DARPA Grant Cancelled for OpenBSD and U-Penn?

Starrider writes "It seems the DARPA grant for OpenBSD and for University of Pennsylvania has been cancelled (?) immediately and without warning. See the full story in Theo's email and on deadly.org." Theo is left to only speculate why funding was suddenly pulled. One also has to wonder what this means for the University of Pennsylvania, since they were also in for a piece of the pie.

Comments

How's it goin Theo?

[Erect Horsecock]

It has come to my attention that DARPA has cancelled the POSSE program with UPENN, (sub OpenBSD & a bit for OpenSSL) for undisclosed reasons, effective today, without any warning.


My suspicion is this happened because I made anti-war statements in a Canadian newspaper article in the Globe & Mail, but I am not an American citizen so I cannot claim to have free speech there (even made "quote of the day")."

You might be king shit amongst a group of nerds but the idea that your opinion matters to the US Government is laughable.
If it was anyone It could have been MS whispering in ears just like they did for SE Linux. Not because of some lame anti war comment you made in a Canadian newspaper.

Grow\Shut the fuck up Theo.

Re:How's it goin Theo?

[RLiegh]

It has come to my attention that DARPA has cancelled the POSSE program with UPENN, (sub OpenBSD & a bit for OpenSSL) for undisclosed reasons, effective today, without any warning.

My suspicion is this happened because I made anti-war statements in a Canadian newspaper article in the Globe & Mail, but I am not an American citizen so I cannot claim to have free speech there (even made "quote of the day")."

You might be king shit amongst a group of nerds but the idea that your opinion matters to the US Government is laughable.
If it was anyone It could have been MS whispering in ears just like they did for SE Linux. Not because of some lame anti war comment you made in a Canadian newspaper.

It could very well have been as simple as someone from Darpa decided to peruse the mailing list/IRC forums one day and asked a n00b question and didn't like the response (unlikely, but not nearly as unlikely as getting shitcanned for an anti-war comment).

I agree, Theo is blatantly stretching.

[using my karma bonus as I feel this needs to be heard and discussed.]

Re:How's it goin Theo?

[ostiguy]

DARPA is not a welfare program. If they get the results/research they seek, it shouldn't matter where the work gets done.

Go FreeBSD

[nberardi]

Go FreeBSD there are more ports anyways.

But really that sucks but the government really shouldn't be funding Open Source Projects it just complicates the release of code way to much.

Re:Go FreeBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

the idea, as i understood it, was that the grant would help to facilitate development, but the government would not be able to direct the flow of that development. the openbsd people would continue to do the same thing they had been doing, but would be able to bring on more full time programmers.

additionally, openbsd's drive isn't to make an OS with tons of ports (as they, arguably, do much to hurt security of the local machine), but rather a mature, stable, and secure operating system. I use FreeBSD on both my server and gateway, but am going to switch my server back to OpenBSD with the release of 3.3, simply because of the features OpenBSD offers. However, I would never move my workstation over from FreeBSD, as the ports make it much a very nice match for those looking for a workstation.

I stand behind Theo

[Anonymous Coward]

OpenBSD is his project. If DARPA wants to retract their funding, so be it. Good riddance. Theo's intrepid and unwavering ethical beliefs are the reason I trust him to write this OS.

Re:I stand behind Theo

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're a bit confused. Unless you are making sweeping accusations and a "guilt by association" claim, in which case you are an absurd purpose and possibly just a silly little person.

First, money is a common denominator in many aspects of society. It is, more or less, simply there as a value marker. We could dwelve deeper into this, but the reality is, it is a fundamental and agreed upon method of exchange, here work/code.

When the project took to the DARPA grant, it was money to improve the OS. No questions as to politics or motivation. Money for code and effort. Hopefully, by now, anyone with two neurons realizes that technology can cut both ways and it depends on the use of that technology that provides evidence of right or wrong (i.e. crypto, a knife).

When Theo took the money, it was to improve OBSD. There was shared purpose between Theo and DARPA that matched and hence the transaction was to take/took place.

When DARPA removed that money, it was (allegedly) for political reasons, not (seemingly) because of loss of common ground on what was to be worked on (e.g. loss of security, features, timetable, etc.). Unless they stupidly believe Theo's antiwar sentiments would cause a decrease in quality code (absurd).

To be consistent, they should pull Bill Gates into a hearing and ask him in detail his war views, and if not agreeable, pull the plug on all MS sales. Same with Linux--if Linus is antiwar in any way, Linux should be chucked.

Really now.

There is nothing hypocritical about Theo's statements. He stated his views on his own time, in another country, and did so DESPITE the grant. That's not hypocritical; that's clear cut freedom of expression and conviction. I hope you haven't forgotten that, because if you are a fellow American, you need to check your own logic at the door. He didn't tone down or water down his statements because he had a grant; that would have been more in line of being "bought".

Or do you believe grants are exclusively decided on the basis of political motivations (undoubtedly a factor though), not the technical ability or the job done?

Essentially stating that he will state his views on matters that have little to no bearing on what was agreed to is principled, and sticking to them even now (e.g. take back the blood money since that has become clear _after_ the fact) continues to be principled, not hypocritical.

If the color of his language after having the grant rejected bothers you, you really should consider that the money was removed after unfavorable comments, which is the real color here, in that it colored the money has pro-war or only for those that support the war...which is not something that I think was probably part of the grant application (if for the war, check here?).

