Proactively “From the Sea”; an agent of change leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case to synergize a consistent design in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.
A top counter-insurgency expert says Pakistan is not a "lost cause" but without wholesale change the country risks spiralling into lawlessness.
Australian David Kilcullen was the senior adviser to US General David Petraeus and helped engineer the surge strategy that resulted in a record drop in violence in Iraq.
"I don't think it's [Pakistan] lost. We still have enormous support in some ways in Pakistan ... the population is very much opposed to militancy in the main," he told ABC Radio's PM program.
"But I do think we do need to see a fairly wholesale change of heart coming from the Pakistani military before we're likely to see much difference on the ground."
Lieutenant Colonel Kilcullen, a former theorist of asymmetrical warfare in the Australian Army, says while the international focus has shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan, Pakistan is central to security concerns within in the region.
"I think it's not an exaggeration to say that Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world today," he said.
"In certainly in terms of counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency problems, it is the problem that most worries me and I think that should most worry Western policy makers."
'Losing control' He says the size of the country and its nuclear capabilities create a unique set of problems for Western countries.
"Pakistan is a very developed country, there's a Pakistani Diaspora across most other countries in Europe and North and South America and it has more than 100 nuclear weapons," he said.
"The government is progressively losing control of its own population and territory. And you've got Al Qaeda sitting right in the middle of the country so it's a very, very significant problem."
The counter-insurgency expert says the problems in Pakistan are compounded by a lack of direct access and diverging priorities within the Pakistani security agencies.
"We don't have a lot of ability to influence the situation in Pakistan and frankly there are elements in the Pakistani military and intelligence services who are on the other side," he said.
We all know the ship side of the house has sold its virtue and confused the rest ... and since the Tomcat, I don't think we have done well at all.
It can make for good blogg'n though; remember the poor EA-18G "Growler vs. Shocker" issue? Well, as expected, from the operational attitude that gave the A-10 "Warthog" - I think the pointy end has fixed the problem.
The Navy’s EA-18G Growler has a new name — at least on the radio.
The new electronic attack aircraft that joined the fleet last year will be known as a “Grizzly” on carrier decks worldwide.
The nickname “Growler” sounds too much like the EA-6B “Prowler,” its electronic attack predecessor, and the Navy wanted to avoid any confusion on flight decks.
“The names ‘Growler’ and ‘Prowler’ were too close to be safe,” said Kim Martin, a Navy spokeswoman at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Wash.
“ ‘Grizzly’ is a name that doesn’t sound like any other name,” she said.
The Boeing-made aircraft will continue on with Growler as its primary nickname. It will be known as a Grizzly only in operational situations.
The usage will be similar to the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets’ operational moniker, the “Rhino.”
Elvis Costello has a new alblum out (that is a collection of songs for the MP3 generation) - well worth the ponder.
When he isn't pounding creationists, the EuroFasctistFlirts, and the excitable parts of the American Right (along with Moonbats and IslamoFascist terrorists and their fellow travelers I might add) - his home at LGF always has good music recommendations.
Now no one should be surprised that a service that suffered 40 years of nearly nonstop decline has arrived in its present condition. The signs were apparent for years even to the casual observer. Journalists, analysts, consultants, and, yes, even insiders with the temerity to buck the system pointed out that the Navy's shipbuilding program was flawed and that the service was playing itself to an inevitable endgame. It had too many Admirals demanding new design and specification changes, buzz-phrase laden trendy ideas-of-the-day, and executive attention to changing an image scarred by past problems with candor. It couldn't sell the handiwork of its outsize network of defense contractors and consultants. Unrealistic and unsustainable contracts made an affordable fleet all but impossible.
Why couldn't The Pentagon, Congress, and the CNO's Staff see what was coming? Blame a combination of hubris, myopia, and short-term thinking. During my 10 years of covering the Navy, I heard plenty of explanations from Navy insiders of why its business model couldn't be dismantled: It's too expensive to fight congress and industry lobbyists, so we shouldn't even try.
Apologies to David Welsh, but all I did was change a few descriptive nouns from his article in Der Spiegel on GM, A View from the Back Seat.
This is an exceptionally good article to help not just understand what happened to GM, but to get some insight into the myopia and tunnel vision that those at the top of very large and complex organizations can find themselves in. If you don't have the right people with the right vision - you find yourself painted in a corner that traditional ideas simply are not going to fix.It is also an interesting look into common problems. In the article you will hear a few things like "group think," "retiree pensions and health care," and "underinvesting" that will have you nodd'n your nogg'n in understanding.
We all know that like GM, the Navy has some very good, very smart people trying their best to set priorities as they see them to fix a very hard problem. In that light, this should strike a chord,
What was frustratingly absent was the will among management and labor leaders to see what was coming and embrace real change before it was too late.
