This was posted earlier on Joe Gandelman’s blog The Moderate Voice.
Talk about controversy: President Bush nominated Deputy Defense Secreatary Paul Wolfowitz, a top neocon thinker and leader, to head the World Bank and if you can’t yet call it a firestorm, you can safely say sparks have been flying here and abroad.
But how much of it is due to info at hand about Wolfowitz, and how much of it represents justifiable fear, and how much of it represents accumulated gut political reactions??
In reality, even though Wolfowitz played a key role in the Iraq war and in drawing up the administration’s game plan that holds that combating terrorists in their neighborhood would make the other neighbors want to throw other terrorists and autocrats, there’s no proof yet that he’s a bad choice or even a great choice: it’s too early. Yet, his nomination has already generated emotions on all sides and is even sparking an outcry in some quarters.
Is he totally inexperienced? According to the New York Times (no Wolofwitz fan) as “American ambassador to Indonesia from 1986 to 1989, Mr. Wolfowitz developed a passion for development and aid issues.” And the Times notes that he has the President’s trust — but in an editorial today the paper wonders why he was picked at all:
Even those who supported the goals of the invasion must remember Mr. Wolfowitz’s scathing contempt for estimates that the occupation of Iraq would require hundreds of thousands of troops, and his serene conviction that American soldiers would be greeted with flowers. Like the nomination of John Bolton as United Nations ambassador, the choice of Mr. Wolfowitz is a slap at the international community, which widely deplored the invasion and the snubbing of the United Nations that accompanied it.
This seems to be this administration’s style. Some call it “bold,” but above all controversial. Extending olive branches doesn’t come naturally to this administration and some Europeans and others are upset about this nomination. It seems the British don’t mind but others see it as GWB placating his right flank:
The German development minister, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, said that “the enthusiasm in ‘old Europe’ is not exactly overwhelming.”ActionAid, a British- and South African-based aid organization, called the nomination “an unwelcome step.” Referring to the selection system, Patrick Watt, a policy officer with the group, said in a statement that the announcement “speaks volumes for the need to reform a process which is neither transparent nor based on merit. . . . As well as lacking any relevant experience, he is a deeply divisive figure who is unlikely to move the Bank towards a more pro-poor agenda.”
The Financial Times bluntly headlines: “Wolfowitz nomination a shock for Europe,” saying it’s the second shock, after the nomination of the verbally combative Bolton was named for the UN. (Would they have preferred Michael Bloton?) But the Washington Post, in an editorial, urges everyone to take a nice, deep breath:
But this hostility is mostly unjustified. Mr. Wolfowitz is the best qualified of all the recently rumored candidates for the World Bank job. He has been a valued member of the Bush administration; by selecting him rather than a peripheral figure, Mr. Bush is showing that he understands the World Bank’s importance. The bank’s leading shareholders — principally the Japanese and Europeans — should welcome Mr. Wolfowitz’s nomination, not use their positions on the World Bank’s board to obstruct it.Unlike several of his predecessors, Mr. Wolfowitz would come to the World Bank presidency with real knowledge of development. He served as U.S. ambassador to Indonesia in the late 1980s, when that country was one of the World Bank’s biggest clients and a poverty-reduction success story. Mr. Wolfowitz is also a persuasive communicator, an essential quality in the leader of an institution that is frequently attacked by ideologues on both the left and the right. And Mr. Wolfowitz has experience as a public-sector manager. The World Bank is an unwieldy, 10,000-strong bureaucracy. Mr. Wolfowitz’s stint as No. 2 at the Pentagon should have prepared him for that.
The Christian Science Monitor as usual has a highly thoughtful piece, which makes several points including this:
Others note that Wolfowitz going to the World Bank after the Iraq War would follow the example of former Defense Secretary Robert MacNamara, who headed the global institution after the Vietnam War. And even those who do not consider themselves Wolfowitz fans note that he is a past dean of the Johns Hopkins school of international studies and has a long-time interest in democratization.
Our view? The cases can be made against and for Wolfowitz and given his background it’s worth giving him a chance. His ability to communicate and the fact he was intimately involved in U.S. tsunami relief efforts and toured the poor nations hit by the death tidalwave are huge pluses. Also: ties to GWB mean instant access to the highest levels of the U.S. government.
