Blog-IT-o ergo sum

	4/27/2006

US National Security Strategy Conference at Duke Law School

April 20-21st

If you would like to draw your own conclusions you can watch the podcast when it is posted on the Duke Law School Site within the next two to three weeks.

Blogging (Part I)

"Terrorists have gotten quite good at this technology."

-- Jay DeFrank, Colonel (Ret.), Former Director of Media Relations - Office of the Ast. Sec. of Defense

Colonel DeFrank was responding to the question from the audience as to what impact blogging could have on the role of media in the War Against Terrorism. He also noted that the Pentagon is looking at blogging as having a future in psychological warfare operations.

Civil Liberties

"We're one attack away from dire consequences."

-- Richard B. Myers, General (Ret.) - Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

I heard that line first hand at the luncheon on Friday. General Myers was making it clear how quickly the War on Terror could be brought home to the as yet essentially untouched average American. A little medical grade radioactive material blown up into the air of a major US city and we will all be forced to live upon a radically altered landscape.

Had I gotten there earlier for the morning session entitled, Balancing National Security and Civil Liberties I would have been able to immediately contemplate what some of General Myers' "dire consequences" might be. During that session Greg Nojeim from the Washington Office of the ACLU informed the audience (of less than 60 people) that the ongoing intense Senate debate over illegal immigration is providing ample cover for a more momentous piece of legislation now being crafted in a Senate committee. Apparently, our noble Senators are discussing how best to officially recognize (or hopefully not recognize) the powers the executive branch is claiming for the President under his title of Commander-in-Chief.

My associate in the morning audience said that the alarmed Nojeim was referring to formal Congressional acknowledgement being sought for powers which include presidential perrogatives to authorize by executive fiat: imprisonment ("you're an enemy combatant"), torture, assassination and asset forefiture. The ACLU website does mention Senate bill S.2453 on the expansion of NSA authority to conduct secret electronic surveilance on American citizens, but Mr. Nojeim seemed to be going past this argument. We�fll have to wait for the video pod cast that will be up on the Duke Law School site within the next 2-3 weeks. What we do know is that one of Mr. Nojeim's fellow panelists arguing on behalf of the executive branch said something to the effect of, "Fighting the War on Terror might mean a few innocent people get hurt." Again stay tuned for the video tape.

Lied into War

"I hope when I see my Lord and Savior he will say, 'You are welcome in my Kingdom because you wanted my people to know the truth.'"

-- Walter B. Jones - US Congressman NC 3rd District

Congressman Jones repeated versions of that impassioned line at least three times during his keynote address at the conference dinner on Thursday night. He was referring to the resolution he made along with Congressmen Ron Paul and Wayne Gilchrest calling for a full floor debate on our Iraq policy. Howard Coble from NC�fs 6th district announced his support for this resolution today.

Jones (who has also requested a classified briefing regarding Iran) pulled no punches in going after how he thought the Iraq war was brought to fruition. He's "proud to be a Republican," but even as a "lowly Congressman" he intends to see that the truth comes out, even if it means like his wife suggested, "(he) might end up in the Potomac."

Congressman Jones said he voted with reservations for allowing the President the use of force in Iraq, but that he now regrets his decision because he believes he was lied to by "neocons" in the executive branch such as Douglas Feith. "The American people were duped with false intelligence." He also said that he will never again vote to give a president the use of force as opposed to honoring his obligation to the Constitution with respect to Congress having the sole authority to commit our troops to war.

In a floor debate on our Iraq policy, Jones said we need to discuss whether we are willing bankrupt the next generation to continue the prosecution of the war...and "we need to start talking about the draft." Jones was not making a call to support the draft but rather noting that everyone is saying we will be in Iraq for years to come and this is not going to happen with the current state of US forces.

Sidebar: The Thursday afternoon session there were about 90 people in the audience - about half of them on a field trip from the JFK Special Warfare Center and School at Fort Bragg. (The outfit which grew out of the Army's 1950's Psy-Ops Division) The four or five of them I chatted with on a break were all in agreement that the day of reckoning for a draft or a major draw down of forces is fast approaching. The war being fought on the backs of reservists has dragged on now for three years. Even with the games being played by the Army in extending tours of duty via the fullest application of the fine print in service contracts the jig is about up.

Power Corrupts

"This administration's answer to everything, 'We have the power to do what we need to do.'"

-- William L. Nash, Major General (Ret.), John W. Vessey Senior Fellow, CFR

As the four men on the Thursday morning panel, The US Military and Privatization seemed to be in general agreement with this statement, it is not surprising to see the swipes being taken at the Secretary of Defense by those who have worked on the inside. Rather scary actually to hear first hand accounts of how those in control appear to be drunk with power.

Since it came up more than once across the four presentations that the lack of a formal declaration of war has created some murky legal issues on the battlefield, I asked in the question period if retroactively issuing a formal Congressional declaration of war would help to clear things up. Scott Stucky, General Counsel of the Senate Committee on Armed Services said, yes. In the post session conversation though I was told that one reason we don't ask for declarations of war anymore is that they kick in problematic financial burdens such as extra insurance costs. Putting on my Birch hat, another reason is that since the founding of the UN accepted international protocol calls for military action only to be taken under the authority of UN Security Council resolutions.

Who are we fighting for?

"Really poor research...A flawed paper...Overreached."

-- Panelists on Shaping US Foreign Policy for the Next Decade reacting to the Mearsheimer and Walt paper on the Israel Lobby

The request for a reaction to the paper was posed by a War School member of the audience who identified himself as having done three stints with the CIA. He telegraphed his own opinion of the situation by emphasizing the paper's discussion of, "our blind support for Israel." (I was left wondering how much animosity there just might be at the CIA for having to take the fall for what they might see as the machinations of Douglas Feith and his Office of Special Plans.)

I give Steven Simon of the CFR credit for the most well rounded response. "That the Israel Lobby is strong and effective is undeniable. The Lobby is proud of it." He went on to point out that the important thing is to strike a balance of interests and that the real problem he believes is that this administration has abandoned the balance.

Blogging (Part II)

"I think it's the way of the future."

-- Art Harris, Former CNN investigative journalist

Art's encouraging prediction needs to be qualified however. Art was the panelist who could not figure out how to load his DVD into the notebook computer on the podium prepared for his presentation. He also could not operate the Windows Media window when it popped up following the insertion of the DVD by the moderator.

In spite of 13 years with CNN, technology was definitely not his strong suit. The anecdote he told about being an embedded reporter was fitting. He was assigned to one of the more forward units in the invasion. The embedding program was a fresh idea and their was much anxiety among both troops and reporters as to how it would work out.

Knowing how Marines feel about their coffee in the field, you can imagine the atmosphere in the unit when on the first day out in the field the tag along reporter plugs their coffee pot into the wrong outlet and melts it into a hopeless smoldering blob. Harris had the good sense to immediately realize that friendly fire can happen to reporters too. In the middle of initial battle operations he put in a call to the CNN office in Kuwait and had them arrange a guarded private courier service to successully drive a replacement coffee pot out to his unit.

Colonel DeFrank quoted at the outset of this post was the only person on the media panel that showed a good understanding of technology. Susan Martin, reporter of the St. Petersburg Times had traveled all over the Middle East, often risking her life, but she did not know how to click on the icons of her still photograph files that were placed on the desktop of the notebook computer given to her at the podium. She did note however that the Downing St. Memo was an excellent example how the alternative media could force MSM to take notice of a story.

Jackie Northam, National Security Correspondent for NPR gave the funniest response as to what she thought of blogging. "Interesting but superficial." She prefaced her comment by noting that she was so excited to learn that a major blog had just listed her as, "one of three bad ass chicks covering the news."

Kudos to the Duke Law School and their sponsors for putting this conference on and making it freely available to the public. Scott Silliman the Executive Director at the school's Center on Law, Ethics and National Security looked to be a prime mover in making things happen while allowing opposing opinions to be represented. Put it on your calendar for next year and pray that martial law does not intervene before then.

11:34:02 PM

comment []