Update no.491

Update from the Heartland

No.491

9.5.11 – 15.5.11

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The foolish disclosures continue in the wake of Operation NEPTUNE SPEAR [490].
“U.S. Was Braced for Fight With Pakistanis in Bin Laden Raid”
By Eric Schmitt, Thom Shanker and David E. Sanger
New York Times
Published: May 9, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/world/asia/10intel.html?_r=1&emc=na
If these leaks are intended to put pressure on the government or the Pakistanis, then this is NOT the way to do it. Often, the best position is to say nothing at all.
-- I was not able to watch the President’s 8.May, 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft until a week later. The whole program was Operation NEPTUNE SPEAR [490]. I am not ashamed to confess, it was President Obama’s last few sentences that brought tears to my eyes. He said in a calm, controlled, measured voice, “As nervous as I was about this whole process, the one thing I didn’t lose sleep over was the possibility of taking bin Laden out. Justice was done. And I think that anyone who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil didn’t deserve what he got needs to have their head examined.” My recurring thought during the whole interview . . . why oh why could not the President’s lieutenants have followed the President’s lead. The resilient image would have been fundamentally different. SecDef Bob Gates said it best, “Frankly, a week ago Sunday, in the Situation Room, we all agreed that we would not release any operational details from the effort to take out bin Laden. That all fell apart on Monday -- the next day.” Amen brother! Old war correspondent and long-time 60 Minutes closer chose to quote President Obama again, “And in this month which ends with our recognition of Memorial Day, the president said it best, ‘We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country.’” Indeed! May God bless them all.

