Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Let's see how this fits into the QDR
July 14, 2009 | Posted by Ibn Muqawama - 4:55pm | 45 Comments
Now here's a future combat system that exemplifies "balance."
UPDATE: The truth is stranger than fiction, as two readers revealed with this link. Who comes up with this stuff?
The editorial on drones in
The editorial on drones in the WSJ was very convincing. It refutes your arguments systematically. Why haven't you commented on it?
Why haven't you commented on
Why haven't you commented on the WSJ editorial on drones? It refutes your arguments very convincingly.
@ Visitor, You must have me
@ Visitor,
You must have me confused with the currently-absent Abu Muqawama, who made his views clear here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/opinion/17exum.html
I'm ambivalent on drone strikes--not fundamentally opposed, but not convinced that they're all good either. I haven't seen evidence that convinces me either way, and there are clear downsides to both continuing and curtailing them. The WSJ editorial you cite (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124743959026229517.html#mod=djemITP) basically says, "Well, if you saw the intel report we saw..." That's a bit thin and, more importantly, it's problematic to rely solely on the USG Intel Community's own reporting on its effectiveness and the second- and third-order effects of its operations. This is the same problem with the Steven Simon article I cited earlier: http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2009/07/droning.html
As for why I didn't post it, I just don't have time to blog on every interesting thing that I read and keep my actual paying job. I skipped on the WSJ editorial because I figured I'd already blogged enough about drones. That's all.
Maybe he's on holiday and
Maybe he's on holiday and stuck without a link to what you're talking about.
Meanwhile, the Foreign Policy editorial on drones would appear to be a little less partisan/insane. Would this WSJ "convincing argument" address the issue that regardless of the efficacy of drone strikes, the US isn't in a position to use them to it's exclusive advantage ?
Human rights groups put Israel's collateral damage rate at 40% of those killed while employing these in urban areas, due to it's extensive intelligence network. The US on the other hand has no such quality intelligence network on which to base it's strikes, which leads to them using rumours, personal vendettas and inter-tribal rivalries as targeting data and blowing up civilians as a result. Why don't you short hand us the part which refutes the numbers of civilians vs targets killed. You know, the entire fkn problem, which if it didn't exist would require zero op-eds from anyone. Okay ?
It's not like AbuM needs to be present to determine whether a WSJ is complete BS. A hell of a lot of people are able to determine this pretty much every day of the week.
In other news The Onion broke the story about the DoD's new "Don't Tell, Let Me Guess" policy for gays in the military, which I think everyone can get behind...
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/military_institutes_new?utm_...
@Visitor: Perhaps you could
@Visitor: Perhaps you could wait until they post something on drones instead of adding such a comment to a post that has nothing to do with them.
As for the Dragon-Tank, I'm suddenly reminded of the Death Star. As for 'balance' you have to admit that this one is a winner. Allies, civilians, refugees, conventional enemies, unconventional enemies, all will get roasted alive fairly.
This is the Dragon Tank
This is the Dragon Tank Seymour Hersh said we were developing in a recent speech at a Rotary Club Luncheon in Cleveland.
lo fckin l. I especially
lo fckin l. I especially liked the point about cost-maintenance to the all-seeing eye on top of the W monument. F22s anyone?
Greyhawk: Hersh is turning out to have some pretty interesting sources, given recent devlopments.
The CIA team that never got
The CIA team that never got off the drawing board? Or is there a new Kennedy family revelation of which I'm blissfully ignorant? :)
And as long as I'm here - @Grant: The B-model Dragon Tank can carry up to four predators.
But seriously - @Anon: I'm in favor of limited drone strikes but don't see that WSJ piece (complete with a "who cares if a few civilians get killed too?" slant) as helpful.
@ Kilo What makes the WSJ
@ Kilo
What makes the WSJ op/ed 'insane'? You don't have to agree with it, but why is it 'insane'? I think that you are being the political one.
As far as collateral damage. I think that the collateral damage is very low because unlike Gaza/ West Bank, NW Pakistan is a very austere environment, and UAVs can loiter around for hours while they wait for their target to move out of range of civilians.
But you do make a very important point that I can't find an answer to, which is where are we getting our intel from? Even if we are 100% sure that we hit only the guy(s) that we are aiming at how do we know that the folks we are aiming at are irreconcilable Takfiri terrorists instead of accidental guerrillas? (Wayne Z. nods politely to David Killcullen)
@ Kilo Re: Israeli
@ Kilo
Re: Israeli casualties
I don't think that human rights groups are the best source for checking civilian casualties because they hyperbolize the numbers. Also Palestinian terrorists use civilians as human shields. Also you need to compare with the 100% civilian casualties that Palestinian terrorists inflict on Israel.