UPDATE: Al Jazeera’s headline says:”Choosing Wolfowitz definitely benefits Israel.” Because of his stand on Israel (and they don’t say it but because he is a J-e-w). The story notes that Israel officials are as pleased as UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s top poverty advisor is not:”It’s time for other candidates to come forward that have experience in development,’ Prof. Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and Annan adviser, said.”
BUT THERE ARE OTHER VOICES WITH VARYING VIEWS ON THIS SUBJECT. HERE’S A CROSS SECTION:
—Glenn Reynolds has a ton of links and his most interesting one is where he shows (using boldface) how a Times news story on this is riddled with personal biases delivered via politically slanted phrases. A MUST READ. (If I had submitted a story like that for some of my editors at the papers for which I worked and contributed they would have edited that stuff out, unless it had an ANALYSIS label or was on the Op-Ed page).
—The Mahablog:”“Stupidity as a strategy” might explain nominating Paul Wolfowitz to be president of the World Bank.”
—Daniel Drezner has an extensive analysis plus many links. A MUST READ. A small taste:
No neocon worth their salt would want Bolton at the UN of Wolfowitz at the Bank — because neocons don’t believe these institutions are particularly relevant. What matters is who is ruling the roost inside the beltway. And in DC, the balance of power has shifted to State — and the people that are there have signaled a willingness to listen to the Europeans. Compared to what they faced during the Powell/Rumsfeld wars, this is a much more hospitable environment for European diplomats.
—Kesher Talk:”It’s hard not to imagine Bush thinking, “You guys like Neo-con Zionist Jew International Banker Conspiracies so much? Fine! I’ll give you a Neo-con Zionist Jew International Banker! Have fun!” (And smirking, of course!)”
—Slant Point:
I support Wolfowitz because Bush has us so far in debt that he could rightly claim the US is now a poor nation and then tap the World Bank’s coffers for relief.But seriously, as the conspiracy theories crop up regarding Paul Wolfowitz heading the World Bank, a more plausible explanation is coming forth - heart and real change. A WaPo article claims tours of devestated tsunami areas helped push Wolfowitz to make the career change. Far from being simply a war hawk, Wolfowitz most likely views this as chance to continue to spread Democracy to developing nations.
—Kevin Drumm:”I don’t know enough about Wolfowitz and Bolton on a substantive basis to have much to say about their appointments. On a PR level, though, the message Bush is sending is plain. A number of pundits inexplicably thought that Bush might settle down in his second term and try to run a more conciliatory, less strident administration, and it’s pretty obvious that he’s trying to make it crystal clear that he has no intention of doing this. Second term Bush will be no different from first term Bush, and don’t you forget it.”
—Orrin Judd:”Do you suppose the Timesmen ever read the U.N. reports on why the Arab world is lagging behind everyone else in terms of development? Who has ever done more than Mr. Wolfowitz and his superiors to bring to the region the three things it lacks most: freedom, knowledge and womanpower.”
—McQ:”But make no mistake about it, the appointment is indeed an intentional spreading of the Bush philosophy, whether you really consider it to be conservative or not.”
—The Belgravia Dispatch:”I think Wolfowitz will make a fine choice for the posting. I think his time in Indonesia and elsewhere, married to his obvious intelligence, will put him in good stead as he grapples with economic development issues there. Wolfowitz, in many ways, has always been the most interesting and complex neo-con that served in Bush’s administration. Widely reviled by many, yes, I wouldn’t be surprised if he will now be missed in some unlikely quarters too.”
—Arthur Chrenkoff:”Won’t the left and the Islamofascists around the world have fun with this one: a Jeeeewwww in charge of the World Bank. And not just any Jeeeewwww, but a neo-con. There will be plenty of material to work with, like this: “Senior Israeli officials reacted with satisfaction… to news…” etc. And with Wolfowitz replacing Wolfensohn, who will be the first one to make a crack that only wolves need to apply?”
