This report gives Yankee fans a reason to worry even as their grasp on a playoff spot is almost assured: Apparently, A-Rod's agent, the notorious Scott Boras, is involved with another deal - the sale of the Chicago Cubs. And the rumor going round is that A-Rod will declare free agency and sign with the Cubs, for a contract worth $300 million dollars and a share of the new ownership stake in the Cubs!
Short of Steinbrenner deciding to sell A-Rod a piece of the Yankees, this looks like a hard deal to beat; so this may be the last opportunity for Yankee fans to boo A-Rod as one of their own. I'd love to see A-Rod and Mark Cuban own the Cubs - unless he'd rather buy the Braves, that is.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Offense spreading?
College football is back, and quite exciting too - perhaps in part because scores seem to be on the rise; Oklahoma wins and averages 63 a game (!), and Louisville has perhaps the best passing QB in the land in Brian Brohm, throwing for 555 yards and 4 TDs in his last game - and losing. The famed 'black shirt' defense of Nebraska gave up 40+ for the second game in a row, the first time so doing in what seems like forever - and to Ball State! Even poor old Notre Dame, an offensive joke this season, scored two offensive TDs - and was still blown out, as its defense joined the crowd of those allowing over 30 points.
Recent years have shown the SEC as the best conference (followed by the Pac 10 - the Big 10 is now vastly overrated, and the Big 12 is top-heavy), and the big disparity with everyone else is on defense; the SEC annually has several teams in the top 20 on defense in raw stats, and even more if you adjust for strength of schedule.
One reason for the offensive explosion and SEC defensive dominance: the spread of the the spread offense, as popularized by Urban Meyer at Utah/ Florida and now many others. It makes team speed on defense more important than ever - and more particularly, skill in pass coverage and speed rushers.
The spread carves up zone defenses (played by slower, bigger defenses) by spreading them out and working the seams, and typically only the SEC (and a few other programs, like USC, Oklahoma or Texas) has the kind of athletes that can play effective man coverage on defense and also have front 4s that can rush the passer without blitzing. The return of the running QB (which gives the running game an option look, and/or an extra blocker) also helps offensive production a lot. Mike Vick would've accomplished much the same in the NFL, if he could've 1st, passed accurately, and 2nd, stayed out of trouble. But it will come, I expect. Be prepared for Pat White, Tim Tebow, Jake Locker and their ilk to be both running and passing in the NFL in a few years, revolutionizing the pro game as well.
Recent years have shown the SEC as the best conference (followed by the Pac 10 - the Big 10 is now vastly overrated, and the Big 12 is top-heavy), and the big disparity with everyone else is on defense; the SEC annually has several teams in the top 20 on defense in raw stats, and even more if you adjust for strength of schedule.
One reason for the offensive explosion and SEC defensive dominance: the spread of the the spread offense, as popularized by Urban Meyer at Utah/ Florida and now many others. It makes team speed on defense more important than ever - and more particularly, skill in pass coverage and speed rushers.
The spread carves up zone defenses (played by slower, bigger defenses) by spreading them out and working the seams, and typically only the SEC (and a few other programs, like USC, Oklahoma or Texas) has the kind of athletes that can play effective man coverage on defense and also have front 4s that can rush the passer without blitzing. The return of the running QB (which gives the running game an option look, and/or an extra blocker) also helps offensive production a lot. Mike Vick would've accomplished much the same in the NFL, if he could've 1st, passed accurately, and 2nd, stayed out of trouble. But it will come, I expect. Be prepared for Pat White, Tim Tebow, Jake Locker and their ilk to be both running and passing in the NFL in a few years, revolutionizing the pro game as well.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Putin's provocations
First, Putin appoints a new prime minister seen as a mere placeholder, bypassing the two favored candidates; an action which completely upsets all the assumptions about succession and raise doubts that Putin will step down as President next year, as the current Russian constitution requires.
The same week, Gen Alexander Rushkin, Putin's deputy chief of staff, announces they have just dropped the 'father of all bombs', twice as deadly as the largest US bomb (the so-called MOAB), which, due to nanotechnology, has a core temperature twice that of the US bomb; Rushkin claims that where it explodes, "All that is alive merely evaporates." But some experts think they faked the videotape of the explosion - why, no one knows.
