My Top News

For those that don't know, the arrest of Mullah Baradar by the CIA and US in a joint operation just around a week ago was initially heralded as a huge success and the most significant capture since 9/11.

However with more information out there and time passed, the opinion pieces positive look on the capture has been hampered a little. An article from the NY Times claims the biggest winner was Pakistan, earning itself a seat at the table for any negotiation to end the war in Afghanistan.

Worse is the announcement by the Pakistani senior minister that #2 Baradar will not be handed over to the US along with two other high-value militants. Instead if they are found to have not done anything, they will be deported to Afghanistan.

In addition, the NY Times reported that Pakistani security officers didn't even know who they had captured - a US offical called it a "lucky accident". Acting on a US tip, the security officials met no resistance during the raid. Lastly a push by the CIA to transfer Mullah Baradar to an American-run prison in Afghanistan was prompted by the reported refusal by the Militant to provide information on insurgents.

Unfortunately what was a big capture that was not only a big impact of the man being captured, but what appeared to be a big reversal in US-Pakistani relations, the state of closeness of the ISI and the Taliban as well as the wealth of knowledge Baradar had on Taliban operations, camps, etc.

I don't want to be a pessimist, as the capture is still a big deal as he was the senior military leader of the Taliban, but instead frustration with Pakistan. For some reason they still (or the ISI doesn't) view Taliban as a threat to them, instead only India. Now let me note they are just articles not with the best sources so let's hope they turn out wrong and the initial assesment of Pakistani change in policy towards the Taliban has finally changes for the better. (for us)

For the doubters they had arrested two shadow governors of Afghanistan and there refusal to simply turn over three high value targets to the CIA is understandable. It will be interesting to see how this story develops.

The United Arab Emirates has seized a cargo of North Korean weapons being shipped to Iran, which would have violated a U.N. embargo on arms exports from the communist state, Western diplomats said on Friday.

The weapons seized on Aug. 14 included rocket launchers, detonators, munitions and ammunition for rocket-propelled grenades, they said. The ship, called the ANL-Australia, was Australian-owned and flying a Bahamas flag. - Reuters

The latest US missile defence test, conducted last night in Hawaii waters, was deemed a success as tensions continue with North Korea over that country's missile programme.

A short-range ballistic missile was fired from the Pacific Missile Range Facility on the island of Kauai and then was shot down by a three-stage interceptor missile from a destroyer, the USS Hopper. - Daily Mail

The Russian government has agreed to allow American troops and weapons bound for Afghanistan to fly over Russian territory, providing an important new corridor for the United States military as it escalates efforts to win the eight-year-old war, officials from both sides said Friday.

The agreement, to be formally announced when President Obama visits here on Monday and Tuesday, represents one of the most concrete achievements of the effort to rebuild a relationship severely strained. - NY Times

U.S. Marines pushed deeper into Taliban areas of southern Afghanistan on Friday, seeking to cut insurgent supply lines and win over local elders on the second day of the biggest U.S. military operation here since the American-led invasion of 2001.

The 4,000-strong U.S. force met little resistance Friday as troops fanned out into villages in Afghanistan's southern Helmand province, although one Marine was killed and several others were wounded the day before, U.S. officials said. - AP

The government accidentally posted on the Internet a list of all civilian nuclear sites and their activities in the United States.

The 266-page document was published on May 6 as a transmission from President Barack Obama to the U.S. Congress. Some of the pages are marked "highly confidential safeguards sensitive." - AP

One of the more ridiculous opinion articles I've read in some time, especially surprising since the NY Times often has good articles. The basic idea is getting rid of the Air Force.

Yeah, even the basic premise is ridiculous. Worst, as it goes on the writer - Paul Kane, argues for something which is essentially the draft. Before I get started, read over the article:

NY Times Op-Ed - Up, Up and Out

Right off the bat, this offensive statement:

"At the moment, the Army, Navy and Marine Corps are at war, but the Air Force is not."

Forgetting the fact that it is, the worst part is 40 have died in two wars that they apparently don't have a part in.

"Yes, air power is a critical component of America’s arsenal. But the Army, Navy and Marines already maintain air wings within their expeditionary units. The Air Force is increasingly a redundancy in structure and spending."

So Kane proposes dissolving the Air Force into the other branches - okay. But apparently that saves money how?

