|
Winds of Change
|
|
|
This blog's focus will be world events and the future we're creating. World affairs will be a focus, with frequent side-trips into the worlds of business, technology, and religion. by Joe Katzman My Firm: WoC Home Page WoC ARCHIVES BLACK BELT BLOGS! Grand Strategy: - Donald S. Warbloggers: - Blogs of War Economics: - Live From WTC Euro-Dudes: - Bjorn Staerk (Nor) Lighter Side - Happyfunpundit Israel & Anti-Semitism: - Daimnation! Israel: Locals - Ohad et. al. Media: Religion: - Goliard (Cat) Tech & Med: - Boxes & Arrows General Punditry: - Andrew Sullivan RECIPROCITY - C-Jo's LGF  |
Wednesday, June 05, 2002
June 5, 2002: Al-Qaeda Warning - What's Up, Doc? By now, you've no doubt read the stories about the latest Al-Qaeda threat against the USA, as delivered by al Qaeda spokesman Sulaiman bu Ghaith and published Sunday in the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat. There was a threat of this type issued about 3 weeks before Sept. 11. What's the purpose of this one? I'm not sure what al-Qaeda could do right now that wouldn't be massively counterproductive, since the US threat alerts take care of its core strategic necessity - ensuring that the Islamic world believes it has struck against the USA and survived. Besides which, their operation to create a war between India and Pakistan is going rather well so far. Right now, everything's a guess. So let's set the strategic background, then look at 3 possibilities. -- The Strategic Backdrop -- Jane's (and others) note al-Qaeda's interest in a war between India and Pakistan, a fact acknowledged in Winds of Change a couple of weeks ago. STRATFOR summarizes: "From al Qaeda's viewpoint, an Indian attack on Pakistan would be highly desirable. Even an attack involving nuclear weapons would be acceptable, particularly if it served to isolate and protect regions in which al Qaeda dominates. That's why Pakistani-based Islamic militants aligned with al Qaeda have persistently exacerbated the crisis between the two countries. In the long run they see an India-Pakistan war as an acceptable price to pay for their ultimate goals, even if it results in the destruction of Pakistan."Al-Qaeda sees 3 key benefits from continued hostility: 1. Distracts Musharraf from potentially hostile actions in Waziristan. Tactics: move to the Pakistani-controlled region of Kashmir and perpetrate enough terrorism to force an Indian response. Miss few opportunities to worsen the situation via well timed attacks, in order to up the ante. Take full advantage of Kashmir's importance to Pakistani nationalism, in order to paralyze the Pakistani government. Add to that Al-Qaeda's dispersal throughout Pakistan's cities and remaining ISI contacts, all of which keeps Musharraf unsure of his ability to turn on Al-Qaeda and survive. OK, but what if this goes nuclear? Isn't that carrying the martyrdom thing a bit far? Chillingly, the answer is: "not necessarily." Yes, Al-Qaeda cadres in the cities could die - if they remain there once hostilities break out. But even in a nuclear exchange, the lawless wastelands of Waziristan and Baluchistan on the western border would not be primary targets... or even within the main fallout patterns. The port city of Karachi, by contrast, would glow like a nite-light. As Pakistan's major port, Karachi is critical to US supply lines in the area. Throw in the likely humanitarian crisis and plans to evacuate over 250,000 Westerners, and the West's militaries would be much too busy to deal with Al-Qaeda for many months at least. Nuclear war may not be thinkable for Musharraf or for India, but Al-Qaeda is not the first Islamofascist movement to have a different view. So, Al-Qaeda's strategy in Pakistan is clear. The game is "let's you and him fight." The goal is war, leading to a land so fragmented that al-Qaeda can safely operate there for a long time to come. Even nuclear war is acceptable, but an averted war might still be useful. Because the USA is a superpower with interests it must protect, it cannot help but become distracted from the War on Terror by this unfolding drama. Should the worst occur, it cannot help but turn many of its resources toward aid and restoration. Its strength and assets are thus turned against it. Terrorism doesn't adequately describe this, folks. Welcome to 4th Generation Warfare. Now, what's unacceptable to al-Qaeda? A settlement between India and Pakistan that leaves the United States as broker, arbiter and balance-keeper for both countries. In al-Qaeda's worst scenario, the USA becomes Pakistan's main protection against India, in exchange for greater cooperation on anti-terrorism measures. Meanwhile, India and the USA also continue to move closer together, slowly tightening the bonds of economic and military cooperation. Al-Qaeda would find itself squeezed hard in Pakistan and Afghanistan, facing the growing need for a mass exodus and few sure routes or destinations. That scenario