So we have a leader who likely has ordered political assassinations using radioactive polonium, who has subverted the rule of law and the political process, and even sidelined his main intra-party competitors; and has made many menacing comments and over the past year done many things (highlighted in some previous alarming posts) to make Russia an obvious military threat to its neighbors and the world again. In terms of his dangerousness to US interests, he makes Saddam look like a Boy Scout. But Bush has 'looked into his soul' and discovered we have nothing to worry about...
And we know to just trust Bush's judgment on these things.
Update: At least a few in the media have noticed. But CNN et al. continue to ignore Russia unless polonium poisoning is involved.
The same week, Gen Alexander Rushkin, Putin's deputy chief of staff, announces they have just dropped the 'father of all bombs', twice as deadly as the largest US bomb (the so-called MOAB), which, due to nanotechnology, has a core temperature twice that of the US bomb; Rushkin claims that where it explodes, "All that is alive merely evaporates." But some experts think they faked the videotape of the explosion - why, no one knows.
So we have a leader who likely has ordered political assassinations using radioactive polonium, who has subverted the rule of law and the political process, and even sidelined his main intra-party competitors; and has made many menacing comments and over the past year done many things (highlighted in some previous alarming posts) to make Russia an obvious military threat to its neighbors and the world again. In terms of his dangerousness to US interests, he makes Saddam look like a Boy Scout. But Bush has 'looked into his soul' and discovered we have nothing to worry about...
And we know to just trust Bush's judgment on these things.
Update: At least a few in the media have noticed. But CNN et al. continue to ignore Russia unless polonium poisoning is involved.
Greenspan's shocker about Iraq
It's difficult for any revelation to startle about the multifaceted debacle now called the war in Iraq (which includes a civil war, anti-terrorism raids, battles for Kurdish independence, attempts by Iran to undermine Iraqi sovereignty, and who knows how many other conflicts). But Alan Greenspan's new memoir turns the trick - in it, he claims that it's a shame the it was "politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil”.
Or more specifically, Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East - and Bush wants those secured (for his friends in Big Oil) more than anything. As long as the terrorists pose an ongoing danger to Iraqi refineries and their US-compliant officials, it seems Bush's main purpose for the war remains in danger, and hence our troops will not withdraw. We may be there to provide security, all right - but not for ordinary Iraqis, of whom we are now responsible for killing more than 1 million since 2003. Instead, it's their oil wells that must be secured...
And the Iranian oil wells may have to be secured next. Get ready for more bombs!
Or more specifically, Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East - and Bush wants those secured (for his friends in Big Oil) more than anything. As long as the terrorists pose an ongoing danger to Iraqi refineries and their US-compliant officials, it seems Bush's main purpose for the war remains in danger, and hence our troops will not withdraw. We may be there to provide security, all right - but not for ordinary Iraqis, of whom we are now responsible for killing more than 1 million since 2003. Instead, it's their oil wells that must be secured...
And the Iranian oil wells may have to be secured next. Get ready for more bombs!
Saturday, September 8, 2007
When does personhood begin?
Personhood, properly understood, is not a species-specific concept; to believe otherwise is to commit the intellectual sin of speciesism, as well as ignore the raft of science-fiction shows as well as the work on AI that demonstrate the intellectual possibility (if not yet the physical actuality) of non-human persons.
That being said, not all humans are persons - fetuses, for example, are clearly not - rather, they are potential persons; beings which, if their developmental changes go well, will eventually become persons, but do not have such status yet. Analogously, my students are potential college graduates, but not actual college graduates; they have begun a process that, if all goes well and certain changes occur (like passing my class!), will result in their attaining the status of college graduate; but they do not have such status now, and may never do so, if things do not go well.
It is clear that the abilities which one must attain in order to become a person are mental; no body type or specific physical ability, like walking or eyesight, are required. An ability to pass the Turing Test - to convince an interlocutor that one could communicate indistinguishably from a normal human adult - seems sufficient, but perhaps not necessary. The kind of mental autonomy that we consider required for moral responsibility - for holding a person responsible for their actions - seems a better bet for a necessary and sufficient condition. Let's call that agency - the capacity for the rational exercise of free will.
