Field Notes, First Drafts, & Foreign Correspondence
Centcom Responds to Post on Iraqi Deaths, R. Adm. Hal Pittman, At War/New York Times
Our Shifting Urban Landscape, James Danoff-Burg, Seed Magazine
Polymaths: 20 Living Examples, Ed Cumming, Intelligence Life
Text Messaging Shows Promise as a Survey Tool, Simmi Aujla, Chronicle of Higher Education
Taliban Prison Wall Art, Bill Graveland, Canadian Press
A General Within Bounds, Michael O’Hanlon, Washington Post
Surgical Strikes Shape Afghanistan Debate, NYT, At War/New York Times
Afghan War Units Begin Two New Efforts, Yochi Dreazen, Washington Post
Kabul Notes: A Journey Into Afghanistan, Bernard-Henri Levy, The New Republic
General Petraeus Has Prostate Cancer, Eric Schmitt, New York Times
Pakistan Index: Tracking Variables of Reconstruction & Security, Brookings Institute
New Rules To End Blogger “Payola”, Maggie Shiels, BBC News
Futurity Imperfect, Evan Lerner, Seed Magazine
I (and a lot of other people) helped define some of the margins of and requirements for this, once upon a time.
NATO Sponsors Critical Infrastructure Protection Technology Demonstration
From 5-15 October, “BELCOAST 09” is marking the fifth anniversary of NATO’s Defence Against Terrorism Programme of Work (DAT PoW), demonstrating technologies that can improve the protection of military installations in operations. The event will take place at Koksijde Air Base and other locations along the Belgian coast.
More than 160 companies will join military units and technology experts to show, test and explain technologies for defending against different threat scenarios, including mortar, rocket and improvised explosive devices; chemical and biological attacks; and threats to land-based, maritime and aviation infrastructure. Technologies for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, target acquisition and non-lethal capabilities will also be shown.
In response to the terrorist bombings in Madrid in March 2004, NATO launched the DAT PoW to develop cutting-edge technology or adapt existing technology to protect troops and civilians from terrorist attacks and other asymmetric threats. It comprises 10 technology initiatives, to include countering improvised explosive devices, defending against mortar attack and developing non-lethal capabilities. One initiative, critical infrastructure protection, led by Belgium, focuses on technologies that protect important civilian and military infrastructure.
Media is invited to attend on Wednesday, 14 October, at Koksijde Air Base for video presentations of the demonstrations and keynote speeches by Deputy Supreme Allied Command Europe, General Sir John McColl, and the Chairman of the NATO Research and Technology Board, Dr Robert S. Walker.
Media registration by 8 October is compulsory. The programme is available and registration can be done online on the website of the Belgian Ministry of Defence in French and in Dutch.
More information on this event can be found at: http://www.belcoast09.org/.
In the 1990s, the manifest pull of domestic and foreign policies on Presidential decision-making, and the politics that surround it, was plain as day. Has the choice between the two really been forgotten or invisible since 9/11? I want to say that for the last eight years, domestic and foreign interests were subsumed under a newly expanded national security rubric. Is that the case? It’s worth considering as Obama and his team make their decision on next steps for Afghanistan. In The New Republic today, Washington Post columnist and Georgetown faculty E.J. Dionne, Jr., asks whether Obama should “let Afghanistan trample his domestic agenda”:
WASHINGTON–At a White House dinner with a group of historians at the beginning of the summer, Robert Dallek, a shrewd student of both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, offered a chilling comment to President Obama.
“In my judgment,” he recalls saying, “war kills off great reform movements.”
The American record is pretty clear: World War I brought the Progressive Era to a close. When Franklin D. Roosevelt was waging World War II, he was candid in saying that “Dr. New Deal” had given way to “Dr. Win the War.” Korea ended Harry Truman’s Fair Deal, and Vietnam brought Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society to an abrupt halt.
MICHAEL A. INNES 