must therefore be prevented at all costs. -- Option #1: A Real Attack -- In warfare, there are several basic strategies. Formenting an India/Pakistan war is an annihilation strategy against the Pakistani government, and a near-term exhaustion strategy with respect to the USA and its allies. The unconventional execution of that strategy is what makes it 4th Generation, and its scope makes it warfare rather than terrorism. In the lead-up to that strong 4GW move, however, tactics aimed at attrition and paralysis can play important roles. Let's parse bu Ghaith's statement closely, shall we? I'll use this Pakistani report, since it contains more detail. Al Qaeda "will continue to work to strike against the United States" Well, duh. Note, however, that he didn't say within the United States. Most of Al-Qaeda's attacks have been carried out on foreign soil. The group "will continue to work to strike against Americans and Jews and to target them, be it individuals or infrastructure." The "individuals" reference got my attention. "What is in waiting for the Americans will not be inferior to what the United States has already gone through," Abu Ghaith said. Over what time frame, he does not say. Don't assume this means another 9/11 scale operation. "Let America be prepared to fasten its seat belt because, thanks to God, we are going to surprise it in a place where it is not expecting." Kind of hard to surprise America in a place where it is expecting, isn't it? Right now, the most effective thing Al-Qaeda could do would probably be to assassinate Donald Rumsfeld when America's favorite butt-kicker heads to Pakistan for talks. The benefits would be several-fold: 1. It remove a key player shaping the US strategy (and media response, a critical center of gravity in a netwar like this). All in all, a pretty positive scorecard for Al-Qaeda. Pulling this operation off would be a trick and a half, as the move doesn't exactly qualify as "unexpected". Then again, it would be much, much easier to move the reported Stingers, SA-7s, or whatever into Pakistan as opposed to the USA. What if the intelligence tip is partly right, but the focus is "American" and not "America"? Given that many Soviet war vintage Stingers may not be in working order, it makes sense to hoard the few that remain for maximum effect. This may be such a time. Multiple Stingers could be used to defeat a "dummy helicopters" defense, and even improve one's odds against flare defenses, etc. Or perhaps al-Qaeda can use other means to get the job done. Regardless, the key is having insiders who can supply correct information about Rumsfeld's routes and/or arrival times. Which means any assassination operation hinges on the loyalties and remaining reach of Pakistan's ISI. Look, it's just a scenario. It's not an implausible scenario, though, and certainly fits al-Qaeda's strategic needs much more closely than another terrorist attack in the USA. I hope Rumsfeld is very careful during his trip. -- Option #2: Calculated Bluff -- In this alternative, al-Qaeda's recent threat may simply be bluff, part of the normal back-and-forth of warnings and false reports designed to throw the other side off balance. Like most 4GW conflicts, the USA nor Al-Qaeda are both guessing about exactly what their adversary knows. The USA can issue warnings and see if there are any reactions by al-Qaeda groups who believe their cover is blown. Al-Qaeda can issue threats that help overload the USA's response capabilities, and also give them an opportunity to see how the USA responds. And so it goes. STRATFOR suggests that al-Qaeda may be looking to shift the focus of Rumsfeld's visit away from India-Pakistan, and toward their presence in Pakistan. I'd say it's equally likely that they're trying to shift the CIA's attention. Regardless, issuing their threat so soon after the recent media blitz of warnings from Cheney et. al. and the Congressional "intelligence failure" inquiries shows very good timing. That's the general plan, anyway. Its strength is the extremely low commitment required to achieve a very large result. Its weakness is the ease with which it can be defeated... all the USA has to do is ignore the threat when meeting with India and Pakistan. Since there are many incentives for doing exactly that, al-Qaeda would have to assume that it has succeeded in sowing terror to the point that the American leadership's decision process is collapsing and they are retreating into an "internal" orientation. Adopting the calculated bluff strategy at this time would represent a fundamental misunderstanding by al-Qaeda of its enemy's mental state. The question for the CIA et. al. thus becomes: does such a misunderstanding exist within al-Qaeda, and especially at the senior leadership levels? If there are allied agents inside al-Qaeda, their sense of how the group sees America right now is a very valuable clue that can only come from spies (HUMINT), not machines (TECHINT).