Given the 'ought implies can' principle of ethics, along with the principle of alternative possibilities, a person can thus be defined as a being that has two or more courses of action open to them, and has rational control over which of the courses of action they pursue.
So when do humans make the transition from potential personhood to full fledged personhood? Under normal circumstances, at the age of two; and recent research has reinforced the finding that toddlers of that age have a social intelligence (of the sort required for such agency) missing from our most intelligent species relatives, chimps and orangutans.
So a normal neonate is not a person, but a normal two-year old has become one. One becomes a person (no matter what the species) when one becomes an agent. And although it is certainly conceptually possible to have members of many different species demonstrate agency, at the moment, only one species has convincingly demonstrated what it takes to be a person - Homo sapiens sapiens. (Although it is VERY interesting, to me anyway, to speculate on whether Neanderthal man had what it takes - I tend to believe (s)he did, and so two different species of persons co-existed for a while - perhaps until our species wiped them out, perhaps even eating them.)
So while I doubt very much that any extraterrestrial persons exist, it isn't because they are conceptually impossible - not at all. Rather, it's because I suspect that once persons evolve in any particular biosphere, they rapidly destroy themselves and the ecosystems required for their survival. In other words, I suspect many species across the Universe have attained personhood in the past - and none of them have lasted, or else we would be aware of them (or members of them!) now. It is the nature of intelligent civilizations to destroy themselves. Alas, that's another version of the Argument for Doomsday - from the Fermi Paradox. Hopefully I'll publish it in more detail soon... before it's too late!
That being said, not all humans are persons - fetuses, for example, are clearly not - rather, they are potential persons; beings which, if their developmental changes go well, will eventually become persons, but do not have such status yet. Analogously, my students are potential college graduates, but not actual college graduates; they have begun a process that, if all goes well and certain changes occur (like passing my class!), will result in their attaining the status of college graduate; but they do not have such status now, and may never do so, if things do not go well.
It is clear that the abilities which one must attain in order to become a person are mental; no body type or specific physical ability, like walking or eyesight, are required. An ability to pass the Turing Test - to convince an interlocutor that one could communicate indistinguishably from a normal human adult - seems sufficient, but perhaps not necessary. The kind of mental autonomy that we consider required for moral responsibility - for holding a person responsible for their actions - seems a better bet for a necessary and sufficient condition. Let's call that agency - the capacity for the rational exercise of free will.
Given the 'ought implies can' principle of ethics, along with the principle of alternative possibilities, a person can thus be defined as a being that has two or more courses of action open to them, and has rational control over which of the courses of action they pursue.
So when do humans make the transition from potential personhood to full fledged personhood? Under normal circumstances, at the age of two; and recent research has reinforced the finding that toddlers of that age have a social intelligence (of the sort required for such agency) missing from our most intelligent species relatives, chimps and orangutans.
So a normal neonate is not a person, but a normal two-year old has become one. One becomes a person (no matter what the species) when one becomes an agent. And although it is certainly conceptually possible to have members of many different species demonstrate agency, at the moment, only one species has convincingly demonstrated what it takes to be a person - Homo sapiens sapiens. (Although it is VERY interesting, to me anyway, to speculate on whether Neanderthal man had what it takes - I tend to believe (s)he did, and so two different species of persons co-existed for a while - perhaps until our species wiped them out, perhaps even eating them.)
So while I doubt very much that any extraterrestrial persons exist, it isn't because they are conceptually impossible - not at all. Rather, it's because I suspect that once persons evolve in any particular biosphere, they rapidly destroy themselves and the ecosystems required for their survival. In other words, I suspect many species across the Universe have attained personhood in the past - and none of them have lasted, or else we would be aware of them (or members of them!) now. It is the nature of intelligent civilizations to destroy themselves. Alas, that's another version of the Argument for Doomsday - from the Fermi Paradox. Hopefully I'll publish it in more detail soon... before it's too late!
Team USA recap
A little belatedly, a quick recap of Team USA's mostly successful summer of FIBA qualifying for the 2008 Olympics, and a suggestion about what they should do next summer:
The basics you likely know: the team went undefeated, and was never seriously challenged. In their closest game, their second-round match vs Argentina, they led by 15 (28-13) at the end of the first quarter - and the same margin at game's end. That game revealed the potential weakness of the team; at the end of two hard weeks of playing a game nearly every day, the team looked tired and was outscored the second half, despite the Argentinean star Luis Scola being in foul trouble and barely playing after that blowout first quarter.
