Tag Archives: ‘the people’

It’s dorky, it’s ugly and…

Posted on by
2

…and it serves no useful purpose…

A solution in search of a problem

OK, so, yeah whatever, it’s technically very cool and it’s not REALLY an aircraft so you can let a couple of NCOs operate it – and of course save a bundle on what you would actually have to pay a proper crew…

I’m clearly a big fan of unmanned systems – in entirely the wrong job if I wasn’t – but it’s like they used to teach in the good old days at the Tactics School ‘..task with a purpose…’ that is, you don’t just do stuff simply because you can…

So what are my issues with the unmanned cargo aerial vehicle:

Even the acronym is dodgy as UCAV also represents unmanned combat aerial vehicle and I’m not sure we want to be getting the two confused. Maybe a good rule of thumb could be that if you have two acronyms that can be applied interchangeably but mean totally different things, then one of them has to change. Litmus test: would anyone be upset if the US announced it was deploying ‘UCAVs’ to Libya? (Let’s not go near the whole Syrian debacle…)

It’s optionally manned i.e. the cockpit is still there and functional so that if required a pilot (one only as it is a single seater) can operate it. Sounds like someone is hedging their bets but who’d want to be flying a single seat unarmoured helicopter at low level in the badlands…possibly keeping it sellable so keep an eye out for some slightly used optionally-manned K-Maxs on eBay.

It’s meant to save lives. How is not exactly clear. The greater numbers of casualties in a helicopter crash come from the passengers – this thing isn’t carrying passengers and it’s only doing ash and trash tasks which are not amongst the more dangerous helicopter missions unless all of a sudden boredom is actually a hazard.

Oh, I see, it’s meant to save lives by reducing the amount of ground traffic that needs to be exposed to the IED threat. But haven’t we been doing the airborne resupply thing for years now? What has K-Max really brought to the party except another aircraft type to maintain and operate?

This whole thing of “we’ll only travel by air because of the IEDs” gives the lie to ‘war amongst the people’: having come in and screwed up your country, we’re happy for us to have the luxury of free air travel…whoa, you locals step away from the aircraft – you still get to travel by land and risk the threat aimed at us.

Yeah right, much as we don’t want our people to go in harm’s way, this is simply ceding the ground to the bad guys which bad. What’s worse is that validates IEDs as valid and effective tools to employ against ground forces. Expect to see (LOTS) more of them until they go the way of the Zeppelin and and made untenable as weapon systems. That means putting more resources into countering IEDs to the left, well to the left of the BANG. the K-Max UCAV isn’t going to help you there.

The K-Max might actually add to the problems created by ceding the land environment (great for air forces though!!) because every boring mundane MANNED ash and trash mission puts eyes on the ground, and the more that they cover the same area on a routine basis, the greater the familiarity they build up and the more likely they are to be able to detect and identify some form of anomaly or indicator that might need to be followed up.

Every manned helicopter currently doing the ash and trash mission can be reroled on the fly for emergency dust-off of casualties or to provide airborne ISR for troops in contact…can’t really do that with the K-Max UCAV. You also can’t use it to provide quick fires with its door guns because it doesn’t have doors let alone guns…can’t toss an airborne sniper up in it either…

There are hidden costs. This thing is not fitted with any form of self-protection system so its only really any good where there no air threat to helicopters. One also wonders how good the flight control system is once the aircraft has been damaged in flight – will it be able to autonomously divert to an alternate LZ or even opt to make an emergency landing in the field?

So sorry, close but no cigar…UAVs are useful but they are not a universal panacea for all ills and they certainly do make the IED issue ‘go away’…but everything has to actually contribute meaningfully to the war effort and, as writ to date, the K-Max UCAV simply doesn’t…

My Little Life: Idiocy

Posted on by
Reply

My Little Life: Idiocy.

Mama M has a very angry (and quite rightly so!!) post on the idiocy of those who persist in driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI).

Down here, it’s more commonly known as Drunk In Charge, or DIC and there is similarly self-righteousness being displayed by the dope-smoking community at the apparent invasion of their rights as NZ Police step up their campaign against those that drive under the influence of drugs other than alcohol.

Apparently we don’t actually have specific legislation that makes being in charge of a firearm while under the influence a specific offence but maybe if we did it might help some people join the dots between being under the influence for whatever cause or reason and being in charge of a lethal weapon.