@ wayneZ.... Re: Israels
@ wayneZ.... Re: Israels casualties............. They don't give a shit. They are just Jews so it doesn't matter. Fuck Israel they all need to die so Palestine can get some. So Islam is served and the Koran is the final authority that we all must live by......................(sarcasm is dripping in case some of you missed it)
Again I challenge any of you to tell me how to kill an Ideology!!!
@ wayneZ.... Re: Israels
@ wayneZ.... Re: Israels casualties............. They don't give a shit. They are just Jews so it doesn't matter. Fuck Israel they all need to die so Palestine can get some. So Islam is served and the Koran is the final authority that we all must live by......................(sarcasm is dripping in case some of you missed it)
Again I challenge any of you to tell me how to kill an Ideology!!!
i dunno...powerpoint?
i dunno...powerpoint?
What a lot of you high-tech
What a lot of you high-tech supporters forget is the cultural climate that these dronestrikes occur in. Imagine if the Sovjets had invaded Mexico in the fifties, and reports came of killer flying metallic robots striking down mexicans in Texas and NM with the silent approval of the government. You think there wouldnt be national hysteria? You think your mom and pop (or in Poms case, himself) wouldnt react like those scared sheep after War of the Worlds went on Radio? Its so easy to forget from your little airconditioned offices that most Pakistanis still live in the fifties.
POM: you might actually try to read shit instead of just reacting like a republican robot. He was talking about Israeli militant-to-civvie ratio and sayin they were better than the US.
Wayne Z: Umm, I think its time we laid that whole "human shield" term to rest. Of course they hide among the populace. Its irregular warfare. Did you expect them to do honourable sicide and charge the Merkavas with their fists? They tried that, and got mowed down. If I was a Gazan 12 year old, I would be studying shaped charges like crazy right about now for when they come back to kill mummy as well. Thats what f"Shock and Awe" leaves behind, a PTSD-generation crazy as bats. Again, the War Nerd: http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-hamas-aint-no-hezbollah/
And now Im off to Sardinia, to bask in the Mediteranian Ocean that the Gazans are not allowed to fish in because Israel says so. Wich is not collective punishment of course, saying so would be anti-semitic.
What makes the WSJ op/ed
What makes the WSJ op/ed 'insane'? You don't have to agree with it, but why is it 'insane'?
Let's say you have a big can marked "baked beans". You open it and take something out. It's a baked bean. You take something else out. It's another baked bean. You keep on doing this for about 10 years. Every time you take something out, it's a baked bean.
Then you reach in and, before you take something out, you say: "I bet you that what I take out next will be a baked bean."
See what I'm driving at?
"Again I challenge any of
"Again I challenge any of you to tell me how to kill an Ideology!!!"
Be patient.
All this talk abou the
All this talk abou the "dragon" is funny and all, but here's a very bizarre story about system that comes right from the script of "Terminator"....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,532492,00.html?test=latestnews
Where the hell do they get this stuff????
Comment by Wayne Z. on July
Comment by Wayne Z. on July 14, 2009 - 8:47pm
What makes the WSJ op/ed 'insane'? You don't have to agree with it, but why is it 'insane'? I think that you are being the political one.
Well, when they argue for things based on false pretenses, inaccurate portrayals, suspect data and otherwise generally advocate for positions not even the authors of the op-ed believe.
I mentioned that pointing out the general retardation of WSJ op-eds on any given day of the week is something you won't have trouble finding on blogs for a reason.
Comment by Wayne Z. on July 14, 2009 - 8:52pm
Re: Israeli casualties
"I don't think that human rights groups are the best source for checking civilian casualties because they hyperbolize the numbers."
That was the whole point. That even by the count of the source most likely to not give them the benefit of the doubt, they're basically 1 for 1 in urban strikes. That's outstanding. You can't whack a guy with a bomb, from the air, in a housing complex or on a road in an environment as densly populated as Palestine and do much better than that.
" Also Palestinian terrorists use civilians as human shields. Also you need to compare with the 100% civilian casualties that Palestinian terrorists inflict on Israel."
Not when talking about the efficacy of drone strikes I don't.
Comment by Wayne Z. on July
Comment by Wayne Z. on July 14, 2009 - 8:47pm
What makes the WSJ op/ed 'insane'? You don't have to agree with it, but why is it 'insane'? I think that you are being the political one.
