Talking Down to Parents

A new PR campaign for the US military is targeting nervous parents of would-be recruits. Check out the film clips on this website:


Noah Schatman at Danger Room has a few choice words about all this:

The new website is strangely silent about the biggest, most obvious worry a recruit's mom or dad might have about military service: Overseas combat.

[Instead,] TodaysMilitary.com's "questions to ask a recruiter" include pressing issues like "Can two friends go through Basic Training at the same time?" and "Do women receive 'military haircuts' too?"... The website also features a set of "Myths vs. Realities." One typical "Myth": "Military food is bland and unappealing." The "reality":

1) Modern military meals are varied and nutritionally balanced.

2) Options include hot and cold meals and even popular fast-food chains.

3) Food is similar to college cafeterias and is prepared by professional chefs...."

What an insult to the intelligence of American families. Let's keep an eye out and see whether this backfires, like John McCain's negative ad campaign, or if it works to reconstitute families' view of the military as "just another" career option.

The Insect-Drones Are Coming!

No joke:

It may seem like a futuristic arcade game, but a scene from an Air Force animated video shows a new wave in military strategy. The scene goes like this: Bad guys are being shadowed from a careful distance by small robotic drones designed to resemble birds and insects. When one of the bad guys opens his apartment door, a tiny robo-bug — looking like a garage door opener with wings — sneaks in to spy. In another scene, a robo-bug creeps into a sniper’s roost and delivers a deadly shot.

Air Force officials think Micro Air Vehicles, or MAVs, could be a significant part of the Defense Department’s arsenal in the not-so-distant future. Civilian researchers and airmen at the Air Force Research Laboratory, based at this installation outside Dayton, Ohio, have set a 2015 deadline to roll out the first generation of tiny drones. This first group, they hope, will be the size of birds and be able to operate several days without recharging.

Britain’s Special Forces have tested a 28-inch-long MAV, called the Wasp, on reconnaissance missions in Afghanistan. Last year, the U.S. Marines placed a $19.3 million order for the small unmanned aircraft, developed by California-based AeroVironment. The Wasp can be fitted with explosives that could theoretically be used in a surprise attack.

Could this be another healthy step in the so-called "bloodless" revolution in US military doctrine? I think yes, possibly. Little unmanned drones can get into positions that a human sniper couldn't, enabling more discriminate targeting and saving civilian lives on the other side. A solution perhaps to the current and counterproductive strategy of dropping 500 pound bombs from 30,000 feet when trying to take out seven insurgents... They also contribute to force protection. In Iraq small unmanned drones have already been used to identify IEDs.

But I was less heartened when I continued reading this article. I haven't yet acquired and watched the video it's describing, but from the reporter's depiction, Air Force marketing teams are characterizing the military utility of these assets in far from "bloodless" terms:

The marketing video, created by the Air Force scientists to explain their vision, claims the drones would be “unobtrusive, pervasive, lethal.”

Hmm. Not that they would be discriminate. In fact, depending on how they're deployed, they could be quite the opposite, according to Wired Magazine. Furthermore:

Parker added that the use of tiny MAVs could have civilian applications. For example, small unmanned air vehicles could be dispatched into rubble after a natural disaster to search for signs of life.

Hmm, they'd have no military application in protecting civilians and other noncombatants in war zones? For example, dispatching them into rubble after a barracks has been targeted to search for signs of wounded there or in the vicinity? (Which it would then be the responsbility of the US military to treat humanely.) Funny that this is described as an afterthought, and something divorced from military affairs, rather than integral.

My concern is not with the drones - they're likely to be an improvement over existing "precision guided" munitions and reconnaissance methods. My concern is with the military's frame. That their marketing researchers think the best way to sell these assets to the public is by emphasizing their lethality, rather than their precision and humanitarian applications, is a sad sign of the times.

Rethinking Force Protection

A pregnant female Army nurse, 2nd Lt. Holley Wimunc, disappeared last week after her home was set ablaze, shortly after seeking protection against her Marine husband, who allegedly held a gun to her head and threatened suicide. Last weekend, police found her charred body hidden in a shallow grave. This incident follows on the heels of two similar disappearances/murders in the past year: Lance Corporal Maria Frances Lauterbach and Army Spc. Megan Touma.

Robert Paul Reyes at SOP asks:

"Who is responsible for the murder of female soldiers stationed in America? It`s not jihadists who are murdering our women soldiers in the homeland, but jealous lovers or perhaps a serial killer... These murders have some obvious similarities, a special task force should be created to investigate these three cases."