Living rurally as we do, taking DIC/DUI seriously can be a bit of a social damper as there’s not really the option of catching a taxi and picking up the car in the morning if we go out and have a couple too many – we limit ourselves to one or none drinks if we are going to drive with none generally being the preferred option – and have realised that there is something to be said for having teenagers living at home (once they have attained a full drivers license). So we rarely go out and drink unless we have accommodation in location – and that doesn’t mean that instead we just have big benders at home either – not just from some concept of social responsibility but because we have both seen the human cost of those who flaunt common sense and decide that it does not apply to them. Personally, I have no problem with those who drive under the influence and only take themselves out  – I’m a big advocate of preemptive natural selection – but those is so rarely the case and it is the other occupants of the vehicles, other road users and pedestrians who so often pay the price for one driver’s blatant selfishness and irresponsibility…

The case for dumbness…

Posted on by
Reply

Dean links to some sad and rather negative commentary on ‘dumbphones’ this mornng…

I like to think I’m fairly savvy with new technology.  For some reason, however, I’ve resisted all attempts to get me to buy a smartphone.  No amount of mocking from friends and co-workers has gotten me to budge.  I’m glad to see that I’m not the only one.

I support, praise and endorse ‘dumbphoneness’…I too am a hold out, partially because I don’t really have much of a need for a mobile phone and for that the el cheapo one supplied through work does the trick. Perhaps if peeps were LESS net-enabled and had to pause (possibly even think) before twitting/posting/blogging, they might be more contributing to a general increase in the standard of online knowledge and information instead of jamming it up with bland info-custard (or substances of similar consistency). I think that there has only been one occasion in the last couple of years that a more-enabled phone might have been useful for me and that was when I found that the Mitre 10 Mega in Palmerston North (John Cleese’s ‘most boring city ever’) had shifted and I wanted to learn its new location. But instead of Google-mapping or some such, I just called directory service and rang them up…perhaps this will become more of an issue when dial-in directory services die…?

If I need a map, I plan ahead before I leave…never have I needed the flexibility of a tasked B-1B to be retasked and have to prepare a whole new mission package enroute – if I did, then someone would probably provide the tools to do the job. If stuck, the good old Wises map book is still pretty useful and doesn’t rely on coverage or batteries to function – just some sort of ambient light…

I’m rough on equipment and tools…or more accurately, equipment and tools need to be able to survive me…a $50 cellphone is not going to draw too many tears if it gets dropped in cement; on the other hand a $800 i-Thing causes trauma if there is the faintest trace of a  scratch on the non-replaceable screen. While the el cheapo is obsolete before it is even bought (apparently), I don’t care but the i-Thing will be equally obsolete a few weeks/months later too…

Angry Birds Schmangry Birds…I still haven’t finished Lego Star Wars on the phone that Carmen bought me for Christmas 2006 (and which she has since repossessed for her own use)…I remember purchasing and loading that up at Waikato Hospital when the twins were born in April the next year…

One of the aforementioned twins – one day old – in 1.3 magapixels – does the trick. Apparently cameras aren’t allowed in the ICU but new nanas have special dispensation…

If I take a picture in all its 1.3 megapixel glory with my phone, I don’t feel a pressing shaft of urgency to share it with the world then and there…many people might want to learn from this before they cross the start line on a big night out…what seems like a good idea when half-cut NEVER looks prettier in the morning and that goes equally as much for those pics you posted in the wee early hours down Courtney Place…And let’s be honest about it, more many purposes a lowly 1.3 megapixel image more than suffices – what the Internet DOESN’T need is more bloated blurry megamegapixel images of the regurgitated kebab you forced down after the bars all closed…

…and the case against…

In an article titled Goodbye Michael, Carl Prine at Line of Departure  kicks Michael Yon into touch – finally…I don’t really care whether Carl made this decision all on his very own or whether someone further up his food chain either made the decision or gave him the OK to call it as he saw it…either way, it is a clear sign that everyone has just grown tired of all the Yawntics and would rather see the back of him…

This, of course, led to the inevitable international conspiracy post on Mikey Yawn’s Dispatches site this morning in which everyone from Stanly McChrystal to Santa Claus gets blamed for all the woes in Yawn’s life…Mikey perhaps you need to look a little closer to home for the true culprit…I think that may be the balding Ewok pictured in the Goodbye Michael article has a lot to do with it…As we’ve all been saying (and you just ain’t been listening) you need to go offline and Zen your navel for a while to get some perspective and reinvent yourself as the kinda of photojournalist (emphasis on the ‘photo’ – you could do yourself worse favours than throwing away your keyboard for ever) that the thinking serviceperson (AT ANY LEVEL) might want to have something to do with – trying to be the military version of News of the World clearly hasn’t worked for you…

Definitions in COIN

Posted on by
4

Randomly-selected COIN-themed header pic

In December 2006, the US Army and USMC co-published FM 3-24 Counterinsurgency, a publication specifically intended to align US forces with the needs of operations amongst ‘the people’ in Iraq. Some of the ideas were new, others harked back to well-established truisms from the eras of Vietnam and Malaya – the aim was a decisive shift in how US forces conducted themselves in the new operating environment where force and ‘the big stick’ weren’t the ultimate arguments.

The COIN Center at Fort Leavenworth is now taking the lead in a two year project to review the content of the original FM 3-24 and update it as a tool for less-specific i.e. not Iraq, operating environments. As part of the project, the Center is seeking comment from a broad spectrum of stakeholders and interested parties and thus is conducting a large portion of its work in the public forum. From this part of the world, that means some odd hours to participate in the regular webcasts that discuss aspects of the project but it is well worth the lost sleep.

