Geopolitical Journey, Part 2: Borderlands, November 9, 2010

STRATFOR

Editor’s note: This is the second installment in a series of special reports that Dr. Friedman will write over the next few weeks as he travels to Turkey, Moldova, Romania, Ukraine and Poland. In this series, he will share his observations of the geopolitical imperatives in each country and conclude with reflections on his journey as a whole and options for the United States.


Special Series: Geopolitical Journey with George Friedman


A borderland is a region where history is constant: Everything is in flux. The countries we are visiting on this trip (Turkey, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine and Poland) occupy the borderland between Islam, Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity. Roman Catholic Hapsburg Austria struggled with the Islamic Ottoman Empire for centuries, with the Ottomans extending northwest until a climactic battle in Vienna in 1683. Beginning in the 18th century, Orthodox Russia expanded from the east, through Belarus and Ukraine. For more than two centuries, the belt of countries stretching from the Baltic to the Black seas was the borderland over which three empires fought.


There have been endless permutations here. The Cold War was the last clear-cut confrontation, pitting Russia against a Western Europe backed — and to a great extent dominated — by the United States. This belt of countries was firmly if informally within the Soviet empire. Now they are sovereign again. My interest in the region is to understand more clearly how the next iteration of regional geopolitics will play out. Russia is far more powerful than it was 10 years ago. The European Union is undergoing internal stress and Germany is recalculating its position. The United States is playing an uncertain and complex game. I want to understand how the semicircle of powers, from Turkey to Poland, are thinking about and positioning themselves for the next iteration of the regional game.

I have been accused of thinking like an old Cold warrior. I don’t think that’s true. The Soviet Union has collapsed, and U.S. influence in Europe has declined. Whatever will come next will not be the Cold War. What I do not expect this to be is a region of perpetual peace. It has never been that before. It will not be that in the future. I want to understand the pattern of conflict that will occur in the future. But for that we need to begin in the past, not with the Cold War, but with World War I.




Regional Reshaping after World War I


World War I created a radically new architecture in this region. The Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires collapsed, the Russian empire was replaced by the Soviet Union, and the German empire was overthrown and replaced by a republic. No region in the world suffered more or was left more impoverished by the war than this region. Indeed, the war didn’t end for them in 1918. It went on as the grip of empires reluctantly subsided and the new nations struggled within and among themselves.


The collapse of empires allowed a range of nations to emerge as independent nations. From the Baltic states to Bulgaria, nations became nation-states. Many of the borders and some of the nations were fixed by the victorious powers at Versailles and Trianon. They invented Yugoslavia, which means “land of the southern Slavs,” out of a collection of hostile nations. They reshaped their borders. If France, Britain and the United States shaped the region, the Poles saved it.


The border between the Russian empire/Soviet Union and Europe is divided into two parts. The Carpathian Mountains form a rough boundary between the Russians and the rest of Europe from Slovakia to the south. These mountains are not particularly tall, but they are rugged, with scattered villages and few good roads. The Carpathians have belonged at various times to all of the countries in the region, but the Carpathians are not easily controlled. Even today, bandits rule parts of it. It is not impossible to move an army across it, but it is not easy, either.


The northern part of Europe is dominated by a vast plain stretching from France to Moscow. It is flat and marshy to the north but generally good terrain for armies to move on. Except for some river barriers, it is the route of Europe’s conquerors. Napoleon moved along the plain to Moscow, as did Hitler (who moved across the Caucasus as well). Stalin returned the way Napoleon and Hitler came.




The Intermarium


Following World War I, Poland re-emerged as a sovereign nation. The Soviet Union had capitulated to Germany in 1917 and signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918, which ceded a great deal of territory, including Ukraine, to Germany. With Germany’s defeat, Brest-Litovsk lost its force and the Russians tried to regain what they had given away in that treaty. Part of that was Poland. In 1920, a climactic battle took place in Warsaw, when an army led by Polish Gen. Jozef Pilsudski, who had struck an alliance with Ukraine that couldn’t work, blocked a Soviet invasion.


Pilsudski is an interesting figure, a reactionary in some ways, a radical in others. But it was his geopolitical vision that interests me. He was, above all else, a Polish nationalist, and he understood that Russia’s defeat by Germany was the first step to an independent Poland. He also believed that Polish domination of Ukraine — an ancient ploy — would guarantee Poland’s freedom after Germany was defeated. His attempt to ally with Ukraine failed. The Russians defeated the Ukrainians and turned on Poland. Pilsudski defeated them.


It is interesting to speculate about history if Pilsudski had lost Warsaw. The North European Plain was wide open, and the Soviets could have moved into Germany. Undoubtedly, the French would have moved to block them, but there was a powerful Communist Party in France that had little stomach for war. It could have played out many different ways had Pilsudski not stopped the Russians. But he did.


Pilsudski had another idea. Germany was in shambles, as was Russia, but both would be back. An alliance in place before they revived would, in Pilsudski’s mind, save the region. His vision was something called the Intermarium — an alliance of the nations between the seas built around Poland and including Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Finland and the Baltic states. This never came to be, but if it had, World War II may never have happened or could have played out in a different way. It is an idea that has been in my mind of late, thinking about what comes after NATO and ambitious concepts of European federation. Pilsudski’s Intermarium makes a kind of logical if not historical sense. It is not historical because this borderland has always been the battleground for others. It has never formed together to determine its fate.




The Russian-German Relationship


In many ways, this matter doesn’t rest in these states’ hands. It depends partly on what Russia wants and plans to do and it depends on what Europe wants and plans to do. As always, the Intermarium is caught between Russia and Europe. There is no southern European power at the moment (the Austro-Hungarian empire is a memory), but in the north there is Germany, a country struggling to find its place in Europe and in history.


In many ways, Germany is the mystery. The 2008 and Greek crises shocked the Germans. They had seen the European Union as the solution to European nationalism and an instrument of prosperity. When the crisis struck, the Germans found that nationalism had reared its head in Germany as much as it had in other countries. The Germans didn’t want to bail out the Greeks, and the entire question of the price and value of the European Union became a central issue in Germany. Germany has not thought of itself as a freestanding power since 1945. It is beginning to think that way again, and that could change everything, depending on where it goes.


One of the things it could change is German-Russian relations. At various times since 1871 and German re-unification, the Germans and Russians have been allies as well as mortal enemies. Right now, there is logic in closer German-Russian ties. Economically they complement and need each other. Russia exports raw materials; Germany exports technology. Neither cares to be pressured by the United States. Together they might be able to resist that pressure. There is a quiet romance under way between them.


And that rivets my attention on the countries I am visiting. For Poland, the specter of a German-Russian entente is a historical nightmare. The last time this happened, in 1939, Poland was torn apart and lost its sovereignty for 50 years. There is hardly a family in Poland who can’t name their dead from that time. Of course, it is said that this time it would be different, that the Germans are no longer what they were and neither are the Russians. But geopolitics teaches that subjective inclinations do not erase historical patterns. Whatever the Poles think and say, they must be nervous although they are not admitting it. Admitting fear of Germany and Russia would be to admit distrust, and distrust is not permitted in modern Europe. Still, the Poles know history, and it will be good to see what they have to say — or at least how they say it. And it is of the greatest importance to hear what they say and don’t say about the United States under these circumstances.

Romania’s Role


The Romanians are in a different position. The Romanians are buffered against the Russians by Ukraine and Moldova, and their sense of unease should be lower. Unlike the Poles and the North European Plain, they at least have the Carpathians running through their country. But what are we to make of Ukraine? Their government is pro-Russian and trapped by economic realities into strong Russian ties. Certainly, the increasingly German-led European Union is not going to come to their rescue. The question in Ukraine is whether their attempt to achieve complete independence is over, to be replaced by some informal but iron bond to Russia, or whether the Ukrainians still have room to maneuver. It seems from a distance that there is little room for them to breathe, let alone maneuver, but this is a question to be put to Ukrainians. They will, of course, vigorously assert their independence, but it will be important to listen to what is not said and what is answered by small shrugs and resignation. There is no more important question in Europe at the moment than the future of Ukraine.


For Romania, this is vital because its buffer could turn into its boundary if the Russians return to the border. This is why Moldova matters as well. Moldova used to be called Bessarabia. When Stalin made his deal with Hitler in 1939, part of the deal was that Bessarabia, then part of Romania, an ally of Germany, would be seized by the Soviets. This moved Romania farther from the port of Odessa, the critical port on the Black Sea, and across the Dniester River. Bessarabia remained part of the Soviet Union after the war. When the Soviet Union collapsed, Moldova became independent, stretching from Romania to the eastern bank of the Dniester. The area east of the Dniester, Transdniestria, promptly seceded from Moldova, with Russian help. Moldova became a Romanian-speaking buffer on the Dniester River.