I am further bothered by your snipe since it sticks of guilt by association. As a Republican, I see this too often. Dems label, Reps label, blah blah blah. Get over it. Unless you would agree that, say, everyone who supports Linux also supports China and it's antihumanitarian ways (guilt by association). Unless you would think that DARPA made it abundantly clear that their grant has direct political pro-war motivations (hardly, unless you want to be called a hypocrite yourself, you use the Internet, which grew directly out of such funding).

Rather, it is more likely you just transposed your feelings of the US government on anything with some whacked political motivation and want to twist this as a bad thing by bouncing it off of Theo's (laden) reputation.

For me, it is abundantly clear that the money for code/effort in grant form went beyond the grant. The money was given only for those that support the war, since it was removed _after_ Theo put foward his antiwar sentiments. Last I heard, that wasn't part of the grant application process.

Probably not his comments in Canada

[jimhill]

It's less likely that the grant got pulled for comments Theo made in a Canadian newspaper than for the fact that the government which has assiduously spent the last 18 months dismantling our country's(*) claim to being the Land of the Free finally realized that their vastly-expanding surveillance capabilities would be hampered by increased computing security. Plug pulled, time for Clipper 2.

(*) For values of "our country" == "the USA".

Re:File this under DUH!

[CybeRHiDe]

There are still individuals, as well as companies, that utilize OpenBSD. It has prooven to be quite stable and secure for many. From firewalls to webservers, vpns to ids, personal workstations to x servers. Comments that "BSD is dead" and "noone uses OpenBSD" are purely not true. It maybe a specialized BSD designed for a small niche of uses, but it does what it does and it does it well.

-Cyberhide

Open Source Means *ALL* Open Source....

[Anonymous Coward]

This sucks.

I happen to be an OpenBSD user, having converted most of my systems over to it because of it's tight code base, progressive deployment of features that are stable, and performance on any hardware.

I "came home" to BSD after taking the trip through some commerical UNIX'es and not liking what the InterNet era did to bloat Linux distributions.

OpenBSD, NetBSD, and FreeBSD regularly share code amongst themselves, giving it huge depth in the experiences of talented coders worldwide.

I was happy when OBSD was US-government funded because I thought it was smart for the US to do, adding up what I know about OBSD's security, the talent of the programmers on the whole OBSD team, how tight they work together, and it showed the government took a smart stance on OS security. I had hopes whatever came out of the project would trickle out to the rest of government.

I don't know if we'll ever know why the program was cancelled, but someone should ask @ an official level. It's not about Linux vs. BSD, it's about our tax dollars as US citizens being used in a way we approved of in a project we cared for, and then being yanked.

We deserve and should demand to know why this decision was made and ensure there's no corporate malfeasance in that decision making process.

Contact your CongressFolk today, US citizens, and help show that Slashdotters are a powerful and informed bunch of people.

Who's biting the hand...

[wfrp01]

Who's biting the hand that feeds them? Not Theo. Theo has class. Theo lost some bucks. That sucks. But here's the thing: DARPA gets a lot more out of Theo then Theo ever hoped to get from DARPA. This is just another example of idiocy run rampant at the defense department. This is the same department, remember, that ascertained the necessity of protecting the Iraq Oil Ministry whilst the relics of civilation's birth were plundered. What's so important about the Oil Ministry? What have they got there? A bunch of loan guarantees with the French, vs. the cradle of civilazation? DOD fuckwit shitwits. These people are so stupid that they will put their own interests at risk in order to spite someone (a very intelligent someone) who doesn't tow their fucked up party line.

Theo will prevail. The current administration of the US DOD will go down in history as infamous self-important crusading intolerant assholes responsible for great world instability and economic chaos.

Free Speech != No Consequences

[primebase]

Actually, you do have the right to speak freely in the US, just as I suspect you do in Canada. After all, you & your loved ones are not dead/imprisoned/being tortured for what you said.

However...

You did just shoot your mouth off about your employer in a negative way! Not too wise to do that anywhere public, and pretty much just plain dumb to do it VERY publicly in print.

And, lo and behold, they didn't agree with what you had to say (shock, amazement) and they pulled funding.

I hate that you lost your grant money (especially since I like your project and the work you do), but you have no one to blame but yourself.

So no whining.

Refer to the subject of this message if you have any further questions.

Re:Free Speech != No Consequences

[dolmant_php]

Employer? No. Theo specifically says in the news article that this money comes without any direction. It was taken only on the conditions that no strings were to be attached. DARPA wasn't paying OpenBSD to do X. It was paying them to do the same thing they've always done. It was more like a gift than a salary.

Re:Free Speech != No Consequences

[daw]

Theo specifically says in the news article that this money comes without any direction. It was taken only on the conditions that no strings were to be attached. DARPA wasn't paying OpenBSD to do X. It was paying them to do the same thing they've always done.

Oh come on. The fact that he gave this impression is probably exactly why they canceled his ass. That's not how DARPA grants work. It's not the fucking MacArthur genius award. They don't just say, "Hey! We like you! Here's $3 million in taxpayer money! Knock yourself out!"

Come on! Grants have deliverables, lists of what you're going to spend the money on, schedules of what you're going to accomplish every year, etc. etc. Excruciating detail, negotiated in several back-and-forth rounds before anything is ever funded. I guarantee you this grant had all that too. And if the funders read in the newspaper that their money was instead being funneled to some foreign asshole who was claiming it was his personal nest egg and promising literally to give nothing back for it and just instead do what he pleased, then of course they cut it off.