The Center has produced three Issue Papers on key aspects of the publication – these are available on its public website – and over the next while, I’ll share my thoughts on those issues…IP1 is Definitions…

Accepting that irregular warfare is sufficiently different from conventional conflict to warrant specific definitions and doctrine, possibly the first question to be considered is whether insurgency is sufficiently different from other subsets of irregular warfare to require specific doctrine and definitions i.e. would targeting irregular warfare as the primary subject also satisfactorily cover insurgency as a subset of IW?

In examining the definitions under paragraph 3 of IP1, the answer is probably ‘yes’ and of all the definitions, the French one is probably the most accurate, closely followed by the Spanish and USG definitions if they dropped the word ‘political’. The key elements of the environment that FM 3-24 seeks to describe are the use of armed conflict/guerrilla warfare/terrorism and the objective of control. Whether that control is political or other is largely moot as the net result is control over a geographic area and/or a group of people.

Recommendation 1 could read “That the US Government should adopt a single definition of Irregular Warfare, of which insurgency is a subset”; this renders a specific definition of counterinsurgency moot. Considering that the ultimate objective of a campaign to counter irregular warfare is stability, it may be that the countering definition comes closer to stability operations that it does any other type of operation. This, of course, would lead to a review of more fundamental doctrinal principles, in particular whether stability operations are actually distinct from offensive and defensive operations per se, or whether that distinction is more from major combat operations or conventional operations e.g. the Fulda Gap.

With reference to paragraph 4, this argument is moot and largely doctrinal semantic hair-splitting unless there is some previously unrecognised body of knowledge proving that all the types of IW conflict listed under that paragraph are uniquely and distinctly different from insurgency and that the responses to those forms of conflict are equally uniquely and distinctly different from those employed to counter insurgency. I would offer that they are probably not and even postulate that it would not be uncommon for two or more of the forms of IW to exist in the same theatre. The finding that “…the approved definition should distinguish  insurgency from the types of conflict listed [below paragraph 4]…” i.e. recommendation 2 is incorrect.

Recommendation 4 is correct in not recognising the use of the term ‘grievances’ which immediately leads to a ‘righting wrong’ mindset. While the definition of counterinsurgency gains little from incorporation of ‘root causes’ into the actual definition, it is rather dismissive of ‘root causes‘, as an element of any campaign countering insurgency. The simple definition of counterinsurgency is “those steps and measures employed to counter insurgency” and care must be applied to ensure that the definition does not prescribe or imply the specific steps and means of countering insurgency – these should be defined and refined in the substance of the publication itself.  Thus the definition of counterinsurgency is less important than the definition of insurgency i.e. there is a whole publication in which counterinsurgency will be defined, but this will only add value if the core definition of insurgency is ‘got right’. Our broader concern is that such sentiment will shape the content of the publication itself.

Caution should be applied, however, in dismissing ‘root causes’ from any approach to counterinsurgency. Cause should be considered in its classic causal sense and not in the narrower context of a political or other cause. To not consider root or underlying causes in an insurgency environment promotes the apparently practical and reasonable mindset that there is such thing as a successful military approach to countering an insurgency i.e. good versus bad, us versus them, friendly versus enemy, defeat the enemy. Even if the action arm (translating Clausewitz’s three elements of a problem into an IW environment where the government, the armed forces and the people become the leadership, the action arm and the people) of the insurgent elements is defeated, it is almost bound to rise again if the underlying causes, be they political, criminal, economic, egotistical, etc are not addressed. An underlying issue is clear in the five examples of ‘non-compliant’ insurgencies listed under recommendation 4.

A cynical exception to this would be where it is necessary to temporarily defeat or suppress an insurgency as an enabling action for a higher objective i.e. national objectives, and where upon attainment of that objective the course of the insurgency is no longer a national concern.

Recommendation 5 is a little misleading. I agree that the term does not need to be included in the definition of counterinsurgency but for the reasons stated above in regard to not including ‘root causes’ in the definition i.e. that this specificity is not necessary in the definition where considerations for and approaches to counterinsurgency can be discussed at length within the text of the publication – assuming that the actual definition of insurgency is ‘got right’. The broader concern is that such sentiment will shape the content of the publication itself.

However, recommendation 5 as a whole implies that it is possible to successfully prosecute a counterinsurgency campaign without employing a comprehensive/JIM (joint, inter-agency, multi-national) approach. Unless the objective of the campaign is short-term suppression or stability to enable a higher objective, one would be hard-pressed to find too many examples from history of successful counter-insurgency or broader irregular warfare campaigns that have relied on a solely military approach; in fact, it is likely that historical review would find that most conflicts of any nature or scale have required a broader engagement for ultimate success. Identifying a comprehensive or JIM approach as the optimum method to a counterinsurgency campaign does not commit one to automatically have to seek or comply with the full scope of the JIM model; it definitely would not “…result in the US not being able to declare that it is countering an insurgency unless all organization types are involved…” This is the checklist/template approach to counterinsurgency and irregular warfare, in fact to all forms of warfare, that is an inadequate substitute for critical thinking and consideration of each conflict challenge in its own right.

