Week 36
The WMD sensitivity has to do with the new strategy focus of US after 9/11. US has natural protection against invading armies (Mexico being an exception -which is harmless- and.. there is the military behemoth called Canada of course), short range navies, the only remaining dangers can come in in the form of 1) people 2) weapons with asymmetric effect. That is why post 9/11 two major issues were 1) immigration 2) wmd. WMD sensitivity requires hunting for this stuff proactively, anywhere in the world because you never know which crazy-ass idiot will get his hands on one and take it to somewhere else. That is the current logic.
This US focus is known to all strategists. After 9/11 some went 'aha, focus gonna change', and tada. It's that kind of thing. It makes certain amount of sense too, but whether it makes sense or not, that is what "ppl in the know" know about US priorities. Hence the red lines, talk of punishment etc.
"Are we making too much of chemical weapons? Probably less than 1 percent of those killed in Syria have died of nerve gas attacks. In Syria, a principal weapon of mass destruction has been the AK—47."
A [..] story tells of a delegation of sailors who went to the tribunal of the Inquisition in the seventeenth century, when the Catholic Church had forbidden the use of Galileo's astronomy as an affront to the Bible's account of creation. The sailors sheepishly confessed that Galileo's theory had both simplified their journeys and made their maps more accurate. They hoped that the Inquisitors would exempt mariners from the church's proscription against it. The Tribunal considered the problem, consulted with the bishops, and sent an emissary to the Pope. Finally, they conceded. They said, "OK, if the theory works, use it. But don't believe it".
"Patriot Act author says NSA’s bulk data collection is “unbounded in its scope”"
Dear Guy Who Just Made My Burrito
#hilarious
A treehouse with an elevator? Well, yes, but there's one catch, this elevator is made out of a bike. Designer, Ethan Schlussler, shows us that getting from the ground to 30-ft up in the trees is just a matter of pedaling. Going Up!
Commentator Tovarich
WPost response to Putin's NYTimes Op-Ed
Putin says: "The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance".
[..W]hat rankles many analysts about this paragraph is that it ignores Putin's own role in enabling the already quite awful violence, as well as the extremism it's inspired. Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad's regime has killed so freely and so wantonly in part because it knows Putin will protect it from international action. Putin has also been supplying Assad with heavy weapons. It's a bit rich for him to decry violence or outside involvement at this point.
"From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future".
Russia has certainly espoused dialogue and a compromise plan, but it has acted instead to stop that from happening, refusing to wield its considerable power to bring this about. There is no one in the world better positioned than Vladimir Putin to force Assad to the negotiating table. Instead, Putin has shown every indication that he wishes for Assad to defeat the rebels totally and outright, as his father Hafez al-Assad did in 1982 when he crushed an uprising in Hama.