Friday quick-hits

There is a lot of stuff to talk about right now, and we've been largely absent from the conversation. Egypt is at the top of the list, of course. I'm reticent about engaging in the sort of sudden-expertism that's so prevalent in the blogosphere and on cable news, but there are certainly angles to this story that we can meaningfully weigh in on (for me it's American security assistance to Egypt and the broader U.S.-Egypt mil-to-mil relationship), and I hope to get to that in the near future. But for now I'm mostly focused on the immediate struggle against the Old Enemy (and late-afternoon drinks with some defense-blogging luminaries), so I just want to hit you with a few brief notes.

1. Read Jason's tank-wonk piece on what changing Army org structure means for armor culture and the future employment of tanks. Then read this excellent (if incidental) companion story in Aviation Week by Friend of Ink Spots Paul McLeary, Andy Nativi, and David Eshel: "Future of Main Battle Tank Looks Secure." Good contributions to the never-ending "Is Armor Dead?" debate.

2. Check out this review of the new Rumsfeld book by Bloomberg defense guy Tony Capaccio. Note this excerpt in particular:

“What was unique about Iraq was that the intelligence community reported near total confidence in their conclusions,” Rumsfeld writes. “Their assessments appeared to be unusually consistent.”

Now get in the way-back machine and go read Eli Lake in The New Republic in September 2002. This is six months before the Iraq war started, remember. Money paragraph:

But this is all mere speculation, because there is no NIE for Iraq and there probably won't be one anytime soon. The reason for this omission is that the Iraq hawks running the Pentagon and staffing the office of the vice president long ago lost faith in the CIA analysis. So they set up their own network for analyzing and collecting intelligence regarding Iraq and have been presenting it to the president themselves. The result is that instead of Bush receiving one assessment of the facts on the ground, he has for months been receiving two--one (more cautious) from the CIA and the other (more optimistic) from the Iraq hawks. As one former CIA analyst says, "Not since Vietnam has there been as deep a divide over intelligence as to enemy capabilities as you are seeing now in Iraq." The administration's confusion on Iraq, in other words, goes even deeper than its critics understand. It's not just that different factions in the administration disagree about U.S. policy vis-a-vis Saddam. They disagree about the fundamental facts on which that policy should be based.

The whole article is worth reading -- it's a thoughtful look at how the intersection of intelligence and policy is fraught with all sorts of problems of ideology, perception, and so on. Great, great work from someone I frequently butt heads with. Oh yeah, and Rumsfeld: face.

3. And finally, the Most Disingenuous Quote of All Time award goes to the anonymous defense industry flack who told Politico's Jen DiMascio (re: foreign military sales to Egypt)

“We do this because we are told by the U.S. government it’s in the U.S. national interest,” a defense industry official said, referring to U.S. sales abroad. “If at any time it stops becoming so, ... it’s not too hard to say we’d be on board with that.”

Um, riiiiight. That's why there's no Lockheed guy in Baghdad lobbying MNF-I and the Iraqi MoD that the F-16 is the best solution to Iraq's air-defense needs, right? They're just siting at their desks in Bethesda waiting for an order to come in, then executing on USG requests to support the national interest? Sure.

Hey, "national interest" can be a really complex mix of things, and it can include jobs and economic strength and industrial base health and a whole bunch of other stuff aside from military-strategic concerns. I get that. But it is just totally obscene for arms manufacturers to suggest that they only sell systems abroad "because [they're] told by the U.S. government it's in the U.S. national interest" -- with the further implication that they're not out ahead of the USG pimping their stuff as the best solution for everybody involved. Sure, the defense industry just fills orders as a public service, with the almost not-even-worth-mentioning side benefit that it helps to sustain their business and increase revenue. Bullshit.

And on that happy note, enjoy your weekend.

On counter-terror financing

If Abu Muqawama and Ink Spots didn't solidify it already, this ought to cement the Washington Irish as the go-to rugby club for defense and security analysis: teammate Bob Guido published a paper in SWJ yesterday that seems like just about the best resource I've seen lately on the subject of U.S. efforts to interdict al-Qaeda financing.