I only have two comments on the actual proposed definition of insurgency. The first is that the word ‘minority’ should be removed as its use implies that only minority groups can conduct insurgencies. The insurgencies in South Africa and Rhodesia, and the current situation in Fiji (although only instability, not insurgency) are examples of majority groups that have initiated insurgencies or that have the potential to do so. The second is that ‘de facto’ should be removed as a descriptor for the at risk system of government due to its ambiguous meaning as either ‘genuine’ i.e. legitimate or ‘actual’ which could possibly be taken to refer to an effective shadow system of government competing with the actual system of government. Consideration could be given to replacing ‘de facto’ with ‘legitimate’ to recognise that the initial point for any campaign of this nature is probably in support of the existing government (where such exists) however this brings with it other issues. It is not considered that, for the definition, system of government requires any qualifier and that any issues of governing relating to a specific operating environment should be identified and considered in the early stages of campaign planning.

I have no major issues with the definition of counterinsurgency however it is rather wordy and the list of adjectives preceding ‘actions’ appears contrary to the concerns expressed in recommendation 5 regarding the perceived risks of prescribing solutions if the word ‘comprehensive’ was to be employed. It could more simply expressed as ‘Those actions taken by military and government agencies to defeat insurgencies’. The qualifier of ‘civilian’ for government agencies is a given with the existing qualification of ‘military and’, and, in any case, it creates a grey area for the employment of paramilitary forces which might be considered neither truly military nor truly civilian. The rationale behind including ‘over a protracted period of time’ is understood however it creates at the highest level of doctrine a perception that all campaigns will occur over a protracted period which while the most common occurrence, may not always be the case, especially if as above, the campaign seeks short-term suppression of an insurgency to enable a higher objective to be achieved. The use of ‘of time’ after period is also redundant: period by definition is ‘of time’.

I think that it is vital that we get the doctrinal and semantic foundations of this publication right – to not do so leaves layers of potential ‘get out of jail free cards‘ where a situation may not meet the specific nature of ‘insurgency‘ as defined in this publication and those that refer to it. Inherent in this is to break COIN away from the self-licking ice cream and commercial cash cows that it has become over the last decade and to set it in its right place under the general mantle of irregular warfare….

Next time…IP2 Force Ratios

Stupid is…

Posted on by
1

Forrest Gump had it so right…some classic examples of practical application of the Gump Doctrine in the last couple of weeks…

First prize must go to the Taliban which persists in stirring up trouble in Kabul. How hard is it to sit on your hands for a couple of years, tour the world, read a book and THEN take over the country once NATO and the US have packed up and gone home, secure in the knowledge that Afghanistan has worked…?

The Tea Party are always Top Ten ‘Gump-ers’ and this example, albeit from Mother Jones, is a classic…let’s not build any more infrastructure because Al-Qaeda will just blow it up – this would be the same AQ that got lucky ONCE in the US, once in Madrid and struck out badly in the UK with attacks on physical infrastructure?

If anyone doesn’t believe me—England and Spain. Now, if we have a more decentralized mass-transit system using buses, if the terrorists blow up a single bus, we can work around that. When they blow up a rail, that just brings the system to a grinding halt. So how much security are we going to have on this rail system, and how much will it cost?

Yeah, dude, let’s just take the horse instead…more telling is this rebuttal from The Onion:

Here’s what Al Qaeda’s new leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, said in a video released in July: 

The al-Qaeda network is fully prepared to continue the jihad against the American infidels by launching deadly attacks, but your outdated and rusting transportation infrastructure needs to be completely overhauled for those strikes even to be noticed. We want to turn your bridges into rubble, but if we claimed credit for making them collapse, nobody would ever believe us.

And in this week’s third place, just when you thought he might be ‘getting it’ here’s Mike Yawn lipping off again…if anyone ever doubts whether there really are some dumb-as (second ‘s’ optional) people (the much-vaunted ‘the people’?) around, just check out his fan base like some of the clowns posting on this Yawn FB post:

One Day this American Soldier May Try to Kill Me

He’s stationed now at Kandahar Air Field. I’ve warned the Army about him numerous times. I have little doubt that he will attempt to kill me if he gets the chance. He’s a US Soldier named CJ Grisham. He published this on Facebook this week in regard to me: “I want to rip his head off and piss down his windpipe!”

I cannot warn the US Army loud enough that this Soldier is unstable. They ignore my back channel warnings.

And again today…

Criminal American Soldiers

Only a small percentage of US troops become murderers, but it happened here and it happened in Iraq.

