Collateral Damage and Force Protection

Tom Engelhardt writes thoroughly in TomDispatch.com about the deaths of civilians in US operations in Afghanistan and the various approaches for handling the cases by the military brass.

Admittedly, there's been a change in the assertion/repeated denial/investigation pattern instituted by American forces. Now, assertion and denial are sometimes followed relatively quickly by acknowledgement, apology, and payment. Now, when the irrefutable meets the unchallengeable, American spokespeople tend to own up to it. Yep, we killed them. Yep, they were women and kids. Nope, they had, as far as we know, nothing to do with terrorism. Yep, it was our fault and we'll pony up for our mistake.

This new tactic is a response to rising Afghan outrage over the repeated killing of civilians in U.S. raids and air strikes. But like the denials and the investigations, this, too, is intended to make everything go away, while our war itself -- those missiles loosed, those doors kicked down in the middle of the night -- just goes on.

[...]

But let's consider here just one recent incident that went almost uncovered in the U.S. media. According to an Agence France Presse account, in a raid in the eastern Afghan province of Khost, the U.S. military first reported a small success: four "armed militants" killed.

It took next to no time, however, for those four militants to morph into the family of an Afghan National Army artillery commander named Awal Khan. As it happened, Khan himself was on duty in another province at the time. According to the report, the tally of the slain, some of whom may have gone to the roof of their house to defend themselves against armed men they evidently believed to be robbers or bandits, included: Awal Khan's "schoolteacher wife, a 17-year-old daughter named Nadia, a 15-year-old son, Aimal, and his brother, who worked for a government department. Another daughter was wounded. After the shooting, the pregnant wife of Khan's cousin, who lived next door, went outside her home and was shot five times in the abdomen..."

[...]

All of this was little more than a shadow play against which the ongoing war continues to be relentlessly prosecuted. In Afghanistan (and increasingly in Pakistan), civilian deaths are inseparable from this war. Though they may be referred to as "collateral damage," increasingly in all wars, and certainly in counterinsurgency campaigns involving air power, the killing of civilians lies at the heart of the matter, while the killing of soldiers might be thought of as the collateral activity.

Pretending that these "mistakes" will cease or be ameliorated as long as the war is being prosecuted is little short of folly. After all, "mistake" after "mistake" continues to be made. That first Afghan wedding party was obliterated in late December 2001 when an American air strike killed up to 110 Afghan revelers with only two survivors. The fifth one on record was blown away last year. And count on it, there will be a sixth.

[...]

Let's for a moment assume, however, that our safety really was, and remains, at stake in a war halfway across the planet. If so, let me ask you a question: What's your "safety" really worth? Are you truly willing to trade the lives of Awal Khan's family for a blanket guarantee of your safety -- and not just his family, but all those Afghan one-year olds, all those wedding parties that are -- yes, they really are -- going to be blown away in the years to come for you?

Tom correctly identifies the huge costs of trying to obtain maximum safety. Unfortunately he misses one important aspect of safety in war that plays a very important role in actually promoting the deaths of innocent civilians: force protection.

Force protection has been put into a prime position in the list of priorities for the US military, ever since the mistaken perception that the Vietnam War was lost for the loss of morale at home. Troops are trained to shoot first and ask questions later to avoid potentially hazardous situations that could be triggered by the extra few seconds or minutes that would be needed to adequately asses the threat. This is well highlighted by the case of the cousin of Awal Khan mentioned in the quote above. She most probably received five bullets in the abdomen “just in case”, simply to protect the US troops involved from even theoretical risks.

Overreliance on air power is the most awful measure of force protection. Air raids are safe for the military, but disastrous for the civilian population in anti-insurgency warfare.

This is simply wrong. Soldiers should be bearing the risks to protect the civilian population, not engaging in reckless endangerment and voluntary manslaughter on a massive scale. In this case, it is not even a case of enemy civilians, but the very civilians that the soldiers are supposed to be protecting.

Giving the safety of soldiers priority above that of the civilian population is not only wrong, but stupid as well. It unnecessarily enrages the population and enhances the popularity of the insurgency. If US soldiers are not ready to risk their lives in protecting foreign nationals, they should not engage in wars of “liberation” in the first place.

