Forty years ago, in the third week of August 1968, something horrible happened to the American Left and to its host, the Democratic Party. We have been living with this horror ever since.
At a time when American field commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan say they need every single soldier they can get hold of, thousands of our battle-ready troops are being held back in the United States.
Why not deploy them? Because the Pentagon has hung this label on them: "Security risk."
Ohhhhh. That conjures up images of soldiers unwilling to fight - maybe because they have sympathies for the bad guys. Or maybe they're unsavory characters who might attack their own commanders. But, no, there's nothing squirrelly in the make-up of these folks. Their only "crime" is that they've fallen deeply into debt here at home.
Like other Americans, military people can have an illness, go through a divorce, or just get caught in a credit card crunch - and debt piles up. But our troops also are targeted by predatory "payday lenders" - chains of quick-money outfits clustered around military bases, luring soldiers to borrow against their next paychecks at exorbitant interest rates.
When debt payments reach about a third of a soldier's paycheck, the military brass designates him or her a risk and yanks their security clearance, meaning they're barred from duty abroad. The Pentagon's rationale is that soldiers in debt might be tempted to sell secrets or military equipment to the enemy. More than 6,300 members of the Air Force, Navy and Marines have lost their clearances in a recent four-year period due to financial reasons.
The true size of the problem, however, is much larger, since the Army - which employs the vast majority of our troops - refuses to release its numbers.
But why isn't the Pentagon standing with the troops? Instead of branding them for life as security risks, the top dogs should work with these good soldiers to refinance their loan-shark debts with long-term loans at a low - or even zero - interest rate. Lenders should not be allowed to profit from the hardships of American soldiers. Whatever happened to "support our troops"?
#1
Geeze, the payment on a used mustang has got to be 1/3 of what an E1 pulls down in a month. Combine that with your credit card payment for your laptop so you can email home and you've got a CIA spy-hunter on your ass.
#2
I'm not mil/ex-mil, but I wonder if some of this could be mitigated by platoon and company NCOs who would keep reminding their junior enlisted personnel that they should stay away from the payday loan sharks. Just one more thing for NCOs to do, of course.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/20/2008 12:08 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Credit advice and assistance for mils sounds like a great idea. Just one more reason for a young person to enlist, get out of debt free!
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
08/20/2008 12:34 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I don't know about the other services, but my son had a session on fiscal responsibility when he went through Marine boot camp in San Diego 4 years ago. At the time, I thought that other than at home, that was the only place boys would ever hear that message or learn anything about managing their money.
#5
I'm decades out of the system but debt was frowned upon by the military even back then. I am sure that that is covered for the troops and their dependents, especially if a deployment is in the offing.
Could more things be done? Possibly. But each case is unique. And these "thousands" are spread throughout the services. I sense a certain amount of hyperventilation here.
#6
During my early AD years, the shop Chief would have 'discussion' with a financially wayward young man and things would settle down. sometimes that meant that the Chief would drive Junior around to his creditors on payday and take care of bidness.
Over time, however, it came to pass that the Powers That Be decreed that it was not the Navy's place to do that sort of Motherhood and other than a 'fianancial responsibility' brief, all financial affairs were between the service member and the commercial entity.
Tha got extended to civil responsibility; i was rearended by a sailor from NASWI ( unit Id withheld) that had no insurance, phoney tags and then left the scene. called his unit and was told to 'Have a nice day, Senior Chief.' In the old days, his Chief would have had Jr fix the problem and keep the law out of it, instead this clown got busted and had extensive issues with the State.
#7
One wonders how this compares to the rate of credit stupidity among civilians of the same age. The credit card companies haunt college campuses looking for kids they can get into trouble.
#8
It's the law folks. Under the General Article, 134 of the UCMJ, 'failure to pay a just debt' is a crime punishable by fines or confinement. It's a long established precedent within military law and 'good order and discipline'. And, yes, the youngin's get both training in managing their monies and get counseled when the military becomes aware of the debt in arranging payment. As for that E1 monthly pay, its nothing compared to the bonuses they military is handing out now for enlistments and reenlistments.