From a friend and frequent contributor:
“Cap, I'm sending this as a backgrounder on the progressive view of Obama. I doubt very many blog readers would actually read the whole thing, but it gives a pretty good overview of progressive views (and my own) of Obama and the important issues. As an employee of a productive company, you might find Item 3 particularly interesting. Also, the statements about the Deepwater Horizon issue (near the end) are supported by that book I read, Disaster on the Horizon.”
“5 Toxic Right-Wing Lies Obama Must Strike Down from His ‘Bully Pulpit’ – In the absence of a progressive voice in the White House, the radical Right continues to dominate the political noise, forcing its policy narratives into policy decisions.”
by Andrew Kimbrell
AlterNet.org
Posted: May 6, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/news/150788?page=1
. . . my opinion response:
For the record, Kimbrell opens his little treatise with, “Let’s be clear: the Republicans have been as cynical, malevolent, obstructionist, and downright zany during this administration as anything I have seen in the twenty-five years I have been a D.C. denizen.” I would say this one sentence pretty well sets the tone for the remainder and seriously detracts from his message. He observes . . . as if the exact opposite did not occur during the last administration. This sort of politically divisive rhetoric only serves to feed the parochial schism and does not further constructive political debate or seek compromise solutions to real problems. Nonetheless, despite my animosity toward such drivel, and in humble deference to our continued political intercourse, I pressed on to read his laborious epistle. Here is my opinion regarding his points.
“1. Reactionary Narrative: Government is the problem. It is bad, even evil, and should be eliminated or privatized as much as possible.
“Countering Progressive Narrative: Government is good and a major part of the solution to our economic and social problems — large, robust local, state and federal government services are critical to our individual and national well-being.”
The “big government” debate is quite akin to the “strict constructionist” argument regarding constitutional law – it is all about perspective, i.e., one political ideological group accuses the other of not being true to the founding principles. In similar but different terms, they are all big spenders on their affinity areas, and they paint the other side as being infidels to the true believers. Instead of illuminating the larger public debate, Kimbrell accuses the Republicans of seeking to “dismantle our public sector and public services.” If the objective of such programs is to “spread the wealth” or “equalize the wealth disparity,” then we have drifted farther toward communism, i.e., everyone is economically equal [well, except for the powerful, deciding elite]. I think we must examine the societal purpose of our social programs, i.e., what is our objective, what is the end-point? The sad reality is both political parties want to spend the treasury; the only difference is what they want to spend the money on; thus, they both seek big government, just different forms of the same thing. Today’s cause de jure is what we are going to cut, and of course, the argument will be not my pet program(s). I think the Federal government is too big, spending scarce funds on projects it should not be supporting, and yet, government is necessary and vital to a stable society. The challenge is always balance – what is enough, what is too much? Government has its proper place in society, but we must get government out of our private lives and affairs, and stop using government to impose moral values, dictate how citizens must live their lives, or use the public treasury to garner favors and votes. We are not even remotely close to the proper, in-balance, size of government. So, clearly, I do not agree with Kimbrell.
“2. Reactionary Narrative: Quality health care is a commodity available to those who can afford it.
“Countering Progressive Narrative: Quality health care is a basic human right.”
As much as our humanitarian side believes health care is a “right,” it is not. It may well be a benefit proffered by We, the People, through legislation, but it is not a right. Like all decent folks, I do not want anyone to suffer. However, like all “benefits,” where is the incentive to work, to contribute to society? How do we separate and deal with those who take advantage of our generosity? I have a hard enough time supporting my family. Why should I add to my burden to support others who only absorb rather than create? Where is the balance in our munificence?
“3. Reactionary Narrative: Free market competition is the basis for our economic life — the benefits of the winners will trickle down to the losers.
“Counter Progressive Narrative: The free market is a dangerous fiction (as is trickle-down economics) — not everything is a market commodity and even then those commodity markets have always been regulated. The question is how and for whom to regulate markets so as to create the most equitable distribution of wealth.”
I believe in the free market, just like I believe in a free society – freedom of choice to seek our individual “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness” to fulfill our personal objectives. However, I am NOT an Ayn Rand “free market über alles” aficionado. Like all human activities, I seek balance – sufficient freedom to stimulate growth and yet enough regulation to prevent collateral damage. Kimbrell wrote, “Obama should have embraced the progressive narrative that free markets cannot and have not protected workers, our environment, or even the stability of our financial systems. Over the last two centuries the purported ‘free market’ oppressed generations of workers, utilized child labor, caused exponential destruction of natural resources, and created huge booms and busts in the financial system.” Beyond the socialist bent of his statement and the focus on the current president rather than all presidents back to at least Carter, he is correct. A truly free market will consume human beings like any other resource to be transformed into wealth. Such an ethos is not appreciably different from slavery employed a few centuries ago, or the savagery of Darwinian survival of the fittest. In this context, yes, we need government to “police” the marketplace to ensure fairness, standards, informed consent, et cetera. Sub-prime mortgage vendors were no different from snake-oil salesmen of a century ago. Any reasonable person could easily recognize that the entire financial foundation sat upon an assumption that real estate values would ALWAYS go up. Too many optimistic or foolish citizens bought into that fallacy. Even worse, bankers and investors, who knew better, traded in those misty illusions and even bet on derivatives of that illusion; and if that wasn’t enough, insurance companies actually offered coverage to such insane gambling. The house of cards collapsed in 2008. While I do not go as far as Kimbrell, he does make a valid point. So, once again, where is the balance point?
“4. Reactionary Narrative: You counter terrorism by fighting land wars and overthrowing dictators (especially when oil is involved).
“Counter Progressive Narrative: The Best Way to Fight Terrorism is through Cooperative International Police Action and Foreign Policy Changes – Not Land Wars.”
Taken in isolation, Kimbrell is more correct than in error. Further, if every president from Nixon onto Obama had undertaken such response to Islamofascist activities, the “police action” method would probably have worked. However, that is not what happened. President after president took a too-distant approach, nearly ignoring, the Islamofascist movement until al-Qa’ida upped the ante several orders of magnitude. By that time, police action could no longer produce critical mass, as there were too many sympathetic or outright supportive states – Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and even Egypt and Saudi Arabia for a time. I cannot predict how relations with Pakistan will progress after the bin Ladin raid. If Pakistan can be assuaged and reenlisted in the War on Islamic Fascism, and Afghanistan can be stabilized as a functioning, quasi-democratic state, the United States, our Allies, NATO and even the UN might actually dial back our efforts to the police action level. To point the accusatory finger at Bush and now Obama as advocating full-scale land warfare would be a gross over-simplification of a complex situation. Kimbrell conveniently ignores the influence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Waziristan, Pakistan. Islamofascist terrorists must be denied safe-haven, or we truly will be chasing them down rabbit-holes. I do not agree with Kimbrell’s characterization of Obama or the so-called “civil war” in Afghanistan (or Iraq for that matter). I think he misses reality.
“5. Reactionary Narrative: Global warming and other environmental problems are either vastly exaggerated or don’t really exist — and if they do exist, the solution is market and technology based.
“Progressive Narrative: It’s the ecology stupid — global warming is the greatest threat to the survival of civilization. The solution to global warming and other major environmental crises is governments at all levels cooperating to change our economic and technological systems to better comport with the principles of ecology.”
I suppose I can understand Kimbrell’s criticism of the President and his administration regarding the global warming issue. I do not agree with his characterization. I think the President deserves our praise for listening to all sides and trying to strike a reasonable compromise in a very difficult and complex situation. Staking the necessary socio-economic changes on the disputed science of global warming is simple bullying to satisfy a political agenda. The point I have repeatedly tried to make is, we need to make these changes for the future of generations to follow and the good of the planet, regardless of global warming. Most informed citizens know that we must wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, that polluting our air, water and land is destructive and ultimately counter-productive. Let us not dilute or deflect the important environmental discussion to validate the global warming hypothesis.
. . . continuation round two:
“I will not attempt our usual point-by-point discussion of this one. I am tired and likely very ill. (I am uninsured, so I cannot verify the illness part.) I again state my opinion that your responses come from your engineering background, mine from a historian's viewpoint.
“However, I would like to mention two points.
“You refer to the ‘savagery’ of Darwinian survival, and that is a mis-perception. Survival, at least among humans, has involved higher and higher degrees of cooperative activities, going from necessary-for-survival cooperation within extended families to within tribes and villages, city-states, nation-states to perhaps successful cooperation among nations in the European Union model. Remember that Darwin proposed "fitness for survival," not physical fitness or meanness as his defining idea. Human savagery has consistently been reduced, not increased, by the evolutionary process.
“Also, climate change is an established fact in the scientific community, only disputed among politicians and religious "thinkers." In 1991, when I wrote a paper on the subject for a college class, the fact of change was already mostly accepted by scientific sources, although the cause of the changes had not been nailed down back then. I'm sure I have already expressed my opinion to you about the importance of checking the sources of information. It is as if I were trying to learn about Christianity from Madelyn Murray O'Hare, Osama bin Ladin, and Fred Phelps. Put simply, if you put equal weight on all sources, you will surely go crazy.
“The article that started this particular thread still represents my views pretty precisely. In particular, the opening sentence that you so dislike works with my experience. My only disagreement with that statement is that I believe it represents the unfortunate (for the rest of us) success of a corporate takeover of the economy that has been in the making since before Reagan was elected, not a new development.”
. . . my response to round two:
My use of the word savagery was not intended to be a comment on actions or intentions, only perceptions of the outcome. Watching the Wildebeest succumb to the crocodiles at the river’s edge so that the herd may cross unmolested does not lessen the sadness of seeing a magnificent animal die. My point was, without government to establish and enforce rules of public conduct, we would degenerate into mob rule or the fastest gun (as it was in the Old West). Without law & order, the evolutionary process would regress. We bear witness to flashback episodes after natural disasters (in some locales) or third world countries.
Climate change and global warming are demonstrable, undisputed facts. The Earth has experienced more than a few ice ages and hot spells, long before humans evolved to walk upright or began to record history. The Earth will continue to warm and cool for eons, until the Sun begins to run out of fuel and degenerates into a Red Giant and consumes the inner planets. What is in dispute is whether human inhabitation has affected that cycle – that is not fact; that is hypothesis. I try to listen to an array of voices on any issue, with the intent to hear the full spectrum and then form my opinion.
I agree with Kimbrell’s observation regarding Republicans. It is true and accurate in my opinion. My objection rested upon the implication (by pointing to Republicans) that they are the only political party that suffers the affliction of “cynical, malevolent, obstructionist, and downright zany.” My point is that the pot is calling the kettle black.