—Steve Soto:
In fact, Europeans are feeling now that Bush’s recent trip there and his and Condi’s fence-mending were all an act given the subsequent nominations of John Bolton as UN ambassador and now Wolfie to head the World Bank. Suffice it to say that the Europeans are feeling like they were misled once again by Bush rhetoric, and any goodwill that Bush gained from his recent trip has now been squandered.And ironically, his overseas supporters say that one of his strengths are his administrative abilities, yet the Washington insiders say that the one part of the job that Wolfie hated at the Pentagon were the day-to-day administrative duties, as evidenced by everything that went wrong underneath him.
Think of the Bush nomination of Paul Wolfowitz as an astute police action, with the cop wearing a three-piece suit. International institutions became forums for political warfare during the Cold War, and that sapped them. But “institution-driven” leadership has further weakened international organizations. Corruption has savaged the UN.Wolfowitz knows these institutions must change. Yes there is a war aim: economic development is absolutely key to achieving a sustaining victory in The Millennium War (as most of you know, I dislike the term War on Terror).
—Roger Simon has a lont analzysis. A tiny part:”You need not be Sigmund Freud or his daughter to realize Euro academics of this stripe see Wolfowitz et al through a prism so distorted and contorted by envy they end up looking up their own nostrils. What will they say if five years from now the whole Middle East is democratic?”
—Charles Johnson also points to the politically loaded phrases in the Times reporting:”Can you tell how the New York Times feels about Paul Wolfowitz?”
—Bull Moose:
While Wolfowitz bears responsibility for the mishandling of the aftermath of the war, he has a world outlook that is fundamentally distinct from Bolton. In truth, Wolfowitz is a humanitarian internationalist in the tradition of Truman, JFK and Scoop. When the DeLays and Lotts excoriated the Clinton Administration on Kosovo, Wolfowitz stood firmly for a humanitarian intervention to prevent genocide. He has demonstrated genuine sympathy for the downtrodden whether they are tsunami victims or the Iraqi marsh Arabs. A few years ago, the Moose witnessed Wolfowitz as the target of hecklers at a pro-Israel rally when he voiced sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians.
—The Glittering Eye has a great roundup and concludes:”I can save you a great deal of time. I’m sorry to report that the reactions to the Wolfowitz appointment are essentially a referendum on the Iraq war. Where you sit is where you stand.”
href=”http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/9687”>OTB Traffic Jam.
The program of unmanned drones that patrol the Arizona-Mexico has been suspended by the federal government so they can "evaluate its effectiveness". Since their deployment last summer the Hermes class ummanned drones have apprehended 965 illegal aliens and confiscated 843 pounds of marijuana. The Hunter class drones have apprehended 287 illegal aliens and seized over 1,900 pounds of marijuana.
I hope they are simply evaluating which version to expand and use more widely, but according to some quotes in the article below it sounds like there's even the potential for the program to be scrapped.
San Diego Union-Tribune (via Lonewacko)
Aerial drones patrolling the Arizona-Mexico border will be grounded after the current contract expires next Sunday so the federal government can evaluate the program's effectiveness, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection says.Immigration authorities have been testing unmanned drones on the border for months, using them to help agents spot illegal immigrants and smugglers.
"It's undetermined when the program will start back up," said Mario Villarreal, spokesman for agency. "I would say sometime this year."
A "refined requirement" for using the military aircraft as border enforcers will then be developed, and the government will put out a request to the private sector to provide a new unmanned vehicle program, [Villarreal] said.Other than the apprehensions and drug confiscations I mentioned above, exactly how successful were these unmanned drones? Did they underperform?He said Congress appropriated $10 million for the program for its fiscal 2005 budget year, which began Oct. 1. "There is money left over for continued use," Villarreal said.
Aviation Today (via The Tarpit)
Paul Olski, director of aviation joint planning and development in the Department of Homeland Security, said that the three Hermes 450 UAVs patrolling the Arizona-Mexico border were so successful that the agency plans to purchase "a number of Hunter UAVs." During a three-month test period, the Hermes, flying at about 15,000 feet at around 90 knots, spotted some 853,000 people crossing the border, according to Olski.How can you ground such a successful program? This is ridiculous. The real problem is that with 853,000 people illegally crossing the border during a 3 month test period there's not enough agents to apprehend them all.
Originally posted at Diggers Realm
President Bush has announced three Arizona lawmakers to come up with details for the immigration reform plan he wants to put before Congress. The three, Republican Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain and Republican Congressman Jim Kolbe, were selected to put together the legislation for the Presidents proposal.
