Exercise in futility

Asking what contributed to the WTC towers falling is analogous to asking how an Israeli in a pizza shop came to die from a suicide bomb attack. They both occurred because madmen were willing to perpetrate an atrocity on an unsuspecting and vulnerable target. Whether they were prepared for the viciousness of such an attack is beside the point. The truth is, we can't prepare for everything- nor should we.

We're about to spend $23 million and two-plus years of federal investigators time in order to determine what flaws contributed to the towers falling. "They shouldn't have fallen," some say. "There were structural inadequacies," charge others. Technically, they may both be right. But are these the flaws that we ought to be spending our time and resources focusing on?

Firstly, the absurd notion of an indestructible 110 story building should be dismissed altogether. Yes, we have many brilliant engineers in this land of ours, undoubtedly capable of improving their craft with the passage of each day.(I'm still in awe of the ingenious floating disc). But no matter how much we spend, no matter how hard we try, we will always live in a world fraught with flaws and vulnerability. Our buildings, bridges, and vehicles are not exceptions to this.

We Americans like to believe that we can overcome any obstacle, beat incredible odds, roll just one more "7". We're edge of the envelope people. Why then, when risk is an instrumental part of our existence, do we have so much trouble reconciling the inevitable failures which coincide with our progress?

At the risk of sounding cavalier, there are certain unpredictable outcomes which are too remote to bother fretting about. A 737 commercial jet slamming into the side of a tall building is one of those things. And yet, for the next two years, investigators will seek to determine which parts of the buildings contributed to their "structural failure." In short: blame the I-beam.

I'd prefer we left it to the professional engineers who depend upon the construction of new skyscrapers to contend with structural issues. Our investigators have trouble enough identifying threats in areas of their own expertise. Furthermore, miring ourselves in debate over the detailed cause of the WTC's destruction will not prepare us for the next threat- only the last. The terrorist plies his trade by exploiting points of greatest vulnerability- once used, a tactic such as 9/11's becomes more difficult to repeat. We're unlikely to see the same method of attack next time.

It concerns me when our nation's leaders attempt to deliver scientific reasoning for an event such as this. For we could construct a veritable fortress the next time around and there will still be an area of weakness which might be exploited. Engineers aren't to blame. Building materials aren't to blame. Evil sons-of-bitches are to blame. The sooner we let go our illusions of an impermeable blanket of security, the sooner we will find ourselves prepared for the asymmetric threat. Our answers do not lie in the forensic evidence found in the rubble from Ground Zero. We should stop looking for them there.

Peace through chemical weapons

What's the chair of the UN Commission on Human Rights up to lately?

Libya has signed a $13.5 billion weapons deal with Iran for ballistic missiles with chemical warheads and the training to deploy and operate them.

Sounds about right.

Boy did this guy make a mistake!

Reader Clint Huling disagrees with me on the forest-thinning issue and mentions an alternative...

This so called new approach to forest management that is proactive and out of the box is a merely another government giveaway. The timber industry continuously looks for inroads where it can feed on the public trust and it looks like the combination of draught conditions and a president solely bent on doing the work of his friends and family.
A cheap and easy solution for Fire prevention in our public forests is one that was used for over a hundred years with great success. LOOKOUT TOWERS once stood throughout most of the forest lands of America. Their effectiveness is unmatched because of their ability to allow a watch person to track small fires over the course of many hours which afforded a better guestimation as to what a fire will do given the conditions. The numbers of LOOKOUT TOWERS now being used for forest fire prevention has fallen below 30, due to a lack of funding and a belief that technology would do a better job. Furthermore the man power and cost of maintaining them is cheap by comparison to the alternatives. However the satellites that we now depend on can not do the same job that lone watch-person could do. Satellites cannot watch a small fire for hours and predict what it's course will be. This contrast the ability of a tower watchman who is trained to gauge winds, climate conditions, current weather on site etc. Their strength is unmatched.

Interesting idea. However, even Reuters admits in their reporting that...

Many ponderosa pine forests are 15 times more dense than they were a century ago. Where 25 to 35 trees once grew on each acre, now more than 500 trees do, posing a threat should lightning strike or a campfire spread out of control... Rather than waiting for disaster to strike in these areas, aren't we better off addressing the problem? To wit...

