I have just started reading Thomas E. Ricks’ latest book, The Gamble, General David Petraeus and The American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2006-2008.

He starts off with the incident in Haditha, Iraq in the fall of 2005.  By the time I got to page 8, I came to realize how wrong the Cheney philosophy is about how to fight and win a war of this sort.

Here is something from page 6.

The American tradition also tends to neglect the lesson, learned repeatedly in dozens of twentieth-century wars, that the way to defeat an insurgency campaign is not to attack the enemy but instead to protect and win over the people. “The more you focus on the enemy, the harder it is to actually get anything done with the population,” noted Australian counterinsurgency theorist David Kilcullen who would play a prominent role in fixing the way the American military fought in Iraq. The best insurgent is not a dead one, who might leave behind a relative seeking vengeance, but one who is ignored by the population and perhaps is contemplating changing sides, bringing with him invaluable information.

I wonder if some of this knowledge is slipping away from us in Iraq, and more so in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Most of the people in those countries seem to think so very little of the Taliban, that you would think it would be difficult for us to alienate them from our side.  Nevertheless, we seem to be successful at doing just that even with Obama in the White House.

If the people of this country understood what Ricks is saying, they would boo Cheney off the public stage as soon as he opened his mouth.

This is a book by James Gleick.

The topic of Chaos was all the rage among a few of my engineering colleagues back in the 1980s.  I thought it was vaguely interesting, but I didn’t spend any time finding out if it had any practical application for me.  When one of my simulation customers expressed interest, I dismissed it pretty handily.

Now this 20 year old book by a science writer explains the topic in a way that is not too hard for me to grasp given my background.

It does provide a different way of looking at things in mathematics, physics,  economics, biology, medicine, psychiatry, social science, and more.

The traditional education in science and engineering biases most of us from looking at the world this way.  Having this aspect cut off from our train of thought precludes our understanding of a lot of important phenomena.

After I finish this book, I am dying to find out what has happened in this field in the 20 years since this book was written.

Follow this link to Robert Kuttner’s article in The Huffington Post.

Here we go again with the stories about how Obama is failing on the economy.  I hate to bring this up again, but Robert Kuttner does seem to be making sense.

In one of the response comments, I found an interesting video of Nassim Taleb appearing on CNBC. I don’t yet know who this guy is or whether he knows what he is talking about.  I am going to find out though.

Follow this link to the letter that Joseph Girard wrote to the editor of the Worcester Telegram & Gazette. They headlined the letter with the title, “Pro-life is about human rights”

Follow this link to the letter to the editor that I wrote in response or read below.

I applaud a letter writer from Worcester who takes a principled stand without exception for the human rights of the fetus (Telegram & Gazette, June 22). I presume that he would also stand by the principle, without exception, for the human rights of women.

What I would like the antiabortionists to explain is how they remain true to both principles, without exception, when there is a conflict between the two. Clearly an exception has to be made on one or both principles.

Only when antiabortionists recognize this conflict can there be any point in having a discussion.

Follow this link to the Dianne Williamson column titled, “Another rigor of priesthood ends in scandal” . This is the one that Joseph Girard says prompted his letter.

Follow this link to the story North Korea Threatens To Wipe Out The U.S. “Once And For All”.

In response to this story, I posted the following comment:

Reminds me of my cat when she wants attention in the morning.

1. Meow loudly and repeatedly

2. Jump up on the bed.

3. Walk on my face.

4. Jump up on the bureau.

5. Start knocking glass objects onto the floor.

When this cat wants attention, she will keep escalating until she gets it. It’s merely a question of how much I want broken before I give her the attention that she wants.

Can we give this guy a little attention before we have to blast him off the Korean peninsula along with all his innocent subjects?

My comment generated quite a few reposnses.  One of the most intriguing comments was:

Could be worse. Have you seen “Simon’s Cat”?

I couldn’t help going to Google to try to find out what this comment meant.

I found Simon’s Cat on YouTube.  Here is the video, titled “Let me in”,  that is most relevant to my post.  Oh, wait, this one’s better – Simon’s Cat ‘TV Dinner’.  Hold on, maybe this is the one – Simon’s Cat ‘Cat Man Do’.