Blog Smith is inspired by the myth of Hephaestus in the creation of blacksmith-like, forged materials: ideas. This blog analyzes topics that interest me: IT, politics, technology, history, education, music, and the history of religions.
That a nation pursues its interests, and that nations have formed their prejudices, I can live with. What bothers me is that genuine issues, such as those that exist in regards to China, get a free pass.
Isn't it about time that China comes up to the world plate and faces the music?
The flagrant missteps that the government has taken with security make the headlines and permit us bloggers to kick back laugh at yet another example of governmental ineptitude.
Whether to mollify critics or to frustrate bloggers some in public service have actually gotten it right.
As reported by Computerworld the SANS Institute released a list of the more successful security efforts within the federal government.
The successful initiatives in the SANS list were selected based on actual evidence of having made substantial and measurable improvements in one or more of three areas. Those three areas are the ability to prevent cyber attacks against critical infrastructure targets, reducing national vulnerability to cyber attacks, and minimizing damage and recovery time from attacks that do occur.
The Federal Desktop Core Configuration (FDCC) initiative
The FDCC effort helps government agencies reduce procurement costs and bolster security of their desktop environments by requiring agencies to implement standard baseline security configurations on all their Windows XP and Vista desktops.
This program seems to save the taxpayers money; I like it.
The US-CERT Einstein program
The Einstein Program is an initiative to improve cybersecurity-related situational awareness across the civilian federal government.
This initiative promotes cross agency data sharing and is in keeping with the spirit of the 9/11 Commission. Kudos.
The National SCADA Test Bed and Control Systems Security Program
This effort was spurred largely by post-9/11 fears of cyberattacks against the nation's power utility infrastructure. This is the one that is perhaps scariest of all because it impacts the average person so immediately and seems particularly vulnerable to attack.
The Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) testbed program is designed to help identify vulnerabilities in the control systems that manage power plants, electric distribution systems, oil and gas pipelines, water systems, transportation systems, and dams. Vulnerabilities, when found, are reported to the vendors for remedial action, and become part of the required procurement checklist for future purchases. Cf. Computerworld.
I'd like to see this instituted on my block because my local power can not supply power on an annual basis without losing power all too often.
The Department of Defense's Common Access Card (CAC) program
The two-factor authentication supported by the DoD's common-access smart card identity credentials has greatly strengthened access controls to non-classified defense systems.
Well, that's it. I'd like to see more but at least there is progress and that is hwat we will be getting for now.
The increased numbers arose largely from sales of chips for industrial control systems like motor controls, security and surveillance systems, and automotive electronics. Communication equipment markets are also robust.
The latest released indicates how the Chinese market benefits from American sluggishness. Chinese growth is expected to slow somewhat though.
Eduventures, an eLearning company, issued results from a survey of college students which showed that Firefox and IE are neck and neck for popularity. Firefox has a college and student addition which may indicate why the browser can obtain allegiance amongst younger people.
The 18-to 24-year-old students students are enrolled full-time at a four-year college or university via a Web survey.
Both Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox are tied for most preferred Web browser at 45 percent. The other browsers, AOL, Avant, and Camino, also received some lesser support.
33% of respondents enjoyed Mozilla Firefox and its “tabbed browsing” feature. That preference is not hard to understand as a reason for their preference. Tabbed browsing makes for a better experience. The survey also pointed out that 31% who prefer Explorer also use Firefox, while 65 percent who prefer Firefox also use Explorer.
The relationship between the two browsers seems to be symbiotic.
Cf. "Snapshot: Firefox, IE Vie for Popularity Among College Students," Campus Technology, 12/10/2007, http://www.campustechnology.com/article.aspx?aid=56608.
Graphic source: Eduventures
Graphic source: Computerworld Farsi version
Computerworld's Patrick Thibodeau broke a story in which the Iranian High Performance Computing Research Center claims to have now enough Opteron processors to build a 216-core supercomputer.
Apparently according to the official Iranian sources, they need a computer like this for weather and meteorological research.
Uhhh, sure.
The computer is the fastest to have been produced in Iran.