So, who are these three men and what are their stances on immigration? To find out I went to Congress Grades and looked up the three.
First, we have Senator Jon Kyl. Jon Kyl in the past has actually scored decent on his card with a B on immigration. However, his recent actions have taken a serious downturn on immigration enforcement, particularly in regards to amnesty programs where he scores an F-, resulting in his current card holding an overall D.
Second, we have Senator John McCain. I like John McCain, he's a good guy who sticks to his beliefs. Unfortunately for us, on the immigration issue, his beliefs are abhorrent. With a lifetime career average of D+ he has nothing to be proud of on his enforcement of immigration law. He was against the recent Proposition 200 which passed in Arizona this election cycle that required voters to prove citizenship with ID and requiring immigration status being declared in order to receive government services. He sided with big business, radical open border supporters and illegal alien friendly groups against the Proposition. He has a consistent F- for his career in illegal alien amnesty, the visa lottery, chain migration and reducing unnecessary foreign worker visa's. The only place McCain shines is in border enforcement. His Current Grade is a telling F
The third tapped is Congressman Jim Kolbe. His record is abysmal in amnesty, interior enforcement and reducing unnecessary foreign worker visa's. Also recently he has continued his downward slide by scoring a D in rewarding illegal aliens and D+ border controls. His current grade sits at a lowly F
Bush has clearly tapped the bottom of the barrel with his choice of people to spearhead his immigration reform legislation. He may say he's not for an amnesty, but the individuals he has chosen to associate himself with regarding immigration all score a resounding F- in their actions towards amnesty for illegal aliens. Actions speak louder than words, as they say.
"We haven't come up with the actual tactic," Bush acknowledged when asked to provide new details of what he would want in such a guest-worker bill beyond the broad principles he has floated for about a year.It's an amnesty in everything but name no matter what he says.However, Bush was emphatic that he is not talking about amnesty or automatic citizenship for the estimated 8 million to 12 million undocumented immigrants working in this country.
"On the citizenship issue, people can get in line just like everybody else does," Bush said. "I think it would be a mistake to make this an amnesty program. So my proposal will not be an amnesty program."
Originally posted at Diggers Realm
Cross-posted (with some of the more pungent opinion removed) from AEBrain, the Blog.
This post is a bit technical, I’m afraid. Hopefully not too much. I’m attempting to explain the kinds of difficulty faced by relief efforts in Indonesia, and without using too many technical terms.
First, here’s the situation.
From The Australian :
While Australian army helicopters are delivering food and clothing to refugees in Aceh province, problems on the ground have been delaying aircraft carrying aid into the ruined provincial capital Banda Aceh.There are reports that the city’s airport is barely coping with more than 150 aircraft movements a day.
A Defence Force spokesman said Australian personnel were helping set up an air traffic control centre at the airport in an effort to reduce flight delays in the giant aid operation.
“Four ADF personnel are working with the United States, Singapore and the Indonesian military on that,” the spokesman said.
The bottleneck at the city’s airport forced Defence Minister Robert Hill to cancel his trip to Banda Aceh.
Senator Hill flew to Sumatra yesterday to visit the 500 Australian defence personnel based in Medan and Banda Aceh who are involved in the relief effort, but called off his visit to Aceh.
“The minister will not be travelling to Banda Aceh because of difficulties on the ground relating to logjams with the relief effort in Banda Aceh,” a spokesman for Senator Hill said.
150 movements a day, that means one take-off or landing every 10 minutes, 24/7, all day, every day. Probably more like 1 every 6 minutes in daylight hours, one every 15 minutes at night.
From the SULTAN ISKANDARMUDA Aerodrome Data, there are 2 parallel runways, each about 2500 metres or 8200 ft long. PCN (the pressure the runway can take) is 63. (FCXT is explained here - it means Flexible, Low Subgrade, to 217psi or 1.5 MPa, measured by analysis not experiment).
Anyway…
A Boeing 737 has an ACN - which corresponds to the runway’s PCN - of anywhere between 18 and 55, depending on whether it’s empty or loaded, and the exact model of 737. For an FCXT surface, a 737-700 has an ACN of 19 empty and 42 loaded, while the larger 737-900 has an ACN of 23 empty and 50 loaded.
