Slashdot Mirror


Documents Reveal US Incompetence with Word, Iraq

notNeilCasey writes "The U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority, which formerly governed Iraq, accidentally published Microsoft Word documents containing information never meant for the public, according to an article in Salon. By viewing the documents using the Track Changes feature in Word (.doc), the author has been able to reconstruct internal discussions from 2004 which reflect the optimism, isolation and incompetence of the American occupation. Download the author's source document or look for more yourself. 'Presumably, staffers at the CPA's Information Management Unit, which produced the weekly reports, were cutting and pasting large sections of text into the reports and then eliminating all but the few short passages they needed. Much of the material they were cribbing seems to have come from the kind of sensitive, security-related documents that were never meant to be available to the public. In fact, about half of the 20 improperly redacted documents I downloaded, including the March 28 report, contain deleted portions that all seem to come from one single, 1,000-word security memo. The editors kept pulling text from a document titled "Why Are the Attacks Down in Al-Anbar Province -- Several Theories." (The security memo and the last page of the March 28 report can be seen here, along with several other CPA documents that can be downloaded.)'"

109 of 419 comments (clear)

  1. "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along." by Silverlancer · · Score: 5, Funny

    How ironically appropriate...

  2. The deleted section from the sample by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe I'm not paying enough attention, but I'm not sure why the musings about why attacks stopped in Al-Anbar in early 2004 are so particularly embarrassing. It seems to me that they were just trying to figure out what happened; I guess it might show some degree of cluelessness on the part of Intelligence, but, uh, they gotta figure stuff out at some point, right?

    1. Re:The deleted section from the sample by Control+Group · · Score: 5, Funny

      That kind of defeatist attitude doesn't help anyone. We're trying to mock the government, here, and then you show up with your "logic." You're such a buzzkill.

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    2. Re:The deleted section from the sample by x_MeRLiN_x · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It only reads that way if you have a preconceived idea of why America invaded Iraq. ;)

    3. Re:The deleted section from the sample by frazzydee · · Score: 4, Interesting

      yeah, I think you're right..everything became much clearer after actually posting ;)
      Actually, a little further down in the document, it even says "the sharp and now continuing drop in attacks does give the coalition a much-needed respite whose continuation will be critical...Reinforcing this trend...will be crucial to ultimate success"

      So it looks like I was wrong, sorry. Mods, please mod grandparent down.

    4. Re:The deleted section from the sample by timeOday · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why do you think it's supposed to have been embarrasing? It's just somewhat interesting. It's history. That said, I'm not sure how much new information it provides. The fact that America had no idea what we were getting into is as plain as a 50-foot banner stretched across an aircraft carrier.

    5. Re:The deleted section from the sample by Himring · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I take it you've never been in the military or worked in a large corporation. You NEVER write down anything that you don't want others to know. Malicious dealings are always done voice, behind closed doors. Motives are hidden. Orders are given that totally mask the real intent but achieves the result. The last thing they would do is actually write down something to damn them if for no other reason than what is going on right now on /. with these released documents. No, I have read TFA, but I doubt there's any real incriminating information. Or, if anything, they want your to believe they are incompetent. The rules are few: keep your enemies closer than your allies. Always compromise. Never show true motives. Appear agreeable. Appear incompetent if need be, but never malicious, gaming or ulterior.

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    6. Re:The deleted section from the sample by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, it just shows what we already knew, but in more detail. That is, the CPA had no idea what a mess things were going to turn into, even though the signs were there.

      It's like watching somebody who has driven off a cliff, speculating as they fall about the lack of damage to the car.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re:The deleted section from the sample by CmdrGravy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the embarrasment comes from the fact that the situation was handled incompetently.

      Incompetently because the report writer doesn't appear to have a clue why the attacks in that province are decreasing which tends to suggest that the administration has no clear idea what is actually driving the attacks or why they're happening. It's possible that it's just the report writer who's in the dark about this but the complete lack of success in dealing with terrorism and insurgency in Iraq since then leads me to believe the problem was more widespread.

      If you don't have the correct information or don't understand the situation on the ground then it's very hard to form any effective plan for reaching your goals which is what appears to have happened with Iraq. Given what we were told about how the war was to be fought beforehand and how everything was in place to address the aftermath I would say the handling of the situation which has led to the position we are in now speaks of great incompetence.

    8. Re:The deleted section from the sample by NickFitz · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Slashdot editors very rarely change the headline supplied by the original submitter. Out of several submissions I've had published here, I can think of just one where the headline was changed by one or two words from what I originally said. (The change was an improvement, IMO.)

      So the original submitter may have wanted it to come off as embarrassing (which it is) but the fact that the Slashdot editor passed it through without modification just means that they didn't see any reason to change what somebody else had said, not that they themselves were trying to create any particular impression in the minds of the readers.

      --
      Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
    9. Re:The deleted section from the sample by suv4x4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or, if anything, they want your to believe they are incompetent.

      Oh nice, denial mixed with conspiracy theories. Or how about, they are normal people, like you and me. They breath air, eat food, go to the toilet, and some of them families, kids and so on trivia.