See also my post from October 2007: “Human Terrain Teams and Dehumanization of Civilians”.

About US Unemployment Non-Security

Robert Eshelman writes in tomdispatch.com, under headline “The Other War on Workers”:

Under unemployment eligibility requirements, an employer must certify whether an employee committed a "fault" on the job and was therefore terminated. If an employer indicates that no fault was committed and the employee meets several other requirements, including being physically able to work, states grant an unemployment claim. In other words, Chris's former employer granted him a small concession, while otherwise turning his life upside down amid the worst job market since 1983.

Is this really the situation in the US? No wonder people are scared of their employers. Record crime rates, here we come! Americans really have to rethink about their social safety nets.

In a later paragraph:

Someone I interviewed prior to my job center visit described her reaction when she heard that her company had recently closed a plant in the Midwest: "The first thing I thought, and I felt bad for thinking it," she recalled, somewhat sheepishly, "was that means more work for us -- at least for the time being."

Her comment speaks volumes, as does her request not to be identified. Who needs union busters, patrolling shop-stewards, or legions of high-paid lawyers fighting wage and hours claims when a worker is so anxious about job security that she responds positively to the laying off of those she imagines as potential competitors? When employees police their own behavior for fear of the axe -- monitoring their time checking email or using the bathroom -- bad times distinctly have an upside for management.

...

A look at corporate opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), whose passage in Congress is a central demand of organized labor, offers a glimpse of how persistently companies seek to disadvantage their workers. EFCA would allow workers to form a union when a majority of them sign union cards in a given workplace. "Card check," as it is frequently called, enables them to organize unions without the need for an election. In a November column surveying the business elite's response to the Act, Wall Street Journal op-ed columnist Thomas Frank wrote: "Card check is about power. Management has it, workers don't, and business doesn't want that to change."

Trying to prevent workers from setting up a trade union should be declared illegal as a violation of the workers' freedom of assembly.

Thomas Friedman: "We Must Have Growth"

Thomas Friedman states the obvious:

Let’s today step out of the normal boundaries of analysis of our economic crisis and ask a radical question: What if the crisis of 2008 represents something much more fundamental than a deep recession? What if it’s telling us that the whole growth model we created over the last 50 years is simply unsustainable economically and ecologically and that 2008 was when we hit the wall — when Mother Nature and the market both said: “No more.”

What on earth is so radical about this view? It is a perfectly acceptable possibility. It is truly sad that he feels the need to explicitly step out of the “normal boundaries” to even contemplate such an idea.

Later on he gets to his policy descriptions:

We must have growth, but we must grow in a different way. For starters, economies need to transition to the concept of net-zero, whereby buildings, cars, factories and homes are designed not only to generate as much energy as they use but to be infinitely recyclable in as many parts as possible.

Yes. Let's abolish the second law of thermodynamics. That will solve all our energy needs.

While greater efficiency is a good goal, what is it with the “we must have growth” meme? It is absolutely not true. We could very well go on with a lot less than we have, after all, our grandparents certainly did. We could produce less, we could consume less, we could travel less.

The only thing that necessitates growth (beyond population growth) is the current state of the banking system, which is built to withstand total collapse only in the presence of continuous growth. If the economy was not based on such huge amounts of debt, there would be no need for continuous growth.

US FDIC Covering Bond Holders?

Something doesn't quite sound right here:

MarketWatch.com: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said late Thursday that it has completed the sale of IndyMac Federal Bank FSB, the firm it took over last year, and that it took a $10.7 billion loss on the deal, far more than originally expected.

The FDIC said OneWest Bank, FSB, a newly formed Pasadena, California-based federal savings bank organized by IMB HoldCo LLC, would assume IndyMac's deposits.

"As of January 31, 2009, IndyMac Federal had total assets of $23.5 billion and total deposits of $6.4 billion. OneWest has agreed to purchase all deposits and approximately $20.7 billion in assets at a discount of $4.7 billion. The FDIC will retain the remaining assets for later disposition," the FDIC said in a press release.

How can the FDIC accumulate $10.7 billion in losses while covering $6.4 billion of deposits? Sounds like the FDIC is taking a fall for other creditors of IndyMac as well. Is this really the purpose of FDIC? I thought it was only supposed to be for deposit insurance.

