France Prepared for Nuclear War With Iran

UPI ran a story quoting France's foreign minister as warning that the world should prepare for war if Iran obtains nuclear weapons. Bernard Kouchner added that European leaders were considering their own economic sanctions against the Islamic country.

I wonder what France has lost, certainly there are no principles that they would feel are worth defending.

Hackers Aim at Web 2.0

Web 2.0 is barely out of the bag but hackers have already loosed a torrent of malicious code threats aimed at vulnerabilities, Symantec Corporation announced today. The most dangerous targeting vulnerabilities? Browser plug-ins.

Second to Microsoft?

Another disappointing decision for Microsoft from a 2004 antitrust ruling in the European Union.

The Court of First Instance rejected Microsoft's appeal, and confirmed both of the behaviors the European Union's Competition Commission said were illegal. Microsoft has bundled, or ties Windows Media Player to the operating system. And, Microsoft used the dominance of Windows on the desktop to increase in the share of the server software market.

In August 2000 the European Union's Competition Commission filed its first "Statement of Objections," or official complaint, against Microsoft. The complaint accused Microsoft of withholding technical information that would have let other server operating system developers make their products interoperate with Windows clients.

No fan of Microsoft here but who will be able to replace Microsoft and actually be their competition?

Wikipedia Summary of Imperial Hubris

One of the most worthwhile books I have read in some time: Imperial Hubris. I reproduce here, in its entirety, the Wikipedia article as of today on the work.

Summary of Imperial Hubris

Preface

Author a "career-long 'headquarters' officer . . . focused exclusively on terrorism, Islamic insurgencies, militant Islam, and the affairs of South Asia ― Afghanistan and Pakistan" (ix-x). Conclusions: (1) "We are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency ― not criminality or terrorism"; (2) current policies make the military "America's only tool"; (3) bin Laden's reasons are "U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world"; (4) his war depends on "the tenets" of Islam; (5) U.S. interest in "Persian Gulf oil" central; (6) war may last many decades and be fought "mostly on U.S. soil" (x-xi). Foreboding of future attack; reproach to neglect of "duty" by "leaders" (xii).

Acknowledgments

Foreign Broadcast Information Service; a small group of "mostly women" officers working "against the bin Laden target" (xiii); references to U.S. martial past (xii, xiv, passim).

Introduction: "Hubris Followed by Defeat"

U.S. is completing the radicalization of the Islamic world (xv). War in Afghanistan "is being lost" (xvi). Invasion of Iraq was militaristic, untimely, "avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war" (xvi-xvii). Osama bin Laden's strength is his ideas, grounded in Islam (xvii-xviii). He is waging "a defensive jihad" to advance "clear, focused, limited, and widely popular foreign policy goals" (xviii). Sources: bin Laden's pronouncements, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Sulayman Abu Gayeth, 3 web sites (Al-Ansar, Al-Neda, and Al-Islah), various secondary sources (xix). Importance of Internet emphasized (xx). Hubris seems to doom us; "al Qaeda sees the world clearer than we" (xxi).

Ch. 1: Some Thoughts on the Power of Focused, Principled Hatred

Most Muslims reject separation of religion from politics (2). So they take seriously anti-Islamic statements from U.S. evangelists (2-4). Like most Muslims, bin Laden sincerely loves God (4). Islam's "loving tone" (4-6). Defensive jihad is a personal obligation, requiring no authority (sources: Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes) (6-8). U.S. policies and actions, not values, are the cause (8-11). Evidence of U.S. attack on Islam, from Muslims' perspective: (1) U.S. challenging Muslim jihad, charity, and curricula (11); (2) U.S. supporting oppression of Muslims, apostate Muslim regimes, anti-Muslim economic and military sanctions, and control of oil in Muslim lands (12-13); (3) politically, U.S. denies self-determination to Muslim lands, occupies Muslim states, supports Israeli expropriation of Palestine (13-14). These views are nearly universal in the Muslim world and cannot be undone through PR (14-16). U.S. is seen as the restorer of colonialism (16). The fault is not in them, but in us: the cause of the war is "their love for Allah and their hatred for a few, specific U.S. policies and actions" (17). Bin Laden and the mujahideen are "legitimate and romantic heroes" loved as "symbols of hope" (18-19).