Moldova is the poorest country in Europe. Its primary export is wine, sent mostly to Russia. The Russians have taken to blocking the export of wine for “health reasons.” I think the health issue is geopolitical and not biological. If Moldova is an independent, pro-European state, Ukraine is less isolated than the Russians would like it to be. Moldova could, in the distant future, be a base for operations against Russian interests. Every inch that potential enemies are from Odessa is beneficial. There was a reason why Stalin wanted to take Bessarabia from Hitler. That consideration has not dissolved, and the Russians are acting to isolate and pressure Moldova right now and, with it, Romania.


My visit to Romania and Moldova is to try to get a sense of how they view the situation in Ukraine, what they think Russian intentions are and what they plan to do — if anything. Romania is always a hard country to read. Geopolitically, its capital is on the wrong side of the Carpathians if the Russians are the threat, on the right side if Austria or Germany is the threat. Romania is oriented toward the European Union but is one of the many countries in the union that may not really belong there. Unlike the Poles, for whom history and resistance is a tradition, the Romanians accommodate themselves to the prevailing winds. It will be good to find out where they feel the winds are blowing from right now. I doubt that they will do anything to save Moldova and anger Moscow, but it is not clear whether Moldova is in danger. Still, this much is clear: If the Russians are reclaiming Ukraine, then Moldova is an important piece of territory, not only to protect Ukraine but also to create options toward Romania and southwestern Europe. Sometimes small pieces of land that are not on anyone’s mind represent the test case.


Turkey is a place I have gone to several times in the past few years and expect to revisit many times. In my book, “The Next 100 Years,” I argued that Turkey will be a great power in the next 50 years or so. I’m comfortable with my long-term prediction, but the next decade will be a period of transition for Turkey, from being one of the countries confronting the Soviets under the U.S. alliance system to being a resurgent power in its own right. It will be no one’s pawn, and it will be asserting its interests beyond its borders. Indeed, as its power increases in the Balkans, Turkey will be one of the forces that countries like Romania will have to face.


I will be interested in hearing from the Romanians and Moldovans what their view of Turkey is at this point. Its re-emergence will be a slow process, with inevitable setbacks and disappointments, but even now its commercial influence can be felt in the Black Sea basin. I will be interested in hearing from the Turks how they view the Russians (and, of course, Iran and the Arab countries as well as Central Asia). Russia as seen through the eyes of its neighbors is the purpose of this trip, and that’s the conversation I will want to have. Poles, Ukrainians, Romanians and Moldovans will all want to talk about Russia. The Turks will want to discuss many issues, Russia perhaps least of all. I will have to work hard to draw them out on this.

A Geopolitical Theory


In the end, I am going to the region with an analytic framework, a theory that I will want to test. It is a theory that argues that the post-Cold War world is ending. Russia is re-emerging in a historically recognizable form. Germany is just beginning the process of redefining itself in Europe, and the EU’s weaknesses have become manifest. Turkey has already taken the first steps toward becoming a regional power. We are at the beginning of a period in which these forces play themselves out.


For the United States, Turkey’s emergence is beneficial. The United States is ending its wars in the region, and Turkey is motivated to fill the vacuum left and combat radical Islam. Those who argue that the Turkish government is radically Islamist are simply wrong, for two reasons. First, Turkey is deeply divided, with the powerful heirs of the secular traditions of Kemal Ataturk on one side. They are too strong to have radical Islam imposed on them. Second, the Islamism of the Turkish government cannot possibly be compared to that of Saudi Arabia, for example. Islam comes in many hues, as does Christianity, and the Turkish version derives from Ottoman history. It is subtle, flexible and above all pragmatic. It derives from a history in which Turkish Islam was allied with Catholic Venice to dominate the Mediterranean. So Turkish Islam is not strong enough to impose itself on the secularists and too urbane to succumb to simplistic radicalism. It will do what it has to do, but helping al Qaeda is not on its agenda. Still, it will be good to talk to the secularists, who regard the current government with fear and distrust, and see whether they remain as brittle as ever.


While the United States can welcome a powerful Turkey, the same can’t be said for a powerful Russia, particularly not one allied with Germany. The single greatest American fear should not be China or al Qaeda. It is the amalgamation of the European Peninsula’s technology with Russia’s natural resources. That would create a power that could challenge American primacy. That was what the 20th century was all about. The German-Russian relationship, however early and subdued it might be, must affect the United States.


It is not clear to me that the American leadership understands this. Washington’s mind is an amalgam of post-Cold War cliches about Russia and Europe and an obsession with terrorism. This is not a time of clear strategic thinking in Washington. I find it irritating to go there, since they regard my views as alarmist and extreme while I find their views outmoded and simplistic. It’s why I like Austin. I know that the Poles, for example, are deeply concerned that Washington doesn’t understand the issues. But in the United States, Washington makes position papers and only rarely history. The United States is a vast nation, and Washington thinks of itself as its center, but it really isn’t. The United States doesn’t have a center. The pressures of the world and the public shape its actions, albeit reluctantly.


I have no power to shape anything, but for Washington to support Poland they need to be shown a path. In this case, I am going to explore the theory that Pilsudski brought to the table, of the Intermarium. I regard NATO as a bureaucracy overseeing an alliance whose mission was accomplished 20 years ago. From an American point of view, moving France or Germany is both impossible and pointless. They have their own interests and the wrong geography. It is the Intermarium — Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and perhaps Bulgaria — that represents this generation’s alliance. It blocks the Russians, splits them from the Germans and gently limits Turkey’s encroachment in southeastern Europe.


The Intermarium countries remain infatuated with the European Union and NATO, but the infatuation is declining. The year 2008 and Germany’s indifference to these countries was not pleasant, and they are learning that NATO is history. The Poles must be the leader of the bloc and the Romanians the southern anchor. I think the Poles are thinking in these terms but the Romanians are far from this idea. I’m not sure. I want to find out. For me, a U.S.-backed Poland guarding the North European Plain, with Slovakia, Hungary and Romania guarding the Carpathian approaches, would prevent what the United States should fear the most: an alliance between Russia and Germany plus Western Europe. The key is the changing perception of the European Union in the Intermarium. I want to see how far this has come.


Nothing, of course, could be further from Washington’s mind. Washington still thinks of Russia as the failed state of the 1990s. It simply doesn’t take it seriously. It thinks of the European Union as having gone over a speed bump from which it will recover. But mostly, Washington thinks about Afghanistan. For completely understandable reasons, Afghanistan sucks up the bandwidth of Washington, allowing the rest of the world to maneuver as it wishes.


As I said, I have no power to shape anything. But it is the charm of the United States that powerlessness and obscurity is no bar to looking at the world and thinking of what will come next. I am not making strategy but examining geopolitical forces. I am not planning what should be but thinking about what will likely happen. But in doing this I need a reality check, and for this reality check I will start in Romania.

Geopolitical Journey, Part 2: Borderlands is republished with permission of STRATFOR.

Toutou agréable! Toutou agréable!

French police K9s....naturally they are German Sheppard's! 

Training video from a French police K9 unit I got from PoliceOne and these may be French owned K9s, but they got pure Kraut still in them. 

Pulled a man out of a van but even better check out the the image around 45 sec where the German Shepard attacks his own handler...opps, sorry, old habit....and 108 sec...a tag team operation!






BLUtube is powered by PoliceOne.com

Officer Down

Correctional Officer Tracy Cooper
Illinois Department of Corrections
End of Watch: Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Age: 42
Tour of Duty: 15 years
Date of Incident: Monday, January 25, 2010

Correctional Officer Tracy Cooper died from complications during corrective surgery he was undergoing to repair an injury sustained while struggling with a juvenile inmate.

On January 25th, 2010, Officer Cooper had escorted the convicted felon to a court appearance in Cook County. The presiding judge ordered the inmates restraints to be removed during the hearing. Once the restraints were removed, the inmate attempted to escape from the courtroom. Officer Cooper immediately subdued the inmate but tore his left rotator cuff when they fell to the ground.

While under anesthesia for the surgery Officer Cooper slipped into a coma. He never regained consciousness and passed away the following day.

Officer Cooper had served with the Illinois Department of Corrections for 15 years and assigned to the Statesville Correctional Center. He is survived by his wife and three children.

Rest in Peace Bro…We’ll Continue The Watch

Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh.

This just makes me feel like singing Kumbaya

I was kinda bumbed out today...it was a long night and I'm really dragging, knowing I will be up till 300am on overtime...but what do I find when I get to the station....I hear what sounds like a cheer leading squad practicing and what do I find...idiots protesting a California jury decision.

