A dozen captains who served in Iraq in 2003-2005 give their opinion:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/15/AR2007101500841.html
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
The expert view on torture
Another good link for those wanting to see what the experts say about the usefulness of torture:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101201885.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
You know, even the most outlying point of view can usually find some backers. Even the creationists can trot out a handful of scientists who doubt evolution. So where are the experts (by this I mean professionally trained interrogators) who will maintain that torture works?
So far the folks supporting torture tend to be pundits (most of whom have never served in any military) sitting in their comfortable offices saying that a little sleep deprivation, forced standing or waterboarding never hurt anybody. After all, if you can pull an all-nighter, why would 50 days without sleep be a problem? Rumsfeld stood on his feet for a whole day sometimes at work, so what's the big deal being forced to stand for weeks? And jeesh, people go swimming in whole oceans all the time, so how bad can a bucket of water be?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101201885.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
You know, even the most outlying point of view can usually find some backers. Even the creationists can trot out a handful of scientists who doubt evolution. So where are the experts (by this I mean professionally trained interrogators) who will maintain that torture works?
So far the folks supporting torture tend to be pundits (most of whom have never served in any military) sitting in their comfortable offices saying that a little sleep deprivation, forced standing or waterboarding never hurt anybody. After all, if you can pull an all-nighter, why would 50 days without sleep be a problem? Rumsfeld stood on his feet for a whole day sometimes at work, so what's the big deal being forced to stand for weeks? And jeesh, people go swimming in whole oceans all the time, so how bad can a bucket of water be?
Friday, October 12, 2007
Game of the Week: Military Chess
After about half a century of board wargaming, it's easy to forget how ground-breaking Charles Roberts was with his Tactics wargame. His innovative design broke through the chess-like mindset that hamstrung wargame designers up to that point.
Military Chess (1959) a contemporary of Roberts' Tactics design, shows the limits that kept chess-like games from evolving into real wargames as we understand them today. Set on the familiar 64-square battlefield and using abstract capabilities similar to chess, the game isn't much of a military simulation, despite the hype on the box.
It isn't really even a true chess variant, as no piece in the game has the chess knight move, which, being unique to chess, is considered its signature move.
The game board is an 8x8 grid of squares, with an alternating pattern of lighter and darker spaces overlaying a military-style contour map with various military symbols here and there. None of that affects play and is purely decorative. Even the light and dark squares don't serve any game purpose, as there is no diagonal movement or bishop's move in the game.
The two sides are separated by a river that divides the board in two, crossed at four spots by bridges. This gives the game a slight resemblance to Chinese Chess, which also has a water obstacle. Each side also has two minefields with divide its own sector into two parts. The mines obstruct two square boundaries, leaving a couple of passes.
There are 12 plastic pieces on each side showing military figures in the "flats" format that was formerly pretty popular for toy soldiers.
Deployed on the second row, in line with the bridges are four "advance guards" (pawns). These pieces have more movement capability than chess pawns, being allowed to move and capture up to two squares distant forward or sideways, but never to the rear. Like pawns they can be promoted if they make it the 8th row.
Deployed on the first row are more powerful pieces. On each flank (in the chess rook position) are "cannons." These are slow-moving but powerful pieces. They can move just a single space forward, sideways or backwards, but can "fire" up to three spaces distant to eliminate an enemy piece. The only restriction is that they have to be aimed in the proper direction, which takes a move and therefore may give the endangered piece a chance to escape. Alone among the pieces in the game, cannons are allowed to point and fire diagonally, otherwise there is no diagonal movement or capture in the game.
Next to each cannon (in the chess knight position) are "infantrymen." These are fairly weak pieces, with the same 2-square move as the advanced guards, except the infantrymen can also move backwards.
In the middle four squares are the "general" (king) "tank" (rook), "engineer" and "recon."
The engineer (also called a bazooka-man in the rules) and recon (depicted by a jeep) move exactly the same, up to three squares forwards, backwards to the side. This makes them somewhat more powerful than most other pieces, but still much less dynamic than chess bishops or knights. The tank moves like the chess rook, making it the most powerful piece in this game, which lacks a queen-equivalent. The general moves one space like the cannon. The game is won by capturing the enemy general OR advancing your general to row 8.
Overall, the game play is slower than chess, with only one piece per side (the tank) able to traverse the whole board in a single move, compared to five in chess (queen, 2 rooks, 2 bishops). In that way is resembles Chinese Chess a little. Overall it's harder for pieces to support one another, so there's less scope for intricate combinations like chess.
Apparently, despite its patent, the 1959 game is based on an 1880s-era game with the same name and similar pieces. Judging from a photograph of the older game there were fewer pieces, just infantry (6) cavalry (4) and cannons (2). Without a general there must also have been some significant rules differences as well.
All-in-all, there's not much to recommend Military Chess as a game. It's not anymore of a military simulation than regular chess and not as interesting as the parent game. It is of some interest as a collectible.
Variants:
In order to make the game a true chess variant, it needs a piece with a knight's move. Fortunately a suitable piece is at hand. Give the Jeep (recon) the option of changing direction once during its move (which is otherwise prohibited in the game). This gives it the functional equivalent of a knight's move.
The game as published has no difference between the recon (jeep) and engineer (bazooka-man), which is a missed opportunity. Besides giving the jeep the knight's move, as a further variant give the engineer some special movement powers as well by allowing it to cross minefields or rivers so long as it starts its move adjacent to the obstacle. This gives the piece some engineer-like powers while opening the game up a little more.
With these two variant rules these two pieces gain powers making them more like true chess major pieces instead of slightly souped-up pawns.