So far this year, wildfires in Oregon and elsewhere have scorched more than 5.9 million acres of forest land -- an area the size of New Hampshire and twice the annual average. In all, they have destroyed more than 2,000 buildings, prompted the evacuation of tens of thousands, and caused the deaths of 20 firefighters. The White House estimated that 190 million acres of federal forests and range lands in the lower 48 states face "high risks of catastrophic fire" due to drought and other adverse conditions. - Reuters

NYT can't see the forest for the trees

Bush Plan To Target 'Fire Crisis' - President Bush plans Thursday to propose a new strategy to lessen risk of the massive wildfires that have scorched the West this summer, by encouraging thinning of small trees, easing regulation of forest management and relying on private companies to carry out more of the work. - Washington Post

Bush, Citing Fires, Will Seek to Ease Laws on Logging - President Bush will ask Congress to relax environmental laws so the timber industry can step up logging across millions of acres of national forest land increasingly prone to devastating wildfires, senior administration officials said today. - New York Times

While the New York Times is busy obfuscating the truth they admit, albeit in the 19th paragraph...

Mr. Daschle inserted language into an emergency bill that allowed for bypassing the federal law to speed a forest-thinning program in his home state.

Isn't it a bit disingenuous to imply irresponsibility on the part of the Bush administration for extending this relief to the entire country, when Daschle has ceded the moral point and wrangled the very same relief for his constituents? Where was the outrage then? Wouldn't a "special interest" move such as Daschle's normally merit the full wrath of the NYT?

Amen!

When Glenn Reynolds links to a piece there is, usually, little reason for other bloggers to duplicate the effort. He is the Blogosphere's cup of coffee. We're all just afternoon snacks. Once in a while, though, we find the exception. Such is the case here.[excerpt below] Kudos, John Hawkins- the Blogosphere has given you a standing "O".

So how the hell did we end up with our fingers in every bowl of soup from Bahrain to Brazil? It's because we're not content to sit around on our behinds while the entire planet collapses without us. If we actually did kick back in our hammocks for a ten-year rest the Middle East would explode, Taiwan would get swallowed by China and France and Germany would probably be at each other's throats again. Hell, if we took twenty years off it wouldn't surprise me to look at a map and see nothing but a giant swath of China red covering all of Europe, skulls & crossbones covering all of Africa, and nothing but a green patch with the words 'Forbidden Zone' where the Middle East used to be. We're the only thing keeping the planet from reverting back to an early 1800's style plunder, war, and rampage philosophy.

Abu Nidal, September 11 and Saddam

More on Abu Nidal from Opinion Journal. Most of the articles I've read(incl. this link) are pushing the Iraq theory- based primarily on the premise that Nidal could provide damning intel on Saddam and his links to terror. [Elephant-sized caveat coming] If we could get him alive.
This would have been a very tricky proposition, given his Baghdad digs, and might still have proved fruitless were he to clam up upon extraction. Hussein could have killed the ailing Nidal whenever he wished- what purpose did it serve to kill him now? Saddam could have kept him as a potential bargaining chip(many different groups would've liked to have nabbed Nidal)- why eliminate a potential asset when he's under your control? If Iraq did carry out the killing, it would have been to gain something more than liquidation of a potential leak. The question is, what?

This week on E!

Drudge linked to this piece, undoubtedly, for the rock star angle. He can't resist celebrity news bits. "Jacko's Nose Sliding Off Face...DEVELOPING...". As for Reuters? I get the distinct impression that they take these blokes seriously...

"The pressure needs to be put on (Prime Minister) Tony Blair," Elbow lead singer Guy Garvey told Reuters on Tuesday, referring to Blair's refusal to rule out British involvement in a possible invasion.

"People have to realize innocent people are dying in their name," he added. "He (Blair) needs to know he won't be elected again if he keeps doing this."

Pollsters NOP found recently that 52 percent of Britons oppose military action against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Music Web site www.nme.com quoted Blur vocalist Damon Albarn as saying: "There has to be public debate about this. We need a democratic discussion about the rights and wrongs of going to war.