Tuesday, June 04, 2002
June 4, 2002: Warnings, Warfare, and Weapons First off, thanks to Chris Matthews' Hardball Blog for linking into my "Now, Let Me Tell You What I Really Think" posting re: SFSU. Today, I have some military analysis from around the web, and build on some of my earlier work around "4th Generation Warfare (4GW)" - what it means, and some looks at where we're headed. That's going to be very relevant to tomorrow's main feature, which will be a close look at Al-Qaeda's latest threat, and what it might mean in the context of their current strategic situation. Today's Blogs Al-Qaeda's Threat: The Kuwaiti Angle By now, you've no doubt read the stories about the latest Al-Qaeda threat against the USA, as delivered by al Qaeda spokesman Sulaiman bu Ghaith and published Sunday in the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat. Here's a part you may have missed. The Kuwaitis stripped Sulaiman bu Ghaith of his citizenship in October 2001. Would you believe that on the same day this new threat was issued, the Emir of Kuwait made a special decree that grants Kuwaiti citizenship to bu Ghaith's daughter? Wonder who she's set up to marry... and why the Emir thinks this is a good idea. Unfortunately, my source only offers French translations from the Arabic, but you can get the picture even if all your French comes from watching Pepe Le Pew: Le Koweït accorde sa nationalité à la fille du porte-parole d'Al Qaïda (Al-Quds Al Arabi, London)Thanks to RG Fulton for tipping me off on this one, and to David Gilles for the traslation correction. RG, I worry about you sometimes, but I must admit you have a remarkable ability to uncover stuff like this. ADDENDUM: Tomorrow I'm going to spend a fair bit of time talking about Al-Qaeda's latest threat and what it could mean, including a look at the strategic background and some possibilities for Osama and friends. Their best tactical move is probably the assassination of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld during his Pakistan visit, but that's no easy task to say the least. It's also not the same thing as Al-Qaeda's larger stratregy. We'll talk about that, too. Stinger Alerts - Weapon Backgrounds Multiple news reports say that the terrorists may have smuggled shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles into the United States. No missiles have yet been found, however, which suggests that it's a publicized intelligence tip. US officials said these intelligence reports followed the discovery earlier this month of an empty SA-7 launcher near Prince Sultan Air Base. The Saudis "could not determine whether the launcher had fired a missile," and they apparently destroyed it before U.S. military or intelligence officials could examine it. (How convenient.) At least this warning is specific enough that logical actions can be taken: broader airport security sweeps, special measures for planes containing important people, etc. To understand the threat, however, you need to understand the devices they're talking about. Winds of Change is happy to oblige. The "Stinger" is a portable anti-aircraft missile that can be carried by 1 or 2 people. Donald Sensing draws on his military background to give us a detailed rundown, including information about what it can do and the difference between the versions produced in the 1980s and the missile today. Even back in the days of Duran Duran, Stingers were very effective against Russian aircraft in Afghanistan. There are still a couple hundred Stingers that went missing, however, and Donald also talks about some personal experiences with that problem. This happened because most of the Afghani Stingers were funneled by the Pakistani ISI through Gubdullah Hekmatyar, a radical Islamic warlord currently based near Herat. Hekmatyar remains cozy with the Iranians, is thought to have al-Qaeda connections, and was recently the target of a failed US attack via a Predator drone's missiles. That's pretty good for means and motive. The only question left is opportunity. Another possibility mentioned in the news reports is the less capable Soviet SA-7 "Strela" missile, like the one found near Prince Sultan Air Base. In "Some SA-7 anti-aircraft missiles were built for self-activated firing," Donald analyzes the likely effect of an SA-7 on commercial airliners, notes that a special version used by Soviet Special Forces has remote-firing capabilities, and explains how they work. "A Strela-Blok missile would be a real danger in the US." he concludes. "It could be emplaced in darkness, days ahead of time, and the terrorists would be miles away when it fired." Not exactly cheery reading. The good news is, procedures for dealing with a threat like this are logical and doable. Even if the threat never materializes, treating it seriously will be a good security drill for all concerned. There's also a possibility that the intelligence tip is correct, but the location is not. More on that tomorrow. 