Military Chess (1959) a contemporary of Roberts' Tactics design, shows the limits that kept chess-like games from evolving into real wargames as we understand them today. Set on the familiar 64-square battlefield and using abstract capabilities similar to chess, the game isn't much of a military simulation, despite the hype on the box.
It isn't really even a true chess variant, as no piece in the game has the chess knight move, which, being unique to chess, is considered its signature move.
The game board is an 8x8 grid of squares, with an alternating pattern of lighter and darker spaces overlaying a military-style contour map with various military symbols here and there. None of that affects play and is purely decorative. Even the light and dark squares don't serve any game purpose, as there is no diagonal movement or bishop's move in the game.
The two sides are separated by a river that divides the board in two, crossed at four spots by bridges. This gives the game a slight resemblance to Chinese Chess, which also has a water obstacle. Each side also has two minefields with divide its own sector into two parts. The mines obstruct two square boundaries, leaving a couple of passes.
There are 12 plastic pieces on each side showing military figures in the "flats" format that was formerly pretty popular for toy soldiers.
Deployed on the second row, in line with the bridges are four "advance guards" (pawns). These pieces have more movement capability than chess pawns, being allowed to move and capture up to two squares distant forward or sideways, but never to the rear. Like pawns they can be promoted if they make it the 8th row.
Deployed on the first row are more powerful pieces. On each flank (in the chess rook position) are "cannons." These are slow-moving but powerful pieces. They can move just a single space forward, sideways or backwards, but can "fire" up to three spaces distant to eliminate an enemy piece. The only restriction is that they have to be aimed in the proper direction, which takes a move and therefore may give the endangered piece a chance to escape. Alone among the pieces in the game, cannons are allowed to point and fire diagonally, otherwise there is no diagonal movement or capture in the game.
Next to each cannon (in the chess knight position) are "infantrymen." These are fairly weak pieces, with the same 2-square move as the advanced guards, except the infantrymen can also move backwards.
In the middle four squares are the "general" (king) "tank" (rook), "engineer" and "recon."
The engineer (also called a bazooka-man in the rules) and recon (depicted by a jeep) move exactly the same, up to three squares forwards, backwards to the side. This makes them somewhat more powerful than most other pieces, but still much less dynamic than chess bishops or knights. The tank moves like the chess rook, making it the most powerful piece in this game, which lacks a queen-equivalent. The general moves one space like the cannon. The game is won by capturing the enemy general OR advancing your general to row 8.
Overall, the game play is slower than chess, with only one piece per side (the tank) able to traverse the whole board in a single move, compared to five in chess (queen, 2 rooks, 2 bishops). In that way is resembles Chinese Chess a little. Overall it's harder for pieces to support one another, so there's less scope for intricate combinations like chess.
Apparently, despite its patent, the 1959 game is based on an 1880s-era game with the same name and similar pieces. Judging from a photograph of the older game there were fewer pieces, just infantry (6) cavalry (4) and cannons (2). Without a general there must also have been some significant rules differences as well.
All-in-all, there's not much to recommend Military Chess as a game. It's not anymore of a military simulation than regular chess and not as interesting as the parent game. It is of some interest as a collectible.
Variants:
In order to make the game a true chess variant, it needs a piece with a knight's move. Fortunately a suitable piece is at hand. Give the Jeep (recon) the option of changing direction once during its move (which is otherwise prohibited in the game). This gives it the functional equivalent of a knight's move.
The game as published has no difference between the recon (jeep) and engineer (bazooka-man), which is a missed opportunity. Besides giving the jeep the knight's move, as a further variant give the engineer some special movement powers as well by allowing it to cross minefields or rivers so long as it starts its move adjacent to the obstacle. This gives the piece some engineer-like powers while opening the game up a little more.
With these two variant rules these two pieces gain powers making them more like true chess major pieces instead of slightly souped-up pawns.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
And this guy is the nut?
Ron Paul at the GOP debate:
CM: Congressman Paul, I think you have questions and concerns about the bonanza in the hedge fund industry. Do you?
Mr. Paul: Yes. I think this is not a consequence of free markets. What's happening is, there's transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy.
Mr. Paul: This comes about because of the monetary system that we have. When you inflate a currency or destroy a currency, the middle class gets wiped out.So the people who get to use the money first which is created by the Federal Reserve system benefit. So the money gravitates to the banks and to Wall Street.
That's why you have more billionaires than ever before. Today, this country is in the middle of a recession for a lot of people. Michigan knows about it. Poor people know about it. The middle class knows about it. Wall Street doesn't know about it. Washington, D.C., doesn't know about it.
But it's because of the monetary system and the excessive spending. As long as we live beyond our means we are destined to live beneath our means.
And we have lived beyond our means because we are financing a foreign policy that is so extravagant and beyond what we can control, as well as the spending here at home.And we're depending on the creation of money out of thin air, which is nothing more than debasement of the currency. It's counterfeit. And it is a natural, predictable consequence that you're going to have people benefit from it and other people suffer.
Mr. Paul: So, if you want a healthy economy, you have to study monetary theory and figure out why it is that we're suffering. And everybody doesn't suffer equally, or this wouldn't be so bad.It's always the poor people -- those who are on retired incomes -- that suffer the most. But the politicians and those who get to use the money first, like the military industrial complex, they make a lot of money and they benefit from it.
Mr. Matthews: Thank you, Congressman.(APPLAUSE)
CM: Congressman Paul, I think you have questions and concerns about the bonanza in the hedge fund industry. Do you?
Mr. Paul: Yes. I think this is not a consequence of free markets. What's happening is, there's transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy.
Mr. Paul: This comes about because of the monetary system that we have. When you inflate a currency or destroy a currency, the middle class gets wiped out.So the people who get to use the money first which is created by the Federal Reserve system benefit. So the money gravitates to the banks and to Wall Street.