Good idea. Let's look at this in context, though, and not limit the activity of a task force to violence that fits the description of serial criminal activity. Women serving the US military have much to fear from their male compatriots in the field as well. Recall reports in 2006 that female soldiers in Iraq were dying of dehydration. The cause: they refused to drink adequate water in order to avoid using latrines, where they had learned to expect rape and assault by male soldiers. But worse, the US military may be covering up this pattern of abuse. CommonDreams reported in April that the military routinely characterizes female deaths after rape in the military as 'non-combat related injuries' or 'suicide.' In 2007, Helen Benedict published an op-ed in Salon entitled "The Private War on Women Soldiers," in which she quotes a 21-year-old female National Guardsman who had taken to carrying a knife at all times:

"'The knife wasn't for the Iraqis,' she told me. 'It was for the guys on my own side.'"

Half the problem, in other words, is an assumption that "our soldiers" treat women with respect, while it "they" are likely to victimize "our" women. Instead, the media should be reporting on these events in context. International institutions need a comprehensive understanding of gender, militarism, and violence that goes beyond the kind of simplistic assumptions in last month's Security Council resolution. And the US military needs to go beyond launching a serious investigation of these patterns, and also reconsider things like base architecture, waivers for recruits with criminal and violent records, definitions of and rules on reporting assault, and the way it disaggregates its casualty data, in order to realize its goal of a gender integrated military.

Turning Against the Dark Side

Next week, Doubleday Press will publish Jane Mayer's The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals. Friday, the Washington Post reported that the book includes citations to a report from the International Committee of the Red Cross' stating that the CIA's treatment of al-Qaida detainees constituted war crimes.

The newsworthiness of this may not seem obvious to anyone who has followed the US' conduct in the "war on terror." But since the involvement of top government officials has long been cast in doubt by the administration, and since the ICRC is the closest thing outside of an international tribunal to an authoritative voice on international humanitarian law, a document with such far-reaching language is of political and legal significance - even if the document was addressed to the US Government, rather than intended for public consumption or legal precedent.

At Crooks and Liars, there is an extensive discussion of this story in the comments which warrants a close look in itself. In particular, several commenters debate the appropriate response of US citizens in such a context. One of my favorite comments:

"yes, i have hit the pavement in protest, and yes, i have written dozens of letters to government officials, but i have continued to pay my taxes and submit to the authority of a criminal government . . . there is no difference between me and the average german citizen during hitler’s rule...this situation calls for civil disobedience on a massive scale . . . anything less is acquiescence. We probably could just stop paying taxes on a massive scale, but like I said before, I doubt we’re coordinated enough. But I will tell you, as a former IRS employee, if even a few million of us stopped paying taxes, it would cause significant havoc and the IRS doesn’t have the resources to come after that many tax protesters. Truth be told, our taxes don’t really go to pay for government anyway, it goes to pay interest on the debt. Our government is bought on credit through the central banks. We stop paying taxes, then interests is no longer paid, then the central banks will refuse to lend more credit by not being able to sell enough treasury debt to foreign countries to make their reserves. Unfortunately, the value of the dollar would plummet to a little better than gravel, but maybe thats the sort of wake up call this country really needs?...On the other hand, like Hitler’s Germany, some dictator demagogue could come along and unify the huddled masses and make the situation even worse than it is now. But that’s the gamble you take when you’re making history…" -Jo

Read the entire forum here.

On Moral Equivalence: Response to Cleitus

My co-blogger Cleitus the Black is arguing that since "we did it too" we have no right to call "them" on it when "they" do it. I'm glad that he points us to the historical facts about US barbarity.

But two points:

1) It's not true that citizens like myself and Chloe have no right to call the kettle black since the US also has targeted civilians in past wars. First of all, I'm not sure what intel leads Cleitus to be so certain Chloe is a US citizen. Second, the fact that I am doesn't make me guilty of my country's crimes. In fact, I would argue it makes me more responsible for opposing those crimes, not less, which is partly the point of this blog.

2) Since two wrongs don't make a right, I hardly see how any of these arguments invalidate my earlier claim: that we ought to call barbarism what it is. That's as true of the US' enemies as it is of the US. Just as I would call it "war crimes" when engaged in by US troops (because that is a secular term that resonates in the US), I would/will call it harabism when engaged in by Muslims in the name of Islam. Just as "war hero" is inappopriate for US troops who target civilians; "jihadism" is inappropriate for Muslims who kill innocents in the name of their crusade, however justified. I don't need to be an Islamic scholar in order for this to be a legitimate claim. So there.