Ch. 2: An Unprepared and Ignorant Lunge to Defeat ― The United States in Afghanistan

Intelligence advice: "do the checkables first" (21-22). Al Qaeda has achieved seven major "victories": Aden, Mogadishu, Riyadh, Dharan, Nairobi/Dar es Salaam, Aden, 9/11 (22-24). U.S. should have had plans for immediate response and executed them ― but did not (24-27). U.S. had vast expertise on Afghanistan, but failed to use it after 9/11 (27-30). Lessons from the Soviet war in Afghanistan available, but unused (30-32). By Sept. 1, 2001, the Afghan Northern Alliance was a defeated force, and after the assassination of Ahmed Shah Masood on Sept. 9, certainly not the basis of a national government (33-35). Masood represented only "a small subset of the country's Tajik minority" (35-37). The Karzai régime and its allies are hopelessly unrepresentative (37-39). U.S. ignored key Islamic commanders (41-45). The Karzai government is doomed (45-46). Seven truths about Afghans ignored by U.S.: (1) only Pashtuns rule durably (47); (2) the U.S. backed Westernized Afghans, not the "Muslim tribal xenophobes" who matter (48-49); (3) Afghans can't be controlled by money (49-51); (4) strong central governments, like the one Karzai is seeking, cause war in Afghanistan (52); (5) Afghanistan is a cauldron of international tensions (53-54); (6) Pakistan's national security depends on an Islamist, Pashtun-dominated régime (54-56); (7) an Islamic régime in Kabul is inevitable (56-57).

Ch. 3: Not Down, Not Out: Al Qaeda's Resiliency, Expansion, and Momentum

Al-Qaeda's fighters compared to those of the Army of Northern Virginia in the American Civil War (59-60). Al Qaeda follows principles of successful insurgent groups (60-61). When attacked, the Taliban dispersed effectively (61-66). U.S. lacks knowledge of al-Qaeda's order of battle, so cannot estimate damage to the organization (66-68). U.S. still hampered by a "law-enforcement mentality" (69-71). Two recent studies are good: Jason Burke's Al Qaeda: Casting a Shadow of Terror (2003), and Rohan Gunaratna, Inside al Qaeda's Global Network of Terror (2002) (71). Al-Qaeda extremely popular in Saudi Arabia (71-74). Ansar al-Islam received effective help from al-Qaeda in northern Iraq (74-75). Al-Qaeda is present in Lebanon, but does not cooperated operationally with Hezbollah (76-77; see 229). Al-Qaeda's effective use of the Internet (78-84). Given U.S. policies, "blood-soaked offensive military actions" are the only path to victory (84-86). The following "balance sheet of 2001-2004" excludes Kashmir, Philippines, Algeria, Palestine, and Aceh (Indonesia) (86). "Victories" for U.S. and allies "almost entirely tactical" (87-91). Al Qaeda's and allies' "victories" show "strategic environment" has shifted in their favor (91-100). Acc. to al-Qurashi, al-Qaeda considers the U.S. center of gravity to be the economy, not public opinion (101-02).

Ch. 4: The World's View of bin Laden: A Muslim Leader and Hero Coming into Focus?

"Viewed from any angle, Osama bin Laden is a great man," "world-changing" in Western eyes and revered by tens of millions of Muslims (103-05). The evil-criminal view (105-07). Denigrations of his mind and capacity for leadership (107-09). Said by some to be dominated by al-Zawahiri (109). The thesis that Islam is a "failed civilization" lashing out in resentment (109-13) does not jibe with bin Laden's view: he blames Muslims themselves (114-15). Ideals of tolerance and multiculturalism impede analysis (115-16). Bin Laden as military genius (Christopher Bellamy) (117). Bin Laden as business genius (Larry Seaquist; Bruce Hoffman) (117-18). These miss the religious inspiration of the Islamic hero (118-21). Testimony of those who know him (121-22). Influence of size of his enemy (U.S.) (123). Bin Laden inspires love (124-25). He, like Abraham Lincoln, represents belief in a moral universe (Scheuer quotes again from Kent Gramm's Gettysburg: A Meditation on War and Values (1994) (125-26; also xii and passim).