An intriguing and hopefully stimulating opinion column returns us to a litmus debate topic.
“Ron Paul’s land of second-rate values”
by Michael Gerson
Washington Post
Published: May 9 [2011]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ron-pauls-land-of-second-rate-values/2011/05/09/AFD8B2bG_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
Paul has a comparatively small but fiercely loyal group of followers. I do not agree with him often, more from an implementation level rather than a philosophical perspective. Here is one of those topics. Simple decriminalization of psychotropic substance use or prostitution will be counter-productive and ultimately more destructive than the current prohibition. Gerson said, “And government has a limited but important role in reinforcing social norms and expectations — including laws against drugs and against the exploitation of men and women in the sex trade.” “Enforcing social norms and expectation” . . . REALLY? Is that really what the Founders envisioned when they sought freedom of choice for every citizen to pursue his “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness”? The government does have an important responsibility to ensure public safety and conduct. Decriminalization or legalization is a laissez faire approach to intoxication or prostitution, and thus an abdication of governmental responsibility; such action (or inaction depending upon one’s perspective) would be akin to chaos or anarchy, and validate prohibition. Human activities like intoxication and prostitution are despicable and disgusting to most decent, respectable citizens, but that is not sufficient reason for prohibition or to tolerate governmental abdication. We need proper regulation for acceptable public safety, not simple decriminalization or legalization. Ron Paul is partially correct, as far as he goes; he just does not go far enough for proper public safety. We must ensure drugs like alcohol are a known composition, quality and dosage; a safe delivery means are available; and, the usage of intoxicants do not injure or threaten other innocent citizens. Similar regulation is required for prostitution . . . to ensure the process is safe for both workers and customers. We must be more than reactionary; we must be realistic and respectful.

Virtually all my adult life, I have supported, defended and espoused that “no” means precisely that – NO! A woman (or a man for that matter) has the fundamental right to say no at any point of interpersonal relations. Our society has long held the belief that the burden belongs to the male, thus our paternalistic rape laws – females are fragile, weak and vulnerable, thus must be protected. [Actually, I do believe rape laws came into existence as a violation of the male’s property.] Regardless, any unwanted sexual conduct in any form must be illegal, as a violation of a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and personal integrity. My brief tenure as a chancellor of a university campus exposed me to a number of alleged rape cases. Every case that came to my office involved a female alleging rape after finding herself the following morning in a man’s bed with obvious evidence of sexual intercourse, to which she did not consent. I have counseled our children and students; if you decide to ingest intoxicants, do so only with genuine friends with whom you would trust your life, because that is what you are doing. Intoxication is a broad grey area. I resent those who use intoxication as an excuse for aberrant or regretted behavior. When are we going to recognize an individual’s decision to ingest intoxicants as a relevant contributor to felonious conduct? No person should suffer unwanted sexual activity at any time for any reason, but I struggle with responsibility. If a person climbs a sheer rock face with another person on a belay rope, does he not trust his belay person with his life? Ingesting intoxicants among strangers or even acquaintances (who could probably care less about your well-being) like quite akin to that belay rope, it seems to me. My point: let us place weight upon that decision to ingest intoxicants; that action does not justify rape or sexual assault. However, just like jaywalking endangers the individual and others who might happen upon the jaywalking individual, public intoxication endangers the individual and others. To this day, I still struggle with culpability, however fractional, of an individual who consume intoxicants in public or quasi-public venues to the point of losing control of their actions.