U.S. Efforts to Combat Terrorism Financing: Progress Made and Future Challenges

by Robert M. Guido

Download the Full Article (pdf): U.S. Efforts to Combat Terrorism Financing

The United States and the international community have made great strides against al Qaeda since September 11, and counter-terrorist financing policies will remain a vital component of future efforts. The successes in tightening and shoring up the international financial system in the post-September 11 era, however, cannot be taken for granted. Al Qaeda and its affiliates have shown remarkable resilience and an ability to structurally evolve to survive the best efforts of the international community. To maintain progress in squeezing al Qaeda’s finance, governments will need to continually adapt counter-terrorist financing policies to address the simpler but untraceable methods of moving cash and assets such as hawala, and work collaboratively to combat alternative methods of finance that capitalize on the ever-present and growing field of international criminal activity.

Check it out -- a great resource on an under-studied subject, with excellent sourcing for those who want to dig deeper. (And I'm not just saying this because Guido's a friend!)

Support the discerning counterinsurgent's rugby club while feeling sophisticated and awesome!

Now is the time on Schprockets when we (and by we, I mean I) shamefully beg for not-totally-altruistic charity from the readership!

Ok, DC friends: As you're sitting there in your jorts sweating through another disgusting summer in the swampland capital, do you ever think "man, I wish I could get dressed up in the cocktail attire of my choice, knock back a few drinks with my sophisticated friends, and have a chance to win fabulous prizes, all while supporting a very grateful local sports team"? You do?? Well, you're in luck, because I'm about to offer you just such an opportunity.

Two weeks from tomorrow, on Saturday, July 24, my rugby club is hosting a Casino Night fundraiser at James Hoban's Irish Restaurant and Bar. Our intrepid B-side fullback will be there, and I'll be tuxed up and yet still somehow totally anonymous. Come play blackjack, craps, roulette, etc., take advantage of all the beer and wine you're interested in, and have a chance to win a big TV, a vacation rental in North Carolina, and a whole bunch of other excellent stuff.

All this for just $70?! Unbelievable but true. Come support what is almost certainly the best rugby club in town for security policy analysis. I'm begging you, please: if the club goes under, we'll have to play kickball.

Tickets here. More info here. Learn about the club here. Give written instructions to Exum on how to field a high ball here.

Dirty French, pt 2: an update!

Remember that dirty Frenchman who gouged another dude's eyes during a rugby match and got suspended for 24 weeks? (You should! I wrote about it here.) Well, his little buddy has finally been sentenced for GOUGING THE EYES OF THE EXACT SAME DUDE DURING THE SAME GAME. The verdict? Fat Frenchman Timothy Attoub was slapped with a 70 week ban! Take a suck of that, cheating French!

The best part of the story by far is the reaction of Max Guazzini, the president of Attoub's club Stade Francais. The club first tried the "you've got us all wrong!" defense, insisting that that photographs of Attoub's fingers jammed into Stephen Ferris' eyes had been doctored. When that nonsense was dismissed, Guazzini told the press that the sentence was "excessive, very political, and anti-French." That may or may not be true of this judgment, but it's certainly true of my posting!

Hey France: stop cheating!

P.S. Again, nothing to do with war, but I thought this was an essential update to the original story. I promise to limit myself to like a dozen France-cheats-at-everything posts per year.

Dirty French!

To balance out some of the francophilia often found around here, I direct your attention to this:

France will be without Julien Dupuy for the Six Nations after the Stade Francais scrum-half was hammered with a 24-week ban for gouging Ulster flanker Stephen Ferris.

After considering the evidence, independent judicial officer Judge Jeff Blackett (England) found that the incident was at the top end in the level of seriousness for an offence of this type and imposed the six-month ban following a lengthy hearing in Dublin.

You know what's a bad idea? Sticking your fingers in some dude's eyes in a game that is televised. Bad idea.

I'm not sure which is my favorite part of this story: Ferris' reaction after the game (in which he said that if he'd been punched he'd just sort of accept it as part of the game, man up, and move on, but gouging was different), or Stade's insistence that a photograph capturing the image of Dupuy's teammate David Attoub also gouging Ferris had been doctored. Awesome!

So my Friday open question for everyone: why are the French such cheaters? (Ok, I'm mostly joking about this, but it's telling that the scourge of eye-gouging has mostly been eliminated from the game in Britain, while it continues to happen in France.)

And no, again, this doesn't have anything to do with war.