This obviously had zero to do with Theo's view of the war in Iraq. If you read the article, he had about two words to say about that, and the rest of the article was devoted to him saying many irresponsible things about how he was squandering our money.

Re:Closed-source lobbying

[mkettler]

Although it's somewhat off-topic, despite the lobbying SELinux is still going. They just made an updated release April 7th, a mere 10 days ago.

http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/news.html

Thus, I don't think DARPA has any issue with the open/closed sourced-ness of it.

It does however seem reasonable for a branch of the US DOD to not be wanting to fund someone that is critical of the US military. Wether his statements are true or not is another matter, but it would seem odd to for the DOD provide funding to a non-us citizen that criticizes the DOD. I'd expect them to have been taking a lot of political flack about that.

Open mouth, insert foot

[reemul]

Forget for a moment that the funding source was the US gov't. Just imagine that the money came from a grant from some generic source with no political or social implications whatsoever. A portion of the money was spent, and many of the goals were already reached. The project lead continued to spend the money, in some cases for purposes that were at best dubious and at worst clearly opposed to the wishes of the grant source. And then he gave interviews where he badmouthed them. Do you think that any group, anywhere, would continue to give money to the project?

This isn't a Big Mean US Gov't story - after all, they had been funding the project with pretty lenient restrictions until now - this is yet another case of a great programmer and leader who has let his mouth get in the way of his work. Theo isn't yet up to the level of RMS, but he is trying Really Hard. DARPA brought the gear, the ball, provided a nice field to play on, and gave the OpenBSD team a chance to show what they could do. After a great start, they decided to hang out with friends, do their own thing, and drink beer out of their helmets. And then they threw dung at the guys in the suits paying for the party. Brilliant. Why should anyone at all be shocked that DARPA took their ball and went home?

I like OpenBSD, and use it on my firewall box. Partly because of the security, and in part because as an also-ran in the OS popularity contests, none of the script kiddies even bother trying to get in. I'll upgrade to 3.3, and maybe even buy the disks to give some money back to the team. But I still think that personally, Theo is a prick, and this time it bit him.

Coders and testers can give back to the Open Source community through pretty obvious ways. Same with tech writers helping with the docs, and lawyers keeping an eye on the licenses and handling privacy and security issues. Any PR or other personal contact specialist folks out there looking for a way to help out? There really needs to be some project full of helpful folks to handle the interface between the socially-deficient techies and the prickly and sensitive people in the outside world, from investors to possible users. I know I need the help when dealing with clients, and clearly I'm not the only one. How about it?

Re:Open mouth, insert foot

[Flamerule]

The project lead continued to spend the money, in some cases for purposes that were at best dubious and at worst clearly opposed to the wishes of the grant source.

I have no idea what you're referring to here. Was Theo sending grant money to the Iraqi government, or something? Certainly you can't be referring the the beer quote, since it's specifically stated that DARPA money wasn't spent on beer. As if that was in doubt...

After a great start, they decided to hang out with friends, do their own thing, and drink beer out of their helmets. And then they threw dung at the guys in the suits paying for the party.

So the OpenBSD team shouldn't be allowed to drink alcohol while they're being funded by DARPA? What should the rules be? No parties, wear full IBM business suits, 50000 lines of code per month? And I'd hardly call Theo's opposition to war in Iraq "[throwing] dung" at the DOD. He's got lots of company, especially in Canada.

Re:Open mouth, insert foot

[reemul]

At what point did DARPA money become an entitlement? Theo (and everyone else) is allowed to say pretty much anything they want about the US Gov't without being shot or put in jail. That is what free speech is all about. However, that doesn't mean there aren't any consequences. DARPA is under no obligation to give the project any money, so they decided to stop doing so, a decision they are absolutely entitled to make. Mr. de Raadt has no inalienable right to get paid by the US Gov't, their freedom to cut him off is just as strong a right as his freedom to say whatever he likes.

If he wants to keep getting money from the US DoD, he should try to avoid saying unkind things about them. Not that his comments were provably the reason for the cessation of funding, but they weren't helpful. Just spending most of the money on non-US programmers was probably something they weren't happy with - they are, after all, US taxpayer funded. He made a free-willed decision to speak his mind, which I respect even if I don't agree with his opinions. In return, he must accept the results of that decision. He could have smiled while taking their money, instead he said his piece and no longer gets the cash. Life continues.

Re:Serves Them Right

[3141]

I'm always astounded how people think they have the right to express their opinions and then act surprised when there are repercussions.

Perhaps because when things are happening that will affect the whole world, including themselves, they feel that they have just as much a right to speak freely as politicians.

relevant quote

[zogger]

--relevant quote from down the list:

"I am not sorry for having said my anti-war stuff, in fact if anything,
this comes to something I said to Ty a few nights ago at the bar: "If
they take the money away, then it was blood money, and I don't want it".

I actually feel redeemed :-)"

--good for you theo. It was blood money. The US government has been hijacked and is run by ....well, that word you can't use in usenet. I've seen enough with what passes for the law and legalities with this junta, they are the rulers, everyone else is a subject. They've been hacking down websites, now they are starting with the ultra violence on anyone who dares to have an opinion against them. Losing cash is nothing in the long run. Screw em, make your OS, and keep your opinions.