Another link for comment:
“Every so often, as we discuss the recent petroleum and nuclear disasters, you ask, ‘What else can we do?’ Here's a reasonable answer to that question. Please note that this (as usual with me) comes from a progressive viewpoint.”
“Why clean energy can scale today”
by Stephen Lacey
ClimateProgress.org
Posted: May 9, 2011
http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/09/clean-energy-scale-stephen-lacey/
My opinion:
In Lacey’s parlance, I suppose I am in the latter group. With respect, I do not believe he answers the question – how? Lacey addresses the generation by simple reference to several large scale, renewable generation projects. He does not even mention one of the primary limitations – land investment. Renewables take enormous commitments of land to gain scale. Some countries / regions do not have the luxury of that investment. Normal weather patterns seriously limit options available to many areas of this country and the world.
More significantly, to me, is the other side of the equation – demand. Until we can make electric-drive as utilitarian and practical (or hopefully better) as the current fossil fuel systems, we will not cross that growth threshold. Petrol-energy can be stored indefinitely and nearly instantly transformed into kinetic-energy, and that potential-energy can be recharged within minutes. I would love to see electric-drive as our common, standard power source. However, until the storage-recharge efficiency exceeds that delivered by fossil fuels, I do not see the emphasis shifting substantially, as much as we would like to redirect it.
. . . and these follow-up comments:
“I find it interesting that you ask ‘how?’ about new technologies but in our discussions of petroleum and nuclear disasters you insist that we merely need to improve our methodology. To make a quick response to your specific issue, though, solar and wind power need not involve new land use as their sole siting possibility. Rooftops and existing power poles both offer platforms for either of these "new" power sources, and both are in use with current technology.
“Examining the demand side of the transportation question (you changed subjects there) is an excellent idea. You didn't do that, though. You went to a very specific discussion of storage and transformation. I see no issue with transforming electricity into kinetic energy; we do that daily in such applications as household appliances and tools. The legitimate issues are storage capacity and generation sources. I discussed electricity generation briefly above. Work continues on storage capacity for vehicular applications and on distribution systems to ease the storage issue. Were a distribution network in place that paralleled the gasoline situation, the storage issue would essentially vanish in the eastern US, Europe, India, Indonesia, and much of China. Where a profit can be made, people will find a way. Unfortunately, that might have to await the time when petroleum becomes entirely unworkable due to the "peak oil" phenomenon or government regulation, which is too late in climate-change terms (see other discussions).”
. . . along with my follow-up comment:
Not the same “how,” my friend. Yes, you are of course correct. Solar water heaters and PVC arrays have been place on roof tops and power poles. Many lighted road signs have individual solar PVC panels for power. Unfortunately, those installations do not generate MWs or GWs of energy needed to replace a single nuclear powerplant – thus, the scalable question. I am an advocate for renewable energy, but there are contemporary, practical limitations.
Thank you. Stored energy and rapid transformation are essential factors in the demand side of the equation, e.g., batteries. They rapidly convert stored chemical or potential energy into kinetic energy via a motor. The problems with current battery technology are the charging time (hours) and battery mass (storing many KW-h requires substantial battery mass).
Yes, indeedie. We are seeing advances in electricity storage devices, and the profit motive is a huge motivator. Developing a deployable, affordable battery that could store 100 KW-h of energy and charge in a few minutes (like filling a gas tank) would have a huge market and enormous profit potential. I certainly hope we do not have to wait for a petrol crisis to deploy personal transportation electricity distribution.

