A “success” in Syria?

September 24, 2014 • 6:14 am

Here’s a new CNN New “bulletin,” one of the few services I get by email:

Coalition aircraft made one airstrike in Syria and four in Iraq overnight, a U.S. official says.

The Syria strike, involving U.S. and other coalition aircraft, hit an ISIS staging area near the Iraq border, damaging eight ISIS vehicles, the official says.

Imagine how much money it cost to mount a multiple-plane airstrike that “damaged eight ISIS vehicles.” Is that worth it? I doubt it.

Today’s editorial (by the editorial board) in the New York Times, “Wrong turn on Syria: No convincing plan“, criticizes the willy-nilly approach of Obama toward ISIS:

President Obama has put America at the center of a widening war by expanding into Syria airstrikes against the Islamic State, the Sunni extremist group known as ISIS and ISIL. He has done this without allowing the public debate that needs to take place before this nation enters another costly and potentially lengthy conflict in the Middle East.

He says he has justification for taking military action against the Islamic State and Khorasan, another militant group. But his assertions have not been tested or examined by the people’s representatives in Congress. How are Americans to know whether they have the information to make any judgment on the wisdom of his actions?

There isn’t a full picture — because Mr. Obama has not provided one — of how this bombing campaign will degrade the extremist groups without unleashing unforeseen consequences in a violent and volatile region. In the absence of public understanding or discussion and a coherent plan, the strikes in Syria were a bad decision.

Yesterday on the evening news, a U.S. Army general said that the military campaign against ISIS could take years. Years??? And despite the talk of coalition, the U.S. is doing most of the work. Yet it is the other countries who will suffer the most harm from ISIS as that brutal gang continues its plan to establish the caliphate throughout the region.  The damage to us is the threat of terrorism, far less severe than the imminent slaughter of thousands in the Middle East. Oh yes, and there’s oil, of course. . .

Another headline from today’s Times (click  the screenshot to go to the article):

Screen Shot 2014-09-24 at 7.22.31 AM

 As I suspected, the “coalition” is largely composed of the U.S., with some token help from the five other nations. The Times notes:

In disclosing the identities of the five Sunni Arab nations that joined or supported the attacks in Syria — Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Jordan and Qatar — the Obama administration sought to paint a picture of an international coalition resolute in its determination to take on the Sunni militant group.

Jordan said that “a number of Royal Jordanian Air Force fighters destroyed” several targets but did not specify where; the Emirati Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that the air force “launched its first strikes against ISIL targets” on Monday evening, using another acronym for the Islamic State. American officials said that Saudi Arabia and Bahrain also took active part in the strikes, and that Qatar played a “supporting” role.

But Lt. Gen. William C. Mayville Jr., the director of operations with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the majority of strikes were carried out by American warplanes and cruise missiles, with the aim of hindering the ability of the Islamic State to cross the border into Iraq and attack Iraqi forces.

Yes, the Saudis, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Jordan did send some planes, but how much of the effort now and in the future will be conducted by the U.S. rather than our “allies” in this endeavor? Were I in the press, I’d demand to know exactly how much the other nations are helping (they can’t, of course, specify the behind-the-scenes financial stuff, but I want to know how many planes and other military stuff is involved from each nation).

And yet another bulletin from CNN has just this moment arrived in my inbox:

Defeating ISIS in Iraq will take time, in part because the Iraqi military needs to be reconstituted, and because it will take time to arrange the kind of local support like the Sunni Awakening years ago, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry says.

U.S. airstrikes aren’t designed to defeat ISIS by themselves, he said. “You and others should not be looking for some massive retreat in the next week or two,” he tells CNN’s Christiane Amanpour.

The fight against ISIS not only will include ongoing strikes, but also foreign fighters, cutting off financing, and a major effort to “reclaim Islam by Muslims,” he says.

Yes, it will take “time.” We’re in it for the long haul, and, as in Iraq, the long haul doesn’t look propitious.  Cutting off financing won’t be effective, given the sources of money that ISIS undoubtedly has, and really, “reclaiming Islam by Muslims”? ISIS members are Muslims. Even if they weren’t, how does Kerry propose to do that? How does he propose to turn extremist Muslims into peaceful and moderate ones?

The more I think about it, the more I feel that the U.S. doesn’t know what it is doing in this fight, has no long-term plan, and perhaps should consider getting the hell out of the ISIS business. For if we really wanted to defeat them, we’d have to go to war with ground troops, and the U.S. public doesn’t have the stomach for that.

