Do Re Me

One of the puzzling questions in music history is the large number of pieces written around Mannheim in the late 1600’s in which the violin section never plays the note of “C.” This is strange since “C” is in the middle of the scale.

Diligent research by noted music historian Peter Schickele has solved this mystery. It seems the local violinmaker made violins with very elaborate scrolls. As often happens, every violinist of in the area had to use one. However violins with these elaborate scrolls could not play the note of “C”. Thus the local composers wrote music that did not use the note of “C” for the violin section.

This is how the dead “C” scrolls came to be.

Environment Modification Update

Global Warming is good

An Event Table not a Timetable

Some are calling for the Administration to publish a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. The Administration is politely declining to do so.


And so why not?

Any timetable assumes that specific events will happen before any point on the timetable. If the table is published all those who disagree, especially the insurgents, can plan their activities to ensure that the required events cannot happen on time. Even if militarily insignificant every failure to meet the table is a political and psychological defeat. All guerrilla wars are highly influenced by political and psychological factors. Announcing a timetable is a set up for embarrassment at least.


But doesn’t there have to be some sort of basis for planning?

Well yes, but a published timetable is not it. The proper way is to have a table of the desired events. This would underlie a timetable any way, but if the events move forward or backward, or are out of sequence we are not trapped by an artificial artifact.

The officially stated events are along the lines of “as long as it takes for the Iraqi’s to provide their own security and establish a democratic government." In all probability the newly elected Iraqi parliament will have something, if not quite kosher, that looks enough like a democracy that the establishment of a democracy can be announced in late 2005 or 06.



The Army Times is a privately published weekly with this week’s news of the Army. The Army’s “home town” newspaper. It often take the military brass and political leadership to task especially in situations effecting the rights of the ordinary solider. It also serves as the voice of the Army leadership when they want to say something unofficial, such as the frequent complaints on the Secretary of Defense policies, or tell the soldiers something that shouldn’t be announced in a press conference.

This week’s dead tree version carries the headline. “Your ‘Ticket Out of Iraq’ - 15,000 troops whose tours were extended are coming home – How fast can the Iraqi soldiers take over for the rest?” There is a four-page spread on different units and experiences in training Iraqi units. The Iraqi units involved are paired with US units. The message is clear “’get these guys trained!’ so we can come home and stay there.”

So how is this going? The Iraqi troops in the articles were “not up to US Army standards” but getting better. The US trainers had good relationships with the Iraqi’s and were confident in their success. The best overall source is from Global Security here and here. It appears that progress is being made - slowly.

An article (link lost) I read a few days ago many dealt with leader training. The Iraqi’s were interested in taking in all the knowledge they could. The old Iraqi army consisted of a lot of British form and Soviet tactics. They want to learn to fight “like American’s” so they can take over the defense of the their country. The American’s were pointing out every instance in the 1991 and 2003 wars where the Iraqi’s did well to provide the Iraqi’s with confidence. This is not as hard as the press might lead one to believe, the ground force technology difference was not that large, but there were many problems from the way Sadam mismanaged Iraq that prevented the effective use of the Iraqi Army. An unstated conclusion I got from the article is that when the Iraq’s feel they can take over we better be holding a farewell party and getting on the planes. It will be a much better army that “fights like Americans.”

The US Army allots five to six months to train a battalion of initial training graduates into a combat battalion. The Iraqi Army is conducting initial training in units so under optimum conditions it should take 9 to 10 months to train a unit. From the Global security data it looks like significant numbers of Iraqi units will be available starting in late 2005, so even if there is no reduction in the insurgency level the number of US Units should start to decrease.

With the new Constitution in place at about that time the events for major withdrawals should happen in 2006.

But there are only a thousand and one things that can go wrong with trying to attach these events to a firm timetable. The admistration will not annouce any date in advance it can avoid.



Update. 2/22/05

Phil Carter has a link and analysis on training Iraqi irregulars. I agree with Phil this will likely be much more effective.

Interesting quote from Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who is overseeing the massive U.S. effort to help train and equip Iraqi military units. "To be candid, I would err on the side of fostering initiative. I want to get the hell out of here."

Ash Wednesday

In the sweat of thy face
shalt thou eat bread
till thou return to the earth,
out of which thou wast taken:

for dust thou art,
and into dust thou shalt return.