Ch. 5: Bin Laden Views the World: Some Old, Some New, and a Twist

Importance of bin Laden's words, neglected by the West (127-29). Main concept: defending the ummah [= Islamic community bound by religious ties on a tribal model (OED)] from U.S. attacks (129-31). Al-Qaeda's role is principally to awaken and incite Muslims (131-34). Suicide bombers perceived positively in Muslim world as heroes of "self-sacrifice, patriotism, and worship" (135). Bin Laden's elegy of 9/11 hijackers misunderstood in West (135-36). Bin Laden frustrated by inadequate response from Muslim middle and upper-middle classes (137). Poem by bin Laden; use of poetry (138). Bin Laden's historical uniqueness comes from focusing Islamic resistance on the international level, on the U.S. (139-40). The centrality of Afghanistan is due to a need for a new Muslim state as a world center from which to launch a new caliphate (140-44). Recent refinements: allowing some attacks on non-U.S. targets (145-47), creating a vulnerability should a free-lancer cause Europe and U.S. to come together again (148); attacking "apostate régimes" more directly and accusing clerics of compliance with corrupt U.S.-backed power (148-52); preparing Muslim opinion by presenting arguments justifying WMD attack on U.S. (152-58). Bin Laden's 2001 statements on U.S. attitudes, unheeded (158-61).

Ch. 6: Blinding Hubris Abounding: Inflicting Defeat on Ourselves ― Non-Wars, Leaks, and Missionary Democracy

American élites' blinding "imperial hubris" (term also used in Through Our Enemies' Eyes [2001]) endangers U.S. safety (163-168). The case of bin Laden is a maximal instance of this (168). Bin Laden's fidelity to his words demonstrated by pattern of post-9/11 attacks (169-70). 1990-2003 U.S. "victories" are really only self-declared ―no foe has been defeated (170). E.g. Afghanistan (171-77). Castigates U.S. military hierarchy: "lieutenant colonel . . . seems to be where truth-telling stops" (177). Win-quick and low-casualties-on-both-sides an "immoral" approach to war that violates the "basic lesson of military history since Alexander" (177-80). E.g. Afghanistan (180-81), Iraq (181-82). Placing Mongolian and Indian troops in Iraq shows ignorance of history (182-83). It is un-American to argue that only those with military experience can criticize military policy and operations (183-84). Some U.S. general should resign to protest recent U.S. approach to war (184-85). U.S. policy mentality too legalistic (185-86). CIA & FBI have "fundamentally incompatible" missions ― one breaks the law, the other enforces it (187-88). Law-enforcement focus lulls public (188-89). Islamists not affected by legal approach (189-90). We need to "fix the problems" in "intelligence community cooperation" (190-92). Endemic leaking by officials is treason due to hubris (192-99). John Quincy Adams in 1821: "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy" (200-01). Invasion of Afghanistan is an arrogant attempt to do just that (201-03). Worse, U.S. leaders show no knowledge of American history (203-04). U.S. political achievements hard-won and not historically transferable (204-05). Muslim society, "where God and Caesar are the same," presents special difficulties (205-06). Recommendation: "Victory, I think, lies in a yet undetermined mix of stronger military actions and dramatic foreign policy change" (207).

Ch. 7: When the Enemy Sets the Stage: How America's Stubborn Obtuseness Aids Its Foes

Unlike Khomeini in Iran, bin Laden has six focuses foreign policy goals: (1) end U.S. aid to Israel; (2) U.S. withdrawal from Arabian peninsula; (3) end of U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan; (4) end of U.S. support for Muslim oppression by China, Russia, India, etc.; (5) Muslim control of oil and sale at market prices (6) Islamist régimes instead of U.S.-protected Muslim régimes (209-12). Invasion of Iraq an unexpected gift to bin Laden (212-14). U.S. failed correctly to analyze the threat in the 1990s (214-16). Camps were training not only "terrorists" but, especially, "insurgents" (216-22). As a result "the brutal reality . . . is that we must kill many thousands of these fighters" (222). Coalition-building after 9/11 wasted time, imposed civilized standards, and counterproductively associated the U.S. with oppression elsewhere (222-26). Israel: "Objectively, al Qaeda does not seem too far off the mark when it describes the U.S.-Israel relationship as a detriment to America" (227-30). Post-9/11 measures that have increased Muslims' anti-American feelings: Immigration rule changes (231-33); interference with freedom of speech (233-34); hi-tech war briefings (234-35).