#9
my (single) son got the lecture at home and at his foreign posts. He's got $10K+ sitting in a savings acct, but it sure must be a helluva lot harder for married with family though, and we should be paying them more than we are
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/20/2008 19:52 Comments ||
Top||
#10
every new guy who came to my unit got the fiscal speech from me or from one of the former Marines that now worked at the Navy or Marine Federal Credit Unions. The fact is, the young kids make bad decisions...we tell them until we're blue in the face which financial institutions and car dealers to stay away from but then they go out and do the stupid thing. Second, an E-1 to E-5 pay IS NOT DESIGNED to raise a family on. If they were not in the mil they would be in college (presumably) or at an entry level job also prolly not making enough to afford a wife and kids. Or, the new young wife has no concept of responsible financial management and she runs the credit cards through the roof. Again, this is part of one of my welcome aboard lectures yet many still don't listen and then bitch that they are on food stamps as a Corporal w/two kids. Often it's their own fault. Gen Gray had it right, first term enlisted Marines should not be allowed to marry - it would cure a lot of social ills and the stupid shit me and my SNCOs & NCOs dealt w/on a day to day basis.
#11
Back when the Army authorized credit cards for military personnel and DoD civilians, I was getting swamped with monthly account delinquency reports. I immediately had the command Staff Judge Advocate craft a memo to directorate informing everyone that USG credic card accounts in chronic arrears would result in an immediate report of adverse action to the Defense Investigative Service (DIS). One officer tested the system resulting in his access being temporarily suspended by DIS. Word got around fast. The USG credit card delinquency problem soon ended.
BEIJING -- Recently I asked a Chinese journalist about the underage gymnast controversy. What, I asked her, did Chinese sportswriters who cover gymnastics think about the assertions that at least three of the members of the Chinese team were under 16? Was it western prejudice? Sour grapes? A cultural misunderstanding?
She didn't bat an eye. Chinese journalists generally knew that the gymnasts in question, He Kexin (two golds), Jiang Yuyuan (one gold), and Yang Yilin (one gold, two bronze) were underage by Federation International Gymnastics (FIG) rules. Indeed, as newspaper reports both inside and outside the country suggested, they were probably only 14 (the rules state that gymnasts must turn 16 in the year of the competition). These girls had competed in provincial and city competitions for several years, so their histories were not unknown. None of the journalists were able to say so on the record, she said, because it would cost them their jobs. Or worse. But it was common knowledge that the underage allegations were true.
If I can get that much from a single conversation with a one journalist, imagine what a full-bore IOC investigation might unearth. Where are the parents of these children? Where are the hospitals that delivered them? Where are their medical records? Their childhood neighbors and friends? The gymnasts they used to train with? Tracking down the age of these gymnasts wouldn't be rocket science, but it would take some time and effort. It might even exonerate China, and prove that, all along, the host nation was telling the truth. So why on earth hasn't it been done?
Why indeed. Cheating is cheating. The IOC spends millions of dollars trying to ferret out drug cheats. Yet they ignore allegations of institutionalized cheating by an authoritarian government that has the ability to alter the dates on a passport anytime it wants. The IOC's response to the whole underage gymnast controversy? One statement saying that they'd checked out the passports of the gymnasts in question and they were in order. Any other questions should be directed to the FIG. All's well in China. Let the Games begin. (How young do the Chinese gymnasts look? Check out the photos here.)
It's an outrage. For the IOC to sit idly by while an inept organization like the FIG -- the geniuses who meekly asked Paul Hamm to return his gold medal four years ago because their judges screwed up in the middle of the competition -- allows the Chinese to operate behind a cloak of secrecy makes a mockery of the concept of fair play. Asking the FIG to certify that China's gymnasts are really 16 is like asking the International Cycling Federation to do its own drug testing. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. The three monkeys ride again.