The warning signs were there. I have cautioned only twice about dangerous American soldiers. The first one committed suicide last year after my repeated warnings that he was dangerous. I told numerous key people that this soldier might want to kill me. He’s dead now. The second one is Master Sergeant CJ Grisham, now stationed and armed at Kandahar Airfield. Our military is playing with fire by keeping this man armed and in uniform.

Let’s not forget that Mikey is currently embedded with a US unit in Afghanistan – and has been doing some good work – and so, you might think, would be less likely to snap at the hand currently (literally) feeding him…What’s CJ Grisham’s real sin? He dares criticise Saint Mikey…that’s it.

Mikey, there is a big difference between someone fantasing about what they would like to do to you “I want to rip his head off and piss down his windpipe!”,  threatening to do so…”I ‘m going to rip his head off and piss down his windpipe!”, and then actually  acting on those words. One of these days, you’ll be a big kid and understand…in the meantime, try not to cry too much if you get disembedded again…or maybe even slapped with a libel suit yourself…I mean, you are after all abusing your position to make unsubstantiated allegations about a serving member of the force that is currently supporting you – how big do you think its sense of funny really is?

And finally, Australia which, having been thumped at the Global Oval Ball Competition (speaking of stupid…Rugby World Cup has been so heavily copyrighted that we can’t use the three words in close proximity to each other!) by Ireland, promptly resorted to accusing everyone of being mean to it…not like when the boot might be on the other foot, eh, Diggers? Even more embarrassing when, just like the much-reported misbehaving Government Ministers on opening night, not a single shred of evidence could be found to back up the bleating….so just for you guys, Seven Tips For Fans Going To Matches in New Zealand

So get over it!!

Avast, me hearties…

Posted on by
3

With effect yesterday, a new law comes into effect here that introduces penalties for people detected downloading copyrighted material off the internet…

Driving home from Wellington last night, I was listening to Radio Live as I do until I find the headphones for my MP3 so I can go back to my Audible books – still bracing myself to carry on listening to the current one with George Friedman prattling on about how Turkey, Mexico and Poland are the next generation of regional powers…Anyway, of course, this new law – which is no surprise as it was well socialised before becoming law – was the hot topic of discussion, as it was on breakfast TV yesterday morning…

It amazes me how InternetNZ and TUANZ can blatantly bleat about how unfair it all is that current international copyright law does not allow free downloading of copyrighted content and how copyright is all just one big conspiracy by US interests (ho-hum…yawn) to maintain the current outdated copyright system that expects that users might actually have to pay for copyrighted product…

Disinformation was rampant from both InternetNZ and TUANZ but the simple bottom line is that both need to ante up and accept that illegal access to copyrighted material, even under the pseudo-glamour of piracy, is nothing more than plain and simple, black and white THEFT!!! Just the same as hopping a fence and helping themselves to stock and produce just because there is no big sign written in geek that says ‘Private Property’; or bowling into someone’s house because they left the front door open and again just helping themselves…

The reason that they are all worried is because the Government has introduced some quick hefty penalties – in fairness, with a graduated system of warnings – for offending account holders…up to $15,000 per offence – don’t want a $15k fine? Then DON’T STEAL, you THIEVING geeks…!!!!

Worried that your neighbour will tap into your wireless and download copyrighted material? Then you are too dumb to have an internet account…

Worried that your kids will earn you a $15k fine? They will probably find a way to do this anyway – at least illegal downloads don’t involve fire, explosives or fast cars…

Worried that your employees will abuse the work account? Introduce individual accounts and police them like you should be doing anyway…

Laziness and stupidity are no excuses for THEFT.

Want to see the latest series of Castle, Justified, Thunderbirds, etc before it arrives here? Either breakaway from the box and get a life or buy it from Amazon et al – YOU LOSERS!

It sickens me that the me-me-me generation just don’t get that there are no freebies and that there is this thing called work that means to get get money to buy you things…the internet does not = Notting Hill style help yourself…I’ve been around enough activities creating intellectual property for long enough to have a healthy respect for those who create and nothing but contempt for those who steal be it with a brick through the window or a dodgy file sharer somewhere in Eastern Europe…

In other news

Happy Feet the Emperor Penguin {PDF: Penguin Happy Feet becomes a Wellington celebrity] is off home again. This was a bigger national story than a pensioner who laid dead in his flat for over a year.

The cost of the Christchurch earthquakes has almost doubled to just over $7billion – to counter this the government has invented discovered significant oil and gas under the southern ocean…

Teams for the Rugby World Cup have started to land this week – gee, I hope there is a ‘not-rugby’ channel for the next six weeks….

