19 January 2015

Update no.683

Update from the Heartland
No.683
12.1.15 – 18.1.15
To all,

Erratum:
As noted in the Comment section below, I was informed that the promotion of Paula Broadwell noted in last week’s Update [682] was rescinded by the Department of Defense when the whole Petraeus-Broadwell affair blew up and became public.  My apologies for the mistake.

The follow-up news items:
-- On Tuesday, search teams recovered the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) from the undersea wreckage of Air Asia Flight 8501 [680].  We should begin to see some of the FDR & CVR data within a few weeks to clear some of the fog as to what happened on the flight that morning.
-- Al-Qa’ida in Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) claimed credit for the Charlie Hebdo attack [682], while the Hyper Cacher attacker Coulibaly swore allegiance to ISIL in his martyr video.  Law enforcement units in Europe carried out a number of preventative raids as governments across Europe sought other Islamo-fascist terrorists / jihadis before they could act.

The following article was forwarded to me, and offers an educated Muslim perspective of the Paris attacks.  Please read it.
“9 Points to Ponder on the Paris Shooting and Charlie Hebdo”
by Omid Safi (@OSTADJAAN), Weekly Columnist
Blog: On Being with Krista Tippett
Published: Thursday, January 8, 2015 - 6:30am
Omid Safi is the Director of Duke University's Islamic Studies Center.

News from the economic front:
-- The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) surprised the market by reducing its repurchase rate 0.25% to 7.75% – the first cut in close to two years – in their effort to boost growth in Asia's third-largest economy.  The RBI left its cash-reserve ratio requirements unchanged.
-- The Swiss National Bank surprised the currency market when it eliminated its minimum exchange rate of 1.20 Swiss francs to a euro, and raised the fees it will charge banks to deposit money.  The Swiss franc rocketed beyond parity with the euro following the move and sent shock waves through the currency traders.

Comments and contributions from Update no.682:
Comment to the Blog:
“I see you have reached another spirited commenter. That is a good thing. I agree with much of what he says. My difference with him is that he seems to think the spy community can be made to pursue only the "bad guys" without executive-branch supervision. That's never been a real possibility and it remains impossible. Abuse of power invariably accompanies power and can only be restrained by people whose interests are served by stopping the abuse.
“Your book review is clear, coherent, and well stated. The only issue I have is that you write in much the way that you criticize in another. I have reached the end of my tolerance and will not continue commenting on this blog.”
My response to the Blog:
            Re: Intelligence Community (IC).  I believe we are all in agreement.  With powerful tools and/or authority, there must be controls and supervision.  The issue is, to what degree do we apply constraints to ensure the capabilities of the IC and minimize or prevent abuses?
            Re: my commentary.  I have no idea what words of mine have so seriously broached your threshold of tolerance.  I hope this is a temporary, passing phenomenon.  Whether temporary or final, I would appreciate the benefit of your criticism.  Do you want me to unsubscribe you?

Another contribution:
“Just  a point on the Petraeus case- I come from  bit different situation, and think that he should be prosecuted to the full extent possible. Reports are that he gave her access to his C.I.A. email account- not just gave her classified material.   That is jaw-dropping reckless and criminal.  Every USG worker with government email account –classified, unclassified, or both- is strictly warned not to give access to another.  For the head of the C.I.A. to give access to an unauthorized person- and without the appropriate level of clearance even- is astoundingly rash.  Who else could have access to her account- and thus to his- presumably, she doesn’t have the security protections that he does.  And his giving her access provides a ‘window’ to the entire Agency’s system- not just his.  Be assured, that we will never hear (at least to the general public) what damage was caused.   It is just mind-boggling.
“Also, Petraeus, while an able administrator, is a controversial figure in the “Big Army “ –or at least was. But he has been given a huge pass by the U.S. media. His first job in Iraq was to train Iraqi police units. It was a massive failure and the units had to be dissolved. He propagandized and pushed COIN even when the main written premise for COIN, a legitimate local government, was not existing neither in Iraq nor Afghanistan. He endorsed the torture parts of COIN and was responsible for it.   He should have been cashiered for publicly endorsing Bush- while he was a serving officer. 
“The article below talks about his pros and cons, and how the media supported him.  He did do a lot of good, but it was really a mixed bag.  But the good he did as an Army officer should not absolve his egregious act as Director of the C.I.A.
“(Also, Ms. Broadwell did not become a LTC, USAR- her promotion was revoked.)”
My reply:
            Re: Petraeus.  If he violated the law, yes, absolutely, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law . . . especially because of his rank and position.  I was not reacting to the charges.  My objection was to the leaks to the Press.  The news bit was not a review of charges filed in court; someone leaked the information most probably inside the investigation team and/or Justice Department.  It just struck me wrong at the wrong time.
            Re: Broadwell.  Thank you for the correction.  I will issue the erratum in the next issue.