The U.S. women's team coordinator, Martha Karolyi, thinks the solution is to remove the age restrictions entirely, so that every country can use 14-year-old gymnasts, just as they did when Karolyi's prize pupil, Nadia Comaneci, was taking the gymnastics world by storm in 1976. And she's probably right that that's the only fair way, since after China's team gold medal in Beijing, the problem of using underage gymnasts is only going to get worse.
To roll back the age requirement, however, would be a backwards and unfortunate step. Many of us think the 16-year-old eligibility requirement is a good one, because we prefer to watch women gymnasts to seeing tiny tots doing clever tricks. We don't like it when a 16-year-old champion has to leave the sport because of the advent of puberty. We prefer the elegant artistry of an 18-year-old Nastia Liukin to the whirling acrobatics of a 13?- 14?- Who-knows-how-old? 73-pound He Kexin.
But if you're going to have an age restriction in a sport, you'd better have the stomach to enforce it. The FIG falls woefully short in the guts department. Sadly, so does the IOC. In his desperation to be able to stand up and, with a straight face, say to his hosts that these Beijing Games were "the best Olympic Games ever," IOC President Jacques Rogge has forgotten that most elemental of criteria.
#2
Maybe they ought to start establishing weight classes for gymnasts. Can't fake that. "And now, in the super light heavyweight division of women's gymnastics, we have Yang Yilin..."
#3
Okay. How on earth can they make these little kids into world-class gymnasts? Doesn't that take time? Muscle growth?
The possibilities are...vile.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
08/20/2008 16:49 Comments ||
Top||
#4
If you want to see how the DDR did it check out: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/episode-home/doping-for-gold-2
It tells that yes those were east german women but they took more steroids than Arnold every dreamed of.
Posted by: bruce ||
08/20/2008 17:07 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The IOC going along with tranzi and socialist demands is nothing new. Remember, when the Soviet Union was around, all the Soviet athletes were 'amateurs'. They worked for the Red Army and did sport in their spare time.
What were their occupations in the Red Army?
Luge, gymnastics, fencing, track and field, hockey ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/20/2008 18:17 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I gotta find my I Give A Damn. Nope it's gone. Hans Klammer stealed it.
#7
Kilo Bravo and I were watching a Discovery Channel special on China and one of the subjects was an aspiring 12 year old gymnast trying out for the 2008 Olympic team. The special was filmed in 2006. Do the math.
The program was Discovery Atlas "China Revealed". They were very prophetic in 2006 using that name for their special. Go to the link and click on Jin Yang.
Well, uh, you know, I think that whether youre looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade. - Sen. Barack Obama, on When does a baby get human rights?
In 1948, they had Harry Truman and The buck stops here!
In 2008, theyve got Barack Obama and its above my pay grade.
This is definitely not your grandfathers Democratic Party.
Certainly not mine. My grandfather, Ray Futrell, was a lifelong FDR Democrat, the kind who would proudly rather vote for a wife-beating, syphilitic drunkard than for a Republican. In fact, he would find the previous sentence entirely redundant.
My grandfather helped push Pattons tanks across Europe, and one reason for my grandfathers unshakable party loyalty was his belief that Harry Truman saved his life by dropping the A-bombs on Japan.
If Truman hadnt made the call - if hed demurred that such a profound life-and-death decision was above my pay grade - my grandfather believed that he and untold thousands of Americans would have died invading the Japanese mainland.
I miss my grandfather, but Im also glad that he isnt around to witness the tragic descent of his beloved Democratic Party.
Watching Obama with the Rev. Rick Warren this past weekend, answering questions - or, more accurately, not answering - about his most basic beliefs was simply embarrassing.
Obama supports partial-birth abortion and voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. When he got the invitation to an evangelical forum hosted by a pro-life pastor, he had to know that issues regarding life and the law were going to come up.
And his prepared answer to the most fundamental question about public policy and abortion (is the fetus a human being?) is that its above my pay grade?
There are certain sentences that should never appear on the lips of the Leader of the Free World. That Vladimir Putin, what a great guy! is one of them. I did not have sex with that woman is another.
But on the very top of the list of statements about our nations laws that should never be spoken by a guy whose job it is to sit next to the Big, Red Button is Thats above my pay grade.