That's why you have more billionaires than ever before. Today, this country is in the middle of a recession for a lot of people. Michigan knows about it. Poor people know about it. The middle class knows about it. Wall Street doesn't know about it. Washington, D.C., doesn't know about it.
But it's because of the monetary system and the excessive spending. As long as we live beyond our means we are destined to live beneath our means.
And we have lived beyond our means because we are financing a foreign policy that is so extravagant and beyond what we can control, as well as the spending here at home.And we're depending on the creation of money out of thin air, which is nothing more than debasement of the currency. It's counterfeit. And it is a natural, predictable consequence that you're going to have people benefit from it and other people suffer.
Mr. Paul: So, if you want a healthy economy, you have to study monetary theory and figure out why it is that we're suffering. And everybody doesn't suffer equally, or this wouldn't be so bad.It's always the poor people -- those who are on retired incomes -- that suffer the most. But the politicians and those who get to use the money first, like the military industrial complex, they make a lot of money and they benefit from it.
Mr. Matthews: Thank you, Congressman.(APPLAUSE)
Sunday, October 7, 2007
You don't say
White House press briefing on Burma:
Q And the protests, themselves, seem to have been stilled. What do you make of that?
MS. PERINO: Well, unfortunately, intimidation and force can chill peaceful demonstrations. And reports about very innocent people being thrown into detention, where they could be held for years without any representation or charges, is distressing; and we understand that some of the monasteries have been sealed. Now, obviously, this has, again, a chilling effect on protestors, but we would ask that everyone show restraint and allow those who want to express themselves to be able to do so in Burma.
Imagine that. Detaining people for years without representation or charges. How distressing.
Q And the protests, themselves, seem to have been stilled. What do you make of that?
MS. PERINO: Well, unfortunately, intimidation and force can chill peaceful demonstrations. And reports about very innocent people being thrown into detention, where they could be held for years without any representation or charges, is distressing; and we understand that some of the monasteries have been sealed. Now, obviously, this has, again, a chilling effect on protestors, but we would ask that everyone show restraint and allow those who want to express themselves to be able to do so in Burma.
Imagine that. Detaining people for years without representation or charges. How distressing.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Game of the Week: Scrabble
Scrabble is an odd game, because it's not really a gamer's game. While there is some strategic game play involved, its fairly straightforward and obvious. On the other hand, it definitely requires a good vocabulary -- or at least a good vocabulary of certain kinds of words.
On the other hand, there are many Scrabble players who don't play any other game. It ranks among those few games (such as Chess, Go, Backgammon, Diplomacy) that have their own devoted following with clubs, tournaments, magazines, etc. Like those other games, being a top-flight Scrabble player requires the kind of single-minded study and devotion that the casual gamer is not going to muster.
That said, it is a fun game among casual players and a great way to pass some time so long as everyone is more or less on the same level.
On the other hand, there are many Scrabble players who don't play any other game. It ranks among those few games (such as Chess, Go, Backgammon, Diplomacy) that have their own devoted following with clubs, tournaments, magazines, etc. Like those other games, being a top-flight Scrabble player requires the kind of single-minded study and devotion that the casual gamer is not going to muster.
That said, it is a fun game among casual players and a great way to pass some time so long as everyone is more or less on the same level.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Truth doesn't matter
That appears to be the reality of American politcal discourse today.
Relevant quote from Andrew Sullivan, talking about the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas/Bill Clinton-Paula Jones stories:
I remember the hearings vividly. I was much more comfortable within the conservative world back then. I still thought it was obvious that Hill was telling the truth. In sexual harassment suits, I tend to believe the women. And I couldn't see Hill's motive for putting herself through all that for no reason. I also believed Paula Jones, of course, and most of the other victims of Bill Clinton's petty, ugly abuses of power. But the Clinton sexual harassment wars merely confirm Somin's argument, don't they? All the conservatives believed the women in Clinton's case. And almost all the liberals - and the feminists - trashed the abused women. In the cycle America has been in since the sixties, the truth is barely relevant.
Emphasis mine.
What seems to be missing today is any sense that standards should apply to both sides. It's simply not a principle unless you hold your own people to it, folks. Right now neither left, nor right, GOP nor Dem shows any true principles at all.
Relevant quote from Andrew Sullivan, talking about the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas/Bill Clinton-Paula Jones stories:
I remember the hearings vividly. I was much more comfortable within the conservative world back then. I still thought it was obvious that Hill was telling the truth. In sexual harassment suits, I tend to believe the women. And I couldn't see Hill's motive for putting herself through all that for no reason. I also believed Paula Jones, of course, and most of the other victims of Bill Clinton's petty, ugly abuses of power. But the Clinton sexual harassment wars merely confirm Somin's argument, don't they? All the conservatives believed the women in Clinton's case. And almost all the liberals - and the feminists - trashed the abused women. In the cycle America has been in since the sixties, the truth is barely relevant.
Emphasis mine.
What seems to be missing today is any sense that standards should apply to both sides. It's simply not a principle unless you hold your own people to it, folks. Right now neither left, nor right, GOP nor Dem shows any true principles at all.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Game of the Week: Stratego
The book Spin Again describes how the 1960s was the heyday for TV advertising of boardgames. I remember seeing quite a few, in particular I remember Stratego being advertised. The commercial touted the fun of "Stra Teeee Go!"
This is a different commercial that I don't remember seeing, but seems to be from about the same time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8vhD7QYQYY
And it was, and still is, fun.
Like many older games the pace is a little slow by current standards. Most pieces move a single space at a time and player alternate moving a single piece at a time. This isn't much of a problem in games with a few pieces such as chess or checkers, but Stratego starts with 40 on a side, so there's a few slow spots.