Former Bay Area Regional Transit (BART) Officer Johannes Mehserle was sentenced to 2 years for shooting Oscar Grant which outraged many people in the San Francisco area.  Now what that has to do with me and my station, I don't know.  But they are out here callinging me ugly things on the bull horn..."We both know you are not nice people...but at home at night, do you really think how evil you are.."

I did have a good laugh from them...and I needed it. 

Just outside the station



The big sign says "End Police Terror", the smaller one on
the left says "Honk if you hate cops"





I gotta get with my buddies from California and let's all sing some good songs like "Taking it to the streets!" or "Cop Killer!"

All BSing aside I wonder if they have any clue how worthless that is....enjoy the sun guys.  Your protest will fall on deaf ears in Texas. Why don't you take a bus to California and protest there?

Thanks for the laughs!

I would say "I'm Shocked Shocked to find ther're gambling going on in here!" but why

I'm not sure which is more appropriate, that classic line from Casablanca or the opening of The Godfather II with Michael Corelone telling Nevada's senator "We're both part of the same hypocrisy..."
OK, Olbermann is IMHO a moron.  He can't make a cogent argument and illegitimately attacks people not on their records or opinion but on falsehoods.  But unlike the NBC news division he is honest about what he is.  He is a leftist commenter.

Now here is the real two face crap.

...The developments with Olbermann come on the heels of revelations that Fox News Channel, a conservative network which hosts various cable news shows in direct competition with Olbermann, made political contributions to political groups.


Fox News parent company News Corp. [NWS 16.33 -0.225 (-1.36%) ] attracted controversy in August after it donated about $1 million to the Republican Governors Association and another $1 million to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

OK...a large business donates to the Chamber of Commerce and that is controversial?  OK, what planet am I on?  I would say I'm shocked that NBC is not donating to the Chamber of Commerce but they don't have a practical business model...unlike NBC, CofC supports legitimate businesses that provide goods and services the American people want and need.  In NBC's mindset, business (other than the non-profit sector or legitimate media) is evil. 

Again the iditocy is show and i wonder if an "objective Journolist" will ask the question and get an answer to "Why was Keith Overbite busted?"

Olbermann suspended for Dem contributions – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

MSNBC has suspended prime-time host Keith Olbermann indefinitely without pay for contributing to the campaigns of three Democratic candidates this election season...


...NBC News prohibits its employees from working on, or donating to, political campaigns unless a special exception is granted by the news division president—effectively a ban. Olbermann's bosses did not find out about the donations until after they were made. The website Politico first reported the donations.

"I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night," Phil Griffin, MSNBC's chief executive, said Friday. "Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."

...His "Countdown" show, which airs at 8 p.m. ET, is MSNBC's most popular program. His on-the-air transformation from the host of a straight news program to a liberal commentator led the network itself to go in the same direction, filling its prime-time lineup with left-leaning hosts and doing better in the ratings than anytime since its 1996 launch.

And So it Goes in Shreveport: Quote of the Day

And So it Goes in Shreveport: Quote of the Day

This says it all...thanks to Pat at ASIGIS:

From Andy's Place:


"Aren't you glad you don't have to live in California with Jerry Brown as Gov and no legal marijuana?!?!"

On Denver, UFO's and Byrds Chapter Two

Today as I sit sick as a dog I was delighted to be the recipient of a text message from my old friend Robyn, aka Byrd.  I last saw her in Denver for her wedding and I would like to say I have good memories of the evening but the night is very vague to me...from the accounts I've been able to gather I was the life of the party over a bottle of Red Breast Irish Whiskey and I think I still owe the Rabbi something for the mess I made.  But I digress.

Byrd told me of the Proposition in Denver to set up an Extraterrestrial Affairs Commission and her comment was "this is what happens when pot becomes legal".

I gotta say, knowing Denver...this is about right :)

In Colorado, Flying-Saucer People Are at the Throats of Ghost Hunters - WSJ.com

Colorado Flying-Saucer Believers Have Ghost Hunters in Their Sights

Denver May Not Be Big Enough for Both; Earthlings to Decide on UFO Haven

DENVER—There has been plenty of partisan rancor across Colorado as Election Day approaches. Here in the capital, it's out of this world.

Ballot Initiative 300 would require the city to set up an Extraterrestrial Affairs Commission, stocked with Ph.D. scientists, to "ensure the health, safety and cultural awareness of Denver residents" when it comes to future contact "with extraterrestrial intelligent beings or their vehicles."


Promoting the initiative: Jeff Peckman, a silver-haired entrepreneur who lives with his parents. "Low overhead," he explains. Mr. Peckman is a firm believer in intergalactic life, though he has never been personally contacted by an alien. That gives him more credibility, he says; it's harder to dismiss him as biased.

Mr. Peckman has recruited about 20 volunteers for his campaign.

But we do have opposition to the proposition.

They face an impassioned opposition led by Bryan Bonner, who dismisses the unidentified-flying-object buffs as delusional if not outright frauds.

One thing about Mr. Bonner: He spends his spare time crawling through spooky spaces, deploying remote digital thermometers, seismographs, infrared cameras, electromagnetic field detectors and Nerf balls in pursuit of evidence of the paranormal. He is, in short, a ghost hunter.

And he has rallied his colleagues at the Rocky Mountain Paranormal Research Society to fight Initiative 300 as an embarrassment to science—and to Denver.

"This is about the reputation of the city," Mr. Bonner says.

Hey pal, you elected Pat Schroeder to Congress for years...UFOs and ghosts are minor glitches on your reputation conpared to that.

Initiative 300 made it to Tuesday's ballot on the strength of roughly 4,000 voter signatures. It starts from the premise that intelligent aliens have been visiting Earth for decades, but the federal government has conspired to keep that quiet.

"We need to get this out of the realm of the Tooth Fairy and into the realm of diplomatic protocol," says Ricky Butterfass, who works on the campaign.

I got another old friend Jerry who speaks semi-fluent Klingon...can he be a translator.  I know he will like that money.

..."I don't really believe in extraterrestrial life, but if we set something up like that, we'd be prepared for anything," said Brandon Coby, 23 years old, a biology major at the University of Colorado. "You can't go wrong with it."

Hey Brandon, in case you haven't heard, the UN took care of that.

That logic drives the ghost-hunters at Rocky Mountain Paranormal nuts. Mr. Bonner, a founder of the group, says he has no problem with anyone scanning the skies for UFOs. But he does object to giving the saucer seekers credibility by setting them up with an official commission and posting its findings on the city of Denver's website, as Initiative 300 requires.
Compared to that, he says, his profession is a model of discretion.

"The world is full of ghost-hunters," Mr. Bonner says, "but we're not trying to get ourselves affiliated with the city government."

Good point there Mr. Bonner...but what is worse, the Denver City Council or the United Nations?  Something to contemplate...

As I sit here with a fever and a good chuckle from reading this I have to say I can't wait to visit Denver again (probably by motorcycle this time) and among other things meet my old friend with my customary greeting:

Robyn, You Ignorant Slut!

UPDATE:

Looks like if the aliens land in Denver they will have to direct them to the UN:

...That's what the Mile High City might have brought into existence on November 2, had Denver voters approved Initiative 300, brainchild of Jeff Peckman's EXTRA Campaign.

By a nearly five to one margin, however, Denver told E.T. not to go home, but to go the hell home. There will be no Extraterrestrial Affairs Commission in Denver any time soon. 

Good to know there is some common sense in Colorado...now about the Senate race.....

Geopolitical Weekly : The World Looks at Obama After the U.S. Midterm Election November 4, 2010

By George Friedman


The 2010 U.S. midterm elections were held, and the results were as expected: The Republicans took the House but did not take the Senate. The Democrats have such a small margin in the Senate, however, that they cannot impose cloture, which means the Republicans can block Obama administration initiatives in both houses of Congress. At the same time, the Republicans cannot override presidential vetoes alone, so they cannot legislate, either. The possible legislative outcomes are thus gridlock or significant compromises.


U.S. President Barack Obama hopes that the Republicans prove rigidly ideological. In 1994, after the Republicans won a similar victory over Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich attempted to use the speakership to craft national policy. Clinton ran for re-election in 1996 against Gingrich rather than the actual Republican candidate, Bob Dole; Clinton made Gingrich the issue, and he won. Obama hopes for the same opportunity to recoup. The new speaker, John Boehner, already has indicated that he does not intend to play Gingrich but rather is prepared to find compromises. Since Tea Party members are not close to forming a majority of the Republican Party in the House, Boehner is likely to get his way.