It isn't enough to have good and smart - you need good and smart combined with correct ideas and will to engage the sharp pointy things and ignore the distractions and the seduction of the short term feel good.
There reaches the point though that even if you have the right guys in the right places, without top cover and an overarching strategy that is feasible - you still find yourself sinking.
When former Chrysler star Lutz emerged from retirement in September 2001 to join the company as vice-chairman, it was common industry wisdom that GM's cars and trucks suffered from the corners that were cut on GM's product decisions by bean counters and manufacturing gurus. ... Blame Wagoner if you want. But he inherited many of these problems and was making some of the right moves before he was fired. He couldn't get the company and those who depended on it to make enough sacrifices to get the job done. However, even an outsider like Bob Nardelli, a lauded cost-cutter who came to Chrysler after turns at General Electric and Home Depot, found few options in Detroit.
Here is a question; is there a parallel between the path of the USN over the last two decades and that of GM of the last four?
If the Navy version of the corporate bankruptcy is the final chapter of a story that leads to catastrophic loss at sea such as The Battle of Midway or The Battle of Tsushima, then we can all agree that we are not yet at the final chapter.
Like GM in 2004 though, are we in the penultimate chapter, or are we still early on enough in the book to fix the cancer that is growing apace? Hard question.One selfish note, if you did not catch the bold part of the first quote - I think that overlaps most of the "what use are bloggers" ven diagram. Methinks.
For obvious reasons, this hits home. Publius of ObsidianWings isn't a "blog buddy" by any stretch, but he WAS an anonoblogger like me, for reasons like mine.
Well, Ed Whelan over at NRO decided because he didn't like him he would out him. Nasty business, and it is obvious that Ed does not understand what blogg'n is. It isn't reporting, it isn't journalism - it is blogg'n.
I'll let you read the details from the left and the right. There is ongoing commentary at The Corner as well that you can follow. Volokh here. Instapundit here, and Cap'n Ed at Hot Air here. Greyhawk is on target here.
I have watched the outing of other anonbloggers and know the type that like to out. With the exception of those who deserve outing, those who out normal anonobloggers are usually thin skinned, envy filled @55h@les who would rather destroy someone else than let their ideas succeed in the marketplace of ideas. The personality of outers are just a smidge close to trolls; same angry, bitter, dead-tree focused people. I don't think Ed is like that -- I just think he let Publius live rent free in his head too long.
Ed may have had some complaints, but they were petty and he let Publius get under his skin and to behave worse then the complaints he had about Publius. He did not understand the reasons for anonoblogg'n and the second and third level effects of the outing - people have their reasons. What an incredibly selfish act of intellectual vandalism outing is -- and I believe is in this case.
One thing about blogg'n is that it is fairly well self regulating. If you and your ideas are wrong or just plain boring, you don't get much readership. If your ideas or wrong or bad, they are discredited with more speech by others. The truth shows itself. Lies are proven lies by truth. Lies die.
When I started blogg'n, I made some mistakes and overreached in my anonymity - mostly out of not sourcing correctly, i.e. being lazy (too trusting and new at this sport in '04 'ya know). I apologized and deleted the posts and moved on mad at myself. Now days, there is nothing I post that I would hang my head in shame at. There are reasons to out a blogger though.
A blogger that intentionally and with known wrong information sets out to destroy someone, probably deserves to be outed. Same with a stalker. Someone that breaks OPSEC or other legal laws, sure, out them. Someone who makes and error, is given unquestionable evidence and refuses to make a correction in a troll like manner, probably. Besides that, outing just because you don't like the guys ideas or that he makes you uncomfortable with his criticism is just lame. Outing someone because you can't take the rough and tumble of the sharp elbowed marketplace of ideas (where people have a right to be wrong) is just lame ---- I think Ed is closer to this.
If you out though, be careful. You will draw fire on your own position.
Anonoblogg'n has a long tradition in our culture back to the pamphleteers and The Federalist Papers. No problem with it -- neither should anyone else who likes free speech.
Will I be anon forever? No; but as long as I wish not to provide a distraction for my Sailors and want to avoid bothering my ISIC; Buddhah willing I will be.
There will be a time and a place when I will break cover, but now is not that time. Hopefully it will be at a time and place of my choosing; sooner more than later. I think I have been fair enough to my critics that no one balanced will feel the need to throw a snit, but who knows. For every nasty email I get, I get 100 that are nice. For every nasty email I get about a post, I get 10 that "disagree without discord." I think my front porch doesn't get people all batty ... except for the Diversity Bullies, they are the nastiest.
Anyway, hopefully fate will allow me to come out at a time of my choosing. If not, bad on you.