On the other hand, having the pieces stand upright so you can hide the value and identity of each unit adds to the excitement and adds some bluff as well as strategy to the game. It's the forerunner to concepts more fully developed in the block wargames that are popular now.
The game was my introduction to military ranks as a child, and I was fascinated by the sergeants, lieutenants, captains, etc. I made it to real-life major, myself, but I had a chance to be a colonel, general or marshal often enough on the game board.
The game is still a good introduction to strategy games. The concept is simple enough that a grade schooler can grasp it, but has a enough subtlety in play that it will wear well over time.
I lost my original game long ago, as kids will, but Target has a nice edition in a wooden box that includes plastic pieces that are exactly the same as the ones I used as a kid. Unlike the European and newer U.S. editions, which rank the marshal at 10 and go down, this edition preserves the classic ranks of 1 for a marshal, 2 for the general, etc.
In practice there's no difference in play and I haven't found that anyone has trouble remembering that No. 1 beats No. 2, so I like the old way better, but that's probably just creeping old-fartism at work. I'll admit that having high beat low is more in keeping with gaming conventions.
Whether high or low, it's still a lot of fun either way.
This is a different commercial that I don't remember seeing, but seems to be from about the same time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8vhD7QYQYY
And it was, and still is, fun.
Like many older games the pace is a little slow by current standards. Most pieces move a single space at a time and player alternate moving a single piece at a time. This isn't much of a problem in games with a few pieces such as chess or checkers, but Stratego starts with 40 on a side, so there's a few slow spots.
On the other hand, having the pieces stand upright so you can hide the value and identity of each unit adds to the excitement and adds some bluff as well as strategy to the game. It's the forerunner to concepts more fully developed in the block wargames that are popular now.
The game was my introduction to military ranks as a child, and I was fascinated by the sergeants, lieutenants, captains, etc. I made it to real-life major, myself, but I had a chance to be a colonel, general or marshal often enough on the game board.
The game is still a good introduction to strategy games. The concept is simple enough that a grade schooler can grasp it, but has a enough subtlety in play that it will wear well over time.
I lost my original game long ago, as kids will, but Target has a nice edition in a wooden box that includes plastic pieces that are exactly the same as the ones I used as a kid. Unlike the European and newer U.S. editions, which rank the marshal at 10 and go down, this edition preserves the classic ranks of 1 for a marshal, 2 for the general, etc.
In practice there's no difference in play and I haven't found that anyone has trouble remembering that No. 1 beats No. 2, so I like the old way better, but that's probably just creeping old-fartism at work. I'll admit that having high beat low is more in keeping with gaming conventions.
Whether high or low, it's still a lot of fun either way.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Another "phony soldier" heard from
Read only if you're ready for a lump in your throat:
http://armyofdude.blogspot.com/2007/09/real-deal.html
http://armyofdude.blogspot.com/2007/09/real-deal.html
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Game of the week: Clue
I grew up in a family that played board games, and my best friend's family played, too, so I got a lot of exposure to the limited stable of games available in the 1960s such as Go To The Head Of The Class, Sorry!, The Game of Life, Monopoly, Scrabble, Stratego, Operation, etc.
But somehow I missed out on Clue, which is another real classic, but one I didn't really get to play until fairly recently.
Clue is one of a fairly limited class of deduction games, where players use information gathered during the course of the game to deduce some hidden information. As such, it's a little rigorous compared to many other family games. You do have to think a bit. It's therefore a little hard for younger players to get into. Even some real "underagers" can play games like Monopoly with a little help because there's some luck involved and scope for advice and guidance because most information is open. Like Scrabble, Clue is really for a little older part oft he family.
For the ones old enough to get it, though, Clue is a good game and a lot of fun. It's a little clunky compared to newer games designs. The movement rules and spaces between the rooms are inelegant and inefficient, introducing a luck element that feels out of place.
I picked up the 50th anniversary edition, which comes in a tin and has deluxe pieces, including miniatures for the six suspects. This edition also has an extra weapon (poison) adding a little bit of challenge compared to the standard game, which has just six weapons.
All-in-all, it's a well-deserved classic game, still going very strong after more than five decades.
But somehow I missed out on Clue, which is another real classic, but one I didn't really get to play until fairly recently.
Clue is one of a fairly limited class of deduction games, where players use information gathered during the course of the game to deduce some hidden information. As such, it's a little rigorous compared to many other family games. You do have to think a bit. It's therefore a little hard for younger players to get into. Even some real "underagers" can play games like Monopoly with a little help because there's some luck involved and scope for advice and guidance because most information is open. Like Scrabble, Clue is really for a little older part oft he family.
For the ones old enough to get it, though, Clue is a good game and a lot of fun. It's a little clunky compared to newer games designs. The movement rules and spaces between the rooms are inelegant and inefficient, introducing a luck element that feels out of place.
I picked up the 50th anniversary edition, which comes in a tin and has deluxe pieces, including miniatures for the six suspects. This edition also has an extra weapon (poison) adding a little bit of challenge compared to the standard game, which has just six weapons.
All-in-all, it's a well-deserved classic game, still going very strong after more than five decades.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Air Force planning for Iran strikes
Here's an interesting report about a supposedly secret Air Force working group drawing up plans for an air campaign against Iran:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2512097.ece
This is interesting on several levels., but there may be less to the report than meets the eye. It looks like this is an Air Force show, so I'm not sure whether it's an actual planning group or a mere planning exercise. The planners don't seem to be working for the commander who would actually be conducting the campaign and jointness would normally mean that the Navy would be involved in the planning as well.
On the other hand, the Air Force is the one service that seems to believe, institutionally, that it can win a war all by itself, so there is some scope for concern if they're able to persuade the administration that some kind of "victory" or "success" is possible. Any war with Iran would necessarily have to rely on airpower, the Army being otherwise engaged.
