Obama continues to gradually raise America's investment in protecting the tottering Maliki government in Iraq. A total of 800 US troops, mostly Special Forces, have gone to help retrain the Iraqi Army to face this new threat. According to Russia Today, widely seen as a Kremlin mouthpiece, Russia delivered five combat planes to Iraq to help in that nation's defense.
This comes as ISIS announced the formation of a caliphate. In Islamic tradition, a caliph is a religious leader with somewhat less spiritual authority than a Roman Catholic Pope. The closest Western approximation might be the Anglican title for the British monarch "Defender of the Faith." Holy Roman Emperors also had similar combinations of temporal and spiritual authority.
According to Time, even Sunnis (whom the caliphate supposedly represents) have fears about the radicalism of the new movement. Unease about new rules for worship and civil interactions could dampen enthusiasm for ISIS outside of areas it controls.
Control of Baghdad is key. As the inheritor of civilized traditions reaching back 5,000 years, it would give legitimacy to the aspirations of ISIS terrorists. This has spurred action from both the United States and Russia on the side of Iraq.
Russia has specific worries. Around 20 million of its 142 million people worship in the Muslim faith. Most of these live in the southern regions of the country. The effect of a rising radical Muslim state must worry Moscow. Similarly, Red China's Xingjiang Province has a high concentration of Muslims who have rebelled against Beijing.
Shi'ite Muslims have religious reasons to oppose the ISIS caliph. Traditionally, they believe that it is blasphemous to name a caliph outside of the lineage of Mohammed. Iran and much of Iraq worships in the Shi'ite tradition. They likely would strongly resist rule by a Sunni caliph they found not only invalid, but a blasphemy against their faith.
The backing of Russia and the United States should boost the morale of the Iraqi government, so long as ISIS momentum can be dented. Allegedly, ISIS plans to seize Africa north of the equator, Iran, India, and the rest of the Middle East and Central Asia. Its designs include the conquest of three NATO states and parts of Russia, as well as Europe up to the borders of Germany and Poland.
Currently they control northeastern Syria and most of Iraq north of Baghdad outside of Kurdish territories.
Significant ISIS gains would likely bring together a number of states usually not on friendly terms. Already, Iran has approached the United States to discuss a coordinated response, although working with the mullahs has its own danger. Should Baghdad fall, likely many states would set aside differences in an international effort similar to the Boxer Rebellion expedition in 1898.
Showing posts with label Daily Mail. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Daily Mail. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Clicks Actually Not the Most Important Media Audience Measurement Statistic
Journalists always brag on number of clicks, if they get them. But it is not necessarily the most important statistic.
The Charleston Daily Mail until recently had the address www.dailymail.com . To someone not paying attention, this could have been easily confused with www.dailymail.co.uk This is the home of the Daily Mail, far and away the most viewed news website in the world.
Obviously there had to be some spillover traffic with people looking for Daily Mail who actually ended up accidentally at Charleston Daily Mail. So why didn't the paper based in the West Virginia state capital simply rest on their laurels of massive numbers of clicks?
To explain why they made the change, deterring the accidental visitors, Charleston Daily Mail editor Brad McElhinny explained on Twitter that "they depressed time spent on site figures as they navigated away immediately."
As it would be difficult for the Charleston Daily Mail to find a way to take advantage of the accidental traffic from readers of the Daily Mail, this move seems to make sense.
The Charleston Daily Mail until recently had the address www.dailymail.com . To someone not paying attention, this could have been easily confused with www.dailymail.co.uk This is the home of the Daily Mail, far and away the most viewed news website in the world.
Obviously there had to be some spillover traffic with people looking for Daily Mail who actually ended up accidentally at Charleston Daily Mail. So why didn't the paper based in the West Virginia state capital simply rest on their laurels of massive numbers of clicks?
To explain why they made the change, deterring the accidental visitors, Charleston Daily Mail editor Brad McElhinny explained on Twitter that "they depressed time spent on site figures as they navigated away immediately."
As it would be difficult for the Charleston Daily Mail to find a way to take advantage of the accidental traffic from readers of the Daily Mail, this move seems to make sense.
Thursday, August 1, 2013
How "Space Weather" Could Knock Out Services Here On Earth and What Can Be Done to Prevent It
"There is no dispute that electric grids worldwide are vulnerable to potentially catastrophic damage from solar-generated EMP."