The team had far better defensive intensity than past national squads, and their 3-point shooting was improved as well. If they continue that, they may be unbeatable - but Argentina gave a game while missing 5 current or former NBA players (Ginobili, Nocioni, Oberto, Herrmann, and Pepe Sanchez). And Spain, Italy, France and other Euro squads are also laden with NBA talent, and Greece beat the last USA squad with an advanced pick and roll game the US defense still struggles to stop. The depth of Team USA should make them better positioned to prevail at the ends of games and play better and better deep into a tournament in which games are played every day, and less talented teams must play their starters nearly 40 minutes every night. But the USA oddly seems to play worse in second halves - and this goes back to their losses over the last several competitions.
Hence, my suggestion: NBA players are psychologically used to playing 32-36, or even 40, minutes a game, but are used to playing tired on 'back to backs', much less when they have to play 3 or even 4 nights in a row. And easy way to make the Olympic schedule more like an NBA one would be to divide the roster into 3 groups of 4, and have 2 of those groups (8 men) play each game, while the other group of 4 gets the night off. That way, no one would ever play more than two nights in a row, and the team would truly be the freshest when it came to the games that really counted at tourney's end.
Here's how I'd divvy the roster up - first, from this summer's roster:
Group 1: Howard, LeBron, Kobe, Kidd
Group 2: Amare, Melo, Redd, Billups
Group 3: Chandler, Prince, Miller, DWilliams
That also corresponds to their pecking order in status. But I suspect Chris Bosh, Dwayne Wade, and less certainly, Elton Brand (if healthy), Chris Paul, and perhaps Shane Battier or Joe Johnson will make the team next season. So here's my projected groups, based on my expectations for next year's roster:
Group 1: Howard, LeBron, Kobe, Kidd (the same)
Group 2: Brand, Melo, DWade, Billups
Group 3: Bosh, Amare, Redd, DWilliams
Bosh would bump up to group 2 if Brand isn't healthy. Group 1 would be the fastbreak specialists, group 2 is better in the halfcourt, and group 3 would provide a shooter, 3rd PG, and size. If they use this roster with my proposed rotation, with group 1 and 2 playing against the toughest opponents, I suspect they could waltz to the gold. In any event, I think Team USA fails to take full advantage of its depth, and some system like mine should be instituted to help avoid another upset in 2008.
The basics you likely know: the team went undefeated, and was never seriously challenged. In their closest game, their second-round match vs Argentina, they led by 15 (28-13) at the end of the first quarter - and the same margin at game's end. That game revealed the potential weakness of the team; at the end of two hard weeks of playing a game nearly every day, the team looked tired and was outscored the second half, despite the Argentinean star Luis Scola being in foul trouble and barely playing after that blowout first quarter.
The team had far better defensive intensity than past national squads, and their 3-point shooting was improved as well. If they continue that, they may be unbeatable - but Argentina gave a game while missing 5 current or former NBA players (Ginobili, Nocioni, Oberto, Herrmann, and Pepe Sanchez). And Spain, Italy, France and other Euro squads are also laden with NBA talent, and Greece beat the last USA squad with an advanced pick and roll game the US defense still struggles to stop. The depth of Team USA should make them better positioned to prevail at the ends of games and play better and better deep into a tournament in which games are played every day, and less talented teams must play their starters nearly 40 minutes every night. But the USA oddly seems to play worse in second halves - and this goes back to their losses over the last several competitions.
Hence, my suggestion: NBA players are psychologically used to playing 32-36, or even 40, minutes a game, but are used to playing tired on 'back to backs', much less when they have to play 3 or even 4 nights in a row. And easy way to make the Olympic schedule more like an NBA one would be to divide the roster into 3 groups of 4, and have 2 of those groups (8 men) play each game, while the other group of 4 gets the night off. That way, no one would ever play more than two nights in a row, and the team would truly be the freshest when it came to the games that really counted at tourney's end.