Well, when they argue for things based on false pretenses, inaccurate portrayals, suspect data and otherwise generally advocate for positions not even the authors of the op-ed believe. I mentioned that pointing out the general retardation of WSJ op-eds on any given day of the week is something you won't have trouble finding on blogs for a reason.
Comment by Wayne Z. on July 14, 2009 - 8:52pm
Re: Israeli casualties
"I don't think that human rights groups are the best source for checking civilian casualties because they hyperbolize the numbers."
They are if you want to cite the source least likely to give Israel the benefit of the doubt.
That was the whole point. So at worst, even they're saying Israel achieves basically 1 for 1 in urban strikes. That's outstanding. You can't whack a guy with a bomb, from the air, in a housing complex or on a road in an environment as densly populated as Palestine and do much better than that. Strap a freaking IR homing beacon to his scone, you're still gonna kill someone else near him unless you've designed a terrorist seeking brick.
" Also Palestinian terrorists use civilians as human shields. Also you need to compare with the 100% civilian casualties that Palestinian terrorists inflict on Israel."
Not when talking about the efficacy of drone strikes I don't.
Seriously, I waited a half
Seriously, I waited a half hour before re-posting that. You've gotta do something about your blog/server settings. Grab a CNAS nerd, shake him and tell him to look at some config files.
I, for one, welcome our new
I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.
Seriously, though, the whole 'feeds on corpses' thing is pure bull. It's nowhere in the promotional materials for the project. So far, the engine has been tested on "orange peels, palm oil, cottonseed oil, algae, used motor oil and fryer grease." But in May, P.W. Singer told a reporter for LiveScience that he'd heard a scientist at an EATR presentation claim the robot could run on "grass, broken wood, furniture, dead bodies." When PopularScience picked up the latest DARPA release last week, it linked to that quote. And FOX took it from there.
There are two problems with the notion of a Soylent-Green-powered robot. The first is that the notion itself isn't terribly novel. You could distill bio-diesel from dead bodies, too, but you don't see any headlines screaming about E-85 vehicles running on Soylent Green. And yes, there's a reason for that, aside from the moral objections that the other Peter Singer would doubtless raise. Bodies don't burn very well. We're mostly water. I don't have technical specifications for this motor, but I strongly suspect that if you simply stuffed a chicken inside, it would choke. That's why the company advertises the use of chicken fat - which burns very well, indeed - and not poultry. And what's true of fowl is true of the other foul idea. It'd probably take more energy to burn meat (or flesh) cleanly than the system could recapture through combustion.
The illustrations all show the machine harvesting things like corn stalks or wood chips. And indeed, the first three items on the scientist's list - grass, wood, and furniture - are reasonably good fuel stocks. I strongly, strongly suspect that the last item was included in an unfortunate flight of rhetorical excess. Or, even worse, in a shameless gambit to capture attention for a marginal project.
Getting back to the real world, I'm highly skeptical about this machine. It takes a fair amount of energy to identify, harvest, and process fuel stocks. If you put a pile of coal in front of the robot, I'm sure it could find it and power itself. But turn it loose, and what are the odds there's a perfect fuel source lying about, unwanted and available? In most areas of the world, good fuel is scarce and valuable. I'm all for greater endurance, and I don't mind DARPA pursuing some cockamamie schemes, but I don't think this one is going to pan out.
I was actually surprised at
I was actually surprised at the defence guy's continued support of the dragon tank, given the recent Pentagon wargames which showed its vulnerabilities to the asymmetric threat of a bunch of dwarves armed with pointy knives. Given that and the recent evidence of vorpal blade research by Iran, and I think they really should be reconsidering this one.
EATR seems like it should be
EATR seems like it should be in a Will Smith movie...
Drones: If they are counter-TERRORIST tactic being applied to destroy key leadership, then aren't we focusing on counter-terrorism in Pakistan while Pakistan's government is doing COIN (albeit enemy-centric COIN). These tactics together are producing good results.
But in Afghanistan, we are the ones doing COIN (I would say pop-centric COIN that has been difficult to implement). And our counter-terrorist actions are minimal. This situation isn't producing the same results as in Pakistan.
Jumping to the Philippines, they are doing a variant on COIN that is neither like Pakistan or Afghanistan. But it is also producing results.
My rhetorical question then: is there a combination of tactics that falls within these three cases that would be more effective than just nation-building and ANA training?
-- I know that's glossing over a lot of things, but hopefully my question still gets across.
"Again I challenge any of
"Again I challenge any of you to tell me how to kill an Ideology!!!"
well, if people like you would shut the fuck up, maybe it will die a natural death.
"dead bodies as fuel"...the
"dead bodies as fuel"...the worst part of that is that it will somehow become a requirement of all robots in the future.