4GW: What is 4th Generation Warfare? As you may have noticed, I'm spending more time on this blog covering what I call "4th Generation Warfare" (4GW), a term that includes cyberwarfare, terrorism, "netwars", and the use of advanced computational and biological technologies in warfare that knows few boundaries. For convenience, related posts are prefaced by "4GW" to identify them. Still, you ask, what exactly is 4GW? What makes it different? What are the key principles? Glad you asked. D-N-I.NET has the best collection I've yet seen on the subject, including an excellent definition, introduction and archive. A Strange Kind of War The authors of one of the first papers on this subject captured some of its strangeness when they predicted: "The distinction between war and peace will be blurred to the vanishing point. It will be nonlinear, possibly to the point of having no definable battlefields or fronts. The distinction between 'civilian' and 'military' may disappear."Al-Qaeda is an obvious example. FARC in Colombia is another: a social infrastructure, an economic network based on drugs, and a terrorist organization all in one. FARC and its ilk have effectively carved out an unrecognized "Narcoland" quasi-state crossing several borders, with revenues and armed forces larger than many of the surrounding governments. The challenge of their activities reaches directly into societies like the USA and UK (via FARC's close IRA connections as well as its drugs) as well as Colombia and Venezuela. Dealing with them is not a military problem of the same type as, say, disposing of Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Getting Our Attention Nasty problems, granted, but hardly life-threatening. So why are we paying so much attention? The obvious answer is 9/11. Those events also woke people up to an uncomfortable realization: if there are truly no limits to the scale of 4GW actions, and nuclear, biological, or (most likely) chemical weapons are getting easier to build or obtain... then the future's logic is very clear. This totally changes the stakes. As George W. Bush noted the other day in his West Point speech: "Deterrence -- the promise of massive retaliation against nations -- means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend. Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies."I have therefore added these weapons of mass destruction and defenses against them to my own "4GW" coverage. Principles and Components of 4GW The core feature of 4th Generation Warfare is that it's really about people, more a battle of minds than of steel. The USA has become a technology power, and its ability to use new technologies as part of the 4GW modernization process will be fascinating. Still, don't be fooled into thinking that it's all about technology. Indeed, the fundamental principle and touchstone of 4GW conflict is Colonel John Boyd's very human Observe-Orient-Act-Decide loop. For those new to 4GW, I concur with D-N-I and recommend "The Evolution of War: The Fourth Generation," by LtCol Thomas X. Hammes, USMC. LtCol Hammes observes that "generations" of warfare are not defined primarily by the technology employed since, each "generation" can use any available technology. Rather, generations of warfare are better categorized by political, social, and economic factors. Case studies provide further illustration. Tomorrow, Winds of Change will discuss one more unsettling thing about 4GW: it can be used deliberately as a trigger for wars between nation states. Indeed, the situation in Kashmir combines stateless, transnational actors, weapons of mass destruction, and "war trigger judo" all in one nasty witch's brew. Understanding 4GW will help you understand al-Qaeda's strategy, and therefore the future of the Indian subcontinent. 4GW: Two New UAVs (robot planes) We've dealt with UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, or remote-control aircraft) a couple of times here on Winds of Change. In "Robot Planes, Human Soldiers," we discussed what it would take for surveillance UAVs to become truly useful to soldiers in battle, as opposed to flying robot nannies. Gunner20's real-life story about a lieutenant who received a medal and a reprimand for the same firefight really drove that point home. My recent piece on Israel's rethinking of its military priorities took that point one step further, noting that robot vehicles had a significant role to play in their plans as well... if they could be meshed with the needs of soldiers on the ground. Recently, a couple of bulletins revealed some interesting developments. (1) Sentry Owl. Defense News reports that the U.S. Air Force has rushed into production a new 10-pound unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) designed to help its security forces protect front-line bases. Developed by Lockheed Martin's famous Skunk Works, the Sentry Owl Force Protection Airborne Surveillance System will be deployed some time this summer at a few critical locations. The battery-powered aircraft can apparently fly at altitudes of a few hundred feet for more than an hour. That will help protect fixed bases on a "pop up and look around" basis, especially if one is dealing with potential Stinger missile threats to an airfield and needs to survey the surroundings quickly. That wasn't why Sentry Owl grabbed my attention, though. Instead, what went through my mind was the thought that Sentry Owl is a big step toward a UAV that can be carried and used by an infantry squad in urban warfare. As I've said earlier, the technology is coming. The question is one of doctrine and fast incorporation into military training. If protecting bases is just a quick way of getting Sentry Owl into the field, great. If