“Bin Laden’s death and the debate over torture”
by John McCain
Washington Post
Published: May 11 [2011]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bin-ladens-death-and-the-debate-over-torture/2011/05/11/AFd1mdsG_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
In response to Judge Mukasey’s opinion last week [490], John declared, “But this must be an informed debate. Former attorney general Michael Mukasey recently claimed that ‘the intelligence that led to bin Laden . . . began with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information — including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.’ That is false.” We know what is coming next, but first. John went on to say, “Individuals might forfeit their life as punishment for breaking laws, but even then, as recognized in our Constitution’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, they are still entitled to respect for their basic human dignity, even if they have denied that respect to others.” As much as I respect John, intelligence interrogation is not punishment; it is inducement to divulge information they possess. If a detainee freely conveys his information, there is no need for EITs. Further, intelligence interrogation is not punishment, being an illegal battlefield combatant detainee is not punishment.
. . . then the inevitable response:
“Mukasey responds to McCain’s op-ed”
by Marc A. Thiessen
Washington Post
Posted: 05/12/2011; 05:10 PM ET
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/mukasey-responds-to-mccains-op-ed/2011/05/12/AFhhVO1G_blog.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
I have not been able to confirm, but Marc reports Mike responded, “Senator McCain described as ‘false’ my statement that Khalid Sheik Mohammed broke under harsh interrogation that included waterboarding, and disclosed a torrent of information that included the nickname of Osama bin Laden’s courier. He strongly implied in the remainder of his column in the Washington Post that this harsh interrogation was not only useless but also illegal. He is simply incorrect on all three counts.” Again, according to Marc, Mike concluded, “In other words, the harsh interrogation techniques were both effective and lawful.”
. . . and a relevant follow-up contribution from last week’s thread [490]:
“Thought you would appreciate this. We brought Luftwaffe Major Scharff over after the war to teach our interrogators his methods.”
“Truth Extraction – A classic text on interrogating enemy captives offers a counterintuitive lesson on the best way to get information”
by Stephen Budiansky
Atlantic Magazine
Published: June 2005
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/06/truth-extraction/3973/
. . . my response:
Thank you very much for the article. I always appreciate learning . . . in this case, snippets of history about two renown World War II interrogators: Major Sherwood Ford Moran, USMC [1885 – 1983] and Luftwaffe Obergefreiter Hans Joachim Gottlob Scharff [1907–1992]. I knew some of their history, and I know a lot more now. There is no question, debate, disagreement or argument that professional interrogators can and do accomplish extraordinary things. Perhaps, both of they would claim there is no person either of them could not break; and, they might well be correct.
One of many reasons SERE schools were created was the R = resistance (to interrogation and confinement). The training for aviators grew from WW2, Korea and Vietnam. I’m sure the training has continued to be refined and improved since I last went through the process and I have experienced several different versions. You know the Code of Conduct as well as I do.
What John McCain endured at the hands of the North Vietnamese was torture even by my liberal definition. It was also torture to inflict pain to demoralize and subdue the POWs. That was torture, plain and simple. I do not want what happened to John McCain to happen to another human being. Full stop!
I am not sure how I have been cast in the roll of defending waterboarding. Nonetheless, here I am. To be frank, candid and clear, I am not defending any particular interrogation inducement technique. My purpose is to preserve the maximum options and tools available to the intelligence interrogators to allow them maximum flexibility in accomplishing their difficult tasks. I am not offended by the defined EITs; in fact, virtually every military aviator from our generation and on have been subjected to far worse “abuses” to prepare us for the potential of becoming a prisoner of war. I do not speak of those techniques in philosophical terms, rather in real, first-hand experience. I consider this whole discussion to be a genuine, great tragedy in our history. We should not be publicly discussing what we would and would not do in interrogating illegal battlefield combatants in the War on Islamic Fascism or any other future war; we are handing a playbook to our enemies. I want a full tool kit for our professionals. I will never support torture, and will condemn and seek punishment for anyone who tortures another human being to inflict pain for the pleasure of doing such.

News from the economic front:
-- Standard & Poor's lowered Greece's long-term credit rating to B from BB- due to concerns EU officials may extend the debt-payment maturities of the European Commission's portion of the nation's bailout – further indication of the weakness of the Greek economy.
-- A jury of his peers in Manhattan convicted billionaire investor Raj Rajaratnam [409], 53, on all 14 counts of fraud and conspiracy, involving insider trading. Rajaratnam ran the Galleon Group, one of the world's largest hedge funds. He faces up to 25 years in prison when he is sentenced; he is expected to appeal. I trust he shall join the other financial criminals.
-- The Commerce Department reported the March U.S. trade deficit grew to US$48.18B [U.S. imports = US$220.85B (+4.9%); U.S. exports = US$172.67B (+4.6%)], as soaring oil prices caused imports to outstrip a record level of exports. The trade deficit with the People’s Republic of China contracted in March to US$18.08B [– 4.0%]; but April numbers from Beijing released earlier in the week suggest that contraction in the deficit may be temporary.

Comments and contributions from Update no.490:
“Thought you might review these and the millions of words in the blogosphere on the ‘MH-60s’ used in the raid. There is a lot of ignorant truth in them. Some neat work by some of your old compatriots.”
. . . to which was attached:
“Mystery Blackhawk: US officials described the helicopter that crashed during the takedown of Osama bin Laden on Sunday in Pakistan as a Blackhawk. However, images of the wrecked helicopter's tail section—making Internet rounds on Tuesday—reveal that this aircraft is seemingly unlike any other publicly acknowledged Blackhawk variant. The aircraft's empennage features faceted and presumably stealthy surfaces with no fasteners or apparent seams. Its six-bladed tail rotor is embedded in a saucer-shaped rotorhead—possibly a noise-reduction system. The tailplanes are forward swept. The empennage is not that of the Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche stealth scout/attack chopper canceled in 2004, although its features resemble the Comanche's. The Army's 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, based out of Fort Campbell, Ky., has been known to field a number of one-off special helicopter variants, but US officials haven't publicly discussed the unit's role in the bin Laden raid. A Sikorsky spokesman referred the Daily Report's query to US Special Operations Command, a spokesman for which said only the White House was authorized to discuss the bin Laden operation. The White House declined comment. (To view photos, see Britain's Daily Mail report, DEW Line blog entry, and Wall Street Journal photo collection)”
My response:
If it was not where and when those parts were photographed, I would have sworn it was someone’s backyard joke. I have been away from the technology too long. Given the opening rift with Pakistan, I doubt the USG is going to be forthcoming with any details. Perhaps one or more of the public professionals figures it out. After all, AW&ST figured out F-117 prior to the USAF public disclosure.
Yeah, the lads did a bang up job of it. Well done! We might even use the popular vernacular – awesome! Too bad the politicos were not up to the big leagues.