Re: Israeli casualties: The
Re: Israeli casualties:
The Israel's Project 2009 Global Language Dictionary
28 deaths by rockets and motars fired from Gaza into Israel since 2001. Includes Israelis, Palestinians and foreign workers
1000+ injuries from rockets and mortars fired from Gaza since 2001, including Israelis, Palestinians and foreign workers.
Comment by POM on July 14, 2009 - 9:59pm
@ wayneZ.... Re: Israels casualties............. They don't give a shit. They are just Jews so it doesn't matter. Fuck Israel they all need to die so Palestine can get some. So Islam is served and the Koran is the final authority that we all must live by......................(sarcasm is dripping in case some of you missed it)
Again I challenge any of you to tell me how to kill an Ideology!!!
Sounds a lot like the usual version:
Re: Palestine's casualties ... We don't give a shit. They are just Islamists so it doesn't matter. Fuck Palestine they all need to die so the Jews can get some.
Now I'm hearing that maybe what is left unsaid is: "Then comes Armageddon and ever lasting life."
Your ideology, POM?
Starting to seem like what we got here is a bunch of tough-talking extremists leading everyone else around by the nose.
I think that the collateral
I think that the collateral damage is very low because unlike Gaza/ West Bank, NW Pakistan is a very austere environment...
Right: there are no people there.
Asking how to defeat an
Asking how to defeat an ideology makes one a Republican robot Fnord? For all your pompous "better than you" attitudes on this blog, POM seems far smarter than anyone else here. He actually makes simple points that make sense. If he is so dumb and you all are so smart, why don't you simply defeat his message and not attack the messenger like a bunch of little children?
Lee, my fine fellow, both
Lee, my fine fellow, both POM and yourself have stated that the US military won the Viet Nam war by out-conging the cong, yet ultimate victory was denied by invertebrate politicians. This resulted in, as POM suggested elsewhere, a sucking of dink dick, which some might find a little hard to swallow, and perhaps leaving a bitter taste. If your take on Viet Nam is accurate, perhaps a religious/military coup by real Americans followed by the mass detention of politicians would open the path to success, forfending the forcible fellatio of foreign hordes. This would perhaps end the liberal flailings of the "Why, Ma?" republic.
@Fnord - Ehhh. This is a
@Fnord -
Ehhh. This is a tough one. We won't know the truth for years. Yes, he has some interesting sources. I've followed Hersch for years in the New Yorker. I've read a couple of his books. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the guy.
But his predictions in the New Yorker are just not panning out.
During the Bush years he proved extremely adept at finding and getting the views of (off record) high-level officials who obviously didn't agree with policy and were able to provide foggy assessments of (possible) American covert operations. He was able to weave these into a weekly or monthly narrative that made great copy. Just wasn't reality.
You need to be very careful when reading Hersch. (or Hersh? I can never get the spelling right, I'm banned from Google).
"I don't have technical
"I don't have technical specifications for this motor, but I strongly suspect that if you simply stuffed a chicken inside, it would choke."
That may be the greatest sentence ever posted on this blog.
Comment by Lee on July 15,
Comment by Lee on July 15, 2009 - 11:00pm
"Asking how to defeat an ideology makes one a Republican robot Fnord? "
No, he told you why he wrote that, quite clearly and immediately.
Why haven't you responded to that instead of something that isn't written here. Why. Why not. Why are you ignoring that. Why. Why won't anyone acknowledge it. Oh you're so much smarter than everyone but you can't respond. Why won't you. If you're so much better why can't you respond to what he wrote. Why. Why oh why.
"For all your pompous "better than you" attitudes on this blog"
Yeah, they're just so pervasive that whenever they're complained about we can seem to get an example or a quote of them.
I'd love to know who's crossed the line into pompous territory here and how nobody noticed the fker. LOL who is it ?
"POM seems far smarter than anyone else here. He actually makes simple points that make sense. If he is so dumb and you all are so smart, why don't you simply defeat his message and not attack the messenger like a bunch of little children?"
Why not, indeed...
http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2009/07/catching.html?page=1
So after 15 demands for someone to answer him and then a post full of "you wanna argue with me, well get ready" nonsense, we're left waiting and thoroughly unimpressed. Yet somehow we now have you taking up the spruiker act for this as though there's anything here to witness.
There's a difference between "dumb" and "boring". However you could nail both if you want to keep this up.
Careful, Kilo. The structure
Careful, Kilo. The structure is somewhat off absent context.
The engine or the Chechen chokes?