      The idea that they concealed fake info in the history of a Word file which embarasses them, so a tricky hacker could accidentally decode it and spread misinformation about the US intelligence service being idiots, while they are actually super smart..

      That kinda strikes me as something I'd read next to articles showing evidence green aliens control earth in some tabloid.

      They have no benefit to make their nation or their enemies think they are idiots. On the contrary, they keep teaching their soldiers, that the best weapon is the one that makes your enemy give up the fight. They need to look smart, they need to look scary, they need to look like someone you don't want to play with. Those docs work in the opposite direction.

    10. Re:The deleted section from the sample by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      there are several things that could have happened which lead to the confusion. In all out firefights, if the other side isn't completely obliterated, they try to cart off their dead to hide the identities of their families who might also be supporting them. It could be that another operation inadvertently killed some of the people behind the attacks and we need to asses who, why and where or if this is even the case. It had nothing to do with incompetence, rather an attempt to link unrelated activities to explain the current situation.

      We have had serial rapist from other states who were caught in that other state and it took years to put the pieces together and link the two. With modern communication and all this time frame has narrowed a bunch and sometimes it can be linked before they goto trial. But this shows nothing of the incompetence of the investigators who have no evidence pointing to the person in particular and still cannot figure out who is doing it. When the guy get detained in the other state, all they know it the rapes stopped and they need to figure out why. Did someone die? did someone get arrested somewhere and so on?

      But that "connecting the dots" is relatively easy compared to the situations in Iraq. You don't know a lot of times when someone dies and their body is carted off and either buried in secrete or mutilated and dropped off in the street to make it appear as if they were attacked by the insurgence or terrorist. In the later case, it makes it appear that the people behind the violence are innocent civilians caught in the cross fire. And to think that any of this shows incompetence really goes to a deeper level of you lack of understanding. Now having the changes inside the word document after it was released to the public shows incompetence. But this isn't any where near the same level as you are intending to imply.

  3. Re:"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along by Prysorra · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It just floors me they feel they have to cover up even the signs of progress.

    The level of utter incompetence w.r.t. "controlling the narrative" just terrifies me.

    :-(

  4. Microsoft fanboys by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2, Funny

    Here are the elusive Microsoft fanboys. We don't notice them because they are so insignifiant and incompetent and unglamorous and dull.

  5. I learned a long time ago... by multipartmixed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    C-A, C-C, C-N, C-V, A-F, A

    (create new document that looks like, but is not, the old one)

    before sending onward. Otherwise, somebody WILL find something untoward, even if it's not track changes, it could be a now-unused hunk of crap in the OLE2 file, etc.

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    1. Re:I learned a long time ago... by VertigoAce · · Score: 2, Informative

      Alternatively, from the main menu, select Prepare -> Inspect Document. That will check for "Comments, Revisions, Versions, and Annotations", "Document Properties and Personal Information", "Custom XML Data", "Headers, Footers, and Watermarks", "Hidden Text" (you choose which ones you want to look for and it will report.

      It doesn't show you the exact text that it found, but does let you remove all instances of each category. The idea is that you have a document that you actually edit and then use this tool on the copy you intend to distribute.

    2. Re:I learned a long time ago... by SCHecklerX · · Score: 4, Informative

      The NSA publishes some very useful guides for dealing with sensitive information here:
      http://www.nsa.gov/snac/

      Specifically, how to properly redact a Microsoft Word .doc is detailed in this document:
      http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dod/nsa-redact.pdf

    3. Re:I learned a long time ago... by ohzopants · · Score: 5, Funny

      That pdf link is very interesting. But it's a bit hard to take a document seriously when the ms word screenshots they used have the animated cat (for help) turned on.

    4. Re:I learned a long time ago... by massysett · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yikes, how to safely redact Word documents? I'm not sure that is possible. It's actually scary that NSA would dare publish guidance on this topic. Word is a proprietary black box, and all I can do is shake my head if NSA is dumb enough to keep any sensitive information in Word and then release the documents!

  6. Re:Always see the bright side. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Serves me right for posting without even the summary carefully. Looks like there is incompetance even in the documentation process! Releasing docs without purging history. Wow! Bad Govt Agency! No ISO 9007 for you!

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  7. Disallow MS Word by gr8_phk · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is a great reason to disallow the use of MS Word in government. Does ODF support this change tracking stuff? Or should they stick to ASCII files?

    1. Re:Disallow MS Word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      ODF as used in OpenOffice/StarOffice supports change tracking, in arguably less flakey fashion than MS Word - so long as you're not roundtripping the documents between MS Word .doc files and Open Office file conversions, that is! That's a recipe for disaster. This is, as usual, largely microsoft's fault (I've had similarly negative experiences roundtripping change-tracked documents through different versions of MS Word, really).

    2. Re:Disallow MS Word by symbolic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, it's a great reason to continue using Microsoft word.

    3. Re:Disallow MS Word by gr8_phk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Government use of MS Word should be disallowed because some numpty pencil pusher doesn't know how some of its features work? What a compelling argument that is.
      It's a perfectly good argument. Using a tool or designing a part that doesn't allow a critical mistake is standard practice. Google for Poka Yoke.