Crime and What Punishment?

One of the big stories in the world this past week, until Clinton opened her mouth, was the spate of apologies issued by the US Government (first by Brig. Gen. Jeffery W. Hammond and then by President Bush )for a US soldier's use of a Qu'ran for target practice in Iraq.

At least there is some general consensus that apology was an appropriate response. The NY Times reports a general bipartisan consensus the act was wrong, and the apology the right thing to do. It's also the smart thing to do: social science evidence documents the importance of formal apologies for smoothing over relations between aggrieved groups, and reproducing collective standards of appropriate behavior. Some of it is documented in this book.

So an apology was in order. But was it be enough? Seems not. Interestingly, the dance of contrition seemed to be more of a news-story than the shooting itself. The USG has emphasized the apology but carefully protected the identity of the offending soldier and whisked him(her?) out of the country.

Iraqis didn't ask for a mere apology and Afghani protesters don't seem satisfied with one. The Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars made a very simple request: that the soldier receive the "most severe punishment possible." It's worth considering what that would be.

Though it is often said (and I seem to have read)that desecrating religious objects is a crime under international law, I've had a hard time identifying the clause in the laws of war that would actually cover this type of behavior. Even if it does, it would not be considered a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions, so the US isn't actually required under treaty law to prosecute the individual in question.

So the question becomes: how will Soldier X be tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice? I am not well versed in military law (Cleitus?) but it strikes me that since Lieutenant William Calley got only three years of house arrest, and a quick pardon, for butchering 500 civilians, and since the US has decided not to prosecute those responsible for the deaths of that the "most severe punishment possible" under US law for shooting a Koran might not be as severe as Iraqis hope.

Child Detainees

According to the Washington Post:

"The United States has detained approximately 2,500 people younger than 18 as illegal enemy combatants in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay since 2002, according to a report filed by the Bush administration with the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child."

Read all about it here.

The 33 comments, some advocating genocide against those whose children risk their lives to protect kin and country, are here. An interesting and depressing commentary on the state of debate.

At Last, Some Perspective

I was heartened to see this story from Reuters today, titled "FactBox: Military and Civilian Deaths in Iraq." It's a nice counterpoint to the constant news ticker with the number of US military deaths, creeping upward by a few bodies per day and now in the low 4,000s... if you add in deaths of coalition forces from other countries, the number jumps by a paltry few hundred.

Hard to swallow of course, if like me you're in a military family, but on the other hand those in uniform sign up for the posssibility of being killed, get paid for it, are legitimate targets, and are dying at lower rates than most wars in US history.

If you bar-graph this against the average of conservative estimates of civilian deaths so far (that is, deaths of innocent individuals who shouldn't be hit and didn't sign up for the risk), it looks something like this.


I'd really, really like to see more coverage of this discrepancy in the US media. Not sob stories of Iraqi families, but the sheer numbers, a regular day-by-day ticker. Could provide some ongoing perspective.

Bush to Do Too Little, Too Late for War-Fatigued Troops

The Washington Post reported today that President Bush will cut Army tours of duty from 15 to 12 months:

"President Bush plans to announce today that he will cut Army combat tours in Iraq from 15 months to 12 months, returning rotations to where they were before last year's troop buildup in an effort to alleviate the tremendous stress on the military, administration officials said."

Good idea, but not enough. Let President Bush also consider ending the policy of involuntarily extending service-men and women's enlistment contracts beyond their normal ETS. If this war is worth fighting, we should be drafting young single men and women who have not yet served, not forcing those who have to stay in the armed forces beyond the period for which they signed up.

This policy and its effects on troop morale is detailed in this new film. Go check it out.

Slate Magazine Take Two

No sooner did I criticize Slate Magainze for not including war law in its military fix-it list, then Jack Goldsmith posts on fixing "The Laws in Wartime."
Among his suggestions:

1) "Close Guantanamo." (He doesn't address what to do with the detainees or why closing Guantanamo is preferable to simply upholding detainee rights there.)

2) "Boost Trust" (By - wait for it - making more threat information available to a public that distrusts the government for inflating threats. Question: to what classified arseal of threat data does Goldsmith have access on which to build this case?)

3) "Fix Interrogation." He thinks we can do this not by preventing the CIA from breaking the rules, but by requiring the President to "make a classified finding giving reasons why aggressive techniques are required":

"This approach would maintain the option of using lawful interrogation techniques that might stave off a crisis, while at the same time addressing legitimate concerns about... legal compliance."