With all due respect, Sen. Obama, being president is above your pay grade. And the voters are starting to figure that out.
Politico.com reported yesterday that 75 percent of Americans believe that John McCain can handle the job of commander in chief. Only 50 percent feel the same about Obama. A whopping 42 percent told pollsters they believe Obama is simply not up to the task.
Who can blame them? Obama wants the difficult duty of taking on Iran and North Korea, but he cant even handle Rick Warren or the Clintons - the latter having commandeered Obamas own convention in Denver next week and forced their way into a pro-Hillary roll call. Having been routed by the Clintonistas, Obama wants a chance to lead against al-Qaeda? Please.
#2
Both candidates got a list of the questions beforehand. Candidate Obama has no excuse for being unprepared to answer. No doubt he thought the pay grade thingy was a good joke, but once again he failed to understand his audience.
#3
IIUC - they got the first two questions only, beforehand. The rest could've been guessed by anyone with an IQ above room temp, but apparently the 300+ advisors on O'bamas team don't meet that req't. Abortion question? In an evangelical church? Whoda thunk it? He's an empty suit and rhetorical loser withot a teleprompter. "Platitudes with Attitude" as a wise and snarky someone at AOSHQ noted. I'm soooo stealing that.
I mean, observing that abortion has a moral and legal aspect? WOW!!1!! What insight!
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/20/2008 17:04 Comments ||
Top||
#4
HilarySarus, Ima hear it on the horizons. Big feets.
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/20/2008 19:47 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I just read an article on Drudge about his youngest brother in Nairobi that lives on less than $1 USD a MONTH. He's the same as every other wealthy asshole lawyer I've ever met, even if it is a half brother he should be digging a hole in the Virgin Islands sand and hiding his head in it.
#8
I don't understand how boneheaded the Obama campaign is when it comes to his Kenyan relatives and their lives of poverty. 5 years ago, Obambi could have bought through a family member 100 acres in Kenya, had some cheap houses built, moved some goats and cattle onto it, and had the family move there to manage it for him. It would have tied in nicely with the Black Liberation Theology of his church, the PC "Black Motherland" concept of Africa, and would have pre-empted any controversy about his half-brothers.
#9
1. Above my paygrade - bad way to put it. Guy needs work
2. Tha claim that obama cant negotiate with the NOrks cause he went soft on the Clintons is vile. Bill Clinton is a former President of the United States. Hillary Clinton is a US Senator and a patriot. They are NOT the enemy, not even to the sane among y'all right wingers. A fortiori to a Dem. Get off it, it only makes yall look stupid.
#10
Obama's mother, father, white grandfather were all socialists and/or communist sympathizers. I bet Kenyan grandfather may have been too, but not enough info on it. Obama was mentored by a hardcore member of the Communist party (at grand dad's insistence), asscociats with far, far left radicals and racists. What makes you think Obama doesn't agree with Kimmie, Putie, the Ayatollahs, Fidel or Hugo, or would uphold the interests of Americans in any shape or form? Obama is a disaster waiting to happen and would make America long for the good old days of Jimmy Carter.
Posted by: ed ||
08/20/2008 22:39 Comments ||
Top||
#11
LH, the author's a talk show host. A Boston-area talk show host. Consider the source.
If Obama doesn't negotiate effectively with North Korea, it'll be because of who he has as foreign policy advisors. The group he has now doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence.
#13
why should he have subsidized relatives hes never met? Hell, not everybody with poor relations in the old country does that - it depends on the connection.
In two days for Mashpee, Massachusetts. A pair of remarkable young men:
USMC PFC Daniel Maguire, 19, Mashpee High class of 2007, was killed in a firefight in Fallujah August 14. He was an Eagle Scout and a top student who enlisted to follow in his grandfathers footsteps, and becuase, his friends say, he very much believed in what America is trying to do in the world.
Im very proud of my son and what he was doing, said Dan McGuire, 45, of Mashpee. He went from high school straight into the Marine Corps. His grandfather was a Marine, and joining the Corps was a desire of his for a long time.