      There is all type of sensitive information floating around the government. It goes to congress critters, their aids, through email, etc. Do you know another way to ensure that none of these people ever accidentally create documents with change tracking turned on? I didn't think so.
    4. Re:Disallow MS Word by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's probably no better way to leak information than 'fucking' up a redaction. You then have a document from official sources and the leaker can feign incompetence with technology.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    5. Re:Disallow MS Word by MazzThePianoman · · Score: 2, Funny

      The government should fear its people, not its software.

      --
      "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Franklin
  8. Track Changes... by hejog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I remember when I had a job offer and could track the changes of the contract they emailed me, was interesting to see the changes they made! (in a good way, suprisingly) Is track changes on by default? I assume so...

  9. Can we charge MS under the PATRIOT Act yet??? by parvenu74 · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is outstanding news for the F/OSS community! My hope is that the "there's got to be someone else I can blame this on" politicians file charges against Microsoft under provisions of the Patriot Act for leaking vital government secrets. The irony in such a case would be delicious: charges without real justification leveled against a monopolistic company who markets software that doesn't really work. With each side forced to disprove a negative proposition, this should give the F/OSS community a little more time to charge forward while MS pukes all over themselves.

    1. Re:Can we charge MS under the PATRIOT Act yet??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can we charge MS under the PATRIOT Act yet???
      Haven't you read the Patriot Act (I or II)?

      Brother, you can charge anybody with the Patriot Act. Your grandma bitching about taxes? Mind control terrorist. Bill Gates giving vaccines to Africa? Funding terrorists. You for posting about the US government online? Cyberterrorist.

      They got labels for everybody.

      Government lawyers don't investigate whether or not someone's violating the Patriot Act, government lawyers find someone they don't like and then use general wording of the Patriot Act to jail them.

      Haven't you heard? It's the new way. Senator McCarthy was a pioneer & George Bush is the new prophet to lead us.
    2. Re:Can we charge MS under the PATRIOT Act yet??? by lilomar · · Score: 4, Funny

      NOOO! Then I would be morally obliged to take Microsoft's side in a battle! I don't think my poor brain could handle that.

      --
      The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
  10. History repeating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Remember when that Cat Schwartz girl from TV posted a cropped photo that accidentally had her boobs in the embedded Photoshop thumbnail? This is just like that, except Photoshop has been replaced with Word, the TV hostess has been replaced with the US Military, and the sweet sweet woman parts have been replaced with the absolute idiocy of those in charge of an ostensibly conquered nation.

    I for one was happier about the tits.

    1. Re:History repeating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I dunno, in a sense you can say that this mistake exposed some tits as well.

    2. Re:History repeating by soundhack · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the world would be a significantly better place if more people were happier looking at breasts than waging war.

      I'm not a "make love not war" hippie, but in this current example I think it fits.

  11. A Good Book About the CPA by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative

    Right now, I've taken a first glance but I don't even want to read this document as it'll just lead to a bad day (I'll read it all later).

    But if you're interested in stuff about the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority), I would highly recommend a book I read a few months ago entitled Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone by Rajiv Chandrasekaran. Pretty much details what's going on there, doesn't shove a lot of ideas down your throat but does do a good job of selectively relaying details that starts one thinking.

    I could rant for hours on the information in this book but I'll try to relay one or two things that stuck with me. My biggest problem with how things were handled out there (one of the many issues the book covers) is that we had people more suitable for the job of handling post war Iraq but either sent them home or blocked their attempts to help because they didn't avidly support the person we wanted to take control of post-war Iraq, Ahmed Chalabi. If anyone was seen as competition for Chalabi, they were replaced with someone who was loyal to the American Republican party. The author reports that interview questions consisted of things like views on abortion or even your voting record. People with little or no past experience were put in charge of insanely high level authority.

    We went into Iraq with the only plan to overthrow the government. In my opinion, we have the best army in the world and they did their job better than anyone else could. Unfortunately, in my opinion, we have some of the worst leaders in the world and, as a result, what ensued from overthrowing said government is a pretty bad debacle. I heard this author speak on NPR and was impressed so I hope you read this book to hear what Chandrasekaran experienced visiting Iraq. The information in this Word document doesn't even begin to describe what Chandrasekaran details in his book.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:A Good Book About the CPA by demachina · · Score: 3, Informative

      "support the person we wanted to take control of post-war Iraq, Ahmed Chalabi."

      Charlie Rose had an interview recently with 3 Iraqi journalists, all of whom are currently in the U.S. studying Journalism, or really escaping the oppressive violence and smoldering pit that is their homeland thanks to George W, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Rummy and Wolfy.

      One of them spelled it out, pretty much all the Iraqi exiles who swept in to take over Iraq after the invasion are viewed as "thieves" by the Iraqi people. Chalabi is at the top of the list since he is still under indictment in Jordan for a gigantic bank fraud.

      One of facts about Iraq a lot of people seem to gloss over is there is a gigantic pool of oil riches in that country and the people who gain control over the government can enrich themselves and their friends with that control. EVERYONE jockeying for control