Thibodeau is to be commended for his investigative reporting in that he uncovered information that indicates how Teheran circumvented U.S. trade restrictions. The processors moved through the United Arab Emirates state of Dubai.
AMD, and their Opteron processor, is key to the computer and AMD is cozy with the UAE. Last month AMD received $622 million in funding from an investment firm in Abu Dhabi, the UAE capital.
“My trade is to say what I think.”
Voltaire
“No man has received from nature the right to give orders to others. Freedom is a gift from heaven, and every individual of the same species has the right to enjoy it as soon as he is in enjoyment of his reason.”
—Denis Diderot
Nixon and Elvis meeting
Graphic source: The National Archives
I had hoped to post at least summaries of what the Nixon Presidential Library released as new materials arose from the National Archives but so far I only know what I read in the papers.
The papers noted tantalizing releases though.
The Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum released approximately 122,800 pages of historical materials from the Nixon presidency at the National Archives in College Park, MD.
The last time I visited the Nixon Library it was well worth the time and I would have had a chance to purview the materials if they had been released. College Park looks like a better site to access the materials now.
Some of the highlights of the materials include national security documents on U.S. policy towards Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Soviet Union, and the Kurds. Also included are documents on the Vietnam War, on dealing with the terrorist Black September Organization, on producing the CIA’s Presidential Daily Brief, and on U.S. covert action in Chile. Last, but not least, the documents also include information on Elvis Presley and Nixon's famous meeting with him.
A selection of 15 documents from the release were posted on the Nixon Presidential Library.
This is the largest release of Nixon-related materials under mandatory review: over 10,000 pages of documents were previously withheld from public access, and that were re-reviewed for release and/or declassified under the provisions of Executive Order 12958, as amended, or in accordance with 36 CFR 1275.56 (Public Access Regulations). The documents are from file segments for the White House Special Files, Staff Member and Office Files; the National Security Council File series including the Henry A. Kissinger Office Files and the National Security Council Institutional Files.
Also released are around 4,800 pages of documents from the White House Central Files, Name Files. This system was used for routine materials filed alphabetically by the name of the correspondent. Included in the release are files on Mark Felt (Deep Throat), Robert Byrd, Bob Hope, Elvis Presley, Ronald Reagan, Richard Cheney, and Frank Sinatra.
In addition, there are approximately 83,000 pages of White House Central Files, Staff Member and Office Files, and White House Press Office Files. The files contain materials created by the Press Office for distribution to the media including White House press releases and press conference transcripts.
Finally, 25,000 pages of documents from Records of Temporary Committees, Commissions, and Boards, Records of the Cabinet Committee on Education are now available. The Cabinet Committee on Education served as a Federal Government point of contact for states undergoing school desegregation.
The Nixon Presidential Library and Museum is one of 12 Presidential libraries operated and maintained by the National Archives.
Whereas the first impetus for this blog post arose from a December/January 2008 article in CSO: The Resource for Security Executives I found out that a stimulating discussion about the topic went back to at least 4 March 2005. At that time an online discussion reported on a griefer, the term for a player in an online computer game who deliberately sets out to discomfort other players.
Where have I been? This is a new term for me to learn; I know it now.
The consensus of the 2005 discussion is that griefers are more dissimilar than familiar to real-world terrorists, yet, they do share specific aspects in common. Both types seek to disrupt, annoy, and harass legitimate authority. To be annoying they ferret out weaknesses, loopholes, and the cracks in security provisions.
Witness the online blogger Will Wright's statement in September 2004:
We’ve been talking to people in homeland security that want to know if we could simulate a terrorist network. I keep telling them they don’t have to; they just need to come study the griefers in a multi-player game, because they are exactly that. They always figure out how to get by every little loophole, they hide in the cracks, they respond very fast to whatever new policies you put in place. It is like the perfect simulator for a terrorist organization. So the answer is yes, unfortunately.
The online discussion from 2005 pointing out differences between griefers and terrorists may be missing the point.
The main point is not that there is something in common about the goals or the motives or the moral worth of griefers or terrorists. Rather the key insight is that there is a common meta-strategy to the way both terrorists operate and griefers and gangs operate. All of the above exploit loopholes in the rules and finding unanticipated ways to do damage to the system. They seek soft targets with the capacity to swarm and attack inter-dependently, in particular against targets such as buildings and game servers.
