Stromata Blog

Desktop Fusion

Transterrestrial Musings has an interesting report on Inertial Electrostatic Confinement, a technique that "uses two (or more) nested spherical grids charged to a high relative voltage to accelerate ions towards the common center of the grids, where they collide and fuse". It is still a long way from being a practicable method of power generation but has a number of promising features:

From a purely technological standpoint IEC is attractive because it does not use magnets, so the power requirements are a lot lower than many other fusion schemes. IEC devices are also compact (grid sizes are 1 to 15 cm in radius), which makes experiments much easier to perform. More interesting to me is that IEC devices are evolvable along an economically viable path. IEC devices are already being sold commercially as neutron sources (see the overview pdf from the US-Japan conference [Madison, Wisconsin, October 2002] I linked to above for one example). If the market for neutron sources expands (which it may well, since neutron assay is a very convenient way of remotely detecting the elemental composition of things, particularly convenient if you are looking for nuclear contraband), then companies doing IEC can have a near term revenue stream to fund further development.

Another nice feature of IEC is that the startup costs are relatively small, so that even amateurs can build primitive IEC devices.

Though the author is careful to add, "It's not necessarily a great idea to build neutron sources at home."

Maybe (probably) nothing widely useful will come of IEC, but I really like the idea of putting a fusion reactor on top of my desk!

A New Abu Ghraib Theory

This from a fellow wandering up Michigan Avenue with a bullhorn this afternoon: Russian communists masquerading as American soldiers have infiltrated Iraq, where they commit atrocities in order to smear the reputation of the United States, drive us out and take over the country's oil resources.

Do I believe that idea? Not a jot or tittle of it. But, were it at all serviceable to the Left, you may be sure that Michael Moore would have featured it in Fahrenheit 9/11, than which it is not materially less sane.

The Meaning of "Lost"

Former economist Paul Krugman's column for yesterday's New York Times, a typically bilious screed entitled "Who Lost Iraq?", drew unusual attention from the right side of the blogosphere for its swipes at Ari Fleischer's brother and Michael Ledeen's daughter, whom it accused of using nepotism to get jobs with the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. As David Frum, who knows Miss Ledeen personally, put it,

I have to say that I am stunned by the implication that working in Iraq is some kind of sinecure that one obtains by wire-pulling. I wonder how many of Krugman’s dinner party pals are badgering their political connections to get their children internships in Baghdad? Simone Ledeen risked her life in Iraq for her her country. One of her best friends was killed by a car bomb. She herself was frequently fired upon. I can attest first hand that her insights into the situation in Iraq were both shrewd and sensitive. Her intelligence and courage and idealism are the virtues that wartime America most desperately needs.

On other days, Krugman joins those who sneer that advocates of the war in Iraq have not taken risks themselves or that their children have shirked the front line. This is absurd in itself, for in a terror war, we are all on the front line. In Michael Ledeen’s case, it is doubly absurd, for of his three children, one is Simone and another is an officer in the Marine Reserves.

Krugman's journalistic career has for a long time been a long exploration of the different ways a writer might disgrace himself. Yesterday, he may have at last hit bottom: an attack on a gallant young person who volunteered for hazardous duty in the nation’s service. But give the man this: He's persistent. And I'm sure he'll keep digging.

The absurd insult is only one of Krugman's minor points. The major one is summed up in his title: Iraq has been "lost", and the time has come to apportion blame. Predictably it goes to "neoconservative" zeal to bring low taxes, low tariffs and a flourishing private sector to the country.

Mr. Krugman does not, however, explain in what sense he thinks that "lost" is le mot juste for Iraq. Historically, the charge of "losing" a country has been brought forward when a formerly friendly government was overthrown by a hostile one, as in China after World War II, Cuba in 1959 or Iran in 1979. Is that what has happened in Iraq? A vehemently hostile regime, one that tried to assassinate a former U.S. President, fired missiles daily at American aircraft, funded the anti-American Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorist groups and erected murals celebrating 9/11 (to select just a few unfriendly acts), has given way to one that is overtly pro-American.