that comes to define and limit its mission, however, the technology will have been wasted. I'll say it again: it's about imagination, flexibility, and the human element - not the technology. (2) The Boeing X-45. Unlike the Predators, which are surveillance platforms with weapons bolted on, this is an unmanned combat plane. Designed to "hunt in packs," the X-45 will carry up to 3,000 pounds of guided bombs to dump on enemy radar and surface-to-air missile batteries when it is deployed in combat. That's very useful for operations aimed at blowing holes in enemy air defenses. It also holds a lot of promise for the Army's "Objective Force" plans, which mirrors some things the Marines are doing with their Expeditionary Units. The Marines have their own aircraft for integrated air support, but the Army doesn't... unless the UAVs can be developed under their umbrella. Get the picture? We'll talk about "Objective Force" some more over the next couple of days. So, the X-35 recently made a successful maiden flight. That said, it isn't going to "stand up" and go into service any time soon. "It looks like these things have a lot of promise and we are relatively bullish on them for a lot of applications, but there are a lot of bugs with them, as there are with all vehicles, and the way you work them out is by flying them," analyst Glenn Buchan told The Associated Press. (Thanks to the San Jose Mercury's "Good Morning Silicon Valley" for the link.) India: New Carrier May Become Nuclear Command Center Defense News reports that India has prepared a detailed plan to establish a mobile nuclear command center on the "Admiral Gorshkov" aircraft carrier it is purchasing from Russia. Supposedly included is a request for the Russians to build and integrate a mobile nuclear missile launcher on the ship, using a modified Agni missile. The total deal for the Admiral Gorshkov carrier could cost India over $2 billion for purchase, modifications, and equipment, plus another bilion or so for the aircraft. India has been doing a lot of research on the Agni of late, and this would appear to be a way for the navy to bolster its importance by being seen as a nuclear player. I think that's probably a diversion from the Indian Navy's best strategic purpose. Then again, having a less-vulnerable component to India's nuclear command and delivery will lower the risk of nuclear war on the sub-continent. Which is not a bad trade-off. With the addition of 21 MiG-29K aircraft, navigation and carrier-landing aids, 12 P-500 Bazalt (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) anti-ship missiles and new control radars, the Admiral Gorshkov could make a very mobile and defensible command center that would be highly likely to survive any nuclear first strike by Pakistan or China. Now let's talk about arms race dynamics, and some likely consequences. If Defense News is right about the carrier's purpose, the importance of Pakistan's program to build those French Agosta-class attack submarines just went way up. Unfortunately, Al-Qaeda's recent car bombing in Karachi killed 11 French engineers working on that very project. Don't expect those sumarines to arrive as scheduled in 2003 and 2005. India, meanwhile, may have just put some very important eggs in a naval basket. Submarine defense thus becomes a major priority... which means an inevitable move toward a slimmed-down version of the USA's "Carrier Battlegroup" strategy. That means a central carrier protected by anti-submarine frigate and corvettes, air-defense ships, etc. It would be a big accelerator to the develoopment of the Indian Navy, and the Navy knows it. Once that new direction is underway, it will also change some of India's power projection capabilities, and thus the diplomatic balances around Southeast Asia. An Indian naval base at Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam by 2010? Maybe. It could be very timely if Indonesia were to distintegrate a few years hence, for instance... a very real possibility as al-Qaeda continues to expand its foothold there. Piracy is already a problem in that area, and the Australians have been hiring Canadian naval officers for a few years now in open anticipation of military action involving Indonesia. Should that scenario materialize, a USA-India-Australia alliance would be an effective bedrock for any coalition effort to contain any growth in Chinese influence, protect the shipping lanes, and deal with Abu-Sayyaf types on the islands. Recent US moves in the Philippines will also be helpful... more on those another day. The British had a similar idea for a semi-important backwater a long time ago - I believe its realization was known as "The Monroe Doctrine". Monday, June 03, 2002