The important thing is that whether the ACN is 19, 42, 23 or 50, they’re all under the runway’s PCN of 63.
A quick look at the 737’s takeoff distance shows that while a 737-400 only just fits, all other models have plenty of runway.
That means you can operate any model of 737 whatsoever on that runway till the cows come home (or are struck by the undercarriage).
A 737 freighter can carry about 16 tonnes, and has about 120 cubic metres of volume. Note that a normal passenger 737 can carry between 2.25 and 3.6 tonnes, depending on the model, so if you’re taking in people, you won’t get much freight in.
If you’re bring in water - where 1 cu metre weighs a tonne - then the 737 can bring in perhaps 14,000 litres, after packaging and palletising. Food weighs a lot less, you may be limited by volume rather than weight (consider how large a Cornflakes packet is compared to a soft drink can that weighs the same).
Well, if a 737 is good, what about a 747-400 freighter? That can carry a whopping 115 tonnes. That can land in 2500m, just. Except that its takeoff distance even when empty is probably over 3000m. And its ACN is 22 when empty, but 80 when loaded.
It’s just possible that a very lightly loaded 747-400 could use the airfield, assuming there’s a strong enough headwind. But 115 tonnes of freight would probably bust the runway on landing, and on takeoff, the 747 might not have enough distance.
Now a C-130 Hercules transport, as used by the USAF and RAAF, has an ACN of no more than 40, even when loaded to maximum takeoff weight, including 25.5 tonnes of cargo. Moreover, it can carry at least 5 (more in some models) military-standard pallettes (for ease of cargo handling), and has a drop-down rear door (no need for special elevator vehicles) , so can be unloaded extra fast with minimal infrastructure.
That’s why the 15 USAF, 7 RAAF and 1 RNZAF C-130’s in Indonesia are operating as hard as they can. Each one is worth maybe 3 737’s in practice.
OK, that’s good for seeing how much stuff can get in. What about stuff getting out? If we assume each aircraft coming in carries about 16 tonnes of goods, and that half of that can be distributed by trucks to the local area, that means that each flight in will need 8 tonnes of goods going out. As each helicopter can carry on the order of a tonne, that means there’s 8 outgoing helo flights per aircraft coming in.
The “150 aircraft movements” figure, assuming no backlog, would be about 16 planeloads per day incoming (and flying back), and a whopping 128 helicopter sorties, taking-off and landing. In practice, there’d be at least 20 planes incoming, and fewer helo flights. Hence a backlog is inevitable. One more thing - there’s loads of assumptions in this calculation, some of which are quite crucial. Up the “local distribution” fraction to 3/4, and you need 2/3 as many helo flights, so more cargo aircraft can get in (assuming they can be unloaded in a reasonable time). On the other hand, the SH-60 helicopters in use by the US can only carry half a tonne. I’ve assumed other helos with greater capacity (like the Singaporean 10-tonne capacity Chinooks) are doing a reasonable share.
Did I mention that for every hour in the air, a helicopter might need a dozen or more hours maintenance? This is a truly Stakhanovite effort, by all the maintainers, the pilots, the fuellers and unloaders, and by Air Traffic Control.
Air Traffic Control? You see, 1 aircraft movement every 5 minutes is a recipe for pandemonium on a small airfield. The level of planning and co-ordination required is fantastic. From An American Abroad :
Banda Aceh airport remains off limits to private aircraft. The airport is being fully utilized by the United States, Australia, Singapore and Indonesian governments to distribute food aid and conduct all related relief operations. Airspace surrounding all the affected areas is also off limits without any prior authorization. A few NGOs have been given authorization to operate helicopters and assist in relief operations. Authorization can be obtained only by written request at least 72 hours prior to intended move. United Nations Joint Logistics Centre - cargo movement request can be obtained here.
Note that last part : United Nations Joint Logistics Centre. But good luck accessing the website, it’s overloaded. Guess how many personnel in that “UN” co-ordination centre are in the US or Australian Military? At a rough guess, I’d say… All of them. It’s joint, all right. US and Australian, with able assists from Singapore (whose efforts are unsung and amazingly valuable) and the host country, Indonesia. Still, they’re all members of the UN, and if a UN badge keeps the political squabblers, bureaucrats and ignorant media off their backs, it’s no big deal.