Come again? Lawful interrogation techniques are already an "option"; we don't require torture warrants for them. And how would another layer of justification for wanton violations of international law address concerns about the law?

One thing Goldsmith suggests makes sense: that the US should work with its allies to clarify how to apply the laws of war to asymmetric conflicts, instead of contining to interpret international law unilaterally. There is more support than is recognized for modifying the "quaint" old rules, but to be more than just treaty noncompliance the US needs to get its allies on board.

How to Fix the US Military

Slate Magazine is publishing a "Fix-It" series this week on the US military, a 10-point list that looks something like this. Aside from my general beef that "Incorporate Better Training in the Laws of War into Basic Training" is not on the list, the ideas bear some consideration. I found this one especially interesting:

"Spread the responsibilities around. Civilian experts are probably better than sergeants at the kinds of stability operations described above. So, the next president should see that more money goes to the State Department, USAID, and other agencies—many of which have nascent offices of stability operations and foreign assistance—and let them do the jobs. Secretary Gates urged this course (even if he didn't volunteer to hand over any of the Pentagon's billions). Some senior Army officers have told us that, for certain urgent tasks in Iraq and Afghanistan, they would rather have 500 more Foreign Service officers than 5,000 more soldiers. If wars—or foreign policies generally—are national campaigns, the burden should be carried by the national government more broadly."

For a thoughtful dissenting view, see Hank's thoughts on Electic Meanderings.

Killing Civilians Is Good For You

Apologies for the lapse - like most academics trained in international relations theory, I spent last week in San Francisco attending the Annual Conference of the International Studies Association .

Of the papers I heard presented, one sticks out: Alexander Downes of Duke University has done a quantitative analysis comparing civilian targeting in inter-state wars to the likelihood that a state will win, as well as to the number of military casualties they absorb vis-a-vis their enemy. Downes finds that killing civilians has historically been strongly correlated with winning. But, he also found this has changed over time, and that since about 1941 killing civilians has been more and more counterproductive to war efforts. He doesn't explain why.

At least one influential book - Caleb Carr's The Lessons of Terror finds the opposite - but admittedly Carr's analysis is a historian's account rather than a statistical analysis.

I couldn't find the paper in the ISA 2008 archive, but Downes has apparently expanded on his argument in a new book, Targeting Civilians in War, which I'll have to read before I report on my impression of his data.

Blog of Note

This week I discovered a new blog the anti-torture-minded among you may wish to check out regularly and link to - BanTorture.org. Thoughtful coverage of the USG's violation of the Torture Convention and strategies to change this. Though, a sad commentary on our times that such a site would be necessary. The description:

"Ban Torture is my humble effort to stop the use of torture and make torture unequivocally illegal. This site is a tool to build awareness, encourage grassroot support, and urge federal and state officials to ban torture through legislation or constitutional amendment. I need your help. Please speak up and get involved!"

Check it out.

Data Disconnect

Foreign Policy reports the findings of a survey conducted among 3,400 active and retired US military officers. Among the questions asked: "Is torture acceptable?"

When the officers were asked if they agree or disagree with the statement “Torture is never acceptable,” opinions were split. Fifty-three percent agreed, and 44 percent disagree. Nineteen percent, nearly 1 in 5 officers, say they “strongly disagree” with the notion that torture is never acceptable. Asked if they believe waterboarding is torture, opinions were similarly divided. About 46 percent of the officers say they agree with the statement “Waterboarding is torture,” and about 43 percent say they disagree.

I haven't yet been able to access the full dataset since FP's links aren't working, though presumably it's available from the Center for New American Security, which assisted in the online survey. But it's safe to say that the presentation of these findings provides a very superficial understanding of what they might actually mean.

In particular, Ban Torture.org is making much of Lt. Col. John A. Nagel's comments at the survey's launch last week, regarding the "Jack Bauer" effect. But to demonstrate such an effect, we would need comparable data that predates the discursive and doctrinal changes introduced by the Bush Administration. What would the results of this survey have looked like had it been taken prior to the Bybee Memo of August 2002. An alternative hypothesis is that these results reflect a more general disconnect between those who write field manuals and those tasked with implementing them.

One thing's for sure: the following comment by Lt. Col. Nagel makes a world of sense:

"We the American military have to be very careful, I think, to preserve our most treasured attribute, which is our reputation for being the good guys."