The magnificent seven ride again…

Posted on by
1

…through the streets of Wellington…

…but we looked a lot better than these guys…yes, really…

A group of us who had all been young (and in some cases, not so young) officers together, concentrated in Wellington last night for a bit of a get-together, in some cases we had not seen each other for a good seven or more years…apart from a grey hair or two, we were all as slim and sharp as we’d been back then…

Josh from CDSS and I drove down together yesterday afternoon and the drive both ways gave us a good opportunity to discuss a bunch of current affairs topics – we stayed at the Halswell Lodge in Kent Terrace: as Josh said, we really want to be focussing about where we want to end up and less about where we’re starting from. A very good point as my thought had been to stay at someplace like the James Cook but the natural progression of a staff ride through night-time Wellington is invariably towards the bottom end of Courtney Place i.e. just round the corner from the Halswell Lodge…

It’s a good lesson and one that obviously links directly into the Princess Leia Doctrine  – before you come in, have a plan for getting out!! Somewhat topical in a week where the US recognises the rebel “government” in Libya, just as France states that it can see a path where Ghaddafi stay in power…as some have said, a clear application of two of the three stages of the France Doctrine:

– Start war.

– Surrender.

– Claim all glory.

It’s not actually clear who or what the US has actually recognised or what the mid- to long-term results will be when that “government” comes to power – almost assurably there will be a number of score-settling activities to ensure that any and all Ghaddafists are dealt to as well as anyone else that the new “government” feels they need to square away as part of their consolidation of power…It is pretty certain that one of the big lessons of Iraq, that existing governance and other structures should be kept in place as much as possible during transitional phases, will be learned again should this “government” come to power…

It’s interesting to note as well that NATO’s appetite for social and moral justice has yet to extend to Syria where protest and suppression continue unchecked; and that hardline Islamic elements may be gaining the whip hand in Egypt…will the call be made “Hey, Hosni! Holiday’s over, dude! Get back in there and sort your country out again!” ?

Anyway, back to the Seven…we’d hoped a few more might come out of the woodwork but it was a crappy Wellington winter night and there’s a rematch tonight but we could only do the one night…so very good to catch up again with some of those who helped make me who I am now (Yes, guys, it’s all your fault!!) and to have a night out in NZ – normally any big nights I have out are ‘post-dinner networking’ activities while I am working overseas. Very impressed to see that there are still pubs in NZ that not only serve beer in jugs but big glass jugs as well – good effort, the Green Man Pub – great pizzas and fries too!! Of course, we almost didn’t get to the Green Man after leaving St Johns in Cable Street as our SOF rep ‘led’ us in the opposite direction!! “Yeah, I know where I’m going…trust me…” Never a Tui billboard around when you need one…

I think we finished up around 2-30ish after a fun few hours in Boogie Wonderland, a retro disco-era bar (“Don’t touch the glitter balls – puhleeeease!!” Well, don’t put them in arm’s reach then!). Post-pizza I’d had a top-up pie along the way but Josh hadn’t and we grabbed some horrible Chinese food from someplace at the bottom end of Courtney Place – the sole redeeming thing about that was that I bought a bottle of Coke that was well sited for post-crash out dries this morning…

So bit jaded this evening with an early start to get back to the Lodge before it gets snowed in – probably our first snow there this year…watching the reports coming out of Norway…just one nutjob…as one tweet stated ‘Oklahoma City, not 911’…a brutal reminder than in this environment of complexity, you can’t predict and interdict all ‘the people’…sometimes the measure of success is how well you respond…

A teaspoon of cement

Posted on by
2

Hmmm…I’ve just finished watching Fair Go which had a story about some young dairy farmer whose name-brand wet weather gear couldn’t cut the mustard. I haven’t named the company because I think they got a bit of a raw deal whereas young Matt the dairy farmer probably needs to take a teaspoon of cement with his Weetbix each morning and harden up.

It’s not well known that there are two competing technologies in the breathable wet weather world. The first and most well-known is Goretex; the reason that Goretex is the most well-known is not so much that it is better but that Goretex globally has a marketing machine that leaves the tobacco and alcohol industries for dead. Goretex uses what is known as microporous technology with zillions of very small holes (pores) in the material through which water vapour warmed by the body can pass out.

The other technology is osmotic where moisture on the inside passes chemically through the waterproof membrane to the outside of the garment. Milair is the proper name for this material although most people would more likely recognise it under its marketing name, Reflex.

Being largely plastic-based, both Goretex and Reflex are prone to damage by fuels and oils and neither performs that well when the outer layer is covered by anything like the masses of cow poo that young Matt was carrying around. Both respond well to regular washing and Goretex also responds well to gentle heat to shrink back any pores that may have stretched. Goretex is less prone to function as advertised in environments where there is a lot of dust (which fills and blocks the pores)  and where there are not the facilities to wash it.

There is another osmotic material that might be better for young Matt – when we trialed it, it was called Flexothane and was static-safe (great for fuels handlers), and FOL(fuels)-resistant. It was also quite stretchy and rolled up into a very small bundle. While not as good at pure breathability as Goretex or Reflex, it was great for dirty work environment and more likely a better product for young Matt.