High school pal Selina Souza, 20, of Mashpee said McGuire touched many lives and deserves to be remembered as a hero. He was brave, smart and kind, and didnt deserve to die so young, she said. He could have accomplished a lot in his life had he been given the chance. Its a comfort to know that he died fighting for something he believed in.
Army PFC Paul E. Conlon, 21, Mashpee High class of 2005, was killed August 15 by an IED in Afghanistan. Another top college-bound student who opted to enlist. He reportedly had the opportunity to leave when he was wounded earlier in his tour but refused. I cant leave my brothers, he reportedly told his mother, who is quoted saying her son died doing what he always wanted to do.
The small town on Cape Cod, population about 13,000, lost its first soldier in Iraq in August 2007, when Army Staff Sgt. Alicia Birchett was killed in Iraq. On the local public radio station yesterday, a MHS guidance counselor described trying to counsel the boys not to enlist and risk needless death in time of war, which sounds like they understood what this war and citizenship are about better than she does. The reporter asked if these deaths have brought the war home to this small town, a stock war-death question that misses the point, when you consider that the war came home to Mashpee a long time ago, when these boys decided to forego college to serve their country, at risk of sacrificing all.
#2
Most of us lose our lives to accident or disease. These three and many others chose rather to spend their lives to protect the world from evil. That they stood firm in their choice despite argument from their school guidance counselor bespeaks the consciousness of their choice, and the nobility of purpose that drove them. May their memories be for a blessing to those whose lives they touched.
#3
Well said, TW. Freedom isn't free, and those of us who enjoy it owe a tremendous debt to those who defend it. These young men died defending not only their country, but trying to liberate those who had been held hostage by the forces of true evil. They gave their lives for a noble cause. May God bless and comfort their family and friends with that knowledge.
#4
I always think with sorrow and gratitude upon this quote from McCaulay: "Then out spake brave Horatius,
The captain of the gate'
To every man upon this earth,
Death cometh soon or late,
than how can man die better,
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his forefathers
and the altars of his gods'"
I know, it's a trite old sentiment and an old and overquoted favorite of the Victorian era... but they were good and brave young men and women, who went into it with open eyes and generous hearts. It is, at the end of things, a comforting thought to hold.
IN the next day or so, an obscure organization will meet to decide the fate of an Indian nuclear deal that threatens to rapidly accelerate New Delhis arms race with Pakistan a rivalry made all the more precarious by the resignation on Tuesday of the Pakistani president, Pervez Musharraf.
Nonetheless, President Bush is lobbying the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which governs international nuclear commerce, to waive its most crucial rules in order to allow the trade of reactors, fuel and technology to India. If the president gets his way, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty for 50 years, the bulwark against the spread of nuclear weapons would be shredded and Indias yearly nuclear weapons production capability would likely increase from 7 bombs to 40 or 50.
Indias nuclear history is checkered at best, and New Delhi has been denied access to the international nuclear market for three decades. The reasons are well known: the country has never signed the nonproliferation treaty or the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, it misused civilian nuclear technology to produce its first nuclear weapon in 1974, and it continues to manufacture nuclear weapons to this day.
Paradoxically, the Nuclear Suppliers Group was formed in direct response to Indias illegal 1974 nuclear test. Its central purpose is to ensure that no other country exploits foreign nuclear energy assistance to make a bomb, as India did. If the group accedes to President Bushs dangerous request, countries such as Iran and North Korea would certainly use the precedent to their advantage.
The Indian nuclear deal threatens international security not only by undermining our nuclear rules, but also by expanding Indias nuclear weapons program. Thats because every pound of uranium that India is allowed to import for its power reactors frees up a pound of uranium for its bomb program.
Pakistan, with its unstable government and Al Qaeda sanctuaries, is already ratcheting up its nuclear weapons program in an attempt to keep pace with its regional rival. Just last month, the Pakistani government darkly announced that waiving the nuclear rules for India threatens to increase the chances of a nuclear arms race in the subcontinent.