The worst that can be said about the situation is that the new government faces armed opposition, every misdeed of which commands headlines — often tinged with little-disguised admiration — throughout the Western world. Imagine, however, that the sides were reversed, that an anti-American government were facing similar resistance from pro-Westerners. If those hypothetical rebels were as ineffectual as the real-world ones, commentators would, quite rightly, deride them. Roadside bombs and occasional mortar salvos can inflict small quantities of death and destruction, but they are no substitute for successfully attacking troops and gaining territory. The only way that the terrorists can seize power in Iraq is if, first, the United States and its allies withdraw and, second, foreign governments provide enough aid to make it possible for them to win a civil war. If those misfortunes occur, it will make sense to ask, "Who Lost Iraq?". The answer will not be, those who supported its liberation.

Further Reading: Robert L. Pollack, "Half-Full in Iraq":

. . . if the past year couldn't drive Iraq into chaos — and despite what you see on the event-driven nightly news reports, it hasn't come close — probably nothing will. Iraqis have weathered a diabolical campaign of sectarian terror aimed at pitting them against each other; an attempt by a renegade cleric to turn Iraq's Shiite majority against the coalition; and some serious missteps by the occupying powers. If more Americans are having second thoughts about whether the war was worth it, there's little such sentiment in Baghdad. "Saddam Hussein's regime was a car bomb every day," says Barham Salih, the new deputy prime minister. "We can all complain about the uncertainty, but we cannot forget about where we came from." Interim President Ghazi Yawer concurs, describing the past year as "90% good" and only "10% bad" — "we got rid of the most vicious regime."

Better Late Than Never

The Daily Telegraph reports that Pope John Paul II has apologized to the Patriarch of Constantinople for the Latin capture and sack of the city in 1204 A.D.: "We cannot forget what happened in the month of April 1204. How can we not share, at a distance of eight centuries, the pain and disgust?"

If I may take the liberty of quoting an item that I posted on April 13, 2004:

Today is the anniversary (ignoring the nuisance of calendar changes) of one of the key events in the long conflict between Islam and the West. On April 13, 1204, the army of the Fourth Crusade captured Constantinople and embarked on three days of pillage. This self-inflicted wound on Christendom made it impossible to take advantage of a century of internecine strife within the House of Islam and ended the Byzantine Empire as a Mediterranean power. It may well be that Americans are fighting in Iraq today because a Flemish knight seized the throne of Constantine 800 years ago.

Recommended reading: Donald E. Queller & Thomas F. Madden, The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople, a fair and balanced presentation of an event that arouses strong emotions to this day

A Free Pass for Zarqawi?

At the Volokh Conspiracy, Jacob Levy raises a question about one of the few accusations against the Bush Administration that the media haven't flogged to within an inch of its life:

Has there ever, in the four months since it broke, been a refutation of, an official response to, or even a developed conservative talking point on the story [NBC Nightly News, 3/2/04] that Pentagon plans to take out Zarqawi before the Iraq war were vetoed by the White House, because Zarqawi was more convenient as a living terrorist in Iraq who could help justify the war? . . .

At the time this seemed to me a huge, terrible story. Given a possibility for real pre-emption against one of the worst terrorists out there, the administration said no, for bad reasons. And many hundreds have since died at that terrorist's hands or under his orders.

It was the sort of thing that, had it been asserted by The Nation or Michael Moore or Wesley Clark, would have been trumpeted by the right as evidence of the unhinged conspiratorial thinking of the left. Reported and (apprently reliably though in part anonymously) sourced by NBC, it went, as far as I can tell, entirely unanswered, but also almost entirely unnoticed. At first I assumed that it was so extreme and appalling a claim that there was almost certainly a credible counter-story or at least contrary interpretation to be offered. But I never saw it.

Several points need to be made:

1. Mr. Levy overinterprets his source. What NBC actually said about the motivation for the alleged failure to take out Zarqawi was this:

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

Mr. Cressey (a former top aide to anti-Bush zealot Richard Clarke and therefore possibly not an unbiased commentator) doesn't assert that Zarqawi was left alive as a justification for the war but that an attack on him was regarded as inconsistent with putting together an anti-Saddam coalition. In other words, a preemptive American strike against a target in Iraqi territory, without visible provocation, might have upset governments like France, Germany, Russia and Turkey, which we were then trying to persuade to join our side. Hence, the moral of this story, if it is true, is that it was a mistake to let Jacques Chirac's velleities influence our actions.