A different contribution:
“It is an interesting point that Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah is referred to as a “moderate Muslim.”
Je Suis Charlie.”
My response:
            Re: Nasrallah.  I did not intend any such implication.  Perhaps my sentence construction could have been better.  Nasrallah is hardly a moderate, which makes his comment even more poignant.
 . . . a follow-up comment:
“I fully understood but had to comment about the juxtaposition. However in a world of AQAP, Al Qaida and unrepentant murderers perhaps Nasrallah is moderate.”
 . . . my follow-up response:
            That is the point.  I was amazed.

Yet, another contribution:
“So glad you read Nazis next door.  Now I won't. It would annoy me as much as it did you.”
My reply:
            Re: book.  Glad to be of service.

A follow-up comment from last week’s Update [682]:
“I have finally found time to review the comments about my New Year’s message and I would like to respond to the comments about my Putin/Hitler comparison:
“– Putin’s early assignment to East Germany for the Soviet KGB led him to become an ardent student of Germany, German politics and German history. Putin was a good student. Like Hitler, Putin used his disagreement with a territorial boundary shift decades ago as a justification for a unilateral invasion of Crimea, as Hitler did in the Saarland. Putin’s actions in using his putative concern for the minority population in eastern Ukraine as the justification for his invasion and conquest of the territory of his neighboring nation is precisely what Hitler did in the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia and the Danzig region of Poland. There is really no question about this. Like Hitler, Putin used his initial success in a democratic election to take power and then subvert that democratic process. Like Hitler, Putin is using the existing legal structure of his state government apparatus to slowly take out opposition persons and parties, including news media and opposing politicians. Like Hitler, Putin is using a brand of rabid nationalism to justify increased militarization and international provocation. Like Hitler, Putin is encouraging his controlled news media to make outlandish and untrue claims and repeat highly suspect information. Some of the positions and news stories published by the Putin controlled news media during the Ukrainian events are absolute fabrications and truly hysterical when viewed by the rest of the world. Herr Goebbels would be proud of his student’s (Putin’s) use of flagrant propaganda to sway a populace that has limited access to information. Like Hitler, Putin is using an historic empire’s boundaries and the nationalistic fervor for that former greatness to threaten his neighbors with expansionism to reclaim that former imperial glory. That said, Putin does have some points, such as the fact that the pro-Western Ukrainian government had its start as an anarchic overthrow of a democratically elected government. And, Putin is probably correct that the populace of the Donetsk region probably have more affinity to the Russian side than pro-western national government now in place in Kiev. But, like Hitler, Putin has no aversion to using a neighboring minority’s murmurings, real or imaginary, as the justification for invasion. As Cap commented, the similarities of Putin to Hitler outweigh the differences.”
My simple response:
            ‘Nuf said.  I have nothing to add.

One last contribution this week:
“Round 17:
“Actually, the fact is that the facts are not entirely factual, factually speaking, and facts that are not factual should never be used to prove anything other than those facts themselves, so in light of the fact that I agreed with most of the facts alleged in the previous sixteen rounds and disagreed with only a few, I must now express my opinion, which is based loosely upon fact and primarily upon experience, along with a few arguments with my brother during his remarkable lifetime (Semper Fi), with kudos to the original author (whom I'm sure Cap will identify):  ‘east is east and west is west, and never the twain shall meet.’”
My reply:
            Well, since you asked, it was Joseph Rudyard Kipling [1895].  He may have had unique insight.
 . . . a follow-up comment:
“I knew you could give proper credit for one of the early statements of that particular wisdom.  I hope the two can someday meet across the table before we meet in any final battle...”
 . . . my follow-up reply:
            I join you in that hope.

My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap                        :-)

No comments: