Al-Qaida Strongest Since 9/11

[rdanomly]

Cost per kWh of electricity from nuclear power: about $.15 to $.20 (ask the French)
Cost per kWh of electricity from wind here in Indiana: about $.10 to $.12

Nuclear power is expensive and has waste that is definitely not safe.

Renewable energy is becoming more cost effective. If it can break even here in Indiana with our dirt cheap electricity (I pay about $.07 per kWh) places with higher rates and similar wind access should also be able to make a transition to renewable energy using fossil fuels as backups for peak demands.

[mraynrand]

Cost per kWh of electricity from nuclear power: about $.15 to $.20 (ask the French)
Cost per kWh of electricity from wind here in Indiana: about $.10 to $.12

Nuclear power is expensive and has waste that is definitely not safe.

Renewable energy is becoming more cost effective. If it can break even here in Indiana with our dirt cheap electricity (I pay about $.07 per kWh) places with higher rates and similar wind access should also be able to make a transition to renewable energy using fossil fuels as backups for peak demands.

Nuclear sounds pretty competetive. And as you pointed out, you can't have wind mills everywhere. They are a good alternative for certain circumstances and should be used where possible. Nuclear can be a whole lot less expensive and waste can be reduced.

[Deputy Nutz]

Nuclear sounds pretty competetive. And as you pointed out, you can't have wind mills everywhere. They are a good alternative for certain circumstances and should be used where possible. Nuclear can be a whole lot less expensive and waste can be reduced.

Last time I checked we aren't using 97% of Nebraska for anything.

[K-town]

[Last time I checked we aren't using 97% of Nebraska for anything.

We use Nebraska to grow corn. And running backs.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Nuclear power is expensive and has waste that is definitely not safe.

We currently get 20% of electricity from nuclear, and that's without having built any new plants since the 70's. Europe gets most of their power thru nuclear.

Homer Simpson seems to regularly survive direct contact with nuclear waste, but I suppose that is just a cartoon. You are right, nuclear waste is the rub. The current power stations are storing their waste internally. I suppose that is an approach that can work for the current century, altho I don't know.

Renewable energy is becoming more cost effective. If it can break even here in Indiana with our dirt cheap electricity (I pay about $.07 per kWh) places with higher rates and similar wind access should also be able to make a transition to renewable energy using fossil fuels as backups for peak demands.

if it were possible to meet energy needs with renewable sources & conservation, I would certainly say go for it. We should do that anyway. But it will never be sufficient.

And think about china. They are adding a new coal-burning power plant every couple days. Nuclear is SO MUCH less damaging to the environment than fossil fuels. The only hope is to find a way to make nuclear power work for the world.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'd start drawing down once the Iraqi troops could show that they can secure areas without U.S. troops. I'd draw down U.S. troops immediately wherever the Iraqi forces prove competent.

The whole problem is that the Iraqi Army is coming along so slowly.

You'd think the Shia would be keen to fight al Qaeda, the al Qaeda ideology is even more anti-Shia than anti-American. But the guys in the Iraqi Army don't want to fight ANYBODY away from their home towns. Did you know that Iraqi Army guys travel home once a month to hand-deliver their paychecks to the wife? In Baquaba, which the U.S. just cleared of insurgents, only 2600 of the expected 8,000 Iraqi troops showed up .

We can't wait the 3-5 years for the IRaqi Army to become self-sufficient.

Fortunately, the idea of using local militias to fight al-Qaeda seems to be working. That's why the troops can draw down in the next year.

[mraynrand]

I'd start drawing down once the Iraqi troops could show that they can secure areas without U.S. troops. I'd draw down U.S. troops immediately wherever the Iraqi forces prove competent.

The whole problem is that the Iraqi Army is coming along so slowly.

You'd think the Shia would be keen to fight al Qaeda, the al Qaeda ideology is even more anti-Shia than anti-American. But the guys in the Iraqi Army don't want to fight ANYBODY away from their home towns. Did you know that Iraqi Army guys travel home once a month to hand-deliver their paychecks to the wife? In Baquaba, which the U.S. just cleared of insurgents, only 2600 of the expected 8,000 Iraqi troops showed up .

We can't wait the 3-5 years for the IRaqi Army to become self-sufficient.

Fortunately, the idea of using local militias to fight al-Qaeda seems to be working. That's why the troops can draw down in the next year.