2. The story was in fact denied promptly by a responsible official. The day after it was broadcast, a Democratic Congressman questioned Peter Rodman, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, about it and suggested that the motive for inaction was to create an argument in favor of invading Iraq. Here is Secretary Rodman's response [from the FDCH transcript on Nexis; I don't have a Web link]:

I do know something about the planning. We had our eye on that location, Kirma. But I'm not sure I agree with the characterization of the decisions that were made. Any kind of operation is complicated. And I do know that we had our eye on that location. There were discussions in the administration. And obviously no attack was made.

But I don't recall anyone discussing on either side of the discussion anyone saying, well, no, we don't want to do this because it will interfere with a plan to go after Saddam. I mean, you could have made the opposite argument that it would — if we had found something interesting there, it would have — could have strengthened our case.

3. During the past several months, Mr. Cressey has been quoted at least 20 times in the media in connection with Zarqawi. Not once has he repeated the NBC claim. It should be noted that, if one reads the story carefully, one sees that he is not cited as one of its sources. Instead, he is called on the explain the motivation for a decision that he may, for all one can tell, have known about only at second hand. By all accounts, his boss, Richard Clarke, and presumably he himself, were by that time out of the main anti-terrorism loop, concentrating on the risks of attacks against the Internet.

In retrospect, almost any action to kill or capture Zarqawi would have been justified. There may or may not have been golden opportunities to do so in the second half of 2002, but the reasons for missing them were not, so far as one can tell from the public record, sinister or discreditable.

Update: Jacob Levy has commented on various responses to his request for "conservative talking points" on this incident. Regarding Secretary Rodman's denial, he says that it isn't "particularly decisive". There he seems to me to be mistaken. If the Administration's principal motive for not attacking Zarqawi's camp was a desire to keep him alive as a debating point, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs would surely have at least heard that argument bandied about. One is free, of course, to disbelieve the witness, but, if his testimony is accepted as truthful, it seems to dispose of the notion that the White House regarded Zarqawi as "more convenient as a living terrorist in Iraq who could help justify the war". (Incidentally, while Zarqawi's association with Saddam Hussein was part of the Administration's casus belli, it was a secondary part, not the linchpin that it becomes in some of the leftist versions of this tale. Rendering it moot would not, in the eyes of any Administration partisan, have weakened the case for getting rid of the Ba'athist thugs.)

I am not the only one to observe that the theory actually propounded in the original NBC story was that the Administration feared that an attack on Zarqawi would interfere with assembling an anti-Saddam coalition. Professor Levy notes the point but thinks that the speculative hope of gaining additional allies should have given way to a concrete opportunity to nail a leading terrorist. I agree with him there, but he fails to distinguish between that motive, which would have been simply a tactical blunder (at least in retrospect) and the one that he first hypothesized, which would have been dangerous and dishonorable.

"The U.S. is Winning"

The American Thinker doesn't provide a link to the following paragraph's source (apparently a subscription-only French site), but it is worth considering amidst the daily wails about the situation in Iraq.

Antoine Sfeir [editor-in-chief of Les Cahiers de l'Orient], one of the leading experts of the Arab world, who cannot, according to himself, be considered as a pro-American individual, just came back from Iraq. He affirmed that there is no quagmire and that he thinks that the US is winning the battle of Iraq. He is tired of people in the European media claiming that Iraq is the New Vietnam or Somalia. He added that Iraqis are living their lives and making do, and are especially happy to be rid of Saddam.

The same post recounts an incident, reported by staunchly anti-American Le Monde, that doesn't fit the Angry Left paradigm: A man from Saddam Hussein's home town of Tikrit risked his life to save four wounded American soldiers. The paper quotes him thus:

The Americans did not, after all, come alone to Iraq. They were supported by four million Iraqis in exile and by millions here. The proof is that no one fought to defend Saddam Hussein. Today an honorable Iraqi citizen can only desire the departure of the Americans and the end of the occupation. But I believe that we must help them withdraw in peace. The guerillas just destroy. They undermine all of the efforts to reconstruct Iraq.

Less Than Worthwhile Canadian Result

Experts like David Frum can divine the True Meaning of today's Canadian elections, which the Conservatives entered with what now appear to have been extravagant hopes. There was talk of a Parliamentary majority for the reunited CPC. Instead, the party won about 95 (out of 308) seats and about exactly 30 percent of the popular vote. The Liberals, despite impressive scandals, held onto a plurality, c. 135 seats and a 37 percent vote share. They'll be able to form a government with the socialist New Democratic Party (22 seats, 15 percent), and we can expect our northern neighbor to move further and faster toward a Third World political stance. It is already the first Western country to grant legal jurisdiction (limited but effective within the Moslem community) to shari'a courts. Likewise, the economic regime will likely tend toward higher taxes, more welfare and fewer incentives for progress. From the narrowly selfish American point of view, we can look forward to an increasing trickle of Canada's best and brightest across our common border.