So said former Maryland Republican congressman and Howard University professor Roscoe Bartlett in 2011. According to Britain's Daily Mail, an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) expelled from the Sun nearly slammed into Earth. Humanity missed calamity by a narrow two weeks.
EMPs are accelerated and highly charged streams of particles. They can come naturally from the Sun, or artificially from nuclear weapons blasts. Such an explosion in the atmosphere could create an electromagnetic field that could fry unprotected electronics and electrical systems.
According to the Heritage Foundation, "effectively, the U.S. would be thrown back to the pre-industrial age following a widespread EMP attack." Presumably a natural EMP blast could produce similar effects. A one in eight chance exists that Earth may suffer such an event by 2020.
Heritage in 2010 laid out suggested preparations to protect against EMPs
Step No. 1: Require the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to Produce a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) Describing Which Countries Are Capable of Launching an EMP Strike. The NIE should review not only the weapons systems themselves but the delivery systems and platforms capable of carrying the weapons. Additionally, Congress should obtain from the NIE the intelligence community’s assessment of how EMP-capable countries are incorporating those weapons into their broader military strategies.
The latter assessment would permit the President and his advisors to determine how the U.S. could respond to EMP threats as they arise. Such planning is an essential part of providing an effective defense against these threats.
Step No. 2: Press the Obama Administration to Prepare to Protect the Nation’s Cyber Infrastructure Against the Effects of EMP. Congress should direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security to manage this effort, which should incorporate the recommendations of the commissions. For instance, the commission has determined that preparedness measures must account for the fact that the cyber infrastructure is quite dependent on the power grid. Thus, contingency planning must explore ways to keep the cyber system functioning without primary power.
Further, it recommends identifying the most critical elements of the cyber system that must survive an EMP attack. Finally, the commission recommends that preparedness planning account for the interdependency between the nation’s cyber infrastructure and other elements of the broader infrastructure. Overall, the key to preparing to counter the effects of EMP is to put barriers in place to prevent cascading failures in the nation’s infrastructure.
Step No. 3: Require the Navy to Develop a Test Program for Sea-Based Interceptors with the Capability to Intercept and Destroy Ballistic Missiles Carrying EMP Weapons Prior to Detonation. It is clear that ballistic missiles offer an ideal delivery system for an EMP weapon. For instance, an enemy of America could launch a short-range missile carrying an EMP weapon from a cargo ship off the U.S. coast. Clearly, the terminal-phase ballistic missile defense systems currently in the field or entering the field, such as the Patriot system and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, will not reliably intercept such ballistic missiles prior to the detonation of an EMP warhead. The Standard Missile-3 Block IA (SM-3 Block IA), as a midcourse defense system, may be able to do so.
What the U.S. really needs to address this threat, however, is a version of the SM-3 that will intercept these kinds of missiles in the boost or ascent phase of flight. The Independent Working Group has recommended developing and fielding what it calls an “East Coast Missile Defense” to address this emerging threat.[3]
Accordingly, Congress should require the Navy to demonstrate the capability to produce new versions of the SM-3 interceptor that are capable of destroying a short-range missile in the boost or ascent phase of flight, prior to its reaching the preferred detonation points for an EMP warhead. This will require that Congress also provide the Navy with the funds necessary to undertake this test program.
If it chooses to do so, Congress could also direct the Air Force to undertake a companion program that would permit operational use of the Airborne Laser system to defend against an attack from a short-range missile.
EMPs have caused disruption before. In 1989 they knocked out parts of Quebec's telephone infrastructure. 130 years prior, they interfered with telegraph operations not long after the invention of the device.
So said former Maryland Republican congressman and Howard University professor Roscoe Bartlett in 2011. According to Britain's Daily Mail, an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) expelled from the Sun nearly slammed into Earth. Humanity missed calamity by a narrow two weeks.
EMPs are accelerated and highly charged streams of particles. They can come naturally from the Sun, or artificially from nuclear weapons blasts. Such an explosion in the atmosphere could create an electromagnetic field that could fry unprotected electronics and electrical systems.
According to the Heritage Foundation, "effectively, the U.S. would be thrown back to the pre-industrial age following a widespread EMP attack." Presumably a natural EMP blast could produce similar effects. A one in eight chance exists that Earth may suffer such an event by 2020.
Heritage in 2010 laid out suggested preparations to protect against EMPs
Step No. 1: Require the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to Produce a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) Describing Which Countries Are Capable of Launching an EMP Strike. The NIE should review not only the weapons systems themselves but the delivery systems and platforms capable of carrying the weapons. Additionally, Congress should obtain from the NIE the intelligence community’s assessment of how EMP-capable countries are incorporating those weapons into their broader military strategies.
The latter assessment would permit the President and his advisors to determine how the U.S. could respond to EMP threats as they arise. Such planning is an essential part of providing an effective defense against these threats.
Step No. 2: Press the Obama Administration to Prepare to Protect the Nation’s Cyber Infrastructure Against the Effects of EMP. Congress should direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security to manage this effort, which should incorporate the recommendations of the commissions. For instance, the commission has determined that preparedness measures must account for the fact that the cyber infrastructure is quite dependent on the power grid. Thus, contingency planning must explore ways to keep the cyber system functioning without primary power.
Further, it recommends identifying the most critical elements of the cyber system that must survive an EMP attack. Finally, the commission recommends that preparedness planning account for the interdependency between the nation’s cyber infrastructure and other elements of the broader infrastructure. Overall, the key to preparing to counter the effects of EMP is to put barriers in place to prevent cascading failures in the nation’s infrastructure.
Step No. 3: Require the Navy to Develop a Test Program for Sea-Based Interceptors with the Capability to Intercept and Destroy Ballistic Missiles Carrying EMP Weapons Prior to Detonation. It is clear that ballistic missiles offer an ideal delivery system for an EMP weapon. For instance, an enemy of America could launch a short-range missile carrying an EMP weapon from a cargo ship off the U.S. coast. Clearly, the terminal-phase ballistic missile defense systems currently in the field or entering the field, such as the Patriot system and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, will not reliably intercept such ballistic missiles prior to the detonation of an EMP warhead. The Standard Missile-3 Block IA (SM-3 Block IA), as a midcourse defense system, may be able to do so.
What the U.S. really needs to address this threat, however, is a version of the SM-3 that will intercept these kinds of missiles in the boost or ascent phase of flight. The Independent Working Group has recommended developing and fielding what it calls an “East Coast Missile Defense” to address this emerging threat.[3]
Accordingly, Congress should require the Navy to demonstrate the capability to produce new versions of the SM-3 interceptor that are capable of destroying a short-range missile in the boost or ascent phase of flight, prior to its reaching the preferred detonation points for an EMP warhead. This will require that Congress also provide the Navy with the funds necessary to undertake this test program.
If it chooses to do so, Congress could also direct the Air Force to undertake a companion program that would permit operational use of the Airborne Laser system to defend against an attack from a short-range missile.
EMPs have caused disruption before. In 1989 they knocked out parts of Quebec's telephone infrastructure. 130 years prior, they interfered with telegraph operations not long after the invention of the device.
Monday, July 1, 2013
The Dangers of Meddling in Syria
Last month, experts testified to a House committee that inaction in Syria emboldened Iran. Not long after that, Senator John McCain predicted that "the entire Middle East is up for grabs, and our enemies are fully committed to winning." He urged Obama to lead.
The New York Times cited an estimate from the opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights that over 100,000 have died so far in the four year conflict. As in many such wars, civilians and their property take the brunt of the violence. Both sides seek to terrify the population into supporting its cause. Resources must be destroyed to deny their use to the enemy.
Such is the nature of "civil war." Even in the American Civil War, Union generals used artificial famine as a weapon in Georgia and the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia.
Because of the misery inflicted by this war, many have urged Obama to get directly involved. Some cite humanitarian issues. Others point to Russia's support of the Assad regime, a government which has historically acted out against American and Israeli interests.
Just because there is a "bad guy" does not mean that he is opposed by a "good guy." President Assad is an authoritarian tyrant and supporter of terrorism. But would he be replaced by anything better? Rebel murder of a Syrian Roman Catholic priest tells the Western world otherwise. He was decapitated with an ordinary kitchen knife as fanatics shriekingly chanted "God is great!"
Do we really want that to run a Middle Eastern nation state?
Syria occupies a keystone position in the Eastern Mediterranean. North is Turkey, grumbling against a somewhat Islamacist government. Nearby lies Egypt, seemingly ripe for a military coup. Bordering Syria is Lebanon, who suffered a horrific civil war of its own in the 1980s. Spillover from the war could be destructive. A jihadist regime replacing Assad could be even worse.
The correct U. S. response should be a pox on both your houses. Do not get sucked into a race with the Russians over arming sides. Leadership should take the part of cooperative quarantining of the war within the bounds of Syria.
Yes this is a particularly horrible war. But there is nothing that the United States can directly do that will not make it worse on Syrians and threaten the degenerating stability of the region.
The New York Times cited an estimate from the opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights that over 100,000 have died so far in the four year conflict. As in many such wars, civilians and their property take the brunt of the violence. Both sides seek to terrify the population into supporting its cause. Resources must be destroyed to deny their use to the enemy.
Such is the nature of "civil war." Even in the American Civil War, Union generals used artificial famine as a weapon in Georgia and the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia.
Because of the misery inflicted by this war, many have urged Obama to get directly involved. Some cite humanitarian issues. Others point to Russia's support of the Assad regime, a government which has historically acted out against American and Israeli interests.
Just because there is a "bad guy" does not mean that he is opposed by a "good guy." President Assad is an authoritarian tyrant and supporter of terrorism. But would he be replaced by anything better? Rebel murder of a Syrian Roman Catholic priest tells the Western world otherwise. He was decapitated with an ordinary kitchen knife as fanatics shriekingly chanted "God is great!"
Do we really want that to run a Middle Eastern nation state?
Syria occupies a keystone position in the Eastern Mediterranean. North is Turkey, grumbling against a somewhat Islamacist government. Nearby lies Egypt, seemingly ripe for a military coup. Bordering Syria is Lebanon, who suffered a horrific civil war of its own in the 1980s. Spillover from the war could be destructive. A jihadist regime replacing Assad could be even worse.
The correct U. S. response should be a pox on both your houses. Do not get sucked into a race with the Russians over arming sides. Leadership should take the part of cooperative quarantining of the war within the bounds of Syria.
Yes this is a particularly horrible war. But there is nothing that the United States can directly do that will not make it worse on Syrians and threaten the degenerating stability of the region.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
B*******t Article I Have Ever Seen: Hats Off to Samantha Brick
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2124246/Samantha-Brick-downsides-looking-pretty-Why-women-hate-beautiful.html
You may or may not agree that she is stunning. She is definitely much prettier than average.
And apparently the world now hates her.
The Daily Mail (Great Britain, not Charleston) posted a story the other day written by Samantha Brick. In the story, she candidly discussed her social problems related to being considered attractive at her age.
Of course such a display of honesty has inspired thousands of angry, hateful, and indignant responses from anonymous readers.
Really, how dare a pretty woman say that she is gorgeous and that it causes her female friends to hide their husbands. She may have too high of an opinion of herself, or maybe not. In any case, people definitely have a perception that she is very attractive or she wouldn't have written the piece.
Fact is that this is one of the ballsiest op-eds I have ever read, pardon the expression. It is inevitable that this will attract hatred. Frankly, it seems that people care more about her sassy blonde mug than the fact that the British are about to impose a sophisticated digital spy program on the public.
Sure, Big Brother is on his way, Great Britain, but let's complain about the uppity cute chick.
This was not written tongue in cheek either. It's not often that you see someone personally put themselves out there to be smacked around by their reading public.
You may or may not agree that she is stunning. She is definitely much prettier than average.
And apparently the world now hates her.
The Daily Mail (Great Britain, not Charleston) posted a story the other day written by Samantha Brick. In the story, she candidly discussed her social problems related to being considered attractive at her age.
Of course such a display of honesty has inspired thousands of angry, hateful, and indignant responses from anonymous readers.
Really, how dare a pretty woman say that she is gorgeous and that it causes her female friends to hide their husbands. She may have too high of an opinion of herself, or maybe not. In any case, people definitely have a perception that she is very attractive or she wouldn't have written the piece.
Fact is that this is one of the ballsiest op-eds I have ever read, pardon the expression. It is inevitable that this will attract hatred. Frankly, it seems that people care more about her sassy blonde mug than the fact that the British are about to impose a sophisticated digital spy program on the public.
Sure, Big Brother is on his way, Great Britain, but let's complain about the uppity cute chick.
This was not written tongue in cheek either. It's not often that you see someone personally put themselves out there to be smacked around by their reading public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)