Another contribution:
“Great points on the bin Laden takedown. All the props in the world go out to Navy SEAL Team Six. I've read and watched documentaries on SEALs, and I bet what I've seen covers a fraction of everything they go through. This definitely goes down as one of the most successful anti-terror ops in history. Best of all, none of our guys were killed. Even in the Entebee raid, one Israeli died, and that is one of the textbook cases of how to take down terrorists.
“You had some brilliant points in how the Administration handled the aftermath of the bin Laden killing. My feeling is with so much wrong lately, from the economy to gas prices, to the November election (that last being wrong for Obama's ilk), they needed some kind of victory and tried to latch on to this best they could. Unfortunately, their mishandling of the aftermath should not come as a surprise. For the past two years the folks in the Obama Administration have sent out mixed messages on a variety of topics. Why should this time be any different? I know, given the nature of what happened, it should be different. But let's face it. The Obama Administration is in over its heads when it comes to running this country. But I will give credit to the President for ordering the op to go forth instead of dithering around as he is prone to do on big issues, and for also not sticking his nose into the raid, as Jimmy Carter tried in the failed Tehran mission in 1980.
“I also agree on bin Laden getting double-tapped. I couldn't care less if he was armed or not. He's one of those people I classify as ‘too dangerous to live.’ See him, shoot him, no trial, no reports to file. As one former SEAL I talked to one time said, ‘There are people in this world that need killin'.’ bin Laden was one of those people. The blood of thousands of innocents is on his hand. Two 9mm rounds to the head is justice enough for me.
“Also agree this does not end the War on Terror. There are plenty of loonies out there to take UBL's place. But maybe, just maybe, some of them may see what happened to bin Laden and think twice before messing with us. I also hope that whatever intel our guys recovered from bin Laden's ‘luxury mansion’ will go a long way to making a lot of terrorists have really lousy days.”
My reply:
Well said and agreed regarding the Usama raid. Armed or not was irrelevant in that situation; Carney should have never mentioned armed or resistance or anything else about his actions. The decision was appropriately delegated to the strike team, and I have no doubt whatsoever the shooter acted entirely within his authority. I also share your hope for the yield on the intelligence collected that morning.