So, a question: If you were Obama, what would you do?

 

Readers’ wildlife photos

September 24, 2014 • 5:04 am

Well, I’ll be! Pelicans in Iowa! Reader Peter Nothnagle sends the details:

I joined some friends this past Sunday, September 21, for a late-season boat ride around Coralville Lake in eastern Iowa.  There were countless gulls, cormorants, herons, egrets, and especially, pelicans (Pelecanus erythrorhynchus) to be seen.

The pelicans had an interesting feeding strategy.  They would cruise along together, and then suddenly, as one, all stick their heads under water.  The three attached photos tell the tale.

Pelicans cruising:

pelicans cruising

All together now. . .

all together now ---

Bottoms up!

bottoms up

Reader Joe Dickinson reminds us to notice the beauty in small creatures:

I have for your consideration this morning a lovely snail (genus Helix?) found cruising across a parking lot near my usual spot by Rio del Mar (California).  It had been raining and the gold tones in the wet shell reminded me of a green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) that I photographed in the Galapagos a few years ago.

IMGP4104

IMG_1343

Finally, photos of my favorite urban wildlife, squirrels. Reader Victor Hutchinson, an emeritus professor of biology at the University of Oklahoma, sent me the story of his tamed squirrels (fox squirrels [Sciurus nigra], a native species). Notice the details that only a biologist would include!:

I thought you might be interested in the squirrels I have ‘tamed’ on the University of Oklahoma campus (photos attached).

Over the past few years I have been feeding the squirrels.  Now when I call them, using a sound familiar to birders, they come running down tree trunks to get shelled pecans. Some have learned to climb my leg to get the treat.  Their claws do not penetrate my jeans and their front feet, when holding on, do not claw my fingers.  I hold the pecan between a folded index finger and thumb with the pecan part sticking out.  I have only been bitten twice, when another squirrel jumped on my leg to attack one getting the treat.  Over time four different squirrels (three females and a male) have learned to come up to me while I sit on a bench and sit on my knee to get the food (see attached photo). I recently have been able to stroke their head and backs, which they seem to enjoy.

Surprisingly, some squirrels have learned to recognize me among thousands of people walking on campus, even when I am not calling them nor have food displayed.  Some will actually follow me for some distance until someone says something like, ‘there is something following you.’  How they can pick me out on a campus full of students is unknown.

Students often ask if they can feed the squirrels. My answer is always: ‘Yes, but only if you drop the food near them and do not try to hold the food for them to take.  They have sharp claws and teeth and can hurt.” The local squirrels do not ‘beg’ for food from passing persons.  Only when they see food being offered do they approach.

The female squirrel in the photo and pictured on my knee is an unusual brown, not seen in the other fox squirrels on campus.

He can pet them! Dr. Victor must be flush, and a great lover of squirrels, to feed his charges shelled pecans. Not only are those nuts hideously expensive, but the squirrels don’t even have to crack them!

009

 

013

017

 

The best lab meeting ever

September 23, 2014 • 2:57 pm

A bit of information for non-scientists: many labs have “lab meetings,” where once a week or so everyone working in a lab gathers together and reports on their progress. That’s often where new experiments are suggested and designed, and how everybody keeps in touch with each other’s findings. I never had these, for I always kept a small lab in which I spent much of the day doing science alongside the others, so it was  actually a continuous lab meeting as we chatted while working on our flies.

But Jonathan Eisen, a genomics biologist at Davis, and #25 on Science’s list of “Science Twi**er stars, surely has a big lab, and regular meetings. Nevertheless, he posted a picture of what he sees as, well, the title is in the post (via Matthew Cobb):

Screen Shot 2014-09-23 at 1.56.02 PM

 

I expect that’s a new kitten for Dr. Eisen!

Dinesh d’Souza spared jail

September 23, 2014 • 1:12 pm

Just a quick bulletin: archconservative and Defender of the Faith Dinesh d’Souza has been spared jail time. According to The Smoking Gun, he’s just been sentenced to five years’ probation for violating campaign finance laws:

For the first eight months of his probation term, D’Souza will have to live in a “community confinement center” in San Diego, ordered Judge Richard Berman, who also fined D’Souza $30,000 and directed him to undergo “therapeutic counseling.” D’Souza will also have to perform one day per week of community service during his probation term. [JAC: He can otherwise go to work but has to sleep in the house.]