Ch. 8: The Way Ahead: A Few Suggestions for Debate

Risk aversion in the intelligence bureaucracy (237-38). Guidelines for use in defeating bin Laden and militant Islam: don't overblow the war (239); stop glorifying bereavement (239-40); accept that we are hated for our policies and acts (240-41); be bloody-minded and kill in large numbers (241-42); fight without principle ("engaging in whatever martial behavior is needed") (242); "stop knee-jerk yellow ribboning" (242-43); depend on ourselves, not others (specifically, Pakistan) (243-44); rely on real expertise (244-45); deal with bin Laden as a warrior, not a terrorist (246-47); attain energy self-sufficiency (247-48); break the military-industrial institutional nexus, perhaps by "banning many post-retirement jobs in exchange for a full-salary annuity after thirty years" (248-49); accept that we are at war with Islam (249-50); "learn to watch others die with equanimity" (Ralph Peters) (250-52). War cannot be avoided, but new policies affecting the length and cost of war are possible (253-54). Recommended reading (254). We must accept that bin Laden is "a worthy and dangerous foe" (255). U.S. needs a frank and public policy debate (255-57). Questions: Does support for Israel serve U.S. interests? (257) Do we have a duty to defend freedom beyond our borders, or to "abandon the sordid legacy of Woodrow Wilson's internationalism"? (257-58) What do we gain from backing corrupt tyrannical Muslim régimes, except for cheap oil? Have we the moral courage for energy self-sufficiency? Do we need bases on the Arabian peninsula? Do we have the moral right to spread democracy? (258) Hopes for policy changes, but "as always, the majority must rule" (259).

Epilogue: No Basis for Optimism

Americans have still not recognized the nature of the war they are losing (citing George Tenet's late-Feb. 2004 testimony to a Senate committee) (261-63).

Child's Play

This is a scene of a Shia child being raised in the Middle East.

U.S. Grant on How To Conduct American Warfare

The art of war is simple enough. Find out where the enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on.

General U.S. Grant

Graphic source: www.ushist.com.

It may seem strange that today I am reflecting on how to increase U.S. troop levels in the wake of Bush's reluctant acquiescence for the necessity of a troop withdrawal. Readers of this blog should be accustomed to the oddness of my perspective by now though. Today I wonder why we are not increasing the level and lethality of our troops.

We are convincing worldwide insurgents that America has not the will nor the stomach for warfare.

Americans, for their part, sated with their congratulatory self-satisfaction in their humaneness and civilized conduct of war are relieved with the satisfaction that the desultory Bush has finally seen the light of day.

If only things were that simple.

Grant, who knew a thing or two about war, during the Civil War showed Americans how war is conducted and he was successful in eliminating the Confederacy.

Through their shock and awe, horrifying for the time, Grant and Sherman demonstrated to the American people how to decapitate, destroy, and obliterate the enemy: the Confederacy.

American democracy was all the stronger as a result and the U.S. lost none of its moral strength for unleashing the full fury of finally and completely mobilizing the North's might through the Union army.

Americans have lost their killer instinct and seem to believe war can be conducted cleanly, clinically, and safely illustrated on CNN in sound bites. The illustrations reassure Americans that we are systematically tracking down the enemy, as false as that conclusion is, and it demonstrates to the enemy, who is also watching, that though some die--rewarded by entering paradise no less--America can be beaten, since the deadly might of America is tempered by public opinion and restrained from unleashing its fury. The conclusion, `this too shall pass,' is clear.

War is hell according to General Sherman but once engaged stopping and engaging in half-military measures only makes America less secure and ensures that more American soldiers will die needlessly in subsequent deployments.

Debate all you want about the reasons for originally engaging in the conflict in Iraq but we are failing to conduct war as Americans have found to be necessary in order to successfully bring about the desired result.

Also, Americans are not convinced we are at war in any case. We fail to accept bin Laden as he is, true to his word, lethal, patient, clever, and long-suffering in seeking a death blow to American.

The import of his latest videos is a warning, convert to Islam before it is too late, the standard Muslim announcement before an attack which justifies to an Islamic audience that the devastation to be inflicted can be avoided if only the infidel would have listened. The next spectacular al-Qaida attack is coming. 9/11 was just a warm-up.

In the announced troop withdrawal, none of Grant's precepts are being followed.

We don't know where the enemy is. We are not pursuing the enemy with all deliberate and lethal speed. Our tepid attacks have not dented the enemy's resolve. We are not hitting often, and we are bogged down in both Iraq and Afghanistan, even retreating.