From the UK Telegraph there’s this though :
The Indonesian military agreed to lend three helicopters for the UN to use yesterday. But the mission to assess needs was cancelled due to a lack of paperwork.When UN officials arrived at the airport they were told they had failed to hand in flight permission forms by 8pm the previous night.
“They were at the airport and I was expecting them to go out,” said Mr Elmquist. “We were not informed in advance that it was necessary to fill in these forms.”
The UN bureaucracy can’t even co-ordinate with the “UN” logistics centre, let alone anyone else. In fact, they wouldn’t be able to locate their posteriors even with both hands, a map, a compass, written instructions, a satellite navigation system and a native guide. All of which have been provided to them.
But surely there are some people in the Great Co-Ordinating Sheltered Workshop in New York who know their ACNs, PCNs, and their arses from their elbows? From the UN News Centre :
“There are still many areas that we have not been able to get people to, many areas are still, particularly on the western coast of Sumatra, unreachable by land,” Kevin M. Kennedy, the Director of the Coordination and Response Division of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), told a news briefing in New York of the Indonesian provinces that officials have dubbed the disaster’s “ground zero.”He said that in the coming days the relief operations would be calling on international military assistance to help repair key infrastructure, such as bridges, culverts and roads, to allow delivery of food and assistance in Sumatra and Aceh province.
Mr. Kennedy noted that while helicopters now being used are “absolutely critical” to the operation, they are an expensive way to bring in aid. A Black Hawk helicopter carries about a half ton of food. “Now that’s extremely important because it may prevent people from losing their lives : but what we will need are roads that we can drive 20-ton and 10-ton trucks down at a much lower cost and deliver much more assistance,” he said.
How true, how true. But how are we to get the 10- and 20-tonne trucks in there? A C-130 can carry a 2.5 tonne truck, that’s about all it has room for. More importantly, how are we to get the bulldozers, the diggers, the massive 40-tonne graders, and all the other really heavy roadbuilding paraphenalia there ASAP? There are 2 ways : use a USAF or RAF C-17A transport aircraft (the C-5B and AN-124s can’t feasibly operate from the airfield with heavy loads), or by ship. And even the C-17s would have difficulty carrying in the heaviest gear, and likely couldn’t carry a grader in on a runway that light. Moving in this infrastructure-building equipment in by air would disrupt, or rather, completely stop, the delivery of such “non-essential luxuries” as food and water that are the only things keeping tens of thousands of people alive.
Guess who’s providing the ships? They’re on their way, HMAS Kanimbla sailed just the other day for example. The US is providing a helluva lot more. The UN is providing, oh, approximately none.
As mentioned in a previous post, I have a little knowledge about logistics during disaster relief.
From the paper I co-authored :
The first scenario gave surprising results: the prime limitation was not the number of aircraft available, but the capacity of the infrastructure to support aircraft turn-around. Whether 10 or 40 aircraft were available was immaterial if either source or destination airfield(s) were unable to cope with more than 2 air movements per hour.
In fact, beyond a certain point, having too many aircraft involved increased both time and monetary costs (due to wear and tear on airframe and engines) entirely from traffic congestion, a result predictable in hindsight but wholly unexpected. Just a few Aircraft with the ability to load and offload quickly, and the ability to carry large and bulky items were more valuable than dozens of less capable ones possessing greater aggregate tonnage lift capability.
That’s not the whole story though. The bottlenecks that are to be expected in delivering aid to where it’s needed are:
Summary: Goods will overflow in warehouses unless and until more helicopters become available in Aceh, and until the weather clears in Sri Lanka. And mobile Air Traffic Control systems are a top priority to establish satellite bases. Sending more aircraft in usually won’t help (except for helicopters). C-130’s are great, because they have a long enough range at low load to get pretty much anywhere, a useful amount of cargo space, and a reasonably low ACN and required runway length.
So if you see video of warehouses stocked to overflowing, calls by various officials for more air traffic controllers, Russian-made Ilyushin Il-76s going to Sri Lanka, Commercial Freight Airliners going to Thailand while US C-130’s go to Indonesia, and the arrival of relatively low-capacity helicopters being greeted with delight, you’ll know why.