And with this growth formula, we become clairvoyent predictors of terrorism

T_n = T₁n^-b

Realpolitik

If Obama had moved early on Libya, it would be easy to condemn him for bogging us down in another armed conflict. There would be no counterfactual available to demonstrate hundreds would have been killed if the rebels weren’t protected via No-Fly Zone.

If Obama does nothing, Gaddafi eventually retakes all of Libya and those areas/peoples opposing him would be subject to massive reprisals. Obama is condemned for allowing a massacre to unfold.

Solution: Obama lets enough slaughter to go down that the media supports intervention. His opposition is split, now deriding the decision for a new entanglement after having first protested his lack of action in Libya. You think maybe they had one of those big thermometers stuck to the wall of the Oval Office like they have at fundraisers, waiting for the mercury to hit 2,000 before sending in the Air Force? 2,000 lives for about +/- 4 points in the polls is a pretty solid bargain. Well done, Mr. President, well done.

This video has been making the rounds on the internet and stirring up more sentiment against the formal Libyan Government:

I struggle with not wanting to diminish the harm done, and recognizing how insignificant the event really was. You can reasonably assume hundreds of women have encountered mistreatment in Libya since fighting began in February. Absent a quick reunification and proper rule of law, thousands more will follow. Rape is what happens when regions suffer destabilization, but I don't think we like to talk about it because it makes us feel icky. Anyway, body counts aren't always the best way to measure the impact of armed conflict, but these types of externalities never make it into the broader conversation surrounding military engagement.

Who's Ready?

September 9, 2010: a U.S. District Court judge rules 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' unconstitutional. Additionally, the ruling contains a rebuttal of the argument that openly gay military personnel adversely affect readiness; it even argues that the policy has a 'direct and deleterious effect' on the military. As evidenced by my previous work, I should be a district judge for coming to this conclusion six months sooner. That's right, I win the race to prove DADT bad.

I'm not a liberal, but I'm increasingly considering myself a Democrat. Democrats seem to be owning things that facilitate military success in recent years. Climate change mitigation (which Pentagon papers have now identified as a threat to our soldiers' lives in future years): Dem-owned. Not doing stupid stuff to offend Muslims and thus not incite violence in the Middle East (i.e., oppose Islamic community centers, proclaiming a Muslim president would be evil, etc.): Dem-owned. Opening overseas dialogue to encourage reconciliation and avoid brinksmanship: Dem-owned. Keeping our eyes on the ball in Afghanistan by not invading Iraq: Not Repub-owned, but the spineless refusal to oppose the invasion meant the Dems were essentially providing tacit support. Point is, if a Republican says we should do it to support the military, someone's making money off the deal.

I've been taking another stab at 'A People's History of the United States,' and have come to the conclusion there's no excuse for having money and not making more off of war. The next time government gets a little neoconny (we'll see how November elections go), if you aren't investing in Boeing and General Dynamics, you don't deserve your wealth.

Comparing the Middle East to Vietnam is soooo 2005

This is one of those posts that was more relevant a month ago, but tonight I'm stuck in a hotel room with nothing to do - so it gets addressed today. Enjoy:

Much was made last month as our engagement in Afghanistan marked quote 'the longest war in American history.' I'm not sure how I feel about this. The stat itself assumes an entry of 1963 and withdrawal in 1973 (we were actually there longer) from Vietnam. What's bigger is that over 5 million people died during this conflict. Afghanistan doesn't even come close in terms of blood and treasure, and we've yet to place boots on the ground as long as they were in Indochina; deeming the two fit to compare isn't a measure I'm ready to take.

I worry making the time comparison alone without context does a disservice to our understanding of history and political realities. Additionally, the fact that everyone from John McCain to David Gregory calls Afghanistan the longest war in U.S. history furthers the myth that a war is a war if you call it a war. (Similarly, a war isn't a war if you don't call it one.) So let's start calling Afghanistan missionary work or something, our involvement in Indochina remaining the longest recognized war in U.S. history.

We also need a single definition when we use the word war. If you want to say war is a situation where U.S. troops are deployed and suffer military engagements, that's fine. Call the measures in Afghanistan a war, even though there is no country or leader to fight (various factions lead by tribal warlords notwithstanding). But by this definition, we had a century of warfare whilst cleansing the country of Native Americans. Our War Against Savages (WAS) was ten times longer than the Afghan War. The War on Drugs continues with no immediate end in sight. And yes, Americans have paid for excursions into foreign lands while prosecuting the War on Drugs. We paid more during WAS though.

To quench your thirst for a bigger dose of Vietnam War history, statistics for U.S. soldiers: 536,000 deployed. Over 10% KIA, over 50% injured - and these numbers don't come close to the civilian and military losses experienced by Cambodia, Northern, and Southern Vietnam. So call the nation-building in Afghanistan a war, but you disrespect the 5 million that perished in Indochina by glossing over 20% of the past century in throwing around the headline 'longest war in U.S. history' while failing to furnish context because it sounds catchy.