Our modern distaste for historic American military violence notwithstanding, we will have to go back, we will have a more devastating attack on mainland America, and more innocents and soldiers will needlessly die for no visible gains.

"One Fine Night, When We Were All in Bed, Mrs. Osama Left An IED in the Shed"

Graphic source: Wikipedia Commons, originally published in Harper's Weekly.

What you don't know won't hurt you is a saying very wrong in the confidential Chicago terrorist threat assessment which was leaked over P2P. In 2002, a study performed by top consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., commissioned by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), considered 35 threat assessments of the nation's bus and rail systems.

Larry Yellen, a Fox News reporter, acquired the confidential terrorist threat assessment on Chicago over a peer-to-peer (P2P) program, LimeWire, a public file-sharing network.

With Al-Qaida urging the U.S. to embrace Islam, a traditional notice before an imminent military strike, the information is revealing, and alarming in how available critical knowledge is readily disseminated on the Internet.

Popular P2P clients such as Kazaa, LimeWire, BearShare, Morpheus, and FastTrack are designed to let users quickly download and share files. If the access these P2P clients have on a system is not secure, it is easy to expose and share personal data with users on a file-sharing network.

In July, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform heard testimony from several witnesses about how everything from classified military documents to corporate data can be found on P2P networks. The leaked documents on P2P networks included the Pentagon's entire secret backbone network infrastructure diagram; contractor data on radio frequency manipulation to defeat improvised explosive devices in Iraq; and physical terrorism threat assessments for three major U.S cities.

Bush as Saladin: Bin Laden Hiding in a Cave

Graphic source: The White House.

Once the death toll mounts for Arab fighters it is at that time that victory is declared. This is the historical pattern made clear by successive defeats against Israel. Once Bush announces his plans this evening to withdraw a limited number of troops, no doubt citing that some of the benchmarks have been met, the Arab response will be to declare victory.

Meanwhile, hiding in a cave somewhere is the person who has refused to sacrifice himself; in contrast, Bush has visited his troops three times to lend moral support.

Who should be humiliated by their behavior?

Thought on 9/11

If U.S. leaders truly believed the country is at war with bin Laden and the Islamists, they would dump the terminally adolescent bureaucrats and their threat matrix, accept and tell the voters that war brings repeated and at times grievous defeats as well as victories, and proceed with relentless, brutal, and yes, blood-soaked offensive military actions until we have annihilated the Islamists who threaten us, or so mutilate their forces, supporting populations, and physical infrastructure that they recognize continued war-making on their part futile.

Imperial Hubris, Michael Scheuer, p. 85.

Not Much New for Osama

Bin Laden didn't have much to say. There is a new tape of a 9/11 terrorist but the same old tired rhetoric. The audience for this tape is Middle Eastern. I can't see how many people in an American context are fearful as one of the points of the attack seemed to be.

With nothing compelling to say, al-Qaida will wait to strike in a bigger and bolder attack. They are patient.

Progress Petraeus

Graphic Source: BBC.

I know he said "working" but I think he should be called Progress Petraeus. Petraeus has more to say tomorrow but as readers on this blog would have noted, I predicted what Petraeus would say.

I don't believe Petraeus is simply putting a Bush spin on the numbers; I believe in the essential substance of what he is saying: the military made the surge work.

He stated that the military objectives of the U.S. troop surge in Iraq "are largely being met." Although improvements were "uneven," violence had declined significantly since the surge began in February.

In his testimony before the joint hearing by the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees, Petraeus said "security incidents," had declined since the start of the surge; he anticipated the withdrawal of around 30,000 U.S. troops by the middle of 2008, beginning with 2,000 marines in September.

However, the situation in Iraq remained "difficult."

A record 168,000 US troops are now in Iraq after 30,000 arrived in the surge between February and June.

Petraeus told the committees that troop numbers could be eventually reduced to pre-surge level without jeopardising the security situation.

But he warned that a premature reduction would have "devastating consequences."

"It is possible to achieve our objectives in Iraq over time, although doing so will be neither quick, nor easy," he said. If this is a gradual draining of our resources, then this point was not addressed.

The objective of the surge was to buy time for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki to end sectarian violence and secure a political settlement between sectarian groups.

Maliki failed. Iraq has not produced leaders who want to lead, and leaders who do not want to end the corruption, waste, and stop sectarian violence.

The U.S. military did their part; the Iraqis failed themselves.

Grim Statistics: Military deaths

Less than 3,800 Americans have died in Iraq. Every death is a tragedy but this is a reflection on the numbers of American deaths in past conflicts.

The bleak summary of numbers illustrates a point of clarity.

Civil War - At least 618,000.

WW II - 405,399

Since the Iraq conflict began, around 170,000 Americans died in automobile accidents.

WW I - 116,516

Vietnam - 58,209

Korea - 36,574

Mexican War - 13,283

Philippine-American War - 4,324

War of 1812 - 2,260

Spanish-American War - 2,446

In the latter two wars, the involved military forces were less than a tenth of the size of our current military. Likewise, American deaths might be expected to have more of an impact given the smaller population of the country at the time.

Since the Iraq conflict began, around 170,000 Americans died in automobile accidents. Yet, no one is outraged with automobile deaths and no one is seriously calling for an end to driving.

Whatever one feels about the misguided notions and wrongful thinking of how the U.S. entered the war, simply citing combat deaths as a reason to withdraw seems misplaced. Relatively speaking, the numbers are significantly less than most American conflicts.

If you throw out the in many ways non-comparable internal Civil War, and WW II, automobile deaths are a huge tragedy that few are outraged about, and the fact is the U.S. has been relatively unscathed. Our deaths are low relative to the size of our population.

Canterbury Coach

A motley group of travelers are thrown together to reveal and contrast their backgrounds and ideas:
The Canterbury Tales and Stagecoach.

The bare bones description seems to fit both. The thought occurred to me while screening John Ford's classic film.

Osama Ho Hum

Graphic source: Investigation by FBI, public domain graphic of Adam Yahiye Gadahn.

The world will little note nor long remember this message but for the time being he has the attention of the media. The far more important Osama bin Laden tape is the one where he got away.

Before Bush was President, and well before Iraq, the primary bin Laden hunter in America, Michael Scheuer claims that Clinton was given 8-10 chances by sound intelligence to take bin Laden out but Osama got away. Scheuer states that by late 1999, bin Laden could have been a "smoldering memory." Tennant and others in the intelligence community deferred to the law enforcement arm of the U.S. government. This was a mistake. The U.S. faced an international terrorist and a Clintonesque law enforcement strategy was not adequate.

Meanwhile, Osama drones on.

The new video message from bin Laden appeared on militant Islamist Web sites Saturday, a day after it was released by the U.S.-based SITE Institute, a terrorist monitoring organization. Television was the chosen medium although Web site posting had been the usual means used by bin Laden.

The video portrays bin Laden as a rather restrained preacher, he makes no overt threats, and he does not call for the spectacular type of attacks which seems to characterize al-Qaida. The message is more direct, addressing Americans and telling them the Iraq war has failed and urging them against capitalism, multinational corporations, globalization, democracy and finally, "I invite you to embrace Islam," he states. The message is: Islam is the answer to the evils of America.

American intelligence agencies are still studying the video for authenticity and hints about bin Laden's health.

There is a Marxist twist to the terrorist understanding of the West as bin Laden notes: "as you liberated yourselves before from the slavery of monks, kings and feudalism, you should liberate yourselves from the . . . capitalist system."

Bin Ladenism fails to appreciate liberal democracies which eliminated many of the worst abuses of untrammeled capitalism. In this regard, bin Laden seems trapped in an antiquated understanding of how capitalism works. He seems to still view capitalism as a pure Adam Smith variety of capitalism which no longer exists. The only rapacious form of capitalism still alive in the Middle East. With the discovery of oil, fabulous Middle Eastern wealth was created for the fortunate few with the resulting decline of any progressive and upwardly mobile lifestyle possible for the unfortunate.

This would also explain why bin Laden's appeal is to the most downtrodden in Iraq and Afghanistan who have little chance of improving their lives through education, a democratic political process, or equitable, liberal economic reform. Globalization has impacted the Middle East severely, as the Middle East suffers from repressive regimes, a lack of capital investment, low rate of education, and a non-innovative business climate. All of this makes bin Laden's violent appeals all that more dangerous. It is an expression of Middle Eastern backwardness and frustration.

Interestingly, some analysts believe an American, 28-year-old Adam Gadahn, may have authored at least part of the speech.