Another way to look at this is that the United States remains a predominantly right-of-center country. Obama won a substantial victory in 2008, but he did not change the architecture of American politics. Almost 48 percent of voters voted against him. Though he won a larger percentage than anyone since Ronald Reagan, he was not even close to the magnitude of Reagan’s victory. Reagan transformed the way American politics worked. Obama did not. In spite of his supporters’ excitement, his election did not signify a permanent national shift to the left. His attempt to govern from the left accordingly brought a predictable result: The public took away his ability to legislate on domestic affairs. Instead, they moved the country to a position where no one can legislate anything beyond the most carefully negotiated and neutral legislation.


Foreign Policy and Obama’s Campaign Position


That leaves foreign policy. Last week, I speculated on what Obama might do in foreign affairs, exploring his options with regard to Iran. This week, I’d like to consider the opposite side of the coin, namely, how foreign governments view Obama after this defeat. Let’s begin by considering how he positioned himself during his campaign.


The most important thing about his campaign was the difference between what he said he would do and what his supporters heard him saying he would do. There were several major elements to his foreign policy. First, he campaigned intensely against the Bush policy in Iraq, arguing that it was the wrong war in the wrong place. Second, he argued that the important war was in Afghanistan, where he pledged to switch his attention to face the real challenge of al Qaeda. Third, he argued against Bush administration policy on detention, military tribunals and torture, in his view symbolized by the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.


In a fourth element, he argued that Bush had alienated the world by his unilateralism, by which he meant lack of consultation with allies — in particular the European allies who had been so important during the Cold War. Obama argued that global hostility toward the Bush administration arose from the Iraq war and the manner in which Bush waged the war on terror. He also made clear that the United States under Bush had an indifference to world opinion that cost it moral force. Obama wanted to change global perceptions of the United States as a unilateral global power to one that would participate as an equal partner with the rest of the world.


The Europeans were particularly jubilant at his election. They had in fact seen Bush as unwilling to take their counsel, and more to the point, as demanding that they participate in U.S. wars that they had no interest in participating in. The European view — or more precisely, the French and German view — was that allies should have a significant degree of control over what Americans do. Thus, the United States should not merely have consulted the Europeans, but should have shaped its policy with their wishes in mind. The Europeans saw Bush as bullying, unsophisticated and dangerous. Bush in turn saw allies’ unwillingness to share the burdens of a war as meaning they were not in fact allies. He considered so-called “Old Europe” as uncooperative and unwilling to repay past debts.


The European Misunderstanding of Obama


The Europeans’ pleasure in Obama’s election, however, represented a massive misunderstanding. Though they thought Obama would allow them a greater say in U.S. policy — and, above all, ask them for less — Obama in fact argued that the Europeans would be more likely to provide assistance to the United States if Washington was more collaborative with the Europeans.


Thus, in spite of the Nobel Peace Prize in the early days of the romance, the bloom wore off as the Europeans discovered that Obama was simply another U.S. president. More precisely, they learned that instead of being able to act according to his or her own wishes, circumstances constrain occupants of the U.S. presidency into acting like any other president would.


Campaign rhetoric notwithstanding, Obama’s position on Iraq consisted of slightly changing Bush’s withdrawal timetable. In Afghanistan, his strategy was to increase troop levels beyond what Bush would consider. Toward Iran, his policy has been the same as Bush’s: sanctions with a hint of something later.


The Europeans quickly became disappointed in Obama, especially when he escalated the Afghan war and asked them to increase forces when they wanted to withdraw. Perhaps most telling was his speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, where he tried to reach out to, and create a new relationship with, Muslims. The problem with this approach was that that in the speech, Obama warned that the United States would not abandon Israel — the same stance other U.S. presidents had adopted. It is hard to know what Obama was thinking. Perhaps he thought that by having reached out to the Muslim world, they should in turn understand the American commitment to Israel. Instead, Muslims understood the speech as saying that while Obama was prepared to adopt a different tone with Muslims, the basic structure of American policy in the region would not be different.


Why Obama Believed in a Reset Button


In both the European and Muslim case, the same question must be asked: Why did Obama believe that he was changing relations when in fact his policies were not significantly different from Bush’s policies? The answer is that Obama seemed to believe the essential U.S. problem with the world was rhetorical. The United States had not carefully explained itself, and in not explaining itself, the United States appeared arrogant.


Obama seemed to believe that the policies did not matter as much as the sensibility that surrounded the policies. It was not so much that he believed he could be charming — although he seemed to believe that with reason — but rather that foreign policy is personal, built around trust and familiarity rather than around interests. The idea that nations weren’t designed to trust or like one another, but rather pursued their interests with impersonal force, was alien to him. And so he thought he could explain the United States to the Muslims without changing U.S. policy and win the day.


U.S. policies in the Middle East remain intact, Guantanamo is still open, and most of the policies Obama opposed in his campaign are still there, offending the world much as they did under Bush. Moreover, the U.S. relationship with China has worsened, and while the U.S. relationship with Russia has appeared to improve, this is mostly atmospherics. This is not to criticize Obama, as these are reasonable policies for an American to pursue. Still, the substantial change in America’s place in the world that Europeans and his supporters entertained has not materialized. That it couldn’t may be true, but the gulf between what Obama said and what has happened is so deep that it shapes global perceptions.


Global Expectations and Obama’s Challenge


Having traveled a great deal in the last year and met a number of leaders and individuals with insight into the predominant thinking in their country, I can say with some confidence that the global perception of Obama today is as a leader given to rhetoric that doesn’t live up to its promise. It is not that anyone expected his rhetoric to live up to its promise, since no politician can pull that off, but that they see Obama as someone who thought rhetoric would change things. In that sense, he is seen as naive and, worse, as indecisive and unimaginative.


No one expected him to turn rhetoric into reality. But they did expect some significant shifts in foreign policy and a forceful presence in the world. Whatever the criticisms leveled against the United States, the expectation remains that the United States will remain at the center of events, acting decisively. This may be a contradiction in the global view of things, but it is the reality.


A foreign minister of a small — but not insignificant — country put it this way to me: Obama doesn’t seem to be there. By that he meant that Obama does not seem to occupy the American presidency and that the United States he governs does not seem like a force to be reckoned with. Decisions that other leaders wait for the United States to make don’t get made, the authority of U.S. emissaries is uncertain, the U.S. defense and state departments say different things, and serious issues are left unaddressed.


While it may seem an odd thing to say, it is true: The American president also presides over the world. U.S. power is such that there is an expectation that the president will attend to matters around the globe not out of charity, but because of American interest. The questions I have heard most often on many different issues are simple: What is the American position, what is the American interest, what will the Americans do? (As an American, I frequently find my hosts appointing me to be the representative of the United States.)


I have answered that the United States is off balance trying to place the U.S.-jihadist war in context, that it must be understood that the president is preoccupied but will attend to their region shortly. That is not a bad answer, since it is true. But the issue now is simple: Obama has spent two years on the trajectory in place when he was elected, having made few if any significant shifts. Inertia is not a bad thing in policy, as change for its own sake is dangerous. Yet a range of issues must be attended to, including China, Russia and the countries that border each of them.


Obama comes out of this election severely weakened domestically. If he continues his trajectory, the rest of the world will perceive him as a crippled president, something he needn’t be in foreign policy matters. Obama can no longer control Congress, but he still controls foreign policy. He could emerge from this defeat as a powerful foreign policy president, acting decisively in Afghanistan and beyond. It’s not a question of what he should do, but whether he will choose to act in a significant way at all.


This is Obama’s great test. Reagan accelerated his presence in the world after his defeat in 1982. It is an option, and the most important question is whether he takes it. We will know in a few months. If he doesn’t, global events will begin unfolding without recourse to the United States, and issues held in check will no longer remain quiet.

This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR

I wonder if the three justices will find a right for them to sit on the court...

I love justices who say the constitution says something but they can't show it in the text...Roe vs Wade anyone. But that's another thought for another day.

These three justices "found" a right for same sex couples to marry in Iowa's Constitution. Of course they cannot show where the constitution of mentions same sex marriage, but they are geniuses and they will not be questioned. 

Fortunately there is a way for rogue justices to be held to account in the state.

Iowans dismiss three justices desmoinesregister.com The Des Moines Register

Three Iowa Supreme Court justices lost their seats Tuesday in a historic upset fueled by their 2009 decision that allowed same-sex couples to marry.


Vote totals from 96 percent of Iowa's 1,774 precincts showed Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices David Baker and Michael Streit with less than the simple majority needed to stay on the bench.


Their removal marked the first time an Iowa Supreme Court justice has not been retained since 1962, when the merit selection and retention system for judges was adopted.