"War is no longer made up of set-piece battles between huge armies confronting each other with tanks and airplanes."

Oh how naive this man is. I'm not expecting World War III tommorow, but at the same time War changes over time and as well - each war is different. Also, if we apparently are done with huge armies conforonting each other - why not get rid of tanks? Since we don't need planes, why do we need tanks?

"...introduce national service at age 18 for all Americans. Under such a system, young people from all classes and backgrounds would either serve in the military or do other essential work like intelligence assessment, conservation, antipoverty projects, educational tutoring, firefighting, policing, border security, disaster relief or care for the elderly. The best qualified would be assigned to the military."

This sounds so familiar. I think we should think of a name though, rather than this long explanation - maybe "draft"? That might work. Yeah it's different from the traditional draft, but it still sounds mandatory - the reason why the draft is so incredibly unpopular. I like the basic premise of making todays youth more productive, but forcing in this way is one of those things of the past that we've kind of moved on from.

While the article has a few good points such as the physical requirements lacking compared to other services and the "up or out" policy, but the main points are just plain ridiculous.

What some people refuse to accept or understand is that the United States is the sole super power in the world. Reducing the amount of nuclear weapons we and others have is admirable - eliminating them is a pipe dream. Not needing an air force would be nice, as well as no chance of being involved in any major war - but I wouldn't bet money on it.

Get with reality. Though the unfortunate thing other than this article coming from a usually good and informative source, is the fact that the author is not only a Marine (maybe it explains some things) Veteran, but "a former fellow with the International Security Program at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government". I don't want to insult his intelligence, but some of this is just doesn't make sense in real life.

For anyone that knows me (or has read any blog of mine), they know I'm a big tech guy. I know computers very well (internally...not so much), I code in PHP and love programming and websites. I also just like technology in general, from AJAX on the web to the United States missile shield, technology fascinates me.

In a much smaller form, the web, I am a HUGE firefox fan. After the horrible experience of using IE for year, a friend told me about Firefox and I haven't turned back. When the Firefox 2.0 beta came out I tried it out and well...wasn't impressed. It was basically the same thing as before, except a few small changes. But Firefox v2 was recently giving me trouble, so I figured I would do a re-install. But then I thought, might as well give the Firefox 3 Beta try and I'm glad I did.

Whereas the jump from 1.5 or whatever to 2.0 seemed to not be substantial, 3.0 is. There are so many changes, from a very nice new skin to a new bookmark system. Being a beta, of course, some extensions are not compatible, but most of mine are.

There is also a sleuw of small changes, from an option to always have the tab bar on (no need for a bookmark "blank"), extension reccommendations based on what you have

Talking further about bookmarks, not only can you use tags, but to the right of the URL in the Navigation Bar there's a star. Click on the star and you added it to your bookmarks! Also, in Firefox 2.0 if you start to type an address and you've been to it, you saw it list the URL's? Now it shows 4 things in FF 3.0. Favicon to the left, top line the title of the page and beneath, the URL. (as you type, it dynamically bolds any matches for either) To the far right there is a star to bookmark if you wish.

There is just so much new in Firefox 3 that I haven't even mentioned. When logging in, rather than a prompt, it asks near the top of the page, I could go on and on. Just do yourself a favor and give it a try! Firefox 3.0 releases in just two days, June 17th, but if you want to wait until then to download that may be a good idea - you can help set a world record!

It's been quite an exciting (at times) political season, we now know for certain it will be Obama vs. McCain - one will be the next president of the United States. Although it has been fun to follow, the craziness and the stakes of the 2008 election may dwarf what we've seen so far And so it begins.

As I posted previously, I am a McCain supporter, so I am obviously rooting for McCain, but I would be quickly vote for Obama than Clinton. I have nothing against Obama, the background and how they have gotten this far for both candidates, is quite amazing.

The main issue that has my vote for McCain over Obam is easily Iraq. I don't want 100,000+ troops there for the next 10 or so years, but I want my president to base his decision on what the people who matter say - military commanders. To me, Obama doesn't have this intention, although if he wins I know we will be there longer than what he says now.

Government solving our problems is also a set of ideals Obama and the Democratic party has, I'd be lying if I said I didn't want government to get involved in anything - but some things suggested, I'd be seriously worried, government screws us regulary.

Either way in all of this, this should be a great 2008 election and I look forward to it!