Here's how I'd divvy the roster up - first, from this summer's roster:
Group 1: Howard, LeBron, Kobe, Kidd
Group 2: Amare, Melo, Redd, Billups
Group 3: Chandler, Prince, Miller, DWilliams
That also corresponds to their pecking order in status. But I suspect Chris Bosh, Dwayne Wade, and less certainly, Elton Brand (if healthy), Chris Paul, and perhaps Shane Battier or Joe Johnson will make the team next season. So here's my projected groups, based on my expectations for next year's roster:
Group 1: Howard, LeBron, Kobe, Kidd (the same)
Group 2: Brand, Melo, DWade, Billups
Group 3: Bosh, Amare, Redd, DWilliams
Bosh would bump up to group 2 if Brand isn't healthy. Group 1 would be the fastbreak specialists, group 2 is better in the halfcourt, and group 3 would provide a shooter, 3rd PG, and size. If they use this roster with my proposed rotation, with group 1 and 2 playing against the toughest opponents, I suspect they could waltz to the gold. In any event, I think Team USA fails to take full advantage of its depth, and some system like mine should be instituted to help avoid another upset in 2008.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
A Doomsday Device? Really?
My favorite film, Dr. Strangelove, is the tale of a rogue US general launching an accidental nuclear war, and the errors of command and control that result in one bomber not being recalled, even after everyone realizes it was all a mistake. The grim joke at the end of the movie, however, is that the USSR has built a 'Doomsday Device', so that if any nuclear attack on them is successful, they will automatically detonate numerous cobalt-jacketed hydrogen bombs all around the planet, releasing enough deadly fallout to render the Earth uninhabitable for humans for 93 years. Nothing can stop the device, once activated.
But surely this is all just a fantasy. As Dr. Strangelove himself says in the movie, what's the point of a Doomsday Device if you keep it a secret? Presumably no one actually wants the end of human life on Earth, so the only point of building a Doomsday Device is for its deterrent effect - and it can't have any deterrent effect if your enemy doesn't know of its existence!
Alas, we have reason again to think that reality is stranger than fiction. There's reason to believe the Soviets have built such a device, and have recently taken steps to reactivate it. Or more properly, they never deactivated it, and may be upgrading it. The claim: a system named Kosvinsky exists inside a mountain in Russia, able to communicate via VLF radio, which could work even during the massive radiation of nuclear fallout, and would coordinate and launch all Russian nuclear forces after an initial strike. This and more are part of a new book by P.D. Smith detailing the severity of the risk of all-out nuclear war using such a 'superweapon', whether started accidentally or otherwise.
The further rumor: Nuclear launch risk specialist Bruce Blair intimates that Bush's recent requests for a nuclear 'bunker-buster' bomb, supposedly for Iraqi or Iranian nuclear facilities, may actually have the Kosvinsky system in mind. And Putin has eagerly made clear that Russia's nuclear bombers are back in the air, saying “Our pilots have been grounded for too long. They are happy to start a new life.”
In short, Russia appears to be actively preparing for nuclear war, and has never been too keen on safeguards against accidental launch - preferring a certain counterattack, and a last-chance Doomsday machine that means the rest of the world will lose a nuclear war if they do. The Doomsday clock is at 5 minutes to midnight; I increasingly worry it should be closer.
But surely this is all just a fantasy. As Dr. Strangelove himself says in the movie, what's the point of a Doomsday Device if you keep it a secret? Presumably no one actually wants the end of human life on Earth, so the only point of building a Doomsday Device is for its deterrent effect - and it can't have any deterrent effect if your enemy doesn't know of its existence!
Alas, we have reason again to think that reality is stranger than fiction. There's reason to believe the Soviets have built such a device, and have recently taken steps to reactivate it. Or more properly, they never deactivated it, and may be upgrading it. The claim: a system named Kosvinsky exists inside a mountain in Russia, able to communicate via VLF radio, which could work even during the massive radiation of nuclear fallout, and would coordinate and launch all Russian nuclear forces after an initial strike. This and more are part of a new book by P.D. Smith detailing the severity of the risk of all-out nuclear war using such a 'superweapon', whether started accidentally or otherwise.
The further rumor: Nuclear launch risk specialist Bruce Blair intimates that Bush's recent requests for a nuclear 'bunker-buster' bomb, supposedly for Iraqi or Iranian nuclear facilities, may actually have the Kosvinsky system in mind. And Putin has eagerly made clear that Russia's nuclear bombers are back in the air, saying “Our pilots have been grounded for too long. They are happy to start a new life.”