June 3, 2002: Now, Let Me Tell You What I Really Think You can tell that I'm a fan of Chris Matthews' "Hardball." His liberal slant bugs me at times, but he knows politics, groks what America is all about and is one of the few guys out there who will ask the tough questions. Then, at the end of the show, he tells us where he stands. Now that my colleagues are done with the SFSU Blog Burst, it's time to take a leaf from Matthews' playbook. Tomorrow, I'll have some military analysis from around the web, and build on some of my earlier work around "4th Generation Warfare (4GW)" - what it means, and some looks at where we're headed. Today's Blogs SFSU: Now, Let Me Tell You What I Really Think The only thing worse than the appalling displays of organized racism and hate at SFSU has been the consistent refusal of GUPS and the SFSU Mulsim Students' Association to either admit that this is a problem or apologize. Instead, we get dishonest press statements complaining about "persecution", half-hearted non-apologies, and refusal by Muslim leaders to attend a Bay Area event denouncing anti-Semitism. We're told again and again that "Islam is a religion of peace," but that won't mean much until we stop seeing evidence of bigotry and quiet support for intimidation and terrorism by the community's so-called "leaders." It's past time for America's Muslims to demand better leadership, before the image being projected starts extending to them as well. As for SFSU, 8 years of action by President Corrigan has shown that he understands the problem. The same can't be said for his university, including its offensive PR department and administrators like Will Flowers. They're part of the problem, not part of the solution... and a real solution to what Corrigan himself called "the most anti-Semitic campus in the country" is as far away now as it was in 1997 when he said it. The fact that Corrigan's words alone make him stand out from other university administrators is just one more indication of how corrupted and poisonous our universities have become. To really solve the problem, SFSU needs to step up and do something universities haven't done in 30 years: enforce real discipline, with real teeth, against politically-correct brownshirts and the organizations that foster them. It's fine for Rabbi Kahn and the San Francisco Jewish community to support Corrigan, but they must refuse to fall for "good cop, bad cop" routines and doggedly keep the pressure on at all levels. This is about protecting our kids, folks - nothing less. Those of us who are rightly aghast at recent events must not allow ourselves to be lulled to sleep by Corrigan's words, instead of insisting on effective action. Otherwise we - and our kids - will just be setting ourselves up for more violence. What Effective Activism Looks Like I've talked about this somewhat in the "Winds of Change SFSU Political Action Plan." The Simon Wiesenthal Center offers a good example of what I'm talking about. Meticulous documentation, going over the universities' head to the people who control the purse strings, and specific demands for strong sanctions against those who trade in violence and hate. This is what will win the battle against bigotry and intimidation at places like SFSU, Berkeley, et. al. April 12, 2002Note the calls for action here. The investigation would rip away the PR flacks' facade of denial and minimization, and transfer assessment beyond the (self-protecting) universities. Item B is significant in that brings the UC regents into play, taking the oversight and brining it one step closer. Knowing that they could be hauled before the Board of Regents might even convince administrators like Will Flowers that Jews are worthy of real protection. The real kicker is item C, which takes the funding and recognition sanction to a new level. Persistent or egregious misconduct could result in withdrawal of funding across the state. This is a meaningful sanction, which ensures that peer pressure will be brought to bear against violence and intimidation rather than for it. Without that shift in incentive patterns, nothing else will make a real difference. Dialogue with President Corrigan is not a useless effort. Unless real effort is also put into focused campaigns like this, however, SFSU and Berkeley will remain hotbeds of politically-correct hate. If We Fail: Will Warren's "Song of An Animal Lover" The SFSU events are not an isolated phenomenon. We've recently seen where official tolerance of violence and the kind of rhetoric and vilification present at SFSU can lead us. "Song of an Animal Lover" deals with that warning, the assassination of Dutch Politican Pim Fortuyn. An excerpt: Through gently rolling countrysidePoetry often works on levels prose can't reach. Like "The Dean's Box," this Will Warren poem is highly recommended. Bafflegab Decoder: Research Phraseology Guide Here at Winds of Change, I always try to end on a positive note. Email correspondent RG Fulton recently pointed me at a handy phrase dictionary. As the author notes: "The following list of phrases and their definitions might help you understand the mysterious language of science (including psychology) and medicine. These special phrases are also applicable to anyone reading a Ph.D. dissertation or academic paper." Sunday, June 02, 2002
June 2, 2002: "Do Not Adjust Your Screen..." Thanks are due to all of the bloggers, linkers, and readers who made the SFSU Blog Burst such a success. For the first time since its inception, Winds of Change missed its Shabbat blog yesterday. Our Sufi Wisdom feature et. al. will appear next week at its usual time. The only wisdom I have to offer right now is: "Nobody wins a fight with their own digestive system." Winds of Change will be back tomorrow with a Chris Matthews-style "what I really think" take on SFSU. Tuesday will be a day of military features, many of which are focused around our "4GW" (4th Generation Warfare) theme. |