Why can't we wait more years? Also, I agree about the militia, but it's pretty close to the same thing, right? You just need competent 'policing' with a minimum of ethnic cleansing to hand over the reins. 2600 is still 2600. Basically, there is going to be a drawdown of troops, but unfortunately, there are still going to be IEDs, landmines and sharpshooters for he foreseeable future.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Why can't we wait more years? Also, I agree about the militia, but it's pretty close to the same thing, right?

Ummm, arming and co-opting the local militias is tricky in mixed provinces, because that's where the civil war is on the brink of exploding. Anbar is 100% Sunni, so relatively easy. But it's the way to go. The goal is to ultimately incorporate the militias into the regular army, which they've had some success with.

Really, I think the U.S. is doing things right now, problem is its 2 years (at least) too late.

We can't stay in Iraq with high troop levels because the U.S. Army is coming apart at the seams, they are undermanned. Asking guys to serve 15 continuous months in combat is insane. In vietnam, the soldiers got breaks every 6 months. Even iin World War II, there was often down time between the major battles. Those poor bastards in Iraq are under CONSTANT danger, unrelieved stress.
(The marines are getting breaks every six months and have much lower levels of post traumatic stress syndrome than the army and reserve troops.)

The Army Officers who graduated from West Point are leaving the service after their 5-year commitments at an all-time high rate. Uhhh, there are all sorts of indications that the Army is way over-extended. They will be at breaking point next Spring.

blah blah blah. The republicans have to have half the troops out by next summer because of the election.

For a million reasons, all the arguing just comes down to 6 months: the Dems want to start withdrawing this fall. Some repubs, with Bush, wanna wait till spring.

[Joemailman]

Iraq PM: Country Can Manage Without US ‘Any Time They Want’
by Bushra Juhi

BAGHDAD — Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave “any time they want,” though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.

0714 03 1The embattled prime minister sought to show confidence at a time when congressional pressure is growing for a withdrawal and the Bush administration reported little progress had been made on the most vital of a series of political benchmarks it wants al-Maliki to carry out.

Al-Maliki said difficulty in enacting the measures was “natural” given Iraq’s turmoil.

But one of his top aides, Hassan al-Suneid, rankled at the assessment, saying the U.S. was treating Iraq like “an experiment in an American laboratory.” He sharply criticized the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations, embarrassing the Iraqi government with its tactics and cooperating with “gangs of killers” in its campaign against al-Qaida in Iraq.

Al-Suneid’s comments were a rare show of frustration toward the Americans from within al-Maliki’s inner circle as the prime minister struggles to overcome deep divisions between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish members of his coalition and enact the American-drawn list of benchmarks.

In new violence in Baghdad on Saturday, a car bomb leveled a two-story apartment building, and a suicide bomber plowed his explosives-packed vehicle into a line of cars at a gas station. The two attacks killed at least eight people, police officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorize to release details of the attacks.

Thursday’s White House assessment of progress on the benchmarks fueled calls among congressional critics of the Iraqi policy for a change in strategy, including a withdrawal of American forces.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari warned earlier this week of civil war and the government’s collapse if the Americans leave. But al-Maliki told reporters Saturday, “We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want.”

But he added that Iraqi forces are “still in need of more weapons and rehabilitation” to be ready in the case of a withdrawal.

On Friday, the Pentagon conceded that the Iraqi army has become more reliant on the U.S. military. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, said the number of Iraqi batallions able to operate on their own without U.S. support has dropped in recent months from 10 to six, though he said the fall was in part due to attrition from stepped-up offensives.

Al-Maliki told a Baghdad press conference that his government needs “time and effort” to enact the political reforms that Washington seeks - “particularly since the political process is facing security, economic and services pressures, as well as regional and international interference.”

“These difficulties can be read as a big success, not negative points, when they are viewed under the shadow of the big challenges,” he said.

In the White House strategy, beefed-up American forces have been waging intensified security crackdowns in Baghdad and areas to the north and south for nearly a month. The goal is to bring quiet to the capital while al-Maliki gives Sunni Arabs a greater role in the government and political process, lessening support for the insurgency.

But the benchmarks have been blocked by divisions among Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders. In August, the parliament is taking a one month vacation - a shorter break than the usual two months, but still enough to anger some in Congress who say lawmakers should push through the measures.