And quite frankly, the government doesn't want "the people" to have a secure OS, they want "total informational awareness". Can't do that with secure software to the people, can you?

We're seeing it now, assaults on security researchers and developers, assaults on encryption, etc.

I've never run your OS but I can see what's happening, so you must be on the right track. Just lately they've taken down irwin schiff and his tax research, and also the publishers of cracking the code, the expose of the UCC in the US. so it's just not specifically IT. Politics as usual like you would see in any banana republic, just so happens this is turning into a LARGE banana republic, or should I say a "regime"..

Re:While I suspect ...

[ralzod]

...Kind of like when NSA backed off on doing security for Linux...

Perhaps a contradiction to what you are saying, but his earlier post pointed out that the NSA just put out a new SElinux release...

www.nsa.gov/selinux/news.html

This is just stupid.

[dracocat]

1) There is no evidence the reason the funding was pulled because of Theo's comments.

2) I think people are missing the point. It was the Department of Defense, not just the US Government that was funding the research. Now, why the hell would you shoot your mouth in a negative way about somebody that is giving you funding--AND then complain about it.

If you care about something strongly enough that you are willing to stand up for it and take the consequences... good for you. But why does he act surprised and start whining when the consequences actually arrive!

Re:couple things

[mosch]

Has anybody looked at the Theo De Raadt is a huge fucking asshole angle? In the past he's managed to build walls between himself and the rest of the world, and perhaps he just did it again.

Re:I don't know what to say...

[Almost-Retired]

Neither do I. And while I'm a bit abivalent about this war from the standpoint of the weapons used, such as the depleted uranium cannon shells, thats not germain to this particular subject.

What is germain is that DARPA issued a grant to fund a major effort at improving this particular OS, one that already has a decent reputation for being secure, airplane tickets were bought and paid for out of the expectation of receiving the grant in a timely manner, plus accomodations arranged for. All of this costs money.

To then have the grant canceled just because the head honcho made his views known on the war is being petty beyond belief!

I have no idea who is responsible for this, but if this person can be identified, we, the tax-payers of the US would most assuredly like to interview him for the public record, and so that appropriate changes in the funding of DARPA can be arranged in congress.

Its not out of the realm of possibilities to arrange to have this persons salary removed from the DARPA budget by congress.

Its been done at least once before when a Richard Davis at the BATF, who was espousing a national gun registration scheme, had his salary removed from the BATF budget by a nearly unanimous vote of both houses of congress, now about 25 or so years back up the log.

Who else feels as I do on this, and could afford to offer a bit of help, it sure sounds like Theo needs it right now!

That, and let us see if we can find out who made that decision. IMO this person needs to see how _real politics_ is played.

--
Cheers, Gene

Re:I know what to say, "Support DARPA and the USA.

[McGurk]

"I spent _six_ months waiting for a visa when I was invited as a researcher for the Air Force" (snip) "So fuck DARPA, and fuck the USA nationalists" Looks like the INS made the right choice. The day my Government gives asshats like you my cash is the day I vote for the other party.

Re:Closed-source lobbying

[bogie]

" Linux for Govt is a shady subject - since Govt is supported by taxpayers, including CORPORATE Taxpayers (ok ok, so what if loopholes let companies get off on 2 bucks a year :-) ), all govt software projects should be BSD Licensed"

Sorry I think your wrong and hardly think Linux for the Govt is a "shady" subject.

I disagree and think govt projects when possible should be GPL. The code should ALWAYS remain free no matter what. Some company shouldn't be allowd to come along and just take what others have worked on or more importantly paid for via taxes without giving back. That's only fair if your getting free code from MY dime. I'll be damned if some commercial company is going to close the source to some exiting project and sell it back to the unsuspecting public who ALREADY paid for it!

Theo's Legendary Mouth At Work

[SoupIsGood Food]

Shock and outrage! Theo opens his mouth to bite the hand that feeds him, and so gets no bone? Who would have thought it would happen to such a sweet and affable fellow?

Bah.

Theo's legendary lack of tact and people-skills has sunk him... again. He can fork NetBSD and come out on top, he can fork OpenSSH and win the trademark dispute, he can fork IPfilter after alienating Darren Reed... I don't think he can fork the US Government. (Tho it would be a lot more stable and secure if he did... )

~Soop

Re:Theo's 'oil grab' comment... "why Iraq?"

[homer_ca]

why the US would spend $100+ billion to control Iraqi oil revenues that are a twentieth of that annually... surely one could get a higher return elsewhere?

You can't debunk the greed motive so easily. The people footing the bill aren't the ones reaping the profits. The American taxpayer pays the $100 billion and Halliburton, et al make the money.

Oh, come on.....

[deanj]

Hey, I've been in on DARPA funded grants before, and I'll tell you, there are a TON of reasons that funding could have been pulled...

1) The contact at DARPA changed. This happens all the freaking time. The guy who used to be your bonus baby might have been asked to move aside (or moved up, as the case may be), and the new guy just didn't "get" the project.

2) They expected milestones, or at least reports of the sort that backed up what was being done on the project. If someone was slacking in getting these reports written, ....cut!

3) Questions weren't being answered in a way they wanted to see. I've seen this too. It's pretty damn embarrasing to watch the funding agency ask legit questions, and then get the runaround on answers. THEY HATE THIS.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Also, usually the main contact with the DARPA folks are NOT the guys implementing the project. It's the guy who's responsible for the grant. They don't give two rats cheeks about who's on the project, as long as the work gets done.