..."It appears we're headed for a resounding victory tonight and a historic moment in the state of Iowa," said Bob Vander Plaats, the Sioux City businessman who led a campaign to remove the justices because of the 2009 gay marriage ruling. "The people of Iowa stood up in record numbers and sent a message ... that it is 'We the people,' not 'We the courts.' "


In a statement issued early today, the three justices said: "We hope Iowans will continue to support Iowa's merit selection system for appointing judges. This system helps ensure that judges base their decisions on the law and the Constitution and nothing else. Ultimately, however, the preservation of our state's fair and impartial courts will require more than the integrity and fortitude of individual judges, it will require the steadfast support of the people."

Excuse me, your decision was outside of the "law and the Constitution and nothing else".  If you had used that you would have told the plaintiffs in the case this is not applicable as there is no right to marry.  And you would have your jobs. 

Not everyone agreed with Vander Plaats or the majority of voters.


"In the end, the aggressive campaign to misuse the judicial retention vote, funded by out-of-state special interests, has succeeded," Drake University Law School Dean Allan Vestal said. "The loss of these three justices is most unfortunate, and the damage to our judicial system and the merit selection of judges will take much to repair."


...Iowa's seven justices declared that a law barring same-sex marriage violated the constitution's equal-protection rights of gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry...

...Two Polk County judges who faced retention challenges survived with more than 60 percent of the vote, as did all of their colleagues at Iowa's largest courthouse.


Judge Robert Hanson, who sided with six same-sex couples in the Polk County District Court ruling, was retained with 66 percent support once all precincts were counted. Polk County District Judge Scott Rosenberg, targeted in a last-minute automated phone campaign for signing one gay couple's marriage waiver, kept his seat on the bench with 69 percent.


Hanson said he was elated and grateful for the support of Polk County voters but was disturbed by the loss of the three justices.


"I'm very, very thankful for the support, and for (voters') apparent appreciation of the proper functions of the judiciary," Hanson said...

The voters do judge.  A judge is supposed to judge to constitutionally of a law or other issue, or see if confirms with the law.  It is not to "find law" or in the infamous words of the junior associate justices of the US Supreme Court, "make policy".  If the Constitution is silent you defer to the legislative or executive branch

...Iowans interviewed at polling stations based their votes heavily on the gay marriage ruling.


...Bernie Noel of Bloomfield said he had never voted "no" on a justice until Tuesday. The 43-year-old said he opted to retain his local district court judges, who "do a great job, and are good people." But the gay marriage ruling swayed him against the justices.


"I don't think they should have the power to change the constitution and take things into their own hands," Noel said. "It's a hard job to do, but here, in this case, I just really think they overstepped their bounds."

And yes, these judges overstepped their bounds.  I wonder if having a similar requirement for federal judges will help, e.g require each judge/justice to have Senate reconfirmation every ten years.  It may lead to them knowing the final authority  in a republic is the law and the people, not their screwed up ideas. 

Oreo and Gingles are really plotting against me

I got this from National Review Online and it's pretty cool...is your cat trying to kill you.  I have two and they I would say they are plotting against me but they hate each other too much so I figure I'm safe

Great website:

What's going on in the World Today 101101

HYPERLINKS MAY REQUIRE AN EMAIL:


USA

U.S. Naval Update Map: Oct. 27, 2010 STRATFOR




EUROPE


The New British Government's Plans for the Military STRATFOR


ASIA


Dispatch: Consequences of a Suicide Attack in Istanbul STRATFOR


Suicide Bombing in Istanbul STRATFOR


China Security Memo: Oct. 28, 2010 STRATFOR


RUSSIA


Russia, France: Shipbuilding Agreement Signed November 1, 2010


Russia’s United Shipbuilding Corporation (OSK) and French naval defense company DCNS signed an agreement Nov. 1 establishing cooperation to build naval and civilian vessels, including Mistral ships, Interfax reported. The agreement lays the foundation for cooperation between French and Russian companies in civilian and military shipbuilding, Russian Deputy Prime Minister and chairman of OSK’s board of directors Igor Sechin said. The agreement met the interests of both states, the French president’s chief of staff Gen. Benoit Puga said. The agreement provides an exchange of technology and experience in shipbuilding, OSK president Roman Trotsenko said. The nations will work where profit is possible, Trotsenko said, adding that the cooperation is specifically for technologically complex ships, including icebreakers and other ships used for the exploration of the Arctic.


Russia: Plan To Buy 2 Helicopter Carriers Confirmed October 31, 2010


Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov confirmed the ministry plans to purchase two foreign-built helicopter carriers, and that it will be purchasing the ships with full technical documentation so Russia can produce its own carriers at a later point, RIA Novosti reported Oct. 31. France has negotiated with Russia on the sale of Mistral-class helicopter carriers for the Russian navy, and unnamed sources said Russia has also invited offers from ship manufacturers in Spain, the Netherlands and South Korea.


Russia: Continued Supply Of Precision-guided Projectiles To Iran October 29, 2010


Russia is continuing to supply Iran with weapons in accordance with five previously signed contracts not under the purview of the United Nations, one of which involves the supply of Krasnopol precision-guided projectiles, an unnamed Russian source said, Interfax reported. According to the source, the Krasnopol projectiles are neither directly nor indirectly subject to international sanctions.


Russia: Missile Test Launch A Success October 29, 2010


The Russian nuclear submarine Dmitriy Donskoy successfully carried out the underwater test launch of the Bulava sea-based intercontinental ballistic missile on Oct. 29 according to the Russian Defence Ministry, Interfax-AVN reported. The missile was launched from the White Sea and followed the predetermined flight plans to deliver the warheads to the Kura test-range in Kamchatka, a Defence Ministry source stated.

IRAN


Iran: Navy To Use Helicopters To Increase Operational Range November 1, 2010


The Iranian navy is planning to equip all its destroyers and military vessels with military helicopters as part of a strategy to increase the operational range of its fleets, Fars News Agency reported Nov. 1, citing Lieutenant Commander of the Iranian navy Gholam Reza Khadem Biqam. However, Iran’s missile frigates will not be equipped with helicopters as they do not have the capacity to carry them, Biqam said. The navy will begin to use the helicopters following personnel training and minor modifications to the navigational systems, Biqam said.


U.S.-Iran Negotiations Redux STRATFOR

IRAQ


NOTHING SIGNIFICANT TO REPORT

ISRAEL


Israel: Intelligence Accessible Through Civilian Means November 1, 2010


Militant groups can now access intelligence through civilian Internet applications that rivals what government spies can obtain, Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin said on Nov. 1, Reuters reported. Diskin was speaking at a homeland security conference in Tel Aviv. He said intelligence that was once only accessible to governments is now available from systems like Google Earth, Internet cameras deployed throughout the globe and linked to the Web, and iPhone applications that allow access to real-time intelligence.


Israel: U.S. Negotiates Palestinian, Israeli Border October 29, 2010


The United States is negotiating the future borders of the Palestinian territories with Israel proposing the option that Israel lease the land in east Jerusalem from the Palestinians for 40 to 99 years, according to a report released by Asharq Al Awsat on Oct. 29, The Jerusalem Post reported. Palestinian sources confirmed the report but added Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is not aware of the details.


AFGHANISTAN


Afghanistan: District Recaptured From Taliban xNovember 1, 2010


Afghan governor Musa Khan Akbarzada said national security forces, including police, army and intelligence had recaptured the Khogyani district from the Taliban in Ghazni on Oct. 31 seizing the administration and are now in control of the district, Dawn News reported Nov.1.


Afghanistan: Shortage Of Trainers For Afghan Forces October 31, 2010


NATO is facing a shortage of training instructors for Afghan forces and has begun sending hundreds of Afghans out of the country for training, Reuters reported Oct. 31. NATO training supervisor Lt. Gen. William Caldwell said he was short 900 instructors, mainly for police but also logistics, aviation training, doctors and communications specialists. He added that 440 of the needed instructors are for critical roles that must be filled by June 2011. He added that 300 Afghan troops have been sent to the United Arab Emirates for training with French troops and others will be sent to Turkey for police training.


Notions of Progress and Negotiation in Afghanistan STRATFOR

As U.S. Col. Harry Summers so clearly articulated, negotiation is achieved militarily when military power is applied in such a way as to impose upon the enemy a choice: negotiate on American terms and on American timetables, or be destroyed. Negotiation with the Taliban must be understood first and foremost as lacking that latter possibility.

