaining why they had to destroy the village to save it.. They make tax and spend Democrats look like puppies trying to pee like a big dog.. MC

U.S. Eyes Bigger Slice Of Indian Defense Pie

New Delhi Boosting Military Budget in Modernization Mission

By Emily Wax Washington Post Foreign Service

Saturday, September 26, 2009 NEW DELHI -- In the ballroom of a five-star hotel here, executives from Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin, the world's biggest arms supplier, threw a candlelight reception one recent night to woo Indian defense experts as their country embarks on a major military shopping spree.

India plans to spend an estimated $100 billion on defense over the next decade to modernize its Soviet-era arsenal. With its growing military footprint, India is steering away from traditional ally Russia, its main weapons supplier, and looking toward the United States to help upgrade its weapons systems and troop gear.

As the world's largest democracy, India is seen as the most dependable U.S. ally in a part of the world that also includes Afghanistan and Pakistan, both of which are racked by Islamist insurgencies. But India's expanding military ambitions, and the U.S. role in selling this nuclear-armed nation more firepower, is starting to worry its neighbors, especially perennial rival Pakistan. India also has ongoing border disputes with another Asian giant, China, which defeated it in a short 1962 war.

Continued at The Washington Post 

Truth = Law?

"Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state."

Plato circa 350 BC

Likewise, Aristotle endorsed the rule of law, writing that "law should govern", and those in power should be "servants of the laws." The ancient concept of rule of law is to be distinguished from rule by law, according to political science professor Li Shuguang: "The difference....is that under the rule of law the law is preeminent and can serve as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the law can serve as a mere tool for a government that suppresses in a legalistic fashion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

Not actually making light of this tremendous tragedy, my hometown of Austell was hardest hit. FYI, Georgia receives $1.01 for every dollar they pay in federal taxes. Colorado receives 81 cents. The top three states that receive federal money are New Mexico, Mississippi and Alaska, $2.03, $2.02 and $1.84 respectively. Governor Perdue of Georgia is a Republican, but most Republicans down there drink lots of the Libertarian Kool-Aid. Housing down there is pretty cheap by Denver standards, so $250 million is pretty substantial.

 "Gov. Sonny Perdue of Georgia declared a state of emergency in 17 counties and pleaded for federal aid, offering his appeal directly to President Obama on Tuesday night. The state insurance commissioner estimated that $250 million worth of damage had been done, mostly to homeowners without insurance."

ATLANTA — The death toll from the floods in Georgia rose to nine people as the waters continued to recede on Wednesday, and residents grappled with the damage that has destroyed their homes, uprooted their lives and shut down bridges and major roadways around the Atlanta area.

Another body was found Tuesday evening in hardest-hit Douglas County. Richard Butler, 29, was swept from his car and died, like the other five victims from the county, as a result of flash-flooding, said Wes Tallon, the spokesman for the county’s emergency management agency.

In the county, about 23 miles west of the city, people were lining up for bottled water while the authorities checked abandoned cars for bodies and swept debris to clear streets.

Continued at the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/us/24rain.html?hp

FYI, I sure am glad I finally figured out the html editor. :-))

They Say Trickle Down Economics is a good thing for business. What has worked even better for business-corporate welfare. The Democrats are mostly to blame, Democrat legislators recieve more money from the top 50 industries in every category except the automotive industry and by substantial margins.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php

Regarding Corporate Welfare

 "According to the Cato Institute, the U.S. federal government spent $92 billion on corporate welfare during fiscal year 2006. Recipients included Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, and General Electric. Alan Peters and Peter Fisher have estimated that state and local governments provide $40-50 billion annually in economic development incentives, which many critics characterize as corporate welfare."

"The U.S. Agricultural Department is required by law (various U.S. farm bills which are passed every few years) to subsidize over two dozen commodities. Between 1996 and 2002, an average of $16 billion/year was paid by programs authorized by various U.S. farm bills dating back to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, the Agricultural Act of 1949, and the Commodity Credit Corporation (created in 1933), among others. The beneficiaries of the subsidies have changed as agriculture in the United States has changed. In the 1930s, about 25% of the country's population resided on the nation's 6,000,000 small farms. By 1997, 157,000 large farms accounted for 72% of farm sales, with only 2% of the U.S. population residing on farms. "