Lawrence Summers is a Grand Hypocrite

Lawrence Summers, former World Bank chief economics, Clinton Treasury secretary and Harvard president, has completely turn his convictions around. This would be good, if he didn't maintain that this apparent conversion is somehow 'temporary':

FT.com reports (ht to Emmanuel):

Widely seen as being among the most pro-market voices in the White House, having been Bill Clinton’s last Treasury secretary in the 1990s, Mr Summers said the view that the market was inherently self-stabilising had been “dealt a fatal blow”. At a time when the Republican critique of Washington’s aggressive response to the crisis is growing more trenchant, Mr Summers made an unapologetic case for government intervention.

“This notion that the economy is self-stabilising is usually right but it is wrong a few times a century. And this is one of those times . . . there’s a need for extraordinary public action at those times...”

What a load of crap. Summers has it almost exactly backwards. The 30 years or so that this credit bubble has been constantly growing have been the time that the market has not been self-correcting. This crisis is the much awaited self-correction.

Funny that he didn't feel this way when the Asian financial bubble burst in 1997. Then he was all for harsh austerity measures. The current global phenomenon is only different in its scope and size. There is no fundamental difference.

Not that I'm at all for letting this crisis run its course without any remedial measures. But if we are going to let the unquestionably unstable credit machine churn out bubble after freaking bubble, we should device a comprehensive safety net that covers all and every part of the world economy, not just a select set of G-7 nations.

Naturally, it would have been much more fruitful to keep the lid on the credit machine that was unleashed by the Reagan and Thatcher governments in the early 1980's. Unregulated issuance of credit has always and everywhere been the source of financial bubbles.

India's Growing Supercomputing Market

Signs of the rise of India as a growing player in the world of research and development: Cray Inc. has established a presence in New Delhi. (ht insideHPC.com)

Indiaprwire.com: Global supercomputer leader Cray Inc. (NASDAQ: CRAY) has formed a new wholly-owned subsidiary in India aimed at strengthening its presence in that country's growing High Performance Computing (HPC) marketplace.

"The senior management at Cray has felt for some time that the company needed to expand its footprint in India to provide a strong, local presence for our customers," said Andrew Wyatt, vice president, Cray Asia Pacific. "The country's HPC market is of rising importance, and establishing a new subsidiary allows us to seamlessly deliver our supercomputing expertise to both new and existing Cray customers in India."

HPC utilization is an important bellwether of high-tech, high-value added research and development.

Elsewhere, SGI has announced further layoffs of 9% of its workforce, even at the face of a big order of the US DoD:

The Register: Supercomputer maker Silicon Graphics has let go 120 more employees, nine per cent of its workforce, in an effort to cut costs as its revenues decline.

These cuts come hot on the heels of a 15 per cent layoff announced in mid-December, when SGI slashed 15 per cent of its 1,500-strong workforce, eliminating 225 positions. After the latest rounds of cuts, SGI has approximately 1,155 employees. That latest round cost the company about $3m in severance and related charges, according to the 8K filing, and SGI expects the layoffs to be completed by March 27.

Ferrari's Mobile IT Needs

This is not your average mobile IT solution (hat tip insideHPC):

eWeek: Something that is unique to Ferrari and about 10 other competing international companies (including Mercedes, Toyota, BMW, Renault and others) is that a number of times per year -- 18, to be exact in 2009 -- the company takes literally to the road for the Formula One Grand Prix road racing season. The season starts March 29 at the Australian Grand Prix in Melbourne.

This requires some challenging work on the part of the company's IT staff, about which most race fans have no idea.

At those 18 locations -- in places as diverse as Malaysia, Brazil, France, Japan and Australia -- the Ferrari data center team will set up a temporary data center on site that will work in real time during the race. The temporary center will hook directly into the F1 site.

The Ferrari IT team consists of about 150 crew members and seven large trucks' worth of servers, power supplies and everything else that goes with them. It is no simple chore to move this high-tech entourage from one continent to another.

Somehow this just doesn't make much sense. Why would the servers actually have to be on location at the race tracks? One would think that remote operation would be enough.