A different contribution and extended thread:
“John Yoo was schooled by Eliot Spitzer the other night, ripping into him for both his (now fully -disregarded) legal opinion and for his lack of credentials for second-guessing how many SEALs it should have taken for the mission. What possible credibility has Yoo, who has no military background, to be making criticisms of the size of a military operation? Just for starters, where would have a larger force have landed-- it was hard enough for two helos? And what rationale says that more SEALs in the raid would have made a difference in the outcome?
“‘SPITZER: You know, John, I just got to say I think it is remarkable that the person who wrote the legal opinion that rationalized torture, perhaps the most ridiculed legal opinion in many years that I'm aware of, is now second guessing the tactical decisions made by the president that has been the single most successful counterterrorism effort in the past decade. Your president, for whom you work, and I mean no disrespect to mean, did not succeed and doing what President Obama has just done. And you're now second guessing down to the number of Navy SEALs he sent in saying they should have done it a different way. I just don't know what possible credentials you have to second guess the number of Navy SEALs who should have gone in to Abbottabad to capture bin Laden.’
“Also Yoo and Mukasey, a former federal judge and Attorney General, should know the legal and treaty strictures against torture or "enhanced interrogation." No matter what twisted rationale they want to espouse, it is still illegal. And we are bound to investigate such charges.”
My response:
We have been ‘round this patch before. I do not agree or consent to the use of the word “torture” regarding the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) employed by CIA operatives for wartime intelligence purposes. The Constitution and U.S. common law have rather limited stretch for illegal battlefield combatants captured during wartime.
I join you (and others) in rejecting Yoo’s foolish criticism of the President’s decision(s) in this event. President Obama took an enormous risk and had the courage to stand back and let the team perform its mission – and I do mean courage . . . huge step for any leader . . . and that should never be diminished. Likewise, suggesting that President Bush’s administration did not contribute to the bin Ladin takedown seems rather politically parochial. My understanding is the critical kernel came during intelligence interrogation circa 2006 – the nom de guerre of a principal courier.
. . . with this follow-up comment along with several article links:
“Thanks..my understanding that the 'enhanced interrogation', i.e., waterboarding of KSL and another yielded nothing. In fact, they convinced Rodriguez, the CIA head of that section, that OBL was a minor player and they shut down the OBL unit at the Agency. It was counterproductive.
“One thing to remember, before 9/11, the CIA didn't do interrogations. The FBI and military intel did. And were very good. The CIA and their contract personnel were--and untrained soldiers, were the ones doing the stuff that was long considered (and taught by JAGs like me) as torture and against the law of war. I have a few article and interviews by military interrogators that bear out that torture is counterproductive.
“Below is a piece from the Atlantic blog of Andrew Sullivan—a conservative.”
1. “Cheney Returns”
by Andrew Sullivan
The Daily Beast
Posted: 8 May 2011; 10:49 PM
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/05/cheney-returns.html
2. “The Torture Apologists”
Editorial
New York Times
Published: May 4, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/opinion/05thu1.html?_r=1
3. “The Unrepentant John Yoo: 'Enhanced Interrogation' Got Us bin Laden – The fallen author of the infamous torture memos returns to defend the policies of the Bush administration in the war on terror”
by Andrew Cohen
The Atlantic
Posted: May 5 2011; 7:00 AM ET
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/the-unrepentant-john-yoo-enhanced-interrogation-got-us-bin-laden/238356/
4. “The tracking of bin Laden is no vindication of torture”
Editorial
Washington Post
Published: May 9 [2011]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-tracking-of-bin-laden-is-no-vindication-of-torture/2011/05/06/AFs0H5bG_story.html
. . . my follow-up reply:
I shall endeavor to ignore bandied labels that masquerade as broad generalizations for divisive, parochial, political gain. Neither side of this vital debate deserves consent. I believe the use of inviolate extremes on both sides of the pragmatic argument is neither constructive nor complementary to real, bona fide solutions.
It is easy to claim the moral high ground, i.e., killing is a sin, abortion is a sin, prostitution is a sin, gambling is a sin, psychotropic substances are bad, torture is morally reprehensible, et al ad infinitum. Yet, I find such sanctimonious, idealistic ideology ignores the reality of life, e.g., bad men will kill you and your family, if you are not prepared to defend yourself or your family. So it is with this near mystical term “torture.”
As you well know, everything in the legal domain hangs upon definitions. In addition, this debate must be confined to intelligence interrogations that forfeit any derived prosecutorial potential. Criminal interrogations within the jurisdiction of the Constitution must abide the common law. Further, as I have written before, we can define anything beyond milk & cookies as “torture.” In this environment, I define torture as permanent injury, e.g., fingernail extraction, severed limbs, death. Psychological and/or physical stress does not reach that threshold. That said, I recognize and acknowledge that psychological injury can occur; however, I do not see that injury as functionally different from the inherent stress of combat itself. Intelligence interrogations are an extension of combat. I might add that the exigencies of the moment sometimes warrant pulling out all the stops; if I am confronted with the potential detonation of a nuclear device, I shall seek forgiveness for my transgressions, as I must do what is necessary to prevent the explosion.
The notion that EIT for intelligence (rather than prosecutorial) purposes will or might yield some singular, light-bulb-moment confession fails to recognize the entire intelligence analysis process. Intelligence interrogations are not after confessions; they seek bits of information; even false information can be constructive. All bits of intelligence material are classified by source reliability, accuracy and corroboration. The Bush (43) administration made the serious mistake of placing too much weight on the BND’s “Curveball” source [AKA Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi] – target fixation, I’d say. Nonetheless, such single source judgments should be rare in the intelligence world even with a known reliable source. Information collected from interrogations is commonly considered unreliable and inaccurate, since the analyst must consider misinformation or subterfuge.
I have added a couple of additional opinions to the list you provided for the Update.
A. “CIA ‘deniers’ are the new ‘birthers’”
by Marc A. Thiessen,
Washington Post
Published: May 9 [2011]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cia-deniers-are-the-new-birthers/2011/05/09/AFFJiIZG_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
B. “On killing Osama bin Laden, there’s enough credit to go around”
by Jonathan Capehart
Washington Post
Posted: 05/09/2011; 08:20 AM ET
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/on-killing-osama-bin-laden-theres-enough-credit-to-go-around/2011/03/04/AFrFQZXG_blog.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
The bottom line is, if We, the People, choose to make “milk & cookies” the threshold of torture, that is our choice. Either way, we shall reap what we sew, just as we did with Truman’s decision to deploy the product of the Manhattan Project.
So, let’s solve the problem rather than resort to the conveniences of political parochialism. Life goes on; war must be waged successfully.