In remarks before announcing D’Souza’s sentence, Berman said that he did not believe the defendant had accepted responsibility for his crime. “I’m not sure, Mr. D’Souza, that you get it,” said Berman, who referred to D’Souza’s claim that he was a victim of selective prosecution.

There are more juicy details at The Smoking Gun, including allegations of abuse by his ex-wife, who wrote a letter to the judge that was read in court.

In truth, I thought he’d get some jail time, but according to lawyer Ken White at Popehat, this sentence is pretty much what is expected for d’Souza’s crime:

The sentence isn’t remarkable at all. Both sides agreed on the sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Though the recommended sentence under those guidelines was 10-16 months, the judge had discretion to go lower or higher. Probation with a term of home detention or “community confinement” is a very common approach to a nonviolent first offender with a low guideline range. For a 53-year-old with no record, this is roughly in the middle of the array results I would expect. In a case like this I would have shot for probation conditioned on home confinement but told the client that a short term in custody or a term in “community confinement” was a strong possibility. You may see it as unreasonably lenient or hash, but federal criminal practitioners won’t.

And so it goes. I don’t have strong feelings one way or the other.

h/t: Michael

Accommodatheism #2: More gratuitous atheist-bashing in an mainstream article on the Creation Museum

September 23, 2014 • 12:34 pm

I don’t want to complain too much about this article, as it’s actually pretty good. I just want to point out how, in the middle of a perfectly good magazine piece on creationism, an author will take time out to show he’s a Good Guy by bashing atheism and its Dear Leader, Richard Dawkins.

The author is Jeffrey Goldberg, a correspondent for Atlantic (previously for the New Yorker) and a guy with a lot of journalistic experience. His article, in the new Atlantic, is called “Were there dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?“, is about his trip to the Kentucky Creation Museum and interview with Ken Ham and Terry Mortenson, a “scientist” on the staff.

While most of us know about the Creation Museum (I’ve never visited), Goldberg notes that it has bigger aims than just teaching Biblical literalist creationism:

What I didn’t understand until I visited Ken Ham is that his museum, which is devoted to a literal, historical reading of the first book of the Bible, is in itself a forward operating base in the conservative war against legalized abortion, gay marriage, and the belief that man is at least partially responsible for climate change (the creationists’ retort being that God will not allow man to destroy a world that he created).

In fact, the people at the Museum seem especially exercised by gay marriage:

Mortenson stayed on the subject of gay marriage. “The homosexual issue flows from this. Genesis says that God created marriage between one man and one woman. He didn’t create it between two men, or two women, or two men and one woman, or three men and one woman, or two women and one man, or three women and one man. If other parts of Genesis aren’t true, then how could this idea of marriage be true? If there were no Adam and Eve and we’re all evolved from apelike ancestors and there’s homosexuality in the animal world and if Genesis is mythology, then you can justify any behavior you want.” I found this preoccupation with gay marriage significant, because it suggests that perhaps at least some of those who profess a belief in creationism might simply be signaling their preference for a more traditional social order, rather than a rejection of modern science and free intellectual inquiry.

What’s important is more than just a traditional social order, though: it’s a divinely-grounded morality. “Traditional” marriage is part of that, of course, but note Mortenson’s statement, “if Genesis is mythology, then you can justify any behavior you want.”  This is the crux of their ideology, and what we as secularists should be spending more time on. The Euthyphro argument is not hard to get across, and perhaps we should, in our attempts to spread rationality,  be putting more pressure on the idea that morality comes from God.

Goldberg is good at reporting the facts which, without his having to editorialize too much, discredit Ham and his odious venture. Here’s a funny bit:

How could dinosaurs have coexisted with other animals within the teeming confines of Noah’s Ark? Because, you see, Noah’s Ark, in Ken Ham’s understanding of the world, was crammed stem to stern with dinosaurs. The cleverest creationists don’t deny the historicity of dinosaurs; they simply argue that they were alive at the start of the Flood, which, by their calculation, occurred approximately 4,350 years ago. (What happened to the dinosaurs after the waters receded is another story.) One sign of Ham’s genius—and he is, at the very least, a marketing genius—is his ability to shape a conversation on his terms, which is why I heard myself arguing against the possibility of a dinosaur-laden ark, rather than arguing against the notion that the ark itself was an actual thing that existed. My argument, in case you were wondering, is that the Tyrannosauruses would have eaten the sheep. QED, right? Except, no. “Many dinosaurs,” Ham says, “were smaller than chickens.”