A tiny company called 80 Dimensional Software brought out a Canadian election computer game, oddly named Prime Minister Forever (as if this poll would be the last), just a couple of weeks ago (only $11.99, with the promise of a free Australian add-on in the near future). Two playings prepared me for disappointment this evening. In the first, my Conservatives got all the breaks: bad economic news and almost continual Liberal scandals − which yielded a plurality of 116 seats but brought me nowhere near the 155 needed to govern. In the second, I was confident of my chances, having deciphered a few of the secrets of successful campaigning, and strategized astutely enough to gain the coveted "Big Mo" in the final week. But the economy was strong, the scandals were weak, and I got only 88 seats to the Liberals' 130. A good game; I wish that it had proven less accurate as a prognosticator.

Update: The final results: Liberals 135 (36.7%), Conservatives 99 (29.6%), Bloc Québécois 54 (12.4% [contested seats only in Quebec, where they won 48.8% of the popular vote]), New Democrats 19 (15.7%), unaffiliated 1. The combined Liberals and NDP thus fall one vote short of a majority, which will roil Paul Martin's life. David Frum is philosophical: "Canadian conservatives have become so used to heartbreak that mere disappointment can feel almost like good news."

Bill Clinton: Closet Homophobe?

The Wall Street Journal's subscription-only Political Diary has a fascinating trivium about Bill Clinton's contribution to weightlifting apparatus. A homosexual friend of co-editor John Fund started perusing the index to see what the ex-President had to say about various "gay" members of his Adminstration and found − nothing.

He reports that all the major gay players who served in the Clinton administration go unmentioned in the book. "I stumbled across this when I wanted to find out what President Clinton had to say about David Mixner, his most famous openly gay aide. No mention of Mixner, even though he played a significant role in Clinton's life and presidency and the book tosses thousands of names around like confetti."

My friend also checked for mention of James Hormel − whom Clinton appointed as ambassador to Luxembourg, creating a major political dispute in Congress. Nothing. Then Roberta Achtenberg, the first openly gay person to win a Senate confirmation vote. No mention. Bob Hattoy, a White House personnel aide. No mention. Richard Socarides, a special assistant to Mr. Clinton on gay issues. Nada. Keith Boykin, an aide who set up the first meeting between a sitting president and gay and lesbian leaders. Zip. The list goes on and on, and so does Mr. Clinton's failure to mention any of his gay appointees.

Omitting to specify officials' sexual preferences would be sensible, but the men and women themselves have vanished in a remarkable "straightening" of the Clinton Presidency. I won't speculate on why or how this purge happened, but it is certainly curious.

The CPA's Side of the Story

You won't see it treated seriously in your local newspaper, and parts are doubtless painted in rosy hues, but, as the interim Iraqi government takes over from the Coalition Provisional Authority, it is constructive to review the CPA's own account of its tenure. As a baseline, here is a comparison of the accomplishments of the Allied occupation authorities in Germany after World War II.

Selected points of interest from the CPA document:

• Despite the fact that for so many years police were feared as political weapons of the former regime, public trust in Iraqi police is on the rise. A recent survey conducted by the US State Department Office of Research, shows that nearly 80 percent of Iraqis feel that, in general, local Iraqi police are trusted by most members of their communities. A percentage almost as large – 70 percent – believe that local Iraqi police are accessible to help resolve problems.

• Most schools throughout Iraq were open very shortly after liberation allowing for the administration of the critically important national exams in June 2003.

• Textbooks were revised and propaganda was removed. More than 8 million new, propaganda free textbooks had been printed last year. With the announcement of the new World Bank grant, 72 million new text books will be purchased for the coming year

• Pre-conflict, there was limited service, with 3,000 Internet and 8,000 e-mail only accounts in 2002. In 2003, there were 5,000 Internet and 10,000 e-mail only subscribers. By January 1, 2004, there were 12,372 accounts, with both e-mail and Internet access. As of June 11, there are 60,000 users.

