Ghost of BiB

It would be nice if they moved faster on the detectors. Sense of what is the greatest threat has to come into play, or there wouldn't be any commerce at all. At the same time, I don't think there is any credible evidence that AQ is anywhere near having a nuke. Doesn't mean it can't happen, though. What else could come in by container that would even be a problem? These container operators have established relationships with, and in many cases own the vessels transporting the cargo, don't they? From a security standpoint, I think I'd rather have close relationships with big time globally savvy operators that have a sense of who is doing what than suddenly turn it over to Joe's Stevedoring from Long Beach that probably doesn't. I brought up COSCO the other day, I don't have a problem with them either - and I seriously consider China more of an overall threat than I do Dubai. We aren't the biggest and the best in every single thing in the world. The shipping business seems to be one of those areas. Also, in many respects this doesn't have a thing to do with us. P&O operates over 100 facilities in 19 countries. 6 facilities are in the US. What are the international legal implications if the US, without a compelling reason other than "feelies" screws up a multi-billion dollar business deal between two other countries? At the least, it certainly can't help our trade relationships. And as far as stirring up the masses goes, I bet Al Jazeera is getting some mileage out of this. Sure looks like we really love our middle eastern friends, doesn't it? But, the message is "all arabs are not terrorists". If I were sitting in Cairo watching all this, I'd say "yeah, right..." too.

I love it when you talk dirty. That said, the terminal destination is not the first place we involve security. Without going into detail, we have systems in place to screen stuff at the stuff point. It's called layered defense. As fugged up as we are, that's one of the few things we're doing well. Oh, 5% of containers. Sound bite warning.

I didn't see the show, but that is not an easy song to sing. Ballads are sort of a lost art. Unless you are under 18 and consider rap ballads.

Great town, but another reason to choose HK. They might hate it there after a while, too... But not for the same reasons. Depends on the wife, I guess. Mine loved it there.

First, these are my opinions of things. I have no direct knowledge that there wasn't an overall master campaign plan in place. But, with my limited knowledge of operational and strategic planning, events over the last three years don't seem to indicate there was. At least, obviously, not a very well thought out one. In my view, the "good" planning stopped when our troops entered Baghdad. And, at least in my particular lane there were problems with both planning and execution there, too. As to who to fire? I don't know. I view it as a systemic thing that is in the process (with considerable resistance) of being changed. All of our national strategies call for a combined use of all our national power to achieve strategic goals and objectives. Lofty, and also wise thoughts. The problem is, there isn't a decent mechanism to do that. With regard to national strategic objectives, the process resides within the NSC. There are standing, and also ad hoc principals committees for things, deputy committees, PCC's (Policy coordination committees) and sub-PCC's. This is where the interagency participation and coordination exists. What ends up happening, is that a lot of stuff may get resolved in terms of policy, but nothing is done to integrate resources operationally, at least not in a formal and defined process that everyone understands. The government doesn't even agree on terminology, for example. "Combating WMD" means different things to the Dept. of State, than it does to Defense. This isn't the fault of the administration, it's the result of laws, codes and statutes. Basically, the intent was to keep everyone in their own lane, so no one could directly affect the responsibilities or authorities of another agency. But in the 21st Century, that is antiquated thinking. Iraq is a stellar example. Katrina is another, from the domestic perspective. IMO, any effective campaign or plan can not be devised or executed without AO level people sitting around the table, and actively figuring out how to synergize their respective resources through all phases to achieve a goal. Changing the laws, codes and statutes is sometimes relatively easy -but more often hard. To change something that makes it easier for someone in DOD to directly coordinate at the operational level with someone in the DOT will get into someone elses Rice Bowl. The cardinal rule in the beltway as it stands, is that thou shalt not eat from another's rice bowl. Toss in an adversarial press, and the spin will make things less attractive for people to make changes. IMO, logically "Combating WMD" should be led by the DOD. No one else in government has the understanding of ALL the issues involved collectively to put together a coherent program to address it all. And, I can personally vouch that it is a tremendous problem to get one's arms around. But how would that look to our own press, and more to the world at large if the DOD were the LFA for that? Pretty fuggin miltaristic. I don't think it would be a good idea. But, although there are venues, there isn't a joint across the government interagency mechanism with any tasking authority to do this. So, how does one effectively implement a national strategy using all elements of national power? OK, I went FFS (or is it pyrite gal?) and it's a lot more complicated than this, but maybe you get the idea. You often want to pick, Mickey. But, some things are just what they are. We operationally have a system of government geared for a world that existed 25 years ago. That system wasn't set up to address how quickly the world can change now. If Congress really wanted to help, they could investigate in a non-partisan fashion the stumbling points to our policy execution, and promulgate the respective laws that would enable a better system. But, they eat from various rice bowls too, and I think it's a good bet that in general, they don't have a clue. They don't care enough to know. They don't follow up on anything important. They want their face on TV, for TV made issues. Policy would still be the realm of the executive branch, doesn't matter if it's democrat, republican or the IBP. But the tools could be put in place to effect that policy, and also to plan it's implementation much more effectively than it is now. If done right, no matter who is in charge in the WH, the people best qualified to "implement the execution" of a policy would have a chance to do so. We don't have that.