# of Sex Crime Reports Don't = # Sex Crimes

The Associated Press has three different and wildly conflicting reports out in the space of a few hours about sexual assault rates in the US military. While all the news stories appear to be about the same Pentagon report, each frames the findings differently.

First, we are told, "Military Sees Fewer Sex Assault Reports." Apparently fewer men and women in uniform (6% and 30% respectively) had reported sexual assault in 2007 than in 2006, after increases over the past several years before that. But, the article goes on to point out, this is meaningless information since there is no way to know this is related to actual assault rates or the difficulties of reporting assaults. (A later article merely bore the headline "Military Women Report Harrassment" - also a bit misleading since men were also victims. A third released an hour later simply gives the numbers - a mere 2,688* (!) and avoids comparisons.)

What's the story here, AP? Is it that things are getting better, that they're still bad? (Fox News, for one, picked up the story and reframed it not about reported assaults, but actual assaults, concluding wrongly that the "Pentagon Report Says... Sexual Assaults Down in 2007."

My humble opinion: the real story is that the military should standardize the way it tabulates yearly reports. When rape reporting procedures are made more victim-friendly, rape reports typically increase for a period because victims don't feel th need to stay silent. However both reports and assaults are expected to decrease over time due to a deterrent environment.

But since good data is rarely gathered and policies not held constant over time, it is hard to know what works best. Efforts in the humanitarian arena, for example, to address gender-based violence in refugee camps suffer from this problem. The US military would be an excellent test case on such dynamics, if it would get its act together. Instead:

This is the fourth year the military has compiled detailed statistics on sexual assaults. The reporting methods have changed each year, complicating efforts to evaluate progress or to determine whether it is the actual assaults or the reporting that is going up or down.

Some other interesting items in the reports:

According to the documents, 1,516 reports involved the Army; 565 for the Air Force; 394 for the Navy; and 213 for the Marines.

Score one for the Marines. Puppy-killers they may all be (JK, Cleitus!), but looks like they are less likely than their compatriots to molest their own women.

Unwanted sexual advances among men were more common in the Navy, the 2006 gender relations survey reveals.

So much for banning women from serving on nuclear subs on account of 'close quarters.'

Some 1,040 completed probes resulted in no action, either due to insufficient evidence or because those responsible were civilians, foreigners or unidentified.

Hmm. Does this mean the military will prosecute its own but does not assist its personnel in prosecuting civilians?

*To put this number in perspective, in 1998 the rape rate per 100,000 in the US was 34.4 per 100,000 or .00034%; 2,688 as a proportion of our 2,885,200 troops is .00092%almost 3 times higher than the national average, which was at the time the highest among all countries that report such statistics. More rapes or better reporting? Currently, no way to know.

Stop The Madness...

Great Zeus, people!

From the uproar this snippet of dubious film-making has incurred, one would suppose that this was the first time an American ever killed a dog.

Bollocks!

If in fact, a real canine was killed in the making of this video, it's nothing compared to the 2.7 MILLION dogs killed on an annual basis by the inaptly named American Humane Society... Oh, no, you say? There's a big difference between being dashed against a rock, and being suffocated as deadly gases enter your lungs, or a cocktail of drugs induces a heart attack?

The former is "mean, just mean", while the latter is quick and painless, and, oh, wait. No it's not...

The courts have recently suspended the use of such techniques on humans, ruling that death comes neither swiftly nor painlessly. And at any rate, dead is dead. And film is film. And last time I checked, you can't believe everything you see on film; or should we arrest director Zack Snyder ("300") for mass murder?

"...but, this, this is madness!"
"NO! This is SPARTA!"

Ummm, sorry Zack, that appears to be the gory death of a few hundred Greeks and a few thousand Persians. We'll have to ask you to come with us...

...at any rate, supposing there were anything inherently wrong with killing any creature weaker than oneself (if it's OK to kill a cockroach, or dissect a frog, eat a cow, or slaughter fish, fowl, and game for sport, why not kill a dog? Why not kill a person, if, for example, you're a Blackwater employee and know that you can't be charged?) - but in any case IF there were anything wrong with this, aren't Americans still considered guilty until proven innocent?

Not if they're US Marines or Duke University lacrosse players, they're not.

The rape charge against the Marine on Okinawa? Dropped. No sign of sexual activity. The oaf was a pervert, but not a rapist. The suspected killer of the unfortunate Lance Corporal Lauterbach? Still at large, and while circumstantial evidence is strong, well, it was strong with OJ, too.