It is to this latter point that David F. Ronfeldt, senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, addresses in "Al Qaeda and its affiliates: A global tribe waging segmental warfare?"
Ronfeldt states:
Continuing to view Al Qaeda mainly as a cutting–edge, post–modern phenomenon of the information age misses a crucial point: Al Qaeda is using the information age to revitalize and project ancient patterns of tribalism on a global scale.
And most fascinatingly, Al Qaeda and its ilk combine tribalism and cutting-edge technology to advance their cause and to disrupt network activity. Not surprisingly, the earlier discussions of disruptions occurred in Second Life activities. The online site offers all sorts of attractive possibilities to griefers, and terrorists: soft targets, vulnerabilities, and the possibility of anonymous, difficult to trace, online meetings but then possibly coupled with physical, real-world swarm attacks by dedicated jihadists.
The schools benefit from a $40 million Wi-Fi project that puts wireless Internet access within reach of 170,000 students, and an upgrade to the new 802.11n technology is being contemplated for next fall.
The Wi-Fi deployment is considered one of the largest Wi-Fi projects in the world, according to Meru Networks, and their associates, Avaya Incorporated.
The 802.11 a/b/g specifications have been key in providing "functional 1 to 1" access of computing to all students using mobile laptop carts.
The Wi-Fi foundation allows for a bandwidth intensive online curriculum, a curriculum management system, digital libraries, and a parent-teacher collaboration portal.
Avaya originally worked with Proxim Wireless Corporation but the pairing did not go smoothly which led to Meru's technology eventually being employed.
Similar Wi-Fi projects have stalled nationwide which has led to speculation that not all of these municipal projects will come to fruition. Philadelphia's has been less than rosy but it is a project whose time has come. Unless Rust Belt cities such as Philadelphia implement such projects, it will be passed over in the global economy.
This is good news. Now, Russia and China can cooperate, and control if necessary, Iran. The U.S. can let well enough alone, Iran's loose cannon of a President can derail his support amongst Iranian youth and Iran can slowly fade off the screen.
It won't happen but it is pleasant to consider.
The biggest threat from Iran is in conventional weapons, gun-running, and embarrassing itself in world affairs, but, we already knew that.
This is business as usual.
I find that it is a relief to discover that Iran did not develop nuclear weapons for some time. In the rush to laugh at Bush the world can breathe a bit easier and continue to oppose the Iranian regime.
On the site there are syllabuses, lecture notes from about 15,000 lectures, about 9,000 homework assignments, 900 exams, reference materials, and when available, video lectures.
An estimated 35 million people have accessed the course materials.
Even more interesting is to consider where the traffic is being generated from: China, India, and South Korea, in fact 60% of users are from outside the U.S.
Since the MIT initiative began the project is suggestive of the openness with which leading Universities are approaching the creation and dissemination of knowledge. Moreover, the brains that want to tap American knowledge arise from Asia.
The openness of MIT is quite a sea change from the restricted 19th century notion of exclusive, restrictive knowledge as practiced by elites. And importantly, those most hungry for the knowledge, in Asia, are indicative that the balance of world power is shifting Eastward.
In their own way, each frightened and enlightened me in ways that I believe most Americans need to hear. None of them sit well with their opponents and other political ideologies but they share a certain refreshing pragmatism.
No one really knows what to do about terrorism but these three books more than others articulate from a military, intelligence, and political science perspective how to understand Islamo-fascism, the most important issue of our day.
The thesis of the challenging and important “Clash of Civilizations” is that the growing threat of violence arising from renewed conflicts between cultures and countries that base their traditions on religious faith and dogma. Samuel P Huntington, a political scientist at Harvard University and foreign policy adviser to President Clinton, argues that policymakers should be mindful of current developments, especially when they interfere in other nations' affairs.
The clash of civilizations is a controversial theory in international relations. I will review in particular some of the criticisms of the work.
He states:
It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.
