Space, the final frontier and our only hope.

Okay, not politics, but space has always been something that I’ve been interested in. I can remember listing to Jules Bergman covering the Apollo missions and hanging on every word.

Stephen Hawking believes that humans must colonize planets in other solar systems or face extinction; “But once we spread out into space and establish independent colonies, our future should be safe,”

Sure there will be a few technological problems (this is a huge understatement) that must be overcome, but from a different story, it seems that the exposure to a vacuum is probably not the messy death sentence as depicted in science fiction.

Check out this Damn Interesting Story.

In scores of science fiction stories, hapless adventurers find themselves unwittingly introduced to the vacuum of space without proper protection. There is often an alarming cacophony of screams and gasps as the increasingly bloated humans writhe and spasm. Their exposed veins and eyeballs soon bulge in what is clearly a disagreeable manner. The ill-fated adventurers rapidly swell like over-inflated balloons, ultimately bursting in a gruesome spray of blood.

Apparently, a human may have about 10 seconds to try to save themselves and have about 60 – 90 seconds to have pressurized oxygen to be restored and still be able to make complete recovery with only minor injuries. Okay, it does not sound like something that I’d like to voluntarily go through, but at least there is a chance.

One bit of advise is that if you are ever a victim of explosive decompression you should not try to hold your breath, “A victim of explosive decompression greatly increases their chances of survival simply by exhaling within the first few seconds, otherwise death is likely to occur once the lungs rupture and spill bubbles of air into the circulatory system. Such a life-saving exhalation might be due to a shout of surprise.”

A shout of surprise? Speaking for myself, I’m sure it would be more of a “OH (expletive deleted)”

Silvestre Reyes picked to lead House Intelligence Committee

USA Today, AP and FOX News are reporting that Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) has been chosen to chair The House Intelligence Committee. From USA Today:

Known as “Silver” to friends, Reyes is a Purple Heart winner who was drafted into the Army and served during 1966-68 as a helicopter crew chief and gunner. His service included 13 months in Vietnam. He rose through the ranks during 26 years of service in the Border Patrol, leaving as a senior law enforcement official in Texas in 1995. He won his seat in Congress the next year…

Reyes believes that the U.S. must increase its military strength to face the current threats in Iraq, that the Bush administration must forge better alliances, and that Iraqi militias must be disbanded. “We cannot and we should not tolerate these private armies with these warlords,” he said.

From what I’ve read so far, Reyes seems like a solid choice.  Certainly better that an impeached federal judge.

More on the ISG

Steve Fine posts the following:

Baker Commission Recommends Withdrawal from Iraq

Too late.

Bush’s response.

He’s the worst President in our History.

Other than the worst President comment he offers no commentary.

Here is my take on these Washington Post articles.   Let me say this first.  These are a good example of how the editor’s headlines rarely bear any relationship to the contents of the article.

The ISG is calling for a shift from a combat role to an embedded advisory role leaving 20,000 troops in Iraq.

“The call to pull out combat brigades by early 2008 would be more a conditional goal than a firm timetable, predicated on the assumption that circumstances on the ground would permit it…”

Now contrast these reports to the Washinton Times headline this morning.

Iraq sets timetable for transfer

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said yesterday his country’s security forces will soon take responsibility for defending their country, and he and President Bush have agreed to transfer military control faster.

Read the entire article (there are other sources if you don’t like the Time) and you will note the discussion between Bush and Maliki are pretty much aligned with what the Washington Post writes and what the ISG is “reportedly” recommending.

Nothing new here.  This is no different than what Bush has been saying for 3.5 years. The Bush Administration has been trying to pull out since I can remember but only if “circumstances on the ground” permit.

• Pentagon: Iraq Troop Reductions on the Way (ABC News – April 26, 2006)
• Rumsfeld Announces Iraq Troop Drawdowns, Reductions (NewsMax – December 23, 2005)
• U.S. plans Iraq troop reductions (Al Jazeera – December 10, 2005)
• U.S. general offers way to cut forces in Iraq (International Herald Tribune – August 2005)

Both the ISG and Bush have set “conditional goals”. That is the operational phrase here.

Conditional goals = as conditions on the ground permit

So, what has the ISG (created by the GOP Congress) accomplished? More of the same? No new direction? Seems that way to me.

From all reports the ISG isn’t going to recommend anything new or decisive.  I don’t think the new Congress will either.

I will reserve judgement until the entire report is available sometime around the 6th of December.  But my feeling is we are going to get more of the same.

Sir Gasbag and the ISG

I don’t know if Jim, Ed, or Cindy will be talking about the upcoming release of the Iraqi Study Group (ISG) report due December 6th.  The New York Times is printing a lot of leaked advance reports on the contents.  Those NYT articles are sparking a lot of speculation among the intelligensia on the right and the left.  It is funny to read such divergent opinions on a report that hasn’t even been issued yet.  However, there is some decent commentary coming out on both sides of the spectrum. 

I did find it odd that Steve Fine ridiculed Newt Gingrich for the headline of his article regarding the ISG in which Newt said the ISG report must contain 11 items in order to be valid.

“What if There Had Been a Baker-Hamilton Commission Advising Gen. Washington?” You just can’t make this stuff up! Perhaps Jon Stewart is his ghostwriter?”

Gingrich is a history professor, an expert in early American History, and had just come back from a presentation on Washington’s historic crossing of the Delaware River on a Christmas eve.  This crossing and surprise attack led to Washington’s first major victory of the revolutionary war which turned out to be a turning point in gaining American Independence.  For Gingrich to create an analogy between Washington and the ISG is not rare and certainly doesn’t make him ridiculous.