If you can believe the numbers, about 800 women are raped, 50 people are murdered, and 3700 dogs are killed EVERY DAY in the United States. Considering that Marines make up about 1/10th of 1 percent of the entire population, your chances of falling victim to one of these rascals, whether you're a dog, or a potential murder/rape victim, are considerably lower than the chances that you'll get your unhappy ending courtesy of a family member, a friendly veterinarian, a guy you know, or just some wierdo off the street.

But every once in a while, when a Marine is merely ACCUSED of doing something bad (and by "bad", I don't mean shooting, dismembering or burning another human being to death, that's generally part of the job description) - it's big news, everyone starts gnashing their teeth and pulling their hair, and the powers-that-be in the Marine Corps, instead of saying "They're trained killers, we deliberately break down their natural conditioning against homicidal and psychopathic impulses, what the f*@k did you expect?" instead bows and scrapes, and puts the 99.99% of the Corps that did nothing wrong on lockdown.

Which only really serves to protect the Marines, because statistically speaking, the average Marine is in much greater danger of being murdered or raped by their fellow Americans; and with about 4.5 million dog bites reported annually in the US, it would probably be a good idea to keep Marines away from dogs in general.

Not for the dogs sake, but for the Marines.

So What's Up With the USMC Anyway?

It's awfully interesting what provokes people. News of the day is a video (now pulled from YouTube) filmed by a Marine of his buddy tossing a puppy off a cliff. Considering we have recently heard accusations of US Marines killing civilians in front of their children, raping little girls, even raping and murdering their pregnant comrades, this comes as no great shock to my system.

(Then again, teenagers do mean things to animals for fun in all sorts of contexts, and no branch of any military has a monopoly on rape, torture, murder or general meanness. So let's not lose our perspective.)

Here's what does surprise me: this story made headlines fast and stuck. Compare this to videos circulated on the Internet in 2004 of US Marines raping Iraqi women in detention. No huge media frenzy there. Hmm. As Webscout at the LA Times puts it:

"There's a debate to be had about where the death of a puppy lies along the spectrum of war horrors, and why a video like this can gain wide online attention when other outrageous footage -- say, involving the death of humans -- is only rarely circulated."

Indeed.

Another surprise: the swift and categorical action taken by the Corps. In a statement released today, the Corps referred to the video as "shocking and deplorable," and launched an investigation.

All fine and well, but isn't this is the same institution that covered up the massacre of civilians at Haditha for months, and sat on the Abu Ghraib photographs for almost a year. (Excellent discussion of this history in a recent Frontline.)

So, what's up with the Marines? And what's up with popular sentiment? The same American public that is now deploring all soldiers as "puppy killers" hemmed and hawed when news of My Lai broke. I'm not defending the puppy-pitcher. I'd just like to see the same kind of black-listing when our soldiers commit actual war crimes.

What A Good Idea.

It appears the US military has clued into the fact that paying attention to the needs of the children of military families helps with troop retention. According to the Baltimore Sun:

"'Military brats' change schools an average of six to nine times between kindergarten and 12th grade, and a proposed multistate compact the Pentagon is pushing aims to make the transition easier for the kids sometimes caught in conflicting requirements as they shuffle from school to school.

Pentagon supporters of the bills say the multistate agreement making school transitions easier would help not just kids but the armed forces as a whole. That's because difficulties uprooting children are cited as a major reason people leave active duty.

Read all about it here.

More on Killer Robots

So I'm starting to get really interested in following this whole robot ethics issue. Seems folks are bothered not just by the idea that robots may not be programmed well enough to follow the rules of war, it's the fear they may be programmed too well.

Not certain where I stand on all this, but it sure is fun to absorb the different viewpoints in the debate. Here is a fun, freaky and very visually entertaining video on the subject today, courtesy of some guy named Mark Dice who is worried about the New World Order and has a lot of time on his hands.



I'll be back.

Goat Security

So get this: the British military will no longer use goats in lethal experiments to guage the risks of rapidly evacuating submarines:

"Animal rights groups complained about the tests for years. Six goats died during the experiments between 2000 and November 2006 while 122 more were slaughtered as a result."

So much for my friend Cleitus' brilliant idea of using armies of pigs as a cheaper safer (if not entirely aesthetic) way to clear landmines in post-conflict zones.

The most interesting line in this article is where we are told why goats, in particular, were used for these experiments:

"British military scientists subjected the goats, chosen because they have physiological similarities to human beings, to similar variations in an effort to gauge how sailors might be affected."

Physiological similarities to which human beings, I'm asking myself? Please, someone help me out here.