I seriously doubt they had any idea who Theo was, no matter how "famous" he is within his community. Putting too much stock in anyone's profile besides the guy who wrote the original grant is just grandstanding (grant-standing? heh).

It could have happened for any of the above reasons, or more. When I first hear about this a few hours ago, I looked for it on Slash.... Glad to see the submitter had a level head in posted what he/she did, since until the guy who wrote the grant speaks out, there are no facts here, just guesses.

Re:Oh, come on.....

[deanj]

Theo wasn't the guy running the DARPA contract, the guy at UPENN was, so he really had nothing to do with points #2 and #3. The points are still valid. Theo agreed to take money from UPENN, who got the money from DARPA. The agreement was with a guy at UPENN, not DARPA.

In fact, if he said there were no strings attached, it's quite likely he never did anything to help #2 and #3 when DARPA need it from the guy who actually got the contract at UPENN. As I said, #2 and #3 are very important, and if DARPA didn't get the info they wanted, they'd get cut.

Re:Oh, come on.....

[rpg25]

No, Theo saying there were no strings attached in no way makes points 2 and 3 invalid. The government has its procedures and that's that. You simply can't take DARPA's money and not expect to write progress reports, explain what you're going to do with the money, etc., etc. In fact, I'd be surprised if Theo even considered writing progress reports, submitting accounts for the money received, etc. as "strings attached" --- that's just management and accountability.

In particular, DARPA issues contracts; DARPA does not issue grants. They are buying something from you and there are lots of rules about what the government must ask for when it buys stuff from people. You might believe there are no strings attached, but you'd be wrong.

As an aside, the same people who are outraged that Theo's money went away would probably be just as outraged if they found out that the government was spending money on something they didn't like without these controls. $700 toilet seats, anyone?

I very much doubt that this was pulled because of Theo's comments. I'd be absolutely shocked if I found out that one of UPenn's contract monitors actually read the Globe & Mail, stumbled on Theo's comments, and bothered to trace back to find out that he was funded by DARPA.

Re:Sorry, Theo.

[Loki_1929]

"If it makes me less of an American for believing in free speech, then so be it."

Free speech does not mean there are no consequences to what you say. For instance, I have the right to call my boss an arrogant ass to his face (he's actually a great guy, but humor me), but I best expect to be fired for doing so. If Theo wanted to exercise his right to free speech without any consquences, he ought to have exercised his right to do so anonymously. No one's saying he didn't have a right to say what he said, but DARPA has every right to not give free money away to whomever they please for whatever reason, including his publicly expressed views. Not to say that's why they pulled the funding, but so what if they did? Is any person/project entitled to a government grant? Absolutely not; although as arrogant as Theo is, he probably believes his money was taken away from him. It wasn't. A grant was pulled.

Not so simple as that...

[An Onerous Coward]

I hate to see this war portrayed as just an oil grab. It's a thousand times more complicated than that, and a thousand times more complicated than "We're spreading democracy out of the goodness of our spleens" as well. There are dozens of motivations here, some noble, others far less so.

Nevertheless, the "oil grab" mentality is at least a bit better-reasoned than you've portrayed:

If it was an oil grab, an 'informed person' would have to articulate:

why the US would spend $100+ billion to control Iraqi oil revenues that are a twentieth of that annually... surely one could get a higher return elsewhere?

First, you have to realize that it's not the US Government that directly benefits. It's the energy industry that reaps the benefits. Cheap oil benefits refineries and power plants.

President Bush is heavily financed and heavily influenced by the energy industry. The links are well known, well documented, and date back to his first run for governor of Texas. I'm not saying that Big Oil snaps and the Prez. comes running. But when it comes to complex matters of public policy, a bit of access goes a long way.

what evidence there is that the U.S. will actually *take* (grab) the oil, rather than leave it for the Iraqis to own and control

Nobody thinks the U.S. is being that brazen. We could never storm in, take full ownership of Iraq's oilfields, and still maintain any more credibility than Saddam did when he "liberated" Kuwait. The UN would go nuts. American voters would go nuts. It simply could not happen.

But imagine playing it out another way. Go in, depose a ruthless dictator whom everybody detests, and set up an interim government. Set up a few service contracts for American companies to improve Iraq's infrastructure. This includes providing some technology critical to developing oil fields. Once the native government takes over, they're likely to continue those contracts out of obligation, need, or just plain inertia.

Sure, I make it sound all smarmy. The kicker is, even under my scenario, Iraq is still better off.

Now, regarding your "return on investment" question: It gets way more complicated when you start looking at the OPM (other people's money) problem. For example, Bush can't help himself to a campaign contribution from the US Treasury. But he can ask Congress to spend Treasury funds in ways that benefit his supporters, which leads to contributions he'll need for 2004. Similarly, if a private company thinks that it will get $1 billion from the fallout of a war, it doesn't care that the US will spend $100 billion. Remember the fool who damaged Berkeley's fiber optic link while trying to steal a copper wire for salvage? Even though the damage done was ten thousand times the value of the copper, for him it would have been money in the bank.

explain why the US would rather take oil than just buy it on the open market

As I said earlier, it would be politically impossible. But the US does benefit from the cheap oil prices caused by an addition of a new supplier to the energy market.

under related but alternate theories, acknowledge (or explain why not) why one should be suspicious that US is doing this for oil company contracts, but why that same logic would not apply to French and Russian rationales for opposing the war

I'm not sure I understand the question.

explain why the US would act in such an insecure or greedy way when only 10-15% of its current energy usage comes from persian gulf oil (~50% energy usage is oil, 25% of US oil comes from persian gulf)

First, stop thinking of the US as a homogenous blob with clear and unconflicted interests. Don't even think of the government that way. Instead, see that this war does benefit certain interest groups, and that

Re:Not so simple as that...