From what perspective? I think this could have been a wildly successful activity if it certain things had been done differently upfront. As I said, some people don't know how to plan. Just because you have the power to create and conduct policy doesn't mean you have the skills to implement and execute it.

There, once again, is no plan that I am aware of. Plans involve goals and objectives with end states and measures of effectiveness, among other things. Iraq is (was?) well suited to an ends-ways-means approach to achieve terminal objectives with transition points not only integrating agency/partner tasks to achieve those goals, but in phasing from the military objectives into the ultimate diplomatic objectives.

Foreign Policy is not in Congress's lane, except to the extent it can be affected by legislation. Don't forget that the dynamics of the world change as well. I though you guys were refering to actual plans, like for Iraq.

Speaking as a planner, I think part of the problem is that other than the DOD, nobody knows how to plan. It's not a matter of having ideas and concepts, it's putting them together logically and having a system to make sure you haven't missed anything. This is why Interagency Coordination has become a hot issue. One doesn't only have the problem described above, but nowhere in Government that I'm aware of, is there someone who has "The Plan". Everyone sort of has their own version of their piece of it. Supposedly coordinated, but by the time things get to the levels where approvals for actions take place - those people involved are too high up the food chain to understand planning. There needs to be a JOPES type format and a planning methodology that involves all agencies and is followed by all agencies so everyone has the same operating picture. Rather than a vague directive to "go forth and do good things".

I don't think the Coast Guard is unionized.

Three Savannah votes...

Or, someone who wants everyone to think that...

I wouldn't mind living in Dubai, if I could afford it. It's not Hong Kong, but it's wrapped pretty tight.

See PM

My neighbors still have their Kerry-Edwards signs up.

I live in persnickety Olde Towne Alexandria. I catch all kinds of grief over the engine block in the front yard, and the hound tied to the clothesline. You can't imagine.

It's not that simple, with Iran already stirring up a lot of this, and standing by to fill the vacuum.

We're all going to die horribly because a UAE owned company is going to subcontract some terminal operations at 6 US ports instead of a British company. All this before anyone checked any facts, much less took any look at the UAE. If there is one westernized society, not to mention city in the middle east, it's UAE and Dubai.

Sure is a mess, isn't it? I have a feeling you ain't seen nothin' yet. There was a point in time where the GWOT aspects were a lot bigger an issue than they are now. It's not that way anymore, IMO, in Iraq. If it weren't for Iran and the sh-- they are pulling in all this, I'd be happy to see the billions stop flowing in there. It's getting in the way of other stuff that needs to be done. But, leaving now without getting a handle on Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria would create more problems than it would solve. It wouldn't be long before we were back over there.

I thought since P&O was a British company, there might be some take on the xenophobic American reaction to it's sale to Dubai Ports World.

From where I'm at, you are the exception rather than the rule. Most (if not all) of our IT services are contracted out, and I know of at least three other posters that do them. Most of the "heavy lifting" in researching and producing documentation for things is done by contractors. A large percentage of intelligence analysis is done by contractors. Maybe that's more of a DC thing. I DO see people hop between contractor and GS pretty regularly, so if you made the actual government bigger, in terms of government employees you'd probably have the same people doing the work anyway. There's different types of support contractors, too. I'm an Advice and Assistance contractor, on-site full time and basically part of the org. Most of the others in my area are a different category and work by task order on specific things.

Savannah, Georgia. For romance. You fly into there for Hilton Head anyway. Great town for that.

Bush, IMO as far as Presidents go, is an idiot. But, they have a good staff in many respects. There are some real bright initiatives out there. I just hope they don't get lost in the shuffle.

You are a bad man, go away, bad man. Hang out with Olivier, all French are bad too. Damn, how stupid are we looking in the British Press? I haven't looked. From a resident perspectve.

I do flight sims, which involve a lot of joystick plus some keyboard engine management and such (strictly PC, I have no X box or whatever). What is the PC user interface like in games such as BF? At a glance, it looks like one could get bogged down on the keyboard.