The article mentions that they want to add a touch of "brilliance" to the planning. Now, there's nothing wrong with a little brilliance, of course, but a lack of tactical brilliance has not been our problem of late. Our conventional military superiority is so profound, that it's hard to see how being even more brilliant will make any difference in the outcome. If you're playing a High School JV football team would having Tom Brady's Patriots make any noticeable difference compared to having the Buffalo Bills on the field?
No, there can be absolutely no doubt that the U.S. can do whatever it wants from the air, destroying anything it can find while taking minimal losses. The question is what comes after that? What's the political outcome we desire and how is it brought about? Grand strategy has been our weakness and there's no hint that's about to change.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2512097.ece
This is interesting on several levels., but there may be less to the report than meets the eye. It looks like this is an Air Force show, so I'm not sure whether it's an actual planning group or a mere planning exercise. The planners don't seem to be working for the commander who would actually be conducting the campaign and jointness would normally mean that the Navy would be involved in the planning as well.
On the other hand, the Air Force is the one service that seems to believe, institutionally, that it can win a war all by itself, so there is some scope for concern if they're able to persuade the administration that some kind of "victory" or "success" is possible. Any war with Iran would necessarily have to rely on airpower, the Army being otherwise engaged.
The article mentions that they want to add a touch of "brilliance" to the planning. Now, there's nothing wrong with a little brilliance, of course, but a lack of tactical brilliance has not been our problem of late. Our conventional military superiority is so profound, that it's hard to see how being even more brilliant will make any difference in the outcome. If you're playing a High School JV football team would having Tom Brady's Patriots make any noticeable difference compared to having the Buffalo Bills on the field?
No, there can be absolutely no doubt that the U.S. can do whatever it wants from the air, destroying anything it can find while taking minimal losses. The question is what comes after that? What's the political outcome we desire and how is it brought about? Grand strategy has been our weakness and there's no hint that's about to change.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Game of the Week: Monopoly
Another old-timer this week.
My introduction to Monopoly came at my best friend's house when I was in grade school. Like most families, they didn't exactly play by the rules. Specifically, they were one of those families that played with money accumulating on Free Parking. It's well-attested that this rule tends to lengthen playing time by putting more money into circulation and I believe it, because the games never seemed to end!
It was great fun, however, and I still have fond memories of those marathon sessions.
Once I got my own copy later in life I realized that the rules didn't say that. Indeed. later versions of the rules are specific that free parking is just a free space. of course, late in the game a free space is a nice thing to find.
It is amusing, however, that the most popular family boardgame is played with the "wrong" rules more often than not. For many families Monopoly is the only game they may play. One of the slogans used by boardgame enthusiasts trying to spread the word is that there are games "Beyond Monopoly."
Still, as much as boardgame enthusiasts tend to diss Monopoly, there's no denying it's still on top of the heap in the general public's view, with no Chance that Puerto Rico or any of its ilk will take its place.
My introduction to Monopoly came at my best friend's house when I was in grade school. Like most families, they didn't exactly play by the rules. Specifically, they were one of those families that played with money accumulating on Free Parking. It's well-attested that this rule tends to lengthen playing time by putting more money into circulation and I believe it, because the games never seemed to end!
It was great fun, however, and I still have fond memories of those marathon sessions.
Once I got my own copy later in life I realized that the rules didn't say that. Indeed. later versions of the rules are specific that free parking is just a free space. of course, late in the game a free space is a nice thing to find.
It is amusing, however, that the most popular family boardgame is played with the "wrong" rules more often than not. For many families Monopoly is the only game they may play. One of the slogans used by boardgame enthusiasts trying to spread the word is that there are games "Beyond Monopoly."
Still, as much as boardgame enthusiasts tend to diss Monopoly, there's no denying it's still on top of the heap in the general public's view, with no Chance that Puerto Rico or any of its ilk will take its place.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Game of the Week: Sorry!
A game must have something going for it to be in print for more than 7 decades, so the success of Sorry! since its 1934 debut deserves some consideration.
The game's best attribute is its family-friendly nature. I have fond memories of playing Sorry! when I was a kid back in the 1960s and I know that my youngsters now love to play whenever we get the chance.
Unlike Snakes & Ladders, Sorry! is not a game of pure luck. Players have some control over the outcome, although perhaps not as much as they perceive they do. I say this because it's been my experience that no matter who is playing and what they do, it always seems like at least 3 out of the 4 players always have a shot of winning the game. In many games this would be a flaw, but in Sorry! it's a virtue. It's important that the young players have a shot of winning, even though they're far from being able to engage in strategic play. Yet the older children and adults can have some fun making what seem to be strategic choices that might help them win in the end.
What you end up with is one of the few games that you can literally play with a group ranging from 8 to 80. Actually, precocious 4- and 5-year-olds can play. It's a good game for teaching such beginning level game playing skills such as counting spaces and playing habits such as waiting your turn.
The genius behind the design is the card mix and even the use of cards at all. While a Parcheesi-style game, unlike most of that genre Sorry! does not use dice. The use of cards just about guarantees evening out the luck factor. A typical game will see the players going through the deck several times, so everybody will get every card many times. The requirement for landing on home by exact count provides a lot of scope for come-from-behind victories as the guy in the lead can wait a long time for the exact card needed to get that last piece in.
Another key part of the game is the Sorry! card, which means no one is ever really out of the running. As a matter of fact, the more behind you are, the more you can use a Sorry! card. The leading player may very well have no pawns left in their start, so any Sorry! cards drawn are just a wasted move. Meanwhile, the unlucky player who's been landed on by everybody and anybody can get right back into things. There are 13 cards that can get a pawn out of Start (five 1's, four 2's and four Sorry!'s) so no player should despair about being behind. This, also, proves to be a good game-playing and life lesson that will be handy later on in life.