Music Web sites, lead singers, President Saddam Hussein? Reuters is, officially, scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Greener Pastures

The time has come for a move, folks. Velvet Hammers will soon be leaving Blogger/blogspot for greener pastures. More details in the next few days- until then, keep using this address.

Who killed Abu?

So who killed Abu Nidal? There are two possibilities, that I can think of, which pass the smell test...

1. The Mossad orchestrated the killing. If so, they are even better than I thought- jobs inside Iraq are very difficult to pull off.

2. The Kurdish opposition took him out. It is possible that the Kurds performed this killing to send a message to the US- We're capable of striking serious blows. Don't underestimate us, help us!

Both are viable at this point. Look for US pronouncements of support for the Kurds in the coming days- anything resembling a further commitment to this group will signal a message happily received. In the Mossad scenario, it's doubtful we'll hear anything "official" from Israel or the US. Why give away any hint of such well-placed assets?

UPDATE: Jerusalem Post thinks the Palestinians are behind it. Debka has headlines blaming Saddam.

India - tabloid fantasy

Between Monkey-men and face-scratching aliens, India has had it's hands full lately. What's next, the Chupacabra?

Reuters' "objectivity"

Compare these three headlines...

Terror Leader Abu Nidal Found Dead - Associated Press
Terror Leader Is Dead, Palestinian Reports Say - New York Times
Palestinian Guerrilla Chief Abu Nidal Dead-Sources - Reuters

Guerrilla Chief? Even the Grey Lady gets this one right. Wake up, Reuters; you're fooling no one.

Funding decision links

AHA! Middle East Newsline, through World Tribune, ties together the two decisions...

Earlier this year, Rep. Tom Lantos launched an effort to review U.S. military aid to Egypt in an attempt to slash the annual allocation. Congressional sources said Lantos and some of his colleagues want to reduce U.S. military aid to Egypt by at least $100 million. They said one option could be a reduction in both Israeli and Egyptian military aid to maintain balance.[Emphasis mine]

Penny-pinching disguised as policy? Or a little bit of both?

Israel joins Egypt in the penalty box

First Egypt, now Israel. DEBKA is reporting that...

The Bush administration, which only last month sought $200m in special counter-terror aid for Israel, has just suspended its allocation.
This underplayed news tidbit reflects an element of displeasure, according to DEBKAfile’s Washington sources, at the latest trends at the top of Israeli politics - chiefly the resurgence of the pro-Oslo camp with fresh demands for concessions and dialogue with Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority and a new left-wing challenger for the Labor party leadership against defense minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer, Haifa mayor Amram Mitzna. This former army general, 57, promises if elected to take Labor out of Ariel Sharon’s unity government and open unconditional negotiations with the Palestinians, failing which he will effect a unilateral Israeli withdrawal (he does not say to which boundaries), together with the removal of all Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip and most from the West Bank.

This explanation seems more plausible than the one given for withholding funds from Egypt. Question is, considering the timing and similarity of the two decisions, are they somehow related? Could this be the beginning of a Bush plan to start holding allies more accountable? Any other decisions like this one come down in the coming week and we'll have our answer.

Comments are down for awhile- something wrong with the Enetation server. Hope to have it back on-line in a day or so.

What's Cairo been up to?

STRATFOR is reporting on the decision to withhold further aid from Egypt...

What is particularly striking is that the U.S. government did not actually cut off aid or stop any other sort of cooperation. Its announcement was a purely symbolic act. A logical audience for such a gesture would be the international human rights community, but the Bush administration is not particularly sensitive to its feelings, and if it were, Egypt is probably the last country it would make an example of at a time when an attack on Iraq may be in the works.

Clearly something has gone wrong in U.S.-Egyptian relations. Washington is signaling to Egypt that Cairo is not indispensable, or at the very least, that Cairo is pushing the limits of its relationship with the United States. A public scorching of a key ally is not done without due consideration and careful planning. The only thing missing is the explanation: What has Cairo done to so upset the United States that it would take this step?

Stay tuned...