[z4ce]

Actually the energy industrry HATES cheap oil. If supply goes up, prices go down, quantity demanded goes up (but not enough to offset the difference), total profits will be lowered in the industry.

It will be good for any company that owns the fields. It would be good for energy consumers. It would be terrible for bush's "oil buddies in Texas.

Bush's oil buddies would like nothing more than the oil fields to be lit on fire and emptied (from a financial point of view). Then they would make A LOT of money due the short term inelasticity of oil-based energy.

I think our reasons include:
* Not wanting Saddam to get WMDs
* Wanting to cut off the money flow to terrorists
* Wanting to liberate the Iraqi people
* Wanting to handle saddam now before he gets enough weapons to try calling himself king the middle east and try to take over his neighbore's again.

Some less than noble reasons:
* Cheaper oil helping the entire world economy.
* Corporate contracts for oil drilling equipment (maybe, we'll find out after the war...)
* Free nations in general help the entire world's stability and wealth

But I keep hearing it will help oil companies or Bush's oil buddies. This couldn't be further from the truth since it will actually lower their profits if oil is cheap.

Re:Not so simple as that...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The real deal is that anybody who still is somebody in Oil in Texas got out of the business of selling oil back in the late '70s when the gas shortage reversed. I should know, I got inlaws in them thar parts that worked as corporate bankruptcy lawyers helping all those people get out of the business.

The facts are that the people who are left in Oil in Texas are all about oil infrastructure. They build pipelines, they build wells, they build refineries, they even put out fires. But what they don't do is sell oil. These are the people that are buddy, buddy with Bush. These are the companies that get awarded $7.5B contracts from the US Federal goverment to go clean up Iraq's oil infrastructure without even having to worry about a competitive bidding process, in this particular case, Halliburton. But Halliburton is just the most public (and clumsy in their feeding-at-the-trough behavior) face of the oil infrastructure industrial complex. There are plenty more that you aren't going to hear about unless you run into them and their business in Iraq (and Afghanistan!) directly.

Re:Not so simple as that...

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

No. Though I do hope Iraq will get a functioning democracy, and while I'm absolutely positive that somebody in Iraq will be in control of the oil reserves by that time, it was never about direct control by the US government. The cynic in me says that it was always about deposing Saddam and putting someone friendly to US interests in control. That same cynic also keeps whispering that there is no way a democracy would be allowed to succeed. Democracies have an uncanny knack of acting in the best interests of their voters, not US corporate interests.

Yeah, well, it's a while ago now, but just look at what happened to Mosadeque in Iran (the democratically elected prime minister) when he tried to stop BP.

Or the democracy of Guatemala in '56 when they tried to put a stop to United Fruit. They still haven't really recovered, and of course Iran hasn't returned to democracy either.

Let's hope there's been progress since then.

Re:Not so simple as that...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Because it didn't matter. They are (usually) smart enough to take 50% with little risk than go for 100% with huge risk. Every once in a while you get somebody too dumb to play it cool, somebody like the representative from Qualcomm who wants to put Qualcomm's interests ahead of the Iraqi peoples, but isn't buddies with the right people so he gets a little too loud and it all comes out...

Iraq's oil infrastructure was barely in a state to handle the meager allotments for the oil-for-food program, there is plenty of "work" to go around in building it up. Not all the contracts are Federal either, or at least not US Federal. You can expect that whatever government ends up in place in Iraq will be handing out lots of restoration and development contracts either directly, or through proxy via privatizing the oil fields, and you know who will be first in line for those.

Chalabi - remember that name. He's Rumsfield's favorite choice for head of Iraqi leadership / stooge for US corporate interests and like too many others that the administration endorses for service here in the US, is a criminal. Chalabi had a hand in a $500M banking scandal in Egypt, he was lucky to escape from the country in the trunk of a car.

FWI, read article about how the widely televised pull-down of the statue of Sadam was mostly staged and the people playing the role of the local Iraqis were really henchmen for Chalabi that had been flown in to put on a show.

Re:Not so simple as that...

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Also on the issue of oil infrastructure I would like to add that the issue isn't with the pitiful current Iraqi oil infrastructure. It's with the potentially huge future Iraqi oil infrastructure.

What everyone seems to be forgetting with "their annual oil income is only 1/20 of what the war cost" is that Iraq has the largest known oil reserves outside Saudi Arabia. What they don't have currently is a production to matches those supplies. And they never had one.

The situation in Saudi Arabia is volatile, remember that the 9/11 terrorist (and Osama) were Saudis (with the odd Egyptian thrown in), an Islamic revolution there would leave the US with their pants around their ankles, oil wise. Even accepting the 25% figure, that's a huge percentage to suddenly do without. And furthermore, focusing on total energy usage ignores that you've built most on your transportation infrastructure on the abundance of cheap oil derivates. Hit that that hard, and your (already shaky) economy could collapse. Unfortunately you'd take us with you...