Huntington divided the civilizations in following way: Western Christendom, centered on Europe and North America, including Australia and New Zealand; the Muslim world of the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia, Malaysia, and Indonesia; the Hindu civilization, located mainly in India, Nepal; the Sinic civilization of China, Vietnam, Singapore, Taiwan; Sub-Saharan Africa; the Buddhist areas of Northern India, Nepal, Bhutan, Mongolia, Buryatia, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and Tibet; and Japan is considered as an independent civilization (Huntington 1993, 26).
Huntington suggested that the world is returning to a civilization-dominated world where future conflicts would come from clashes between “civilizations”. Nevertheless, this theory has been largely criticized for over generalization, disregarding local conflicts and for improperly predicting what has happened in the decade after its publication.
Huntington's theory draws a future where the “great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural” (Huntington 1993, 22). He predicts confrontation between countries from different civilizations for control over international institutions and economic and military power (Huntington 1993, 29). Examining the evidence for adoption of Western ideas, such as Western values concerning human rights, supports the ideas that they very often are the least important values to other civilizations (James Graham, 2004).
The clash of civilizations thesis as every theory has its flaws. James Graham considers that Huntington's thesis somehow distorted the reality, although they are original and persuasive. He also points the advantage that this theory made people look at non-Western cultures more seriously and with greater interest. Huntington also is criticized for being too vague and indistinct addressing many specific issues (James Graham, 2004). Many specialists say that Huntington's anecdotal style is simply not suitable enough to account for the rationalizations and arguments he represents in such a serious work (Fox 2002, 423). A comprehensive analysis accomplished by Jonathon Fox for the period 1989-2002 concluded that the precise contrary of what Huntington predicted occurred in fact (Fox 2002, 425). In addition, James Graham says that civilization conflicts were less widespread than non-civilization conflicts and the end of the Cold War had no noteworthy impact on the relation between them (James Graham, 2004). Most confusing of all was the observation that where civilization conflict did occur it was more likely to take place between groups that were culturally similar, that is in the frame of the same civilization and not between them. These conclusions openly contradict Huntington's thoughts.
Many say that Huntington's thesis ignores culture's tendency to be fast changing and multi-dimensional (Herzfeld 1997, 116). Most of the Western countries are becoming multi or bi-cultural now. From this statement, we may conclude that they are somehow a part of multiple civilizations, a situation he outlines is characterized by religion as the crucial factor. “A secular Arab immigrant living in an Arab community in England is just one example where this designation is inappropriate. Really, situated in a highly religious country with a considerable number of Christian fundamentalists he states confidently that the world is becoming un-secularised. His data to support this claim is circumstantial” (James Graham, 2004).
Despite the criticisms, and Huntington's relationship to Francis Fukuyama's "end of history," he was the first to foresee that civilizations will ultimately come to clash. Huntington replaced conflict between Marxist class struggle by conflict between civilizations, actually religions.
The rise of terrorism and fundamentalist Islam makes Huntington essential reading and it is not surprising that Huntington's original article along these lines in Foreign Affairs created more responses than any other work ever published within that journal.
Some specialists commented that his identified civilizations are very split with little unity. For example, Vietnam still keeps a massive army, mostly to guard against China. The Islamic world is rigorously fractured in terms of ethnic lines with Kurds, Arabs, Persians, Turks, Pakistanis, and Indonesians, each culture possessing specific, unlike world views.
However, post 9/11 Huntington appeared prescient and attacks by Western states upon Afghanistan and Iraq accelerated the perception that Huntington's “Clash” was well underway. Moreover, the 1995 and 2004 enlargements of the European Union brought the EU's eastern border up to the boundary between Huntington's Western and Orthodox civilizations.
Many of Europe's historically and traditionally Protestant and Roman Catholic countries were now EU members, while a number of Europe's historically Orthodox countries were outside the EU. However, the strong EU candidacies of Bulgaria and Romania, as well as the dominating ascendancy of pro-Western powers in Ukraine's 2004 presidential elections, and the NATO membership of Romania and Bulgaria (since 2004) represent a challenge to some of Huntington's analysis.