In short, Russia appears to be actively preparing for nuclear war, and has never been too keen on safeguards against accidental launch - preferring a certain counterattack, and a last-chance Doomsday machine that means the rest of the world will lose a nuclear war if they do. The Doomsday clock is at 5 minutes to midnight; I increasingly worry it should be closer.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
The gods work in mysterious ways?
How does Pat Robertson et al. explain this one? Bunky Bartlett said he made a deal with his gods - let him win the Mega Millions lotto jackpot, and he would begin teaching Wicca fulltime. Amd guess what? He won.
Like all the other falsifications of the core beliefs of fundamentalist Christianity, this will no doubt be shrugged off and never mentioned. It simply shows how much the Christian religion has turned into a socio-political unfalsifiable ideology, rather than the all-encompassing worldview of the past that supposedly makes factual, testable assertions. Fundamentalist Christians are supposed to look condescendingly at those who treat the Resurrection of Jesus, or the Virgin Birth, or multitudinous other miracles as anything other than literal historical fact. They are supposed to be on the side of Elijah against the prophets of Baal, in which only those who believe in the true God have their prayers answered - and believers in false Gods have their prayers fall on deaf ears, unanswered, doomed to die at the hands of those who are the winners of the divine experimental method.
If so, why aren't they all Wiccans today? Christopher Hitchens explains it very well.
Like all the other falsifications of the core beliefs of fundamentalist Christianity, this will no doubt be shrugged off and never mentioned. It simply shows how much the Christian religion has turned into a socio-political unfalsifiable ideology, rather than the all-encompassing worldview of the past that supposedly makes factual, testable assertions. Fundamentalist Christians are supposed to look condescendingly at those who treat the Resurrection of Jesus, or the Virgin Birth, or multitudinous other miracles as anything other than literal historical fact. They are supposed to be on the side of Elijah against the prophets of Baal, in which only those who believe in the true God have their prayers answered - and believers in false Gods have their prayers fall on deaf ears, unanswered, doomed to die at the hands of those who are the winners of the divine experimental method.
If so, why aren't they all Wiccans today? Christopher Hitchens explains it very well.
Jimmy loves John, and thoughts on competition
"Jimmy Carter stops short of endorsing John Edwards, but calls him a candidate “whom I really admire.”
More: “I can say without equivocation that no one who is running for president has presented anywhere near as comprehensive and accurate a prediction of what our country ought to do in the field of environmental quality, in the field of health care for those who are not presently insured, for those who struggle with poverty.”
Of course, I couldn't agree more. Edwards' health care plan has successfully split the baby, by having an expanded version of Medicare available to all, but without that program being mandatory - so private insurers still have every chance to compete on price and coverage, but every citizen is covered, one way or another. It's an experiment that can help resolve the conservative canard that private business is always more efficient than government bureaucracies at providing the same services. In fact, China and Russia are already disproving that claim daily, as government businesses there routinely outperform private competitors in what is termed "state capitalism". Government bureaucracy has gotten a bad name because monopolies, whether private or public, breed sloth and poor management. The breakup of AT&T heralded an amazing growth in telecommunications in the US, and many believe Linux and Macintosh have far better operating systems than any version of the Windows monopoly. And so likewise for public businesses - think how much better the US Mail has gotten since Fedex, UPS, et al. came into being.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Bombing Iran?
Given the complete and utter debacle in Iraq - a fine book about it was aptly titled Fiasco - it beggars the imagination that we are actively planning a massive bombing attack on Iran that would (in theory) reduce the entire Iranian military apparatus to rubble in three days.
Verily, though, it appears we are; but surely we are leaking word of this proposed attack as a feint, a bluff, a threat of the stick in order to get Iran back to the carrots of the negotiating table, and get the IAEA inspectors back to their nuclear plants and achieve a diplomatic solution, right?
If some of those at the front lines are reading their tea leaves correctly (and telling the truth), then no - it's no feint; it's all too real, and we are at a stage much like Iraq in early 2003, in which the military decision has already been made, and the only question is the exact timing. According to this diary, all the "Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking" have already been completed - all the targets inside Iran have been carefully selected, given a priority, and even the specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers and so on have already been assigned their missions. The only query left - when does it begin?