Australia: Afghan Warlord's Militants Train With Special Forces October 28, 2010


Six militants loyal to Matiullah Khan, an Oruzgan warlord with whom Dutch forces refused to work because of alleged connections to murder and extortion, flew to Australia to train with elite Australian special forces as a part of a strategy to strengthen military operations against the Taliban, Brisbane Times reported Oct. 28. The militants were shown combat training displays and met with Australian officers at the Cultana base in southern Australia and Holsworthy Barracks in outer Sydney.


Afghanistan: French Troops May Withdraw Early 2011 October 28, 2010


French soldiers may withdraw from Afghanistan in early 2011, said French Defense Minister Herve Morin, adding the plan is not connected to threats against France in an audio message from Osama Bin Laden, AFP reported Oct. 28. Morin said NATO set the withdrawal framework and the timetable was set by Barack Obama stating the first U.S. troops leave Afghanistan in 2011.

MIDDLE EAST


NOTHING SIGNIFICANT TO REPORT

SOUTH OF THE BORDER


Mexico: Man Arrested In Murder Of U.S. Citizens November 1, 2010


Mexican authorities announced the arrest of Miguel Angel Nevarez Escajeda, who is believed to be directly involved in the deaths of U.S. citizens Leslie A. Enriquez and Arthur H. Redelfs on March 13 in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua state, Milenio reported Nov. 1. Authorities did not say where Nevarez Escajeda was found, but mentioned that an anonymous phone call led to his arrest, La Cronica De Hoy reported.


Colombia: Army Commander Killed By FARC November 1, 2010


Col. Javier Garcia Nieto, the commander of the Colombian army’s 27th Engineer Battalion, was killed near Puerto Asis, Putumayo department, when his vehicle was hit with an improvised explosive device allegedly planted by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), Caracol Radio reported Nov. 1. Three members of Garcia Nieto’s security detail were injured in the attack.


Brazil's Ruling Party Wins the Presidency STRATFOR


Mexico: Prison Chief Arrested For Alleged Drug Gang Ties October 29, 2010


Francisco Javier Gomez Meza, the director of Puente Grande maximum-security federal prison in Guadalajara, was arrested Oct. 28 for alleged ties to drug gangs, according to a statement from the Public Safety Department on Oct. 29, AP reported. The investigation was related to Meza’s time as head of police deployments at the Federal Investigative Agency, a now-defunct police force attached to the Attorney General’s Office, from 2001-2008.


Mexico: Nine Police Killed, 10 Injured October 29, 2010


Nine police were killed and 10 injured with one missing after an ambush in the Tepacaltepec municipality in the Mexican state of Michoacan on Oct. 28 according to Mexican authorities, Xinhua reported. The attack took place in the afternoon near the Chilatan reservoir after five police cars attended the scene following reports of an armed man in the area. The gunmen were armed with assault rifles including AK-47s, AR-15s and a 40 caliber grenade launcher.


Dispatch: Drug Politics in Mexico STRATFOR

MISC


Somalia: Pirates Seize Tanker 600 Nautical Miles From Coast October 30, 2010


Somali pirates hijacked a Panama-flagged tanker with 24 crew members nearly 1,100 kilometers (600 nautical miles) off the Somali coast, according to the EU Naval Force (EU NAVFOR) and pirates, Reuters reported Oct. 30. The crew comprises a Romanian, three Greeks, four Montenegrins and 16 Filipinos. The owner of the 72,825 metric ton tanker confirmed that it had been seized, EU NAVOR said.


New Tactic for Countering Somali Pirates STRATFOR 

The strategy involves a prepared plan for sequestering the crew in a safe room containing supplies like food and water; a kill-switch that remotely disables the ship’s engine, electronic systems and fuel supplies; and communications equipment that can be used to send out distress signals. If the lack of navigational ability or hostages alone does not encourage the pirates to desert the ship, the crew’s isolation also buys time for naval forces or anti-piracy patrols to respond.

Intelligence Guidance: Week of Oct. 24, 2010 STRATFOR 

Except where noted courtesy www.stratfor.com

Officer Down

 

Police Officer Paul Dittamo

District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department
End of Watch: Saturday, October 30, 2010
Age: 32
Tour of Duty: 1 year, 4 months

Officer Paul Dittamo was killed in an automobile accident while responding to a call.

At approximately 0100 hours, Officer Dittamo and his partner were responding to an incident on Morris Road, SE. Their vehicle was traveling northeast on Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, SE when it collided with a utility pole in the 2200 block. Officer Dittamo was killed in the collision and his partner sustained non-life threatening injuries.

Officer Dittamo had served with the Metropolitan Police Department, Seventh District, for just over one year.

Rest in Peace Bro…We’ll Continue The Watch

Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh.

Security Weekly- WikiLeaks and the Culture of Classification October 28, 2010

By Scott Stewart


On Friday, Oct. 22, the organization known as WikiLeaks published a cache of 391,832 classified documents on its website. The documents are mostly field reports filed by U.S. military forces in Iraq from January 2004 to December 2009 (the months of May 2004 and March 2009 are missing). The bulk of the documents (379,565, or about 97 percent) were classified at the secret level, with 204 classified at the lower confidential level. The remaining 12,062 documents were either unclassified or bore no classification.


This large batch of documents is believed to have been released by Pfc. Bradley Manning, who was arrested in May 2010 by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigations Command and charged with transferring thousands of classified documents onto his personal computer and then transmitting them to an unauthorized person. Manning is also alleged to have been the source of the classified information released by WikiLeaks pertaining to the war in Afghanistan in July 2010.


WikiLeaks released the Iraq war documents, as it did the Afghanistan war documents, to a number of news outlets for analysis several weeks in advance of their formal public release. These news organizations included The New York Times, Der Spiegel, The Guardian and Al Jazeera, each of which released special reports to coincide with the formal release of the documents Oct. 22.


Due to its investigation of Manning, the U.S. government also had a pretty good idea of what the material was before it was released and had formed a special task force to review it for sensitive and potentially damaging information prior to the release. The Pentagon has denounced the release of the information, which it considers a crime, has demanded the return of its stolen property and has warned that the documents place Iraqis at risk of retaliation and also place the lives of U.S. troops at risk from terrorist groups that are mining the documents for tidbits of operational information they can use in planning their attacks.


When one takes a careful look at the classified documents released by WikiLeaks, it becomes quickly apparent that they contain very few true secrets. Indeed, the main points being emphasized by Al Jazeera and the other media outlets after all the intense research they conducted before the public release of the documents seem to highlight a number of issues that had been well-known and well-chronicled for years. For example, the press has widely reported that the Iraqi government was torturing its own people; many civilians were killed during the six years the documents covered; sectarian death squads were operating inside Iraq; and the Iranian government was funding Shiite militias. None of this is news. But, when one steps back from the documents themselves and looks at the larger picture, there are some interesting issues that have been raised by the release of these documents and the reaction to their release.


The Documents


The documents released in this WikiLeaks cache were taken from the U.S. government’s Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet), a network used to distribute classified but not particularly sensitive information. SIPRNet is authorized only for the transmission of information classified at the secret level and below. It cannot be used for information classified top secret or more closely guarded intelligence that is classified at the secret level. The regulations by which information is classified by the U.S. government are outlined in Executive Order 13526. Under that order, secret is the second-highest level of classification and applies to information that, if released, would be reasonably expected to cause serious damage to U.S. national security.


Due to the nature of SIPRNet, most of the information that was downloaded from it and sent to WikiLeaks consisted of raw field reports from U.S. troops in Iraq. These reports discussed things units encountered, such as IED attacks, ambushes, the bodies of murdered civilians, friendly-fire incidents, traffic accidents, etc. For the most part, the reports contained raw information and not vetted, processed intelligence. The documents also did not contain information that was the result of intelligence-collection operations, and therefore did not reveal sensitive intelligence sources and methods. Although the WikiLeaks material is often compared to the 1971 release of the Pentagon Papers, there really is very little similarity. The Pentagon Papers consisted of a top secret-level study completed for the U.S. secretary of defense and not raw, low-level battlefield reports.


To provide a sense of the material involved in the WikiLeaks release, we will examine two typical reports. The first, classified at the secret level, is from an American military police (MP) company reporting that Iraqi police on Oct. 28, 2006, found the body of a person whose name was redacted in a village who had been executed. In the other report, also classified at the secret level, we see that on Jan. 1, 2004, Iraqi police called an American MP unit in Baghdad to report that an improvised explosive device (IED) had detonated and that there was another suspicious object found at the scene. The MP unit responded, confirmed the presence of the suspicious object and then called an explosive ordnance disposal unit, which came to the site and destroyed the second IED. Now, while it may have been justified to classify such reports at the secret level at the time they were written to protect information pertaining to military operations, clearly, the release of these two reports in October 2010 has not caused any serious damage to U.S. national security.