‘But now, now

– it is the Lord who speaks –

come back to me with all your heart,
fasting, weeping, mourning.’


Let your hearts be broken,
not your garments torn,
turn to the Lord your God again,
for he is all tenderness and compassion,
slow to anger,
rich in graciousness,
and ready to relent.

Who knows if he will not turn again,
will not relent,
will not leave a blessing as he passes,
oblation and libation
for the Lord your God?


Sound the trumpet in Zion!
Order a fast,
proclaim a solemn assembly,
call the people together,
summon the community,
assemble the elders,
gather the children,
even the infants at the breast.
Let the bridegroom leave his bed room
and the bride her alcove.


Between vestibule and altar
let the priests, the ministers of the Lord,
lament.
Let them say,
‘Spare your people, the Lord!

Do not make your heritage a thing of shame,
a by word for the nations.
Why should it be said among the nations,
“Where is their God?”


’Then the Lord,
jealous on behalf of his land,

took pity on his people.



Gen 3:19, Joel 2:12 - 18

Never Again and Again and Again

The UN has decided that the ethnic cleansing in the Sudan is not genocide. They do point out that other crimes are being committed. HT: Democratic Peace Blog

Why would they say such a thing?

In 1948 the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defined genocide “as the intention to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.”

It seems from multiple new sources that what is going on in the Sudan is that the leadership of one group “Arab Moslems” in the Sudan wants to destroy in whole or part the resident population of Darfur, as such: the intentional destruction of a group that is racially black African, ethnically non-Arab, and Christian or followers of a traditional religion.

It seems to me that the facts have a reasonably close relationship to the definition. So why not call it what it is?

The government of Sudan has the power to commit genocide and only outside opposition can stop them. As noted in the article, the responses being discussed are things like “peace keeping” forces that are to small and lightly armed to keep the peace or protect any one including themselves. Bringing the government of the Sudan into the “process” to find a solution and prosecuting individuals who are responsible after the fact. (Why would someone want to be part of process who’s end result will be to put them in jail? They are murderers, not stupid!) But there is nothing about doing anything to stop the crime. So it continues.




I think that part of the reason lies in several changes of perspective in international relations that have been gaining ground in past few years. A movement towards resolving disputes some sort of process similar to how governments handle internal conflicts. This has been a motive in the way the UN operates, the establishment of bodies like the World Trade Organization and the International Criminal Court.


Since the Peace of Westphalia (1648) the use of force between nations was bound up in the idea of sovereign states that would only go to war (at least in theory) over serious violations of agreements or general principles of Internal Law. But no one was required to go to war, and presumably had to satisfy themselves first as to the justice, winability and relative cost of the war.


Internally, in a country when there is an incident, someone calls 911, the police are dispatched, backups are sent if necessary, the SWAT teams may be called out, or even the National Guard called up. After the fact the courts sort out whether it was justified or not.

Therein lies the problem. Genocide has it’s own treaty. Genocide has an extremly poor public image that demands action. The failure to take action in the Rwanda genocide has many people saying that the Military should be deployed at the first sign of Genocide, and let the international courts sort it out afterwards


Why did the UN find that the action in the Sudan is not genocide?

Under the old perspective countries could have said we do not have the means, there is no probability of success, the damage would be greater than the gain and decline to do something. While otherwise calling it what it is and denouncing it.

Under the modern perspective calling it Genocide would be to much like a 911 call. It would have to go to the Security Council who would invoke Article 41ff of the UN Charter and require a military force sent STOP the genocide and the pieces would be picked up later. Like the police dispatcher sending the first squad car the accuracy of the complaint, cost, and likliehood of success would be poor excuses for no action in public opnion or perhaps in court. If it is called Genocide something real has to be done.


Why did the UN find that the action in the Sudan is not genocide? Why, because, under the new perspective, if you do not, or cannot do something you have to lie and say there is not a problem.
There are more than enough uncommited militry forces in the world to stop the genocide if the the political will was there. It is not there.

Amoung the reasons I do not like the new perspective. The old one is a lot more honest.



Related posts

January

Death by Governemnet

April

Rwanda and Darfur Compared


Continuing coverage is at the Coalition for Darfur Blog.

Also R J Rummel’s Democratic Peace blog has provided extensive coverage (Scroll down to Sudan section)