Given that, what better place to increase your influence than the other oil rich nation in the world? Let's not forget that the only nation in the world that can survive on its own oil resources is Russia. The US has increased its consumption over the last couple of years, not decreased it.

Let me put it this way, if the war in Iraq isn't an oil grab, it damn well ought to be, from an American perspective. A perspective I don't happen to share (or agree with), BTW.

You don't understand Free Speech.

[ClarkEvans]

you do have the right to speek freely ... However... You did just shoot your mouth off about your employer in a negative way...

This is problematic on several fronts. First, this was an acedemic institution project which had its funding withdrawn... if it was done for political reasons, i.e., beacuse of what one of the researchers said, then it is definately, clearly, a violation of free speech. If he was awarded the grant based on the acedemic merits, and the money was canceled due to his political opinions, then this is quiet ugly.

Second, DARPA is not a private enterprise. It is an agent of the government, and an instrument of the people. While a private enterprise may be free to act anyway they want (subject to lots of restrictions _if_ they are publicly owned), the government isn't. It's bound by the constituion.

Thirdly, this is especially important for acedemic researchers, since they are in a trusted position. If publicly funded researchers have to watch what they say or their funding will dissappear... then you have effectively silenced a great majority of them. It is very much a violation of free speech.

Free speech means not only that the government won't throw you in jail, it means that it won't treat you differently from others based on your political viewpoints.

Re:Theo's comments in Globe and Mail

[Skjellifetti]

Now, give me one example of a conflict where the US unselfishly involved itself for no other cause than "good".

A reasonable case can be made that Roosevelt worked hard to help the Brits out prior to the US formal entry into WWII because it was The Right Thing To Do.

More recently, the US entered Somalia because the population was starving due to a combination of long-term drought and local warlords who didn't seem to give a damn about the local people.

Rwanda is another recent case where the US intervened when there was no strategic reason for doing so. Just a nasty local ethnic cleansing problem.

And then there is the whole leftover Yugo mess. One of the major reasons the US got involved was because we perceived (rightly or wrongly) that the Europeans did not seem to care very much about the thousands of people whose lives were being lost. Remember, it was a group of Dutch "peacekeepers" who stood by while the Srebrenitza Massacre took place.

Most European capital cities have a "Never Again" museum where they walk schoolchildren through the brutality of the Holocaust and the Nazi occupation of their country. And yet Europeans are the most obstinant about refusing to help others out of similar fixes the way the US helped them out of theirs.

Bottom line for me is that I'll gladly accept a mixture of both pure and selfish motivations if that is what it takes to rid the world of bastards like Hussein.

Re:I don't know what to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Theo is guessing that his funding was cancelled because of his media comments about the US. Since no-one from DARPA has commented publically, and Theo claims not to have heard from them how can you assume that his guess was correct?

As others have posted, there are any number of boring reasons why DARPA grants get cancelled.

Re:Theo's comments in Globe and Mail

[Skjellifetti]

The fact is that killed more people, via direct war and 12 years of sanctions than Saddam ever did.

BULLSHIT! Hussein spent his oil money from the past decade on weapons, bribes to local elders, and his own luxury goods and bank acounts. It would not have been hard to have spent that money on food, medicine, schools, etc for his own people. The sanctions cannot be blamed for the state of Iraq or for ANY deaths that occured in the past decade. Only one man is to blame for those deaths and if we are lucky, God is judging him for those actions right at this very moment.

Re:Theo's 'oil grab' comment... "why Iraq?"

[be-fan]

why the US would spend $100+ billion to control Iraqi oil revenues that are a twentieth of that annually... surely one could get a higher return elsewhere?
>>>>>>>>>
Um, because most of that money comes right back to the US? In the global economy, it's not about how much you spend, but where that money goes. There are a few different catagories of costs to the war:

1) Money that is up in smoke. This covers bombs, spent fuel, destroyed buildings, etc.
2) Money used to pay troops. This is a large part of the deployment cost, and again, it comes right back to the US.
3) Money used to rebuild Iraq. Most of this money comes right back to us. It's the same principle behind how USAID (our foreign AID department) works. 70% of US foreign AID comes right back to US contractors and subcontractors. Guess which companies will get dibs on rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure? Not the Iraqi companies that need the money, but the American companies that don't.

When all these factors are taken into account, the *actual* cost, in terms of money that flows out of the US into other nations, is much, much less.

Now, what are the potential payoffs?

1) US companies getting markets in Iraq. Long term, this is the big one.
2) More secure oil source. It doesn't matter how much oil costs now. It matters how much it costs 50 years from now. Having the world's second largest reserves of oil in a nation indebted to the US is going to look a whole lot more favorable decades from now, when the oil starts to run out and the other OPEC countries get antsy. Even small oil crises (like in the 70's and 80's) can have a huge impact on the economy, and a big one would just be disastrous.
3) Rise in the economy due to increased consumer certainty.

Now, when you take the potential profits into account, the tens of billions of dollars that the war would actually cost seems quite a reasonable bargain.

Of course it would be stupid to say profit is the only motivation. Governments rarely act because of a single motivation. It is however a major one, and I would argue it is *the* major one.

Besides, given the position the US has put itself in, it should expect people to question their motives. If the US really wanted to put itself beyond accusation (and still felt it needed to go to war), it should just put up the money upfront and remove itself from the possibility of profiting from the rebuilding effort. This *would* cost nearly $100 billion in actual currency. Yes, this is asking a lot. No, you can't expect a country to just put aside it's own interests like that. I think the primary problem that most people have is not that the US isn't doing this, but that the US isn't doing this but (through all the talk of liberation, etc) but *acting* like they are doing this.