Like some of the other classic "family" games Sorry! doesn't get too much respect from the "serious" gamer, but it may deserve more respect than it gets. Sorry! lays the groundwork for more serious gaming later on, while being a lot of fun.
The game's best attribute is its family-friendly nature. I have fond memories of playing Sorry! when I was a kid back in the 1960s and I know that my youngsters now love to play whenever we get the chance.
Unlike Snakes & Ladders, Sorry! is not a game of pure luck. Players have some control over the outcome, although perhaps not as much as they perceive they do. I say this because it's been my experience that no matter who is playing and what they do, it always seems like at least 3 out of the 4 players always have a shot of winning the game. In many games this would be a flaw, but in Sorry! it's a virtue. It's important that the young players have a shot of winning, even though they're far from being able to engage in strategic play. Yet the older children and adults can have some fun making what seem to be strategic choices that might help them win in the end.
What you end up with is one of the few games that you can literally play with a group ranging from 8 to 80. Actually, precocious 4- and 5-year-olds can play. It's a good game for teaching such beginning level game playing skills such as counting spaces and playing habits such as waiting your turn.
The genius behind the design is the card mix and even the use of cards at all. While a Parcheesi-style game, unlike most of that genre Sorry! does not use dice. The use of cards just about guarantees evening out the luck factor. A typical game will see the players going through the deck several times, so everybody will get every card many times. The requirement for landing on home by exact count provides a lot of scope for come-from-behind victories as the guy in the lead can wait a long time for the exact card needed to get that last piece in.
Another key part of the game is the Sorry! card, which means no one is ever really out of the running. As a matter of fact, the more behind you are, the more you can use a Sorry! card. The leading player may very well have no pawns left in their start, so any Sorry! cards drawn are just a wasted move. Meanwhile, the unlucky player who's been landed on by everybody and anybody can get right back into things. There are 13 cards that can get a pawn out of Start (five 1's, four 2's and four Sorry!'s) so no player should despair about being behind. This, also, proves to be a good game-playing and life lesson that will be handy later on in life.
Like some of the other classic "family" games Sorry! doesn't get too much respect from the "serious" gamer, but it may deserve more respect than it gets. Sorry! lays the groundwork for more serious gaming later on, while being a lot of fun.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
USAF has a big oops
The Air Force lost track of some nukes recently:
http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070904/NEWS01/70904040
Much of the media coverage of this misses the point, surprise, surprise.
The important point is not that some nukes were flown over the country. That happens all the time. It used to literally happen ALL the time when we had bombers on alert 24 hour a day.
The key thing is that the bombs were not where they were supposed to be, and that is supposed to be impossible. Some serious heads should roll for this one.
http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070904/NEWS01/70904040
Much of the media coverage of this misses the point, surprise, surprise.
The important point is not that some nukes were flown over the country. That happens all the time. It used to literally happen ALL the time when we had bombers on alert 24 hour a day.
The key thing is that the bombs were not where they were supposed to be, and that is supposed to be impossible. Some serious heads should roll for this one.
Craig not out?
Now Craig's saying he might not go.
I have very mixed feelings about this case.
On the one hand, I think he's a hypocrite and he probably was trolling for sex in a men's room, which certainly isn't the kind of behavior we should expect from a U.S. senator.
On the other hand, I'm not sure what he actually did, (as opposed to what he might have done, if given the opportunity) amounted to a crime. I'd like my crimes a little more concrete than tapping feet and running hands along bathroom stall edges.
I have very mixed feelings about this case.
On the one hand, I think he's a hypocrite and he probably was trolling for sex in a men's room, which certainly isn't the kind of behavior we should expect from a U.S. senator.
On the other hand, I'm not sure what he actually did, (as opposed to what he might have done, if given the opportunity) amounted to a crime. I'd like my crimes a little more concrete than tapping feet and running hands along bathroom stall edges.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Media cowardice
Apparently a couple dozen newspapers,including the Washington Post, are not publishing this Opus cartoon out of fears that it might offend Muslims:
http://www.salon.com/comics/opus/2007/09/02/opus/
Needless to say, none of those papers have refused to publish similar cartoons that might offend Catholics, Jews, or Evangelicals. Indeed, the point of a cartoon like Opus is to be provocative. If it doesn't offend someone (Republicans, Democrats, Corporations, Environmentalists, Soccer moms, human beings, ratty cats or penguins) then it's probably not a very good Opus.
It really doesn't serve the long-term interests of the media or Western society to self-censor like this. One of the fundamental ideas that have to become generally accepted among Muslims is that they will sometimes be offended, just like everyone else. So the Post and its several dozen like-minded (if weak-willed) colleagues, deserve their brickbats.
I'm proud to say that the newspaper I work for did run the cartoon.
http://www.salon.com/comics/opus/2007/09/02/opus/
Needless to say, none of those papers have refused to publish similar cartoons that might offend Catholics, Jews, or Evangelicals. Indeed, the point of a cartoon like Opus is to be provocative. If it doesn't offend someone (Republicans, Democrats, Corporations, Environmentalists, Soccer moms, human beings, ratty cats or penguins) then it's probably not a very good Opus.
It really doesn't serve the long-term interests of the media or Western society to self-censor like this. One of the fundamental ideas that have to become generally accepted among Muslims is that they will sometimes be offended, just like everyone else. So the Post and its several dozen like-minded (if weak-willed) colleagues, deserve their brickbats.