• There are now 788,682 active landline telephone subscribers in Iraq, compared to 833,000 subscribers pre-war. The total number of telephone subscribers in Iraq, including the cell phone subscribers is 1,245,509 which is 49.5 percent greater than the number of active landline subscribers pre-war. Cell phone service was very limited pre-conflict. . . . Cell phones are selling at the rate of over 15,000 per week. Demand has outstripped supply. Consumers are placing deposits just to reserve a spot on the next shipment of phones.

• On June 20, 2004, the Coalition reached a record high electrical peak, surpassing the 4,900 MW mark for the first time – a full 10% increase above pre-war levels. And while Iraq’s peak electricity output is soaring past pre-war levels, the MW hours have also increased substantially to over 103,000. This means that more people are receiving more power across the grid daily. And, because the Coalition and the Ministry have spent more than a year rebuilding Iraq’s neglected electrical infrastructure, the system is now far more stable than before. With multiple redundancy systems in place, pre-war blackouts that could once take weeks to fix are in many cases returned to service within hours.

• With more than half a million new jobs created, new industries and new factories coming on line and with the sale of thousands of home appliances such as washing machines and air conditioners, Iraq has experienced a rapid increase in electricity demand. The increase in demand is a good sign of a thriving economy emerging out from three decades of isolation. As demand continues to increase, the Ministry of Electricity will continue to work to increase the nation’s available power. Nearly one billion dollars has already been allocated with several billion more coming from Congress to help improve the supply of electricity throughout Iraq.

• The number of locomotives available for service has more than doubled, not counting over twenty new locomotives received in the past year.

• Iraq's 2004 budget for health care is $950 million. ($40 per person). Saddam Hussein's regime provided only $16 million for the Ministry of Health in 2002 (less than $0.75 per person). The entire country is at pre-war capabilities for providing health care - 240 Iraqi hospitals and more than 1,200 primary health centers are operating. Doctors' salaries have increased to between $120 a month and $180 a month, in comparison to $20 a month before the war.

• The Ministry [of Health] is working to immunize the country's 4.2 million children under the age of five against preventable diseases such as polio, tetanus, diphtheria, measles, and tuberculosis. More than 30 million doses of children's vaccinations have been procured and distributed. Routine vaccinations are available to newborns, children, and mothers every day at Ministry of Health facilities across the country and are promoted nationally through immunization days on the 22nd of each month.

• Oil production: Production capacity has exceeded pre-conflict levels and currently stands at approximately 2.5 MBPD [million barrels per day, 25% above the 2002 level] with a year-end objective of 2.8-3.0 MBPD. . . . Daily exports have exceeded pre-conflict levels and are averaging 1.65 MBPD. Daily export income averages approximately $55 million. As of the 30 June, crude oil export revenue is estimated to reach $7.9 billion for the first six-months of 2004 and $15 billion for the full year. Iraq met rising demand for benzene, diesel, kerosene and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) despite sabotage, an aggressive insurgency, and obsolete refineries.

Perhaps the "Iraq is a mess" meme needs, if not retirement, at least a considerable degree of refinement.

Further Reading: Arthur Chrenkoff, "Good News from Iraq" - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5

Michele Catalano, "Words from Iraqis on This Day"

Divorced from Reality

Tit for tat being a fundamental principle of political action, it isn't surprising that a clamor is now rising for access to John Kerry's sealed divorce records. After Republican Jack Ryan was driven from the Illinois Senate race by the disclosure of (uncorroborated and implausible) charges made by his ex-wife in the course of their divorce proceedings, it is only symmetrical to subject a Democratic candidate to the same ordeal.

Symmetrical – maybe even fair in some sense – but still a bad idea. Divorce testimony, given under emotionally trying circumstances, is notoriously full of half-truths and outright lies. Using it as a basis for form judgements about a man's fitness for high office is folly.

Senator Kerry has been a public figure for at least 33 years, since he returned from Vietnam to charge that American troops routinely committed war crimes and to lend his assistance to the fabricated "Winter Soldier" propaganda stunt. He has a long record of statements and positions, from which I imagine that one can learn all that is pertinent to his character. Adding his first wife's description of how he acted as a husband would not increase our knowledge, nor does it seem at all humane and reasonable to subject the woman to a public controversy about the accuracy of what she said in court years ago. We can only hope the the Massachusetts judiciary (in which there is, alas, little reason for confidence) will let this sleeping dog slumber in peace.