Because changes to these international rules can be made only by unanimous agreement, every country in the 45-nation group has the ability and the duty to insist that this flawed nuclear deal be improved and to ensure that nuclear trade with India cannot benefit New Delhis nuclear weapons program.
Thankfully, there is an easy solution. The group can say yes to nuclear trade with India if two simple conditions are met. First, India must sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, a step already taken by 178 other countries and every member state of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. After all, why should the groups members grant India a huge exemption from the rules that they themselves are supposed to follow?
Second, India must agree to halt production of nuclear material for weapons. That doesnt mean that India has to give up the weapons it has, or even that it cannot make more weapons with the nuclear material it has already produced. But by closing down its manufacturing of new plutonium and highly enriched uranium, India would prove to the international community that opening up nuclear commerce would not assist, either directly or indirectly, its nuclear weapons program.
This deal was foolish when Pakistan was relatively stable; with Mr. Musharraf gone, an arms race on the subcontinent would likely be more difficult to control. But even if the president continues to insist on the deal, he cant do it alone. He needs the 44 other countries in the Nuclear Suppliers Group to acquiesce. And the group, created to prevent the further spread of the atom, would vote itself out of existence if it allowed India to have nuclear technology with no strings attached.
Edward J. Markey, a Democrat of Massachusetts, is co-chairman of the House Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation. Ellen O. Tauscher, a Democrat of California, is chairwoman of the House Strategic Forces Subcommittee
Posted by: john frum ||
08/20/2008 17:13 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Markey and Tauscher are two of the dimmest bulbs in Congress.
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/20/2008 17:20 Comments ||
Top||
#2
And they completely miss the point.
The US-India nuclear agreement leads to greater regulation of India's nuclear program, not less, because it brings the civilian program under strict scrutiny -- something that today is not the case. The IAEA will have oversight, and India agrees to keep its military and civilian programs strictly separated.
Over time that encourages India to become more responsible, not less so.
What Markey and Tauscher want is for India to give up its nuclear weapons -- that's what India would have to do be in compliance with the second 'suggestion' they make, since the amount of fissible material India currently possesses is insufficient for India to meet its identified security needs. To be clear: as long as Pakistan and China are around, India will NEVER give up nuclear weapons. Indeed, Markey and Tauscher want India to do first what no other declared nuclear power has done.
It will NOT happen.
So the Bush agreement gets us a fair ways down the road to better control of the nuclear situation on the subcontinent. India agrees to regulation of the civilian side, something we don't have now, and in return gets access to fissible material for its civilian program, which it needs to have electrical power over the next fifty years. It's a smart deal and the Nuclear Suppliers Group should endorse it.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/20/2008 17:58 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I stopped reading when I read By Edward J. Markey. He ain't dim, he's infrared.
Aviation Week reports that Iran's recent flight test of a space launch vehicle was a failure. Information collected by Defense Support Program (DSP) satellites and the USS Russell, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer on station in the Persian Gulf, confirmed that the Safir rocket went out of control at high altitude and never completed its ascent.
Iranian state TV aired video of the rocket launch shortly after it occurred on 17 August, and suggested that the test was a success. According to government spokesmen, the Safir is designed to boost satellites into orbit. However, the same technology can be used for intercontinental ballistic missiles, and U.S. intelligence analysts believe that is the real purpose for the Safir program.
Readers will recall that the Russell is one of three destroyers involved in the tracking and shoot down of a derelict U.S. spy satellite earlier this year. Tracking data from the Russell was instrumental in the final intercept of the satellite by a Standard-3 missile, fired by another destroyer.
According to Aviation Week, U.S. intelligence had advance warning of the test, allowing optimal position of the Russell and other collection assets. That likely means that an RC-135 Cobra Ball aircraft was also on hand, providing optical tracking of the test.
While "The Ball" isn't mentioned in the Aviation Week story, the aircraft is typically deployed in anticipation of missile tests around the globe. Information from Cobra Ball, along with infrared data from the DSP platforms and radar tracking from the Russell, should provide some insights as to what went wrong with the Iranian launch.