Then again, I come from farming stock on both sides of the family and nary was ever a bit of Goretex spotted in the homestead. Sometimes, the cool Gucci stuff is not the best way to go. Sometimes the best way to go is the good old fashioned oilskin or rubberised slicker…or just take a teaspoon of cement each day and harden up…

Breaking Silence

Posted on by
5

In Get Smart, this was funny…

The zone of silence put up by the Kahui and King families around the deaths of the three-month old Kahui twins in 2006 is not.

Debate has raged this week over the proposed publication of a book, Breaking Silence, based on the recollections of the twins’ mother, Macsyna King, and authored by locally well-known conspiracy theorist and wannabe whistle-blower Ian Wishart, described in one contemporary blog item as

…writing investigative books about spaceships piloted by lock ness monsters that are really demons disguised by Satan to implement global control via global warming legislation because global warming is a hoax created by the Free Masons told what to do by a Greenpeace lesbian Trans Gendered Queen who secretly runs the world…

He’s probably not that bad but having read a few of his Investigate magazine articles, there is some substance to the description. That notwithstanding, he fronted up and presented very well on RadioLive this afternoon with Willie Jackson (JT opted out due to previous ‘issues’ with Wishart – what a woossy).

The catalyst for this debate is a Facebook page Boycott the Macsyna King Book that seeks to ensure that

“…Somebody like this should not be allowed to profit from preaching her perverted view of the horrific events which led to the deaths of the only two children who hadn’t already been taken from her by CYF’s…“

At the time of my writing 45,911 people have ‘liked’ it on, although I do note that in the last couple of minutes at least one of my friends who had ‘liked’ it had dropped off the list…common sense starting to break out perhaps? To my mind, that means that there are at least 45, 911 Facebook members who are a guilty as the King/Kahui family of sustaining that wall of silence around the deaths of these children.

Now let’s get some facts down-range…

No one has been convicted of any crime relating to the deaths of the twins. I have no doubt that someone should be convicted not just for the deaths but also for the neglect of the babies prior to their admission to Starship Hospital and for obstructing justice after their deaths.

It is a big step from 45, 911 morons ‘knowing’ that Macsyna King is directly responsible for the deaths of the twins i.e. she ‘did it’, to having the evidence to prove that beyond reasonable doubt in court. Last time I looked, the mob DIDN’t rule in this country…

While it is illegal for anyone in this country to profit directly from their offence e.g. by publishing a book on it (although Steven Anderson managed to get a couple of grand out of North and South for ‘his’ story on why it wasn’t his fault he killed six people in a shooting rampage in 1997 but N&S is hardly Newsweek…), it is not illegal for anyone, especially before any court proceedings are completed, to comment on that issue in any way they please, including blogs and books, especially if they do not promote or incite hate or violence (I note that Facebook doesn’t appear overly concerned about the threats and intimidatory statements and attacks on the Boycott the Macsyna King Book page).

Pressuring book retailers to not stock the book only reinforces the wall of silence obstructing any ongoing Police investigation of the deaths – yes, that’s right you, 45, 911 plonkers, you’re just as bad, if not worse because the height of your moral bandwagons would indicate that you know better, than the original Gang of Twelve family members that cowered behind their right to silence in 2006 and throughout the investigation.

PaperPlus and Warehouse need to grow a set and stock the book on their shelves lest they become as tainted as the Stoopid 45, 911 – this is a topic of national interest that deserved as much coverage from all quarters so that interest does not die like those babies.

The guy who claimed on RadioLive on Wednesday night, Chris-not-his-real-name, to have set up the page, also claims to have set up the Facebook page for the KFC DoubleDown burger (a work of art in my opinion – the burger not the FB page) that saw national stock of the DoubleDown burger run out in less than two days. This means that he is a. a spin doctor and/or b. a meddling dickhead who has no personal stake in this debate i.e he’s just doing it for shits and giggles. That he lacks the mortal courage to front up under his own name is a fairly good combat indicator to his own personality.

A lady rang RadioLive this afternoon and challenged all the 45, 911 pitchfork and torch crew to donate a small amount to Women’s Refuge or a similar organisation that stands against family violence – if they feel so strongly on this issue. Hey, guess, what? None of those organisations will see the slightest spike in their donations this month.

I don’t buy into or support Macsyna King’s lifestyle up to and possibly past the death of the twins – Ian Wishart says that she has now turned herself around – she has exactly the same right as anyone else in this country to state her case in any legal media she chooses to. She even has the same right to earn money stating her case if people are prepared to part with it. She has not been convicted of any crime, regardless of the 45, 911 loony-toons who just ‘know’that she is guilty – and who would be the first to bleat if their own civil liberties were attacked in this manner.

John Tamihere is playing fast and loose with the law when he incites people to buy a copy of the book, scan it and distribute it online…dumb-arse, going into detail on exactly how people should not do this is incitement…what a hypocrite as he bleated on yesterday about how Ian Wishart had employed equally dubious (but not illegal) journalistic tricks to secure an interview with him (“...but it was off the record...”) – can I call you a dumb-arse twice in the same paragraph?).