Another contribution:
“Cap, thanks for your update, thought you might like to read this.”
The article:
“Johann Hari: The real meaning of Bin Laden's death – As soon as the news broke, I went to Times Square and witnessed a scene that hinted at the complexities”
by Johann Hari
The Independent [of London]
Published: Friday, 6 May 2011
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-real-meaning-of-bin-ladens-death-2279630.html
My response:
Interesting perspective . . . not atypical to many in the United States. As is so often the case, there are shades of fact. However, the political bias overshadows so much of his opinion. An Afghan refugee and drunken former Marine . . . really? I also think Hari’s opinion ignores larger, broader realities . . . safehavens, state-sponsored terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, et cetera. He also fails to acknowledge the contribution of the Arab Spring and the rejection of al-Qa’ida-like radical fundamentalist methods. I suspect the combination of many factors will lead to a realignment or redirection of U.S. / Allied foreign policy and the War on Islamic Fascism. The next months and year should give us good clues.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“Thanks for that. The first inclination why a Black Hawk was lost, I was wondering.
“Also, in your last the news that the FR and cockpit recorder had been found from the Air French Airbus. A remarkable achievement by the French. Let's hope they can interrogate the electronics. In my experience with such a device, not so sophisticated, on an F4 in the Falklands, there was nothing.
“As always Cap, keep pressing the keys!”
. . . my follow-up response:
Your question has been the topic of considerable speculation. I doubt we shall know definitively anytime soon. My guess(es):
1. Inadvertent contact with the wall (pilot error),
2. Settling with power – descent rate + excess power available exceeded altitude remaining,
3. Mechanical failure at the worst time.
There are perhaps other reasons, but those are the obvious ones.
Yes, indeedie; the technical achievement by the French team in recovery of the AF447 FDR & CVR cannot be overstated. Magnificent. The technology in the A330 is a couple of generations better than that available in the F4. Nonetheless, the probability of the data remaining intact and readable must be considered low. We will hope for the best.

Another voice in a difficult debate:
“I don't believe the verdict is in, as in time we shall see.
“Violence begets violence, and while we cannot stand by after 9/11 and be pacifists, I am nervous the escalation cycle could lead us into what I've called the ‘perpetual and expanding warfare model.’
“We cannot discount in my opinion, the geopolitical and diplomatic consequences from targeted political assassinations. I often wake-up and say ‘how the hell did we become who we now are!?’ Sorry. Even my own grandpa who was career Marine, retired major, I suspect might think the same thing.
“Our overall prestige has suffered for many reasons and continues to go south.
“If our efforts will reduce the ‘terrorist threat’ then I say the guys with much more knowledge than I, must be doing something right in Washington and the Pentagon. But I have a hard time doing the math on all this.
“I will reiterate that I believe OML (UML) would have been a much better captive, for our ability to extract additional information from the said leader of al-Qaeda; to not allow his dead body in an not-at-all traditional Islamic burial in deep sea, cause his martyrdom; And very importantly, for us to demonstrate to the world we are a system of justice with laws applicable to everyone including ourselves.
“I'm sorry, I think we've been blowing it in almost every way since 9/11. The Iraq War had as far as I know no connection to Osama, al-Qaeda, or 9/11 (heck, I doubt it had a connection to WMD's).
“What also bugs the heck out of me is while I did not support many Bush-II's (43) decisions, if this had been Bush-II who either ordered a kill on OBL or if it happened on his watch, there would be enormous partisan outrage, I find now lacking.
“We have differences in our opinions, and right now I'm entitled to not supporting our various adventures in other nations with what should be sovereign borders, but soon I may not be entitled to such opinion or expressing it here, as we are on a slippery slope in America. What if GOV calls war dissenters ‘unlawful’ and dispatches private contractors to eliminate the dissenters? I know that seems far-off, though is it in this current climate and trend-vector? I never thought I would be reading about these weekly drone strikes that keep taking out civilians who are written off as collateral damage. Why are we even over there? I wish some truthful politicians could really answer that question.”
My opinion:
You are, of course, quite right. Violence begets violence. Your nervousness may well be correct . . . or, it might not. As in so many situations of violence, it progresses until one side has had enough. We did not start this fight, but we must end it.
There are consequences to all actions . . . and inactions for that matter. War is death. War is killing. As I said, we did not start this thing. Al-Qa’ida formed in 1988. They carried out their first successful attack in 1992. They continued to ratchet up their attacks until they crossed the threshold of our tolerance in 2001. Again, we did not start this fight. I think your grandfather would recognize that reality. There are few laws that cover the war we are in, and even the ones that do exist are woefully inadequate.
Many of those, like al-Qa’ida, who resort to violence to achieve their objectives expect their targets to fold before the force of their will. It has taken us far too long to gain the upper hand. It is now their turn to be on the defensive. This fight is long from over. We must not lose our nerve or focus, and we must stay the course until those who would do us harm renounce violence.
I do agree, UbL would have been a bountiful captive. Unfortunately, he would not cooperate, so we move on. World War II did not look so bright until Midway, el-Alamein, Stalingrad and Guadalcanal. We have known from the beginning that this was going to be a long war. As with all long wars, there will be up’s and down’s. We have had an “up” this month. There will be down’s ahead.
The wisdom of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM will be debated for generations, just as we debate the wisdom of the Civil War or even World War II. Only time will tell whether it was a noble fight or a grotesque blunder. I have voiced my opinion. It has not changed.
Spot on . . . regardless the lack of partisan outrage . . . a very sad, disappointing and disgusting observation of the political reality of our time. We have failed the lofty ideals of the Founders of this Grand Republic.
The public debate continues.

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