Huntington has been criticized for his presentation of “new paradigm.” He argues that the prevailing Cold War model of state-centric realist model can no longer be useful to analyze the post-Cold War era. He claims that civilizational dissimilarities will be key source of regional and global conflicts (Huntington 1993, 22). On the other hand critics suggests that Huntington's “civilizational conflict theory” is deterministic since there are manifold causes of conflict, in which civilizational factors do not play a considerable role. Others say that in particular “clash of interests” rather than “clash of civilizations” will continue to be real cause of conflict. For example, Shireen T. Hunter opposes Huntington and states that relations between the West and the Islamic World are hardly arise from civilizational discrepancy but from structural-political and also from economic inequalities between the two worlds.(Shireen, 19). In addition, there are critics that Huntington overestimates cultural differences between civilizations and at the same time underestimates the power of the West in the hostile relations with the Muslim World. Many criticize Huntington for paying too much attention to the West's technological and military superiority. Overall, Huntington has received several criticisms because of his “new paradigm."
Another kind of criticism is about Huntington's “monolithic” conception of civilizations and disregarding of intra-civilizational differences and home conflict. Some say that the idea of West has undergone a considerable transformation in turn of the 21st century, and the actual clash will happen not between the West and the rest, as Huntington predicted, but it will arise between pro-Western conservatives and post-Western liberal multi-culturalists in the US-West World. On the other hand, the critics assert that Huntington takes no notice of internal developments and complexities of Muslim World. Critics say that there is no single Islamic culture as Huntington meant, moreover, there are different types of political Islam (Edward W. Said 2001, 20). Furthermore, there are numerous conflicts within civilizations. Overall, a second sort of criticism focuses on diversity and dynamics of each civilization and intra-civilizational differences.
Huntington has met so many criticisms because of the alleged inconsistencies, methodological flaws, and over generalizations in his thesis. For example, Robert Marks points that Huntington chiefly uses secondary sources in his book and his research of Islam, China, and Japan is rather weak (Marks). He proposes that Huntington's speculation is methodologically flawed because of his frequent over generalizations in the examination of civilizations. Many have also criticized the data, which Huntington uses to support his thesis. For example for many of Huntington's critics, the Gulf War was a case for “clash of state interests' and not a case for “clash of civilizations”. Therefore, we may say that in this respect, the critics have focused on vast generalizations and inconsistencies.
Huntington is also very often is blamed for orientalism. Islam turns to be a problem and even a threat to the West. He always privileges the Western World and ignores the other: Islam. As such, the clash thesis distorts and de-humanizes Muslims.
One more category of criticism is about Huntington's policy recommendations on the basis of his understanding of post-Cold War global politics. Huntington looks for new enemies, which replace the rival of the Cold War, the Soviet Union. There are arguments that Huntington's theory is an ideological and strategic theory that aims at influencing the US foreign and defense policy (Edward W. Said 2001, 20). Huntington's scenario of World War III that stems from a clash of civilizations interestingly fits best into military and representatives of the arms industry. In this respect, it is possible to claim that the “clash of civilizations” is considered as a determined thesis aiming at guiding U.S. foreign and security policy. What is more, some scholars criticize Huntington's advice to pursue an Atlantic policy, by means of strengthening relations with Europe to counteract Islamic-Confucian civilization.
There are some studies challenging the “clash of civilization thesis. It is interesting to review few of them: e.g., Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart. In their study they have compared political and social values of the Muslim and Western societies. What is interesting, they have found that Muslims have no less democratic ideals than the West and the West is not so distinctive from Islam in terms of faith in democracy (Pippa Norris 2002, 12). In this regard, this study has significantly undermined Huntington's theory that Islam and the West are poles apart on political values based upon leading religious cultures. These authors demonstrate the availability of similar political attitudes in the Muslim World as well as in the West. Others criticized Huntington for his pessimistic vision of future and unawareness of the fact that collaboration and dialogue among civilizations are possible and even useful.
In summary, the basic problem with Huntington's theory is the conviction that all cultures aspire to imperial power. Huntington is not only inaccurate but his thesis has the potential to be extremely dangerous if taken as a prescription for making policy. Huntington's thesis maximizes the significance of cultural factors and minimizes the importance of nationalism. The problem is that most Islamic countries do not see themselves to be in conflict with the United States. Huntington paints an aggressive picture of the non-Western civilizations, Islam in particular, while ignoring the misdeeds of the Western civilization whose dominance is being challenged.
In Part V of the book, The Future of Civilizations, Huntington points out that civilizations can reform and renew themselves. The central issue for the West is whether it can meet the external challenge while stopping and reversing the process of internal decay. He paints a scenario for a major war of civilizations and points out that the great beneficiaries will be those who abstain and closes by saying: "If this scenario seems a wildly implausible fantasy to the reader, that is all to the good. Let us hope that no other scenarios of global civilizational war have greater plausibility."
References:
1. Fox, Jonathon. Ethnic minorities and the clash of civilizations: A quantitative analysis of Huntington's thesis. British Journal of Political Science. 32(3). 415-435.
2. Herzfeld, Michael. 1997. Anthropology and the politics of significance. Social Analysis. 4(3). 107-138.
3. Huntington. Samuel, 1993. The clash of civilizations. Foreign Affairs, 72(3):22-49.
4. Graham, James. May, 2004. Samuel P. Huntington's Clash of Civilisations. www.HistoryOrb.com
5. Samuel P. Huntington. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), p. 43.
6. Shireen T. Hunter, "The Future of Islam and the West: Clash of Civilizations or Peaceful Coexistence?", Fouad Ajami, M.E Ahrari, "The Clash of Civilizations: An Old Story or New Truth?", Yuksel Sezgin, "Does Islam Pose A Threat to the West?" Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 5, No. 2, (June-August 2000)
7. Edward W. Said, "The Clash of Ignorance", The Nation, October 22 2001 and Mahmood Monshipouri, "The West's Modern Encounter With Islam: From Discourse to Reality".
8. Robert Marks, "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order" (Book Review).
9. Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart, "Islam and the West; Testing the Clash of Civilizations Thesis", John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Faculty Research Working Papers Series (RWP02-015), April 2002, p.14 (http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP02-015/$File/rwp02_015_norris_rev1.pdf)
Since Musharraf can not be trusted, nor can anyone assure that he will remain in power, this amount is money well-spent.
The $100 million has been spent over the past six years to train Pakistani security personnel in the U.S., begin construction on a nuclear security training center in Pakistan, and supply equipment such as fencing and surveillance systems.
Pakistan has about 60 operational nuclear weapons, and for comparison's sake, the Nunn-Lugar program, which works to secure roughly 6,000 operational nuclear warheads in Russia, has historically had a budget of about $1 billion a year. Relatively speaking then, in terms of money spent per weapon, per year on nuclear security, the U.S. has been spending about 65% more on securing Pakistan’s arsenal than on securing Russia’s.
The alternative is costly and chilly to consider. Imagine the Pakistani nuclear arsenal falling into the wrong hands. The Pakistani hands are frightening enough.
The emotionally moving video of submission, such as the tales of murdered Theo van Gogh and the Dutch exile Ayaan Hirsi Ali who has to remain guarded because of death threats, are shown in a first-person account and statement.
Is it any wonder?
Jordan asked Nixon to attack Syria according to 10,000 papers released by the Nixon Library in recently declassified papers. We have heard so much of how the U.S. is recently intruding into the Middle East but as these recently declassified papers show, the U.S. was more intimately involved, and more reluctant to commit troops to the Middle East, than the pundits would allow.
King Hussein urged a U.S. strike on invading Syrian troops in 1970 but Nixon did not agree and the attack was never launched.
Nixon, ever the "realist" in foreign affairs wisely cautioned the Saudis to distance themselves from the PLO's Fatah organization. All the Saudis have done in the meantime is to foster their own brand of financial fanaticism in the form of Wahabism.
Nixon apparently had concerns about some of the terrorist issues which plague us today.
One of the things revealed in the documents is that there was a move to get the Saudis more involved in solving the growing terrorist problem.
A 1973 diplomatic cable cites this objective: "isolate and undermine terrorisms [sic] and commandos [sic] by establishing another, more stable and respectable Palestinian political entity and political personality."
Nixon accepted the fact that Israel possessed nuclear weapons in 1969.