The diary notes that officers and senior commanders who raised doubts about striking Iran have recently all been replaced. I am wary of trusting anonymously sourced testimonials from frontline military sources on future plans, but the source here sounds all too believable, and even admits she could be compromising a secret attack - but doesn't care, as she senses it is morally questionable, contrasting it to morally clear missions in Kosovo or helping tsunami victims.
If this is all a bluff, Bush is a better poker player than I think. So, I suspect it is not a bluff. Instead, look at where things are headed: Benjamin Netanyahu, a prominent Israeli politician who has repeatedly compared Iran's President Ahmadinejad to Hitler in 1938 (and helped persuade fundamentalist Christians that the US would be nuked right after Israel), has recently and easily won the race to lead Israel's hardline Likud Party, making him the favorite to become the new Israeli prime minister.
The result: the Israeli military now has a new spy satellite specifically designed to track the Iranian nuclear program, and the combination of Netanyahu's popularity and the apparent decision of the US to bomb has the current prime minister, Ehud Olmert doing - guess what? Well, in an article in Germany's Bild newspaper, Olmert compared Iran's president with Adolf Hitler for calling for Israel's destruction! Hmmm - I sense a rhetorical trend, and to Israeli ears, there's only one thing to do to someone who threatens a new Holocaust - and it's not containment or negotiations.
The context makes it even clearer: the remarks were published a day after the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Iran had failed to observe a deadline for halting uranium enrichment activity. And that's not all: Olmert went on to say:
Verily, though, it appears we are; but surely we are leaking word of this proposed attack as a feint, a bluff, a threat of the stick in order to get Iran back to the carrots of the negotiating table, and get the IAEA inspectors back to their nuclear plants and achieve a diplomatic solution, right?
If some of those at the front lines are reading their tea leaves correctly (and telling the truth), then no - it's no feint; it's all too real, and we are at a stage much like Iraq in early 2003, in which the military decision has already been made, and the only question is the exact timing. According to this diary, all the "Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking" have already been completed - all the targets inside Iran have been carefully selected, given a priority, and even the specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers and so on have already been assigned their missions. The only query left - when does it begin?
The diary notes that officers and senior commanders who raised doubts about striking Iran have recently all been replaced. I am wary of trusting anonymously sourced testimonials from frontline military sources on future plans, but the source here sounds all too believable, and even admits she could be compromising a secret attack - but doesn't care, as she senses it is morally questionable, contrasting it to morally clear missions in Kosovo or helping tsunami victims.
If this is all a bluff, Bush is a better poker player than I think. So, I suspect it is not a bluff. Instead, look at where things are headed: Benjamin Netanyahu, a prominent Israeli politician who has repeatedly compared Iran's President Ahmadinejad to Hitler in 1938 (and helped persuade fundamentalist Christians that the US would be nuked right after Israel), has recently and easily won the race to lead Israel's hardline Likud Party, making him the favorite to become the new Israeli prime minister.
The result: the Israeli military now has a new spy satellite specifically designed to track the Iranian nuclear program, and the combination of Netanyahu's popularity and the apparent decision of the US to bomb has the current prime minister, Ehud Olmert doing - guess what? Well, in an article in Germany's Bild newspaper, Olmert compared Iran's president with Adolf Hitler for calling for Israel's destruction! Hmmm - I sense a rhetorical trend, and to Israeli ears, there's only one thing to do to someone who threatens a new Holocaust - and it's not containment or negotiations.
The context makes it even clearer: the remarks were published a day after the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Iran had failed to observe a deadline for halting uranium enrichment activity. And that's not all: Olmert went on to say:
"The West - above all under the leadership of the United States - will ensure that Iran under no circumstances comes to possess unconventional weapons.The president of the United States is a very brave man who understands that very well."Putting 2 and 2 together, I'm guessing it is too late for Iran to have a peaceful end to its uranium enrichment activity. The Israelis now even have a new spy satellite that will help the American bombers do their jobs - and it just became operational. I'm guessing we will have a three-day war in Iran before the New Year - and no one knows what the terrible fallout of that will be. Only that it will take Iraq off the lead on the news!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