The intelligence considered reliable about Gadahn includes:

Adam Yahiye Gadahn, born Adam Pearlman, grew up in rural Southern California [near Riverside California] and had frequent contact with Muslims. He converted to Islam in the mid-1990s and moved to Pakistan to study a few years later. He was apparently radicalized there.

Between October 2004 and September 2006, Gadahn appeared in five videotapes in support of al-Qaeda.

U.S. officials labeled him as a propagandist for the organization. He is not charged with taking part in any terrorist operation.

The Rewards For Justice Program of the U.S. State Department, is offering a reward of up to $1 million for information leading to the arrest of Gadahn.

He speaks English and Arabic.

He is the first American to be charged with treason since the World War II era. The counter-terrorism site Global Security is the source of information about Gadahn.

Gadahn has been charged with treason as an al-Qaida propagandist, and while making insider American references, he has attacked capitalism and globalization while appearing in several al-Qaida-produced videos.

The age-old communist cabal against warmongering corporation reappears in a theistic Islamic cover.

On a fashion note, bin Laden's trimmed beard is shorter than in his last 2004 video, fully black and clearly dyed while having dark bags under his eyes, speaking softly, as he usually has.

This is the first video since 2004, and he had not put out an audiotape in more than a year, his longest period without a message. The message is pretty much outdated, absurd, the only real significance is that he is still alive.

The video must be recent since he mentions that "several days ago" Japan marked the 62nd anniversary of the 6 August 1945 atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima. He also refers to last year's Democratic Party congressional victory and to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who was elected in May. If authentic then, the tape was apparently recorded in early August.

Petraeus: Progress, Redeploy in Spring

Petraeus favors a troop buildup until next spring. He stated: "Based on the progress our forces are achieving, I expect to be able to recommend that some of our forces will be redeployed without replacement," according to the Boston Globe.

Survey of Globalization

The video summarizes some important points.

Sources: Karl Fisch, and modified by Scott McLeod: Globalization and The Information Age.

Music Credits: (1992) "The Last of the Mohicans" off the soundtrack the song is (Elk Hunt/The Kiss.

China, No to Wikipedia, Again

China has blocked access to Wikipedia after an almost uninterrupted two months. The Chinese government blocks sites deemed questionable but with no explanation.

Bush Mum On Chinese Hacks

Bush did not discuss recent allegations of the Chinese hacking Pentagon computers but The Financial Timesis still reporting additional hacks. Beijing is also suspected of hacking British government networks as well as earlier reporting that the Pentagon and German targets were also hit by China. China is engaged in hostile intelligence activities based not on Cold War methods but on hacking.

Recently, MI5--Britain's security service--warned that the biggest cyberattacks may arise from China and Russia.

Stonebraker Turns Over a New Rock

Relational database pioneer says his technology is a dinosaur but by chance he has a new product to offer.

Michael Stonebraker researched relational databases, or RDBMS,' at UC, Berkeley in the early 1970s but now with a new product he has more to offer.

Ingres and Postgres technology is the foundation for many leading relational databases such as SQL Server, Sybase Inc.'s Adaptive Server Enterprise, Ingres Corp.'s product, IBM's Informix, among others.

The new product is column-oriented databases which just happens to be built by Stonebraker's latest start-up, Vertica Systems Inc. which store data vertically in table columns rather than in successive rows.

Maybe he has a vested interest in the adoption of the new column-oriented databases.

Chinese Deny Hacks of Two Countries

China denies that the type of hacks it has been working on, military intrusions, is not what it has done to the Pentagon network.

Yesterday, China denied that in June it had attempted to access the Pentagon. This is not the first accusation.

Jiang Yu, a foreign ministry spokeswoman, denied the charges.

The Financial Times quoted American officials who said the People's Liberation Army (PLA) was behind the June hack. American officials interviewed clearly thought China was responsible.

The Pentagon network had been taken offline in response to the attacks.

The attack was against an unclassified email network in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

A month previously, the Department of Defense claimed that the PLA maintains first-strike cyberwarfare units whose arsenals include computer viruses.

Although Jiang denied the charges, just last week, Angela Merkel, Germany's chancellor, accused China of the same type of hacks. Der Spiegel reported that government ministries as well as Merkel's office, had been infected with spyware planted by Chinese hackers.