Al-Suneid, a Shiite lawmaker close to al-Maliki, bristled at the pressure. He called Thursday’s report “objective,” but added, “this bothers us a lot that the situation looks as if it is an experiment in an American laboratory (judging) whether we succeed or fail.”

He also told The Associated Press that al-Maliki has problems with the top U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus, who works along a “purely American vision.”

He criticized U.S. overtures to Sunni groups in Anbar and Diyala, encouraging former insurgents to join the fight against al-Qaida in Iraq. “These are gangs of killers,” he said.

“There are disagreements that the strategy that Petraeus is following might succeed in confronting al-Qaida in the early period but it will leave Iraq an armed nation, an armed society and militias,” said al-Suneid.

He said that the U.S. authorities have embarrassed al-Maliki’ government through acts such as constructing a wall around Baghdad’s Sunni neighborhood of Azamiyah and repeated raids on suspected Shiite militiamen in the capital’s eastern slum of Sadr City. He said the U.S. use of airstrikes to hit suspected insurgent positions also kills civilians.

“This embarrasses the government in front of its people,” he said, calling the civilian deaths a “human rights violation.”

© 2007 The Associated Press



I don't think the PM is saying he wants the U.S. out now. However, he does know about the debate going on in this country, and I think takes issue with the argument that the country would descend into chaos if the U.S. were to leave. It will be interesting to see if this story gets major play on the Sunday talk shows tomorrow.

[mraynrand]

The Army Officers who graduated from West Point are leaving the service after their 5-year commitments at an all-time high rate.

From the New York Times' Thom Shanker:

Young Officers Leaving Army at a High Rate

WASHINGTON, April 9 — Young Army officers, including growing numbers of captains who leave as soon as their initial commitment is fulfilled, are bailing out of active-duty service at rates that have alarmed senior officers. Last year, more than a third of the West Point class of 2000 left active duty at the earliest possible moment, after completing their five-year obligation.


later, in the same article


In 2001, but before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, 9.3 percent of the Army's young officers left active duty at their first opportunity. By 2002, the number of those junior officers leaving at their first opportunity dropped to 7.1 percent, and in 2003, only 6.3 percent opted out. But the number grew to 8.3 percent in 2004 and 8.6 percent in 2005.

[mraynrand]

IT GETS WORSE!


8,000 desert during Iraq war
By Bill Nichols, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — At least 8,000 members of the all-volunteer U.S. military have deserted since the Iraq war began, Pentagon records show, although the overall desertion rate has plunged since the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001.

Since fall 2003, 4,387 Army soldiers, 3,454 Navy sailors and 82 Air Force personnel have deserted. The Marine Corps does not track the number of desertions each year but listed 1,455 Marines in desertion status last September, the end of fiscal 2005, says Capt. Jay Delarosa, a Marine Corps spokesman.


A terrible trend, wouldn't you say? Except......

At least 8,000 members of the all-volunteer U.S. military have deserted since the Iraq war began, Pentagon records show, although the overall desertion rate has plunged since the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001. . . .

Desertion numbers have dropped since 9/11. The Army, Navy and Air Force reported 7,978 desertions in 2001, compared with 3,456 in 2005. The Marine Corps showed 1,603 Marines in desertion status in 2001. That had declined by 148 in 2005. . . .

Opposition to the war prompts a small fraction of desertions, says Army spokeswoman Maj. Elizabeth Robbins. "People always desert, and most do it because they don't adapt well to the military," she says. The vast majority of desertions happen inside the USA, Robbins says. There is only one known case of desertion in Iraq.

Most deserters return within months, without coercion. Commander Randy Lescault, spokesman for the Naval Personnel Command, says that between 2001 and 2005, 58% of Navy deserters walked back in.

[mraynrand]

The NYT graph on the West point 'drop outs'

[Harlan Huckleby]

mraynrand,

Your graph on West Point retention contradicts what I've heard. And the statement on graph seems to contradict the data. I am curious, do you have the article?

From USA Today, in 2005, retention rates for Navy and Air Force Academy graduates (who hit 5-year service mark) was 92%. West Point had only 62% rejoin.

[Freak Out]

WTF? Nothing about the Bin Laden video?

[Freak Out]

Those numbers make sense just because of the fact that our soldiers are not conscripted.