@ The guy with the name that
@ The guy with the name that looks likes maybe (arabic?) - don't profile me now
Nice. With the ORIGINAL "Last Man on Earth Link."
That is just sweet. They never play that on cable. It is way hard to get it from Blockbuster. Will Smith and his Hollywood pals ruined the story. You just gave me a reason to live.
The Last Man on Earth was only copied once semi-credibly by of all people Charlton Heston in Omega Man.
The Last Man on Earth was written by Richard Matheson, who also wrote the best Twilight Zone episodes.
The Last Man on Earth is as I have been telling people for years, basically the original modern day Zombie/Vampire story. Pure awesomeness.
Matheson was a young combat infantry soldier late in the war on the Ziegfried line. There is very little about this part of the war written. It is the closest Americans ever got to what it was like at the same time as on the Eastern Front.
The Germans took it from both ends.
Matheson later wrote: "Men Without Beards." An extremely rare novel. If you have seen McQueen in "Hell is for Heros," you will love this. Seek it on Amazon is all I can say.
Zombies exist, they are real, they walk amongst you.
if you are looking for some beach-reading, I suggest "World War Z" - you will not be dissappointed.
[@ whatever your name is - wanna translate? so we can be friends? I wanna be able to call you something.]
What are you talking about
What are you talking about man, the structure is fantastic. It works in all contexts. You just haven't read it enough times. I can't stop. Look at it:
"I don't have technical specifications for this motor, but I strongly suspect that if you simply stuffed a chicken inside, it would choke."
That simply cannot be improved.
Sorry, Kilo, you are
Sorry, Kilo, you are right.
On second inspection, I realized you said chickens, not chechens.
On the rest, I'll take your word for it. I don't know much about carburators, I'm into fuel injection. But who knows, they say you can make gasoline out of the grease from McDonald's these days.
Hey! on another topic from the lead thread, but I just thought I'd say this here since you seem to be awake and can still read. Some people are starting to get annoyed with this blog. I'm I reading that right?
People ask for alternatives.
Me? I like this blog, I read it almost every other day. OK, twice a week.
I like Ibn. I would have him write for me. Exum and the whole COIN thing doesn't really give me a hard-on like it does for Rachel.
My point is: there are some people here itching for somewhere else to go to discuss military type stuff. And maybe an atmosphere they feel more at home in.
I can provide that.
I already got it. have for over a year. And you are welcome. But I don't blog pimp or steal. Plus I got hippies on my site that would smack most of you around.
Like I say. Bacevich, Gentile, and SNLII. These are names I love and respect.
The COIN/CNAS/Tom Ricks nonsense is out the door.
This blog will live or die with the American death count in Astan.
I said only last week that we were setting records. The New York Times had the audacity to say yesterday that "experts" had been "predicting" this.
Sources please. Please? No seriously. Where are the sources? Who are these experts? Somehow I must have missed these reports.
Did you see this?
The only source on record is Johnny Rico. And he's just a pseudonym, a handle, a moniker, a sock-puppet. Somebody that doesn't exist. Certainly no expert.
Anyway, Kilo. When this site is gone there will always be...
@Johnny R "Matheson was a
@Johnny R
"Matheson was a young combat infantry soldier late in the war on the Ziegfried line. "
You might have meant Siegfried line, or conversely you might have meant the Zigfield Line......Chorus line that is (Both lines worthy of penetration, I might add).
If the young combat soldier were to possess certain attributes he/she..she/he could perform mahhveloussly in either theatre, so to speak.
Furthermore, Your "taking it from both ends" snippet works in either scenario...and why would it not? Freeeeedom is what it's all about, notwithstanding the constant heckling from the humorless, self-flagellating seeds of Cotton Mather.
Ammurrica! Can you Grok it?
That's it, I'm outta here.
That's it, I'm outta here.
It was fun while it lasted.
"My point is: there are some
"My point is: there are some people here itching for somewhere else to go to discuss military type stuff. And maybe an atmosphere they feel more at home in."
They could go to BlackFive to discuss how how ridiculous it is for a nutjob Army Major birther to try to avoid deployment to Afghanistan on the grounds that Obama isn't a real American....... where every BlackFive commentator then proceeds to agree that the birth certificate needs to be produced.
Chinese dolphin
Chinese dolphin commandos...
http://warisboring.com/?p=2386
Bet you're rethinking that dragon now, ain't ya.
Republican robot = repeating
Republican robot = repeating talking points, not engaging in discussions. As Kilo says, the way to kill an ideology is to render it irrelevant. Its the core of COIN. When the enemy says youre a monster, prove him wrong.
Add your comment