I'm proud to say that the newspaper I work for did run the cartoon.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Credibility
One of the truisms of fighting a counterinsurgency is the information war is vital. One unfortunate corollary of this is that there's a natural tendency on the military's side to start trying to manipulate the numbers. There's nothing wrong with making your best case and it's useful to try to influence the perception of all parties concerned so long as it's done smartly and honestly. But it's very important that the military doesn't lose sight of the true facts of the situation. It's very easy to delude oneself and tendencies in that direction have to be resisted. if they are not, reality will eventually bite you in the ass.
One of the worst failings of the current administration has been its willingness to not only spin, but apparently believe it's own spin. This can only lead to a disaster in wartime. We made a lot of fun of Baghdad Bob and his ilk during the first part of the war. Not only did he spout nonsense, but there's every indication he believed it. There was a case of an Iraqi general who was captured in his personal car by U.S. troops during that initial campaign who had no idea the Americans were in the city. Unfortunately, it's not so funny now, as evidence mounts that our side is doing the same thing.
From Obsidian Wings/Andrew Sullivan we find out that the military's accounting of Iraqi civilian deaths is getting funky:
UPDATE: IraqSlogger has a useful story on changes in the Pentagon's figures. A graph from the story, courtesy of Ilan Goldberg of the National Security Network:
And an explanation:
"Goldberg explains the abnormalities as best he can:
Abnormality A: Between August and November 2006, DOD started reclassifying “casualties” as “deaths by execution” and suddenly you see a dramatic drop in killings. For example, in March
2006 right after the Samarra Mosque bombings you go from 1,750 “casualties” to 750 “deaths by execution.” Between November 2006 and March 2007 “Deaths by Execution” becomes “Sectarian Murders” but the numbers remain the same.
Abnormality B: Between the March 2007 report and the June 2007 report there was a dramatic change in the number of killings that were reported for the second half of 2006. In both cases the numbers were described as “sectarian murders.” The impact here is that it makes the “pre surge” situation look extraordinarily dire and therefore signals progress thereafter.
Abnormality C: Somehow the reclassification that occurred between the March and June 2007 reports caused the violence numbers in April and May of 2006 to drop dramatically. This was in the months following the Sammara bombings in February 2006 when sectarian violence was escalating."
One of the worst failings of the current administration has been its willingness to not only spin, but apparently believe it's own spin. This can only lead to a disaster in wartime. We made a lot of fun of Baghdad Bob and his ilk during the first part of the war. Not only did he spout nonsense, but there's every indication he believed it. There was a case of an Iraqi general who was captured in his personal car by U.S. troops during that initial campaign who had no idea the Americans were in the city. Unfortunately, it's not so funny now, as evidence mounts that our side is doing the same thing.
From Obsidian Wings/Andrew Sullivan we find out that the military's accounting of Iraqi civilian deaths is getting funky:
UPDATE: IraqSlogger has a useful story on changes in the Pentagon's figures. A graph from the story, courtesy of Ilan Goldberg of the National Security Network:
And an explanation:
"Goldberg explains the abnormalities as best he can:
Abnormality A: Between August and November 2006, DOD started reclassifying “casualties” as “deaths by execution” and suddenly you see a dramatic drop in killings. For example, in March
2006 right after the Samarra Mosque bombings you go from 1,750 “casualties” to 750 “deaths by execution.” Between November 2006 and March 2007 “Deaths by Execution” becomes “Sectarian Murders” but the numbers remain the same.Abnormality B: Between the March 2007 report and the June 2007 report there was a dramatic change in the number of killings that were reported for the second half of 2006. In both cases the numbers were described as “sectarian murders.” The impact here is that it makes the “pre surge” situation look extraordinarily dire and therefore signals progress thereafter.
Abnormality C: Somehow the reclassification that occurred between the March and June 2007 reports caused the violence numbers in April and May of 2006 to drop dramatically. This was in the months following the Sammara bombings in February 2006 when sectarian violence was escalating."
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
War With Iran
The President rattled some more sabers against Iran yesterday in a speech before the American Legion. Glenn Greenwald has a long post today raising the alarm anew.
It's hard to know what to make of this. Under normal circumstances I wouldn't be too worried. The downsides of a war with Iran are so profound, the chances of success so slim, that one should be able to dismiss the thought out of hand. Yet Bush, and the various other actors pushing for this war, have a demonstrated record of recklessness so extreme that nothing can be taken off the table.
And clearly, as president and commander-in-chief of the military Bush has it within his power to simply order acts that will necessarily bring on a war. One can argue that this is not what the founders intended and shouldn't be so, but it's the current reality.
Unless the Iranians are utter fools they will avoid any overt act against the United States, so the most likely scenario is an American attack on Iran that will attempt to destroy their WMD, air defense and command & control infrastructure. It may even be a surprise attack, in order to enhance its effectiveness.
Now, for some reason, even though the Bushies and Neocons claim Iranians desire freedom like Americans and everyone else, they can't seem to absorb the fact that Iranians are also proud and patriotic people who love their country like everyone else. When the Japanese launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor they ended all debate in America and unified us in a grim determination to prevail at any cost. It can be argued that Japan "lost" the war through this one act, in that there was no chance they would achieve their war aims. Can there be any doubt that an American attack on Iran, especially a surprise attack, will fail to unify the Iranians and fill them with an intense resolve to avenge themselves?
We are currently fighting two wars. The one in Afghanistan could be going better, but the long-term prognosis is pretty good, especially once a new administration takes office if it devotes sufficient attention and resources to success. The war in Iraq is not going well, and we're unlikely to leave under happy circumstances. Our political failures in Iraq will have negative consequences for years to come, despite our military successes.
Starting a new war with Iran, however, raises the real possibility of military defeats for us. Iran is much weaker than America, of course, and there's no chance Iranian troops will be marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. But it's idiocy to think defeat requires that scene in order to be a defeat.