Sunday's test marked the latest failure for Iran's Safir program, which is based on SCUD, No dong and Tapeodong (TD) missile technologies acquired from North Korea. In early 2007, another Iranian launch ended unsuccessfully, although there is some debate over whether the rocket was a Safir booster, or a Kavoshgar (Explorer) sounding rocket. There have also been other failures of extended range Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missiles, capable of striking Israel.
The Safir apparently consists of a Shahab-3 lower stage, topped by a second stage based on the TD-1 design, and a third-stage orbital insertion platform, based on Chinese technology. While Sunday's test was clearly a failure, it will enhance Iranian understanding of multi-stage missiles, and contribute towards eventual development of a crude ICBM, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.
There's an old rule of thumb in missile analysis. Left to their own devices, a country that currently has medium range ballistic missiles can produce an ICBM within a decade. Iran is clearly moving down that path, following the example of North Korea. In that sense, last weekend's dud may represent only a temporary setback.
August 19, 2008: Many Arabs now consider al Qaeda as the gang that can't kill straight. Consider some current events in Yemen. Thirty months ago, 23 Islamic terrorists broke out of a jail there. Since then, fifteen of those escapees have been recaptured, and five were killed. The three still at large appear to be in hiding (either in Yemen or another country). The most recent escapee to be caught, Hamza al Quayti, was killed, along with four of his followers, on August 12th. Two policemen were also killed in that action, and documents, weapons and bomb making materials were captured. It appears that al Quayti's group, formed after he escaped, has been responsible three or four attacks, only one of them successful. This accounted for most of the terrorist activity in Yemen over the past two years, Although there are a lot of Islamic conservatives, and al Qaeda fans, in Yemen, the majority of the population wants nothing to do with Islamic terrorism, especially if it's taking place nearby and endangers them, their family or livelihood. Thus the one successful al Quayti attack, a suicide bombing that killed eight foreign tourists and two Yemeni guides, was very unpopular. Many Yemenis depend on the tourists for their livelihood, and culturally, it's considered bad manners to kill foreign guests. Another failed attack, against an oil installation, also threatened many Yemenis economically.
All this has made it difficult for Yemeni Islamic terrorists to carry out operations in their own country. Throughout the Arab world, al Qaeda's reputation has suffered greatly in the last five years. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was a major insult to al Qaeda, an organization dedicated to keeping infidels (especially heavily armed ones) out of the Middle East. While al Qaeda hated Saddam Hussein, and his Baath Party (an openly non-religious, "socialist" organization), Saddam was a Moslem and an Arab, and he had been willing to make deals with al Qaeda (like offering sanctuary for al Qaeda operatives). The al Qaeda response was very violent, and it revealed two terrible truths about the organization. First, al Qaeda was not very good at killing armed infidels. This was suspected, as most of the Islamic radicals who flocked to Iraq after 2003, could have earlier gone after Israel. But that was generally recognized as suicidal and pointless.
Second, al Qaeda was very good at killing Moslem civilians. These two items ruined al Qaeda's reputation in the Islamic world, and destroyed the popularity they had built up over a decade of attacks on infidels in the West and India. The September 11, 2001 attacks were very popular throughout the Islamic world, but it was downhill after that. Al Qaeda has not come up with a way to fight the infidels inside Islamic nations, without killing lots of Moslems. Most Moslems understand why this is. Al Qaeda simply lacks the skills and resources to take on Western troops, or even the police in Western nations.
For many Moslems, al Qaeda is down, but not out. But for most Moslems, al Qaeda is finished, and openly despised. In most areas where al Qaeda still has some fighters in action, the terrorists are feared and hated. As a result of that, and the recent spread of cell phone service throughout the Islamic world, al Qaeda is fighting hard to survive in any form at all.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
At a time when American field commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan say they need every single soldier they can get hold of, thousands of our battle-ready troops are being held back in the United States.
Well, uh, you know, I think that whether youre looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade. - Sen. Barack Obama, on When does a baby get human rights?