Its about common sense, not free speech

[Sanity]

Many appear to be arguing that the reason the grant was withdrawn was because Theo expressed an anti-war opinion. This is misleading, the reason the grant was withdrawn was more likely due to the manner in which Theo expressed that opinion, namely by expressing concern about DARPA's motives.

If Theo was really concerned about DARPA's motives, he should have expressed his opinion by not accepting the money, not by taking it then using the fact that he had taken it as a vehicle for his political opinions.

I am saddened that a silly mistake could have denied the public good the benefit of this funding, but this is the real world - and in the real world - you don't take money from someone then openly question their motives for giving it to you.

Its about common sense, not free speech

[Sanity]

Many appear to be arguing that the reason the grant was withdrawn was because Theo expressed an anti-war opinion. This is misleading, the reason the grant was withdrawn was more likely due to the manner in which Theo expressed that opinion, namely by expressing concern about DARPA's motives.

If Theo was really concerned about DARPA's motives, he should have expressed his opinion by not accepting the money, not by taking it then using the fact that he had taken it as a vehicle for his political opinions.

I am saddened that a silly mistake could have denied the public good the benefit of this funding, but this is the real world - and in the real world - you don't take money from someone then openly question their motives for giving it to you.

As They'd Say In The VaIley "It's like, shut up."

[RedSynapse]

I remember reading the original article about OpenBSD getting the money and Theo's "Uncomfortableness" with it coming from the U.S. military industrial complex. I and just remember thinking, ummmm, shut up, they're finding a special loophole to give you free money and your speaking out about the war isn't going to change a damn thing.

I think Theo has been right about any technical and licencing issues (i.e. ipf) but cheerist, shut your yaphole when people are giving you badly needed funding with no strings attatched. The war has NOTHING to do with OpenBSD and if the KKK/Hitler/Child Pornographers of America trust fund wants to donate vast sums, take it and run. If someone asks how you feel about getting the money from them repeat after me: "The organisations that have donated money to the project have absoutley no control over it's direction so my personal feelings are irrelevant."

Oh well too late. Loose lips sink ships.

Re:Theo's comments in Globe and Mail

[Skjellifetti]

That's BS, too. There is an illegal oil pipeline running from Iraq to Syria. Iraq was also running illegal oil in barges into Iran. Where did the money get spent? In the 1980s, Iraq fought an 8 year war with Iran that cost Iraq at least US $10**11. Toss in Gulf War I and Iraq never had much left over for luxury goods like schools. In fact, Iraq's literacy rate is only 58% and has never been very high compared to its neighbors. Jordon, with no oil, has a literacy rate of 86%. Syria, again with no oil, has a literacy rate of 70%. No, the sanctions meant that the people of Iraq suffered because of the budget choices made by Saddam and his minions. Saddam and the military first. If there is anything left over, the people can eat. If not, tough. That was Saddam's choice.

Also remember that it was in Saddam's interest to make the sanctions look as horrible as possible in order to garner sympathy from Western pacifists. Iraq had quite a propaganda machine going to this end. I'm really quite skeptical that the sanctions caused as much heartache as people like you seem to believe. I'm open minded on this issue, but I want to see a real in-depth analysis from a UN or similar source.

Finally, the Geneva Convention also requires that you not hide military personell and equipment in and around civilian facilities. This was a common practice of the Iraqi military. And the GC frowns on the use of poison gas, especially on your own civilian population. Funny, too, that even though the GC came out before most westerners had electricity in their homes it now is considered a "means of survival". Next war you'll be telling us that it is against the GC to take away the enemy civilians Internet connections.

Re:Theo's comments in Globe and Mail

[CausticWindow]

Ok, let's look at Somalia first.

As always, there's the corporate welfare angle. When the US spends money on a military campaign, guess where that money ends up? Other than that, you have the geographic strategic importance of the country (the former Soviet supported Ethiopia to the north, the Suez canal to the east). And then there is oil. Yes, Somalia got oil.

Even if you were to believe that the mission in Somalia was of a humanitarian nature, you can't disregard that the US were largely responsible for creating the situation in the first place. Their support of an extremely violent dictator (Siad Barre, maybe an even greater bastard than Saddam) in exchange for lucrative oil contracts, during the seventies and eighties, eventually brought on a bloody civil war.

The real world has nothing to do with the Jerry Bruckheimer fantasy Black Hawk Down.

That the genocide in Rwanda could reach such levels as it dit, has been partially attributed to how the US administration managed this case in the security council. From the beginnings of this disaster, they opposed most of the remaining members of the security council. First in supporting withdrawal of most of the UN controlled forces in the country. Then by stalling for unknown reasons, when then UN proposed a second plan for restoring order.

Regarding the former Yugoslavia and the NATO led intervention, the US has never tried to cover up that they had very real strategic goals with this campaign. Take a look at for example this report.

As I said earlier, the world is not a rosy place. I don't particularily care that the US did or did not intervene in these latest campaigns in Africa or Southern Europe. What's scary is that so many of you americans, firmly believe that your leaders only act out of a "pure" motive. I'm sure you're not so naive in other regards. The only explanation I've got, is that you must be blinded with "patriotism".