Iran is a big country. It has a capable military establishment. And, aroused by an unprovoked U.S. attack (in their eyes), they will be formidably motivated. While powerful, the U.S. cannot use all its power. The Army and Marines are tapped out. There's only so much the Air Force can bomb. Iran is a land-based power the Navy cannot subdue, especially if the Iranians have the support of the rest of the world.
If substantial numbers of Iraqi Shiites turn against us our troops in Iraq will be placed in an untenable position. It's possible entire units could be captured or besieged, especially if regular Iranian units assist the Iraqis. The Iranian Navy has been studying for years how to fight the U.S. Navy. We must be wary that they've succeeded in finding ways to hurt us. Sinking or severely damaging an aircraft carrier would be an tremendous political victory for them, despite its military unimportance.
And the American People, already disillusioned with our current wars, will not be enthusiastic about a new one brought about through questionable circumstances. Wars, even just and successful ones, always involve setbacks. The American people will not be in a proper mood to absorb them in this case.
There is a near certainty of disaster and a minimal chance of success, minimally defined. We would call a man a lunatic if he played Russian Roulette for a buck. What do we call a man who starts a new war when he's failed to win the ones he's already started? The last dudes who did this back, in the 1940s, brought catastrophe. (And the analogy is apt. Japan started its war with the U.S. and Britain despite an ongoing war in China. Germany launched its invasion of Russia despite a defiant, undefeated Britain still in the fight.)
It's hard to know what to make of this. Under normal circumstances I wouldn't be too worried. The downsides of a war with Iran are so profound, the chances of success so slim, that one should be able to dismiss the thought out of hand. Yet Bush, and the various other actors pushing for this war, have a demonstrated record of recklessness so extreme that nothing can be taken off the table.
And clearly, as president and commander-in-chief of the military Bush has it within his power to simply order acts that will necessarily bring on a war. One can argue that this is not what the founders intended and shouldn't be so, but it's the current reality.
Unless the Iranians are utter fools they will avoid any overt act against the United States, so the most likely scenario is an American attack on Iran that will attempt to destroy their WMD, air defense and command & control infrastructure. It may even be a surprise attack, in order to enhance its effectiveness.
Now, for some reason, even though the Bushies and Neocons claim Iranians desire freedom like Americans and everyone else, they can't seem to absorb the fact that Iranians are also proud and patriotic people who love their country like everyone else. When the Japanese launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor they ended all debate in America and unified us in a grim determination to prevail at any cost. It can be argued that Japan "lost" the war through this one act, in that there was no chance they would achieve their war aims. Can there be any doubt that an American attack on Iran, especially a surprise attack, will fail to unify the Iranians and fill them with an intense resolve to avenge themselves?
We are currently fighting two wars. The one in Afghanistan could be going better, but the long-term prognosis is pretty good, especially once a new administration takes office if it devotes sufficient attention and resources to success. The war in Iraq is not going well, and we're unlikely to leave under happy circumstances. Our political failures in Iraq will have negative consequences for years to come, despite our military successes.
Starting a new war with Iran, however, raises the real possibility of military defeats for us. Iran is much weaker than America, of course, and there's no chance Iranian troops will be marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. But it's idiocy to think defeat requires that scene in order to be a defeat.
Iran is a big country. It has a capable military establishment. And, aroused by an unprovoked U.S. attack (in their eyes), they will be formidably motivated. While powerful, the U.S. cannot use all its power. The Army and Marines are tapped out. There's only so much the Air Force can bomb. Iran is a land-based power the Navy cannot subdue, especially if the Iranians have the support of the rest of the world.
If substantial numbers of Iraqi Shiites turn against us our troops in Iraq will be placed in an untenable position. It's possible entire units could be captured or besieged, especially if regular Iranian units assist the Iraqis. The Iranian Navy has been studying for years how to fight the U.S. Navy. We must be wary that they've succeeded in finding ways to hurt us. Sinking or severely damaging an aircraft carrier would be an tremendous political victory for them, despite its military unimportance.
And the American People, already disillusioned with our current wars, will not be enthusiastic about a new one brought about through questionable circumstances. Wars, even just and successful ones, always involve setbacks. The American people will not be in a proper mood to absorb them in this case.
There is a near certainty of disaster and a minimal chance of success, minimally defined. We would call a man a lunatic if he played Russian Roulette for a buck. What do we call a man who starts a new war when he's failed to win the ones he's already started? The last dudes who did this back, in the 1940s, brought catastrophe. (And the analogy is apt. Japan started its war with the U.S. and Britain despite an ongoing war in China. Germany launched its invasion of Russia despite a defiant, undefeated Britain still in the fight.)
A lack of will
An excellent laying of the blame where it truly belongs:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/08/more-grit-hilzo.html#trackback
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/08/more-grit-hilzo.html#trackback
Monday, August 27, 2007
John Wayne would be mortified, not to mention Patton, Reagan, Audie Murphy or even Rosa Parks
Sad to say, the "Flour Terrorist" story was right here in Connecticut, too.
John Cole of Balloon Juice has an excellent summary here: http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8613
Please, people. Let's stop being wusses. It's like the damn "security" at airports. It's stupid and pointless. The inefficiencies introduced into our economy must add up to billions already, with no end in sight.
Meanwhile, this is the same country where people in most states don't even have to wear helmets when riding motorcycles! More people die every year in motorcycle crashes than were killed on 9/11.
John Cole of Balloon Juice has an excellent summary here: http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8613
Please, people. Let's stop being wusses. It's like the damn "security" at airports. It's stupid and pointless. The inefficiencies introduced into our economy must add up to billions already, with no end in sight.
Meanwhile, this is the same country where people in most states don't even have to wear helmets when riding motorcycles! More people die every year in motorcycle crashes than were killed on 9/11.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)