Another factor to consider when reading raw information from the field is that, while they offer a degree of granular detail that cannot be found in higher-level intelligence analysis, they can often be misleading or otherwise erroneous. As anyone who has ever interviewed a witness can tell you, in a stressful situation people often miss or misinterpret important factual details. That’s just how most people are wired. This situation can be compounded when a witness is placed in a completely alien culture. This is not to say that all these reports are flawed, but just to note that raw information must often be double-checked and vetted before it can be used to create a reliable estimate of the situation on the battlefield. Clearly, the readers of these reports released by WikiLeaks now do not have the ability to conduct that type of follow-up.


Few True Secrets


By saying there are very few true secrets in the cache of documents released by WikiLeaks, we mean things that would cause serious damage to national security. And no, we are not about to point out the things that we believe could be truly damaging. However, it is important to understand up front that something that causes embarrassment and discomfort to a particular administration or agency does not necessarily damage national security.


As to the charges that the documents are being mined by militant groups for information that can be used in attacks against U.S. troops deployed overseas, this is undoubtedly true. It would be foolish for the Taliban, the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) and other militant groups not to read the documents and attempt to benefit from them. However, there are very few things noted in these reports pertaining to the tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP) used by U.S. forces that could not be learned by simply observing combat operations — and the Taliban and ISI have been carefully studying U.S. TTP every hour of every day for many years now. These documents are far less valuable than years of careful, direct observation and regular first-hand interaction.


Frankly, combatants who have been intensely watching U.S. and coalition forces and engaging them in combat for the better part of a decade are not very likely to learn much from dated American after-action reports. The insurgents and sectarian groups in Iraq own the human terrain; they know who U.S. troops are meeting with, when they meet them and where. There is very little that this level of reporting is going to reveal to them that they could not already have learned via observation. Remember, these reports do not deal with highly classified human-intelligence or technical-intelligence operations.


This is not to say that the alleged actions of Manning are somehow justified. From the statements released by the government in connection with the case, Manning knew the information he was downloading was classified and needed to be protected. He also appeared to know that his actions were illegal and could get him in trouble. He deserves to face the legal consequences of his actions.


This is also not a justification for the actions of WikiLeaks and the media outlets that are exploiting and profiting from the release of this information. What we are saying is that the hype surrounding the release is just that. There were a lot of classified documents released, but very few of them contained information that would truly shed new light on the actions of U.S. troops in Iraq or their allies or damage U.S. national security. While the amount of information released in this case was huge, it was far less damaging than the information released by convicted spies such as Robert Hanssen and Aldrich Ames — information that crippled sensitive intelligence operations and resulted in the execution or imprisonment of extremely valuable human intelligence sources.


Culture of Classification


Perhaps one of the most interesting facets of the WikiLeaks case is that it highlights the culture of classification that is so pervasive inside the U.S. government. Only 204 of the 391,832 documents were classified at the confidential level, while 379,565 of them were classified at the secret level. This demonstrates the propensity of the U.S. government culture to classify documents at the highest possible classification rather than at the lowest level really required to protect that information. In this culture, higher is better.

Furthermore, while much of this material may have been somewhat sensitive at the time it was reported, most of that sensitivity has been lost over time, and many of the documents, like the two reports referenced above, no longer need to be classified. Executive Order 13526 provides the ability for classifying agencies to set dates for materials to be declassified. Indeed, according to the executive order, a date for declassification is supposed to be set every time a document is classified. But, in practice, such declassification provisions are rarely used and most people just expect the documents to remain classified for the entire authorized period, which is 10 years in most cases and 25 years when dealing with sensitive topics such as intelligence sources and methods or nuclear weapons. In the culture of classification, longer is also seen as better.


This culture tends to create so much classified material that stays classified for so long that it becomes very difficult for government employees and security managers to determine what is really sensitive and what truly needs to be protected. There is certainly a lot of very sensitive information that needs to be carefully guarded, but not everything is a secret. This culture also tends to reinforce the belief among government employees that knowledge is power and that one can become powerful by having access to information and denying that access to others. And this belief can often contribute to the bureaucratic jealously that results in the failure to share intelligence — a practice that was criticized so heavily in the 9/11 Commission Report.


It has been very interesting to watch the reaction to the WikiLeaks case by those who are a part of the culture of classification. Some U.S. government agencies, such as the FBI, have bridled under the post-9/11 mandates to share their information more widely and have been trying to scale back the practice. As anyone who has dealt with the FBI can attest, they tend to be a semi-permeable membrane when it comes to the flow of information. For the bureau, intelligence flows only one way — in. The FBI is certainly not alone. There are many organizations that are very hesitant to share information with other government agencies, even when those agencies have a legitimate need to know. The WikiLeaks cases have provided such people a justification to continue to stovepipe information.


In addition to the glaring personnel security issues regarding Manning’s access to classified information systems, these cases are in large part the result of a classified information system overloaded with vast quantities of information that simply does not need to be protected at the secret level. And, ironically, overloading the system in such a way actually weakens the information-protection process by making it difficult to determine which information truly needs to be protected. Instead of seeking to weed out the overclassified material and concentrate on protecting the truly sensitive information, the culture of classification reacts by using the WikiLeaks cases as justification for continuing to classify information at the highest possible levels and for sharing the intelligence it generates with fewer people. The ultimate irony is that the WikiLeaks cases will help strengthen and perpetuate the broken system that helped lead to the disclosures in the first place.

WikiLeaks and the Culture of Classification is republished with permission of STRATFOR.

Officer Down

Deputy Sheriff Dean Miera
Bernalillo County New Mexico Sheriff's Department
End of Watch: Friday, October 29, 2010
Age: 48
Tour of Duty: 9 years
Badge Number: 237


Deputy Dean Miera was killed in an automobile accident at the intersection of Gibson Boulevard and Carlisle Boulevard SE in Albuquerque. His unmarked vehicle was involved in a crash with two other vehicles.


Deputy Miera had served with the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department for nine years and was assigned to the Judicial Operations Division. He is survived by his wife, four children, and two grandchildren.

Rest in Peace Bro…We’ll Continue The Watch

Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh.

Even Al Bundy would say this a biggin

FoxNews.com - Hunter in Florida Catches Record-Breaking Alligator
A hunter in Florida has reportedly nabbed the largest alligator in state history at more than 14 feet long.


Tres Ammerman caught the mammoth beast just west of Melbourne, Fla., in the last hour of the last day of alligator hunting season, MyFoxOrlando.com reports. He plans to sell the 14 foot, 3 1/2 inch long animal to a taxidermist at $1,000 per foot...


...The last state record in Florida was set in 1997, when a captured alligator measured just over 14 feet. Ammerman's catch has been estimated to be somewhere between 50 and 60 years old.

I think the taxidermist is going to have a heart attack when he sees that one!

Officer Down

Police Officer Sergio Antillon
San Antonio Police Department
End of Watch: Friday, October 29, 2010
Age: 25
Tour of Duty: 2 months
Date of Incident: Thursday, October 14, 2010

Officer Sergio Antillon succumbed to injuries sustained one week earlier when he was struck by a drunk driver.

He was still in uniform and had just finished his shift when he stopped to assist another motorist on Loop 410 while heading home. Just as an on duty officer stopped at the scene, a drunk driver struck Officer Antillon and the motorist. Officer Antillon was transported to University Hospital where he remained unconscious until passing away. The driver was arrested and faces charges in connection with the officer's death.

Officer Antillon had graduated from the police academy only seven weeks before the collision.

Rest in Peace Bro…We’ll Continue The Watch

Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh.

Vote....you may get assaulted

One of my daily pleasures is The Morning Jolt from National Review Online, sent out around 900am by Jim Geraghty.  Well Jim has a message before his normal four points and one point is not out of the realm of possibility:

This is it, everybody.


First of all, before we go any further, have you voted? You haven't? Go. I'll wait.. No, don't tell me you'll do it after work. Your car may break down. You may fall down a flight of stairs. A North Carolina congressman may try to strangle you before you can get to the polls. I'm not saying any of those things will happen, I'm just saying that if you vote now, you don't have to worry about these random mishaps resulting in your vote being left uncast. So go ahead. Run out during your lunch break. Even if you're voting for the other guys. But, er, you're not really going to vote for the other guys, are you?

Jim

Vote!

Ford's version of the Batmobile

Ford is soon to get rid of the Crown Victory and the new police interceptor will be based on the Taurus.  I gotta say, this is a cool concept car.

Ford PI Batmobile Inspired by Stealth Aircraft - Vehicles - POLICE Magazine

The concept vehicle includes interior hideaway compartments for a radio, on-board computer and weapons.