Now that’s pretty damn funny. What about the ones that weren’t smaller than chickens?  At any rate, if I were Ham I suppose I’d claim that the big ones didn’t get aboard and drowned in the Flood, but that may contravene the Bible’s description of every “kind” on Earth (pairs of some, sevens of others) boarding the big ship.

So far so good. But then, right in the middle of the article, you will find this:

My sympathies, by the way, do not lie entirely where you might think. I find atheism dismaying, for Updikean reasons (“Where was the ingenuity, the ambiguity … of saying that the universe just happened to happen and that when we’re dead we’re dead?”), and because, in the words of a former chief rabbi of Great Britain, Jonathan Sacks, it is religion, not science, that “answers three questions that every reflective person must ask. Who am I? Why am I here? How then shall I live?” Like Ken Ham, I am appalled by the idea, as expressed by Richard Dawkins, that “the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

Really, even if I weren’t a heathen I’d say that this is a superfluous insertion in an otherwise good piece, a gratuitous solipsism meant only to establish the author’s status as “not one of those damn atheists.” Why else would it be there?

What Goldberg’s saying is that he’s “dismayed” by atheism because he doesn’t like the implications of there being no God. Well, I don’t like the implications of being dead, either, but I’m not pretending I’ll be immortal.  And, of course, religion DOESN’T answer those questions that every reflective person asks, for different religions give different answers. If you’re a Muslim you’re going to get a different answer to “How shall I live?” than if you’re a Jew. (I have no idea whether Goldberg, though bearing a Jewish name and referring to a rabbi, is Jewish.) And if he’s appalled by the idea that there’s no divinely-ordained purpose to the universe, well, that’s simply what the data tell us. I haven’t seen God spell out “I am who I am” in the stars lately.

What Goldberg is saying, then, is that he doesn’t like what science seems to say and so is sympathetic toward religion. That’s a pretty lousy reason to like religion. As Voltaire said:

The interest I have in believing in something is not a proof that the something exists.  (“De plus, l’intérêt que j’ai à croire une chose n’est pas une preuve de l’existence de cette chose.”)

And so we have another good piece of journalism, by a good author, spoiled by an atheist-bashing superfluity, one based on simple dislike of what science tells us. Goldberg can get away with this because it’s currently fashionable to diss atheism—something, a reader pointed out, that is actually heartening, for it’s showing that we’re making headway.

But Goldberg needs a better editor.

 

An air war against ISIS won’t work

September 23, 2014 • 8:21 am

Yesterday the U.S. and some allies ratcheted up their air campaign against ISIS by firing missiles at and dropping bombs on 22 targets in Syria. These include Al-Qaeda affiliates as well as ISIS fighters themselves. We didn’t go it alone: the bombings included planes from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates. Frankly, I’m surprised, for those are Sunni Muslim nations attacking other Sunnis.

If you go to today’s New York Times online, you’ll see these two headlines, one above the other (click screenshots for links to the articles).

Screen Shot 2014-09-23 at 7.41.26 AM

Screen Shot 2014-09-23 at 7.45.14 AM

 

yet below it is this:

Screen Shot 2014-09-23 at 7.46.24 AMObama just announced, in a brief, 3-minute talk, the attacks that we already knew about.  Obama also touted the “coalition,” similar to our attack on Iraq years ago, but really, how much of the weight is being carried by the US versus, say, Saudi Arabia. Arab nations like that have more to fear from ISIS than we do.

This “coalition,” I fear, will be a fiction, with the money and bombs coming largely from the US.  Although I’m not a military expert by any means, the real military experts are almost unanimous in saying that an air war alone won’t destroy ISIL.  And airpower is about all we’ve got, since the Iraqi army and Syrian opposition have proven notably ineffective in fighting ISIS, nor will any of the Muslim nations who sent bombs last night be willing to send troops later.

The New York Times article makes it clear that airstrikes haven’t done much. If they fail to destroy ISIS, which is likely, then what next? What is our end game? As usual, it’s a mess and I don’t see a way out of it. For every ISIS member who dies, two more will spring up to replace him.