Though Steve posts a link to Gingrich’s article Steve’s lack of comments on Gingrich’s thoughts suggest that Steve didn’t read the article.  Steve offers no commentary (only what I posted above) on Mr. Gingrich’s Eleven Key Tests for the Baker-Hamilton Report (ISG) of which Mr. Gingrich says:

These 11 steps would be a powerful basis on which to move forward in Iraq and in the world. What’s more, they reflect the spirit of Gen. Washington when he chose “victory or death” as the motto of the campaign that led to the founding of America despite overwhelming odds.

In short, Steve is taking a swipe at Gingrich and offering no meaningful dialogue on Mr. Gingrich’s thoughtful article.

The 11 points are as follows:

1. Does the Commission Have a Vision for Success in the Larger War Against the Dictatorships and Fanatics Who Want to Destroy Us?
2. Does the Commission Recognize That the Second Campaign in Iraq Has Been a Failure?
3. Does the Commission Recognize the Scale of Change We Will Need to Adopt to Be Effective in a World of Enemies Willing to Kill Themselves in Order to Kill Us?
4. Does the Commission Describe the Consequences of Defeat in Iraq?
5. Does the Commission Understand the Importance of Victory?
6. Does the Commission Define What It Means to Win, or Simply Find a Face-Saving Way to Lose?
7. Does the Commission Acknowledge That Winning Requires Thinking Regionally and Even Globally?
8. How can the Baker Hamilton Commission seriously suggest that two dictatorships described like this are going to be “helpers” in achieving American goals in the Middle East?
9. Does the Commission Believe We Can ‘Do a Deal’ With Iran?
10. Does the Commission Believe We Are More Clever Than Our Enemies?
11. Does the Commission Recognize the Importance of Working With the Democratic Majorities on a Strategy for Victory?

 As far as “Sir Gasbag’s” questions go I think they are all valid.  In fact they are very similiar to the commentary coming from all quarters.  So it suggests to me that Mr. Gingrich’s thoughts are aligned with other commentators who are waiting for the release of the ISG report.

How much weight the ISG will have with President Bush remains to be seen.  I think indications are that they will carry a lot of weight.  First, given Secretary Baker’s influence in the administration and second the fact that a former member of the ISG is the nominee to be the new Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates.

Most of the commentary I have read focuses on two aspects:

Troop withdrawl and increased responsibility of Iraqi forces.

This is obviously the key concern of most people.  What would the consequences be of a rapid or gradual withdrawl of our troops?  It seem that the consensus is that a gradual troop reduction is in order.  A rapid reduction would lead to a great deal of additional instability in the entire region.  Some suggest that a rapid withdrawl would enhance Syrian, Hamas, Hezbullah, and Iranian influence throughout the region and undermine Saudi, Jordanian, and Egyptian influence.  It would also put additional pressure on Israel in that Syria, Iran, and their surrogates would have a stronger hand to play.

One commentator suggested that the position held by isolationists like Pat Buchanan who insist that the US withdrawl completely from the Middle East would lead to an Arab and Iranian war against Israel who would then be forced to use its nuclear arsenal to protect itself.  Under such a scenario we would certainly enter into WWIII.

Believe it or not the Bush Adminstration has always had a 6 to 18 month troop withdrawl plan.  However, the realities on the ground have continued to keep those plans on the back burner.

Whether to engage directly with Syria and Iran.

That is just as difficult of a topic as the first.  Do we negotiate directly with these two countries presents a lot of conflicting thoughts in me.  Of course we all would like to gather around the table and shake hands, come to an agreement, and walk away as friends.  That is not going to happen.

How we engage with Syria and Iran is a serious question and one in which I will be very keen on seeing how the ISG addresses.

Newt Gingrich asks very important questions.  He doesn’t offer any solutions just some thoughtful questions that everyone else is asking.

I will relate a personal story about Newt Gingrich in a later post.

Smarting Up the Military

Remember the post that Steeler hater David Wissing posted on his blog about John Kerry?  “Poor John Kerry“  It is essentially about the introduction Larry King gave to Kerry before he appeared on Larry King’s show.  This says it all.

KING: Senator John Kerry — his first prime time interview since he botched his Iraq joke and since a new poll ranks him America’s least popular leader.

To add injury to insult a recent poll shows John Kerry’s likability has plummeted.

John Kerry, mulling a second bid for the U.S. presidency, finished dead last in a poll released on Monday on the likability of 20 top American political figures.

Congressman Charlie Rangel seems to agree with John Kerry’s “joke”.

“No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. … If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career or joining the Army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.”

Charlie is suggesting that no one in their right mind would want to defend the freedoms of the United States.  He is suggesting they are poor, uneducated, and have no other opportunities.  Hmmm.

The Heritage Foundation has a study out on this topic that Mssrs. Kerry and Rangel should sit down and read.

• Recruits tend to be better educated than the public at large. At least 90 percent of enlistees have a high-school diploma, while the national high-school graduation rate is 75 percent. In addition, the mean reading level of 2004 recruits is a full grade level higher than that of the comparable youth population.
• Recruits from wealthy families are actually overrepresented in today’s military. The only income group whose participation in the military is declining is the poor. The percentage of recruits from the poorest American neighborhoods (with one-fifth of the U.S. population) declined from 18 percent in 1999 to 14.6 percent in 2003, 14.1 percent in 2004 and 13.7 percent in 2005.

Not that reading this report will make any difference to Charlie Rangel.  When asked about the report and if it made any difference to his arguement he said, “Of course not”.  Talk about “inconvenient truths”.  This guy is about to become one of the most powerful people in the world – as another blogger is fond of saying, Oy.

This was inspired by Cindy V’s post of last week and Rebecca Hagelin’s recent article which you can read atTown Hall  here.