...Ford produced the "sleek, streamlined and slightly sinister" concept version to debut at the SEMA (Specialty Equipment Market Association) trade show, which runs from Tuesday to Friday.


Ford designer Melvin Betancourt developed a customized undercover stealth version of the 2012 P.I., described as "stylish and full of high-tech surprises" by Ford.


"This car offered the perfect canvas for me as a designer," according to Betancourt. "I just started looking at ways to give it that mysterious but high-tech look."


Betancourt started the undercover version by lowering the body and giving the illusion of added width. The body was lowered an inch, and the special 22-inch wheels are inside a staggered rim section, so the front is 3 inches and the rear is 3.5 inches.


"The rim section is stacked to give it the illusion of greater width," he said. "The center of the wheel is glossy black, and the rim is chrome. So we have that racy, hot rod look, but at the same time we're building a sinister, stealthy, 'Don't mess with me' feeling."


The inspiration for the project came from Lockheed's SR-71 "Blackbird" — the long range, Mach 3+ strategic reconnaissance aircraft used by the U.S. Air Force from 1964 to 1998.


Betancourt kept in mind the Blackbird's iconic imagery and status as he considered the elements of his own stealth project. "When you think stealth, you think, 'there, but not there.' This is all about strength, secrecy and concealment," he added.


The exterior of the Police Interceptor stealth vehicle is solid black. The grille is mesh (as is the original sedan), but the metal is thicker, offering more depth. The lights on the car are designed to be inconspicuous, blending in until illuminated.


The back of the vehicle sports an aggressive spoiler with bead lights that (also painted black) remain unnoticed until the car is started. The taillights are smoked, the windows tinted.


The stealth version includes a revamped interior.


"It's all about concealing everything," Betancourt said. "The headliner is black. We wrapped the B-pillars in black, and then we started looking at, 'Where can I hide this? How can I conceal this?' We repackaged the console — it looks like a production console with the waterfall of the instrument panel. But when you start opening doors and panels, that's when you see everything."


Unless you're supposed to be in the vehicle, you won't know where and how to find the compartments, he added. For example, the radio is hidden inside the console, as is an on-board computer. Also, the glove box has a secret weapons compartment.


...The stealth Police Interceptor will exist only as a concept. The production version was introduced in March, followed by a utility version in September. Both Interceptors will debut simultaneously when production of the Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor ceases in late 2011.

Twas the night before the election when all through the land

With thanks to Ann at And So it Goes in Schreveport for this link.

With Apologies to Clement Clarke Moore

Twas the night before the election when all through the land



Not a liberal was stirring as they sat on their hands;

Sample ballots were marked by the voters with care


In hopes that the wave soon would be there.

The Republicans were nestled all snug in their beds


While visions of takeovers danced in their heads

And Nancy with her Botox and Harry's face all stern


Had just settled down for a long night's returns


When out at the polls there arose such a clatter


They sprang from their beds to see what was the matter.

Away to their pollsters they ran like a flash


To see what Republicans were left they could smash


When what to their wondering eyes should appear


But a Republican majority and power so dear


A look at their TVs, so lively and quick


They knew in a minute their trouble was thick.


More rapid than rockets the returns as they came


And we whistled and shouted and called them by name:


Now Rubio, now Raese, now Carly and Angle,


On Kirk, on Bielat, on Ayotte and O'Donnell!

To the top of the charts, to the top of the Hill!


Now dash away, dash away, oh what a thrill!


As the liberals before the Tea Party flies


They blame George Bush then begin to cry

So up to the Hill the Republicans flew


With a Pledge for America and a new Speaker too.


Okay, okay. You get the idea. Not One Red Cent is not one to count our chickens and all that but the predictions are looking fine for tomorrow's returns. Thanks today to Professor Jacobson for the shout out of our work there.


Now dash away, dash away, dash away all, AND VOTE!

A cop has to surrender his weapons to vote

OK...an idiot running a voting station can't fathom that a cop can carry a weapon..it's part of his uniform and more to the point, it's part of his job.

Bangor police officer denied right to vote after refusing to surrender weapon - Bangor Daily News
BANGOR, Maine — In the 18 years that he has been a police officer in Bangor, James Dearing couldn’t think of a single time when someone has asked him to turn over his firearm.


Until last Friday...


...One of the election officials told Dearing he couldn’t bring his gun inside. The officer said he thought it was a joke.


Election warden Wayne Mallar then approached Dearing and reiterated the request: Turn over your weapon to another officer or we can’t let you vote.


Dearing refused.


“I would never relinquish my weapon,” the officer said later.


Mallar stood his ground.


The officer said he left the civic center Friday feeling embarrassed and insulted. Dearing posted details of the incident on his Facebook page late Friday and immediately began receiving strong responses.


“One fellow officer, who is stationed in Iraq, said ‘What am I over here fighting for?’” Dearing said.


The incident bothered the officer enough to draft a letter to Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap, which the officer also provided to the Bangor Daily News. In it, Dearing writes that Mallar claimed he would be violating state law by allowing the officer to vote with his weapon holstered.


“Mallar claims that this was a state of Maine law, however, I cannot find such a prohibition listed in Title 21-A,” Dearing’s letter read. “Furthermore, many members of the police department and I have been casting ballots at the polls for many years in full uniform and have never been required to remove our firearms.”

Officer Dearing, don't waste your breath.  This man is an idiot and it's unlikely he knows the law that covers voting much less the authority of a peace officer.  I assume Maine's is similar to Texas' where  we have to have our duty weapon unless having it would cause a obvious hazard (e.g. mental health ward).

Reached by phone on Sunday, Dunlap said he had not yet seen Dearing’s letter but said there is no state law that says officers are prohibited from carrying firearms anywhere. The secretary of state could not remember a similar complaint in recent years.


“Most of the complaints we get are from people concerned about candidates stationed outside the polls and over-aggressive petitioners,” Dunlap said.

Thank you Mr Dunlap...I appreciate a politician who admits he doesn't know something.

Mallar said Sunday that he couldn’t comment on what happened other than to say, as warden, he is in charge
 of a polling place and has the right to make determinations about safety.


Dearing flipped the safety question around.


“What if someone else had come in with a gun concealed? Then I wouldn’t have my gun to protect people and do my job,” he said.

A different way to look at it Officer Dearing.  If the idiot had a problem such as a fight in the place who would he call?  You, or people like you.  Ask the brain dead bureaucrat if he was getting his ass kicked would be more concerned about the you having your duty weapon or the fact someone is beating him up?

UPDATE:

There is some common sense out there.

BANGOR, Maine — A city election official who refused to allow an armed, uniformed Bangor police officer to vote last week will not be working at the polls for the remainder of the 2010 elections. 

Bangor City Clerk Patti Dubois, who is in charge of staffing the city’s lone polling place, the Bangor Civic Center, confirmed Monday that Wayne Mallar, a longtime election warden in Bangor, has been asked to stay home.


Dubois said she planned to contact the officer later Monday to apologize and ensure that he has another opportunity to vote.

Thank you Ms Dubois...hopefully this was because of ignorance not any other issue.

Officer Down

Police Officer Christopher A. Wilson

San Diego Police Department
End of Watch: Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Age: 50
Tour of Duty: 17 years
Badge Number: 4963

Officer Chris Wilson was shot and killed assisting officers from the San Diego County Probation Department and United States Marshals Service conduct a compliance check at an apartment in the city San Diego.

The probation officers and deputy marshals had initially gone to the location and knocked on the apartment door. A man opened it and suddenly slammed it shut when he saw the officers, who then kicked the door in and arrested the subject. The officers then called the San Diego Police Department for assistance after observing another occupant run into a back bedroom.

Officer Wilson and other officers, including a K9, responded to the scene and began searching the apartment when someone opened fire from behind a closed bedroom door. Officer Wilson was struck and fatally wounded and the K9 was also wounded. Despite being under fire, two other officers were able to pull him from the apartment. He was transported to Scripps Memorial Hospital where he passed away a short time later.

A man and woman in the bedroom were found dead the following morning at the end of the ensuing standoff.


Officer Wilson had served with the San Diego Police Department for 17 years and was assigned to the Southeastern Division. He is survived by his two children.

Rest in Peace Bro…We’ll Continue The Watch

Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh.

Army patches and what they really mean

Beth showed my this list of patches and I really gotta appreciate the one for the 4th Division, the green and silver one (upper right hand_ called "Lost Lieutenants". I was a lieutenant at Fort Carson, home of the 4th Division in the early 90s.  I remember a story my friend Alan told me about his walking into a bar with the bottom right patch...hey, we don't ask, we don't tell.