And in these troubled days, a telegram from Hussein reveals that he contacted the U.S. at 3 a.m. to ask for American or British help. "Situation deteriorating dangerously following Syrian massive invasion...," the document said. "I request immediate physical intervention both land and air ... to safeguard sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Jordan. Immediate air strikes on invading forces from any quarter plus air cover are imperative."
The documents reveal American involvement at a deeper level and during a time when the world was unaware that Middle Eastern leaders appealed to the U.S. for assistance. It becomes clearer that Bush hardly can be accused of jumping in too quickly in Iraq. The Eisenhower Doctrine initiated the principle and reason for U.S. involvement in the Middle East. Nixon was asked to be involved in Jordan. Bush the First led the U.S. in Persian Gulf I. In this light, the Iraq War is more of a continuum, rather than an exception.
In one of those stories of the nattering nabobs of negativism (thank you Spiro Agnew, wherever you are), a A Massachusetts company has sued the OLPC Association, charging the project with stealing its designs for a multilingual keyboard.
Lagos Analysis Corporation, or Lancor, filed the lawsuit in the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division in Nigeria.
The OLPC is accused of illegally reverse-engineering the company's patented keyboard, which, with its four shift keys, allows computers to better handle multiple languages. A settlement would award "substantial" damages and issue a permanent injunction to prevent OLPC from manufacturing and selling its XO laptop.
OLPC released a statement, "To OLPC's knowledge, all of the intellectual property used in the XO Laptop is either owned by OLPC or properly licensed."
The goal of the nonprofit OLPC, founded by MIT professor Nicholas Negroponte, is to donate laptops to children in developing nations, such as Nigeria, so the irony is that Nigerian children and others would be stymie the OLPC project.
Lancor should be ashamed of themselves. The patent is a simple idea that others can easily emulate and the goal of the OLPC is humanitarian. Even the XO laptop has gradually crept up in price although the Foundation made a sincere effort to keep costs down. Other companies have similar products, such as Encore's Mobilis and Intel's Classmate PC, so the cynicism of filing an infringement on the patent is, well, patently obvious.
The most optimistic aspect of the negotiation is that the peace process is revived from the past seven years of dormancy.
The key issues:
*the dismantling of Israeli settlements in the West Bank
*the borders of a Palestinian state
+the status of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees who left, or were forced to leave, their homes in Israel.
It remains to be seen if Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, can settle their differences while the regional struggle against extremism seems to be raging in the Middle East.
Interesting, the conclave brought about the highest-level official contacts yet between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which do not have diplomatic relations. Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, vowed that he would not shake Mr. Olmert’s hand.
According to news reports, Olmert looked directly at Prince Saud and said that Israel aspired to “normalization” with the Arab world.
Olmert stated:
you know that religious fanaticism and national extremism are a perfect recipe for domestic instability and violence, for bitterness and ultimately for the disintegration of the very foundations of coexistence based on tolerance and mutual acceptance.
Prince Saud was less diplomatic in response as he stated: "the time has come for Israel to put its trust in peace after it has gambled on war for decades without success.” He asked that Israel withdraw from the West Bank.
Bush waved his magic wand and stated that this was an opportunity to advance democracy in a region torn by conflict, not to mention filled now with United States troops. Bush said: “And when liberty takes root in the rocky soil of the West Bank and Gaza, it will inspire millions across the Middle East who want their societies built on freedom and peace and hope.”
If only that were true. It is more likely that any voting in most of the Middle East would be a vote against liberty.
Posts
All Comments
Share |
CIO and Strategy & Business magazines
Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science
SD Times: Software Development News
SC Magazine for Security Professionals
Government Technology: Solutions for State and Local Government in the Information Age
What's Running is a great tool so that you can see what is running on your desktop.
Process Lasso lets you view your processor and its responsiveness.
Online Armor lets you view your firewall status.
Avast is a terrific scrubber of all virus miscreants.
ClamWin is an effective deterrent for the little nasty things that can crop into your machine.
Ad-Aware is a sound anti-virus tool.
For all your electronic appliance needs research products on this terrific site.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Posts
All Comments