Will I buy the book? Probably not, I have no doubt that it will be sold somewhere because there is money involved but it’s not really the sort of book I buy and I’m also kinda ‘off’ buying books at the moment because a. I have such a massive backlog of stuff to read, b. Scale Model Expo is at the end of August and I need to focus, and c. I’m attracted to this EPUB format once local retailers stopping screwing us by selling e-books for the same price (but considerably reduced overheads) and normal hard copy books.

Will I read it if I come across a copy? Certainly I’ll have a browse and see where I go from there…

And a final parting shot to the 45, 911 – you all strike me as the sorts that need to be told things more than once before they sink – if this crime remains unsolved, you need to stand up and accept some responsibility for that…you are nothing more than the sad flotsam of the information age, what Paul Henry described on Tuesday afternoon (yes, he’s back!!) as “…those who are so desperate to be outraged…”

Be ashamed…

Strangelove has re-entered the Building

Posted on by
Reply

(c) FPA 2011

As a headline, this one that concludes the Time article  According to new Pentagon cyber strategy, state-of-war conditions now exist between the US and China, was too good to pass up…coupled with this SECDEF quote that Michael Yon put up on Facebook a couple of hours ago, it looks like lunacy has well and truly returned…

Just got this from Office of SecDef

“Secretary Gates believes that for the United States, once committed to a NATO operation, to unilaterally abandon that mission would have enormous and dangerous long-term consequences.“

You think he might be talking about Libya? A campaign even more ill-advised than OIF? In all fairness, though, at least America had the courage and integrity to see OIF through as her allies and apparent friends slowly bailed on her…she had done the right thing in withdrawing her foot sharply from the (blood) bath of Libya as soon as it was apparent that NATO was getting the wibbles. That there will be ‘…enormous and dangerous long-term consequences…” is without a doubt but those consequences will be for NATO as it finds that it might have to ante up and see it’s own war through to a conclusion without a US safety net…yesterday I heard for the first time the phrase ‘...NATO’s Vietnam...’

I agree with the theme of the Time article that MAD actually = sanity in that it essentially rendered the irretrievable impossible – so long as we kept Peter Sellers out of the White House…As the Cold War staggered to a close in the 80s, Ronald Reagan declared a policy based on ‘you can run, but you can not hide‘ and indeed authorised and conducted a number of kinetic actions against those he perceived had crossed the line in the sand…

Those however were all kinetic actions against specific kinetic targets to send very specific messages…what targets might a kinetic strike against Chinese cyber-warriors hit…a server in downtown Shanghai or Beijing? The same fibre link that carries the world’s communications and commercial traffic? Some geeky buck-toothed nerd who needs a bath and some dress sense?

One of the biggest and most-frequently stated concerns at the Irregular Warfare Summit here last week was that the takedown of OBL and the (so far) successful drawdown from Iraq is leading to a growing sense of relief at senior levels that the aberration of COIN is over and ‘…now we can get back to real war...’  This ‘real war’ dogma seems to be set in the minds of those who just missed Vietnam and spent the larger part of their careers preparing for World War III – which, if anyone was paying attention, never happened.

Thus, possibly more by circumstance, the leaders in the ‘new war’ (which is really an old war) are those who were on the ground in Iraq when the pendulum was shoved all the way from clean surgical shock and awe to dirty messy complexity and irregularity…names like Petraeus, Mattis, Chiarelli, Casey…to name a few. It’s no accident these names are all from the land forces because this new war, at the moment, is very much land-centric (sorry, air power guys) because that is where the people are…and while I am noted as not being a uber-proponent of population-centric warfare, this war is one between beliefs which live amongst the people and not platforms which can be anywhere…

Cyberwar is much the same…there are no clearly-distinguishable platforms at which to strike: it is a game of skill and knowledge not fixed to key infrastructure or platforms,,,that guy next to you on the bus, playing with his iPhone could be a node in the attack network…the ‘enemy’ doesn’t even need to be in their own country which leads to thoughts of retaliation for spoofed cyberattacks against countries that only appeared to be guilty – how many times can a cruise missile accidentally hit the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade…?

Cyberwar is elusive, diffuse and evasive…it’s another facet of complexity and irregularity, warfare conducted by ‘the people’…releasing the kinetic dogs of war on it will achieve no more than ‘shock and awe’ did in Iraq…like any other operating environment, this one will only be conquered by those who get their (cyber)boots dirty and adapt to it…in the mean time we need to THINK a lot more before we commit ourselves to careless policies promising kinetic attack against cyber-strike…regardless of how many cruise missiles and JDAMs might be nearly their ‘use by’ date…

As David Hoffman concludes in The cyber arms race:

The offensive cyber battlefield promises to be far more chaotic than in the nuclear arms race, with many smaller players and non-state actors, and the risks of retaliation against the United States might be quite high. We need good defenses, no question. But should we be fighting back with cyber warheads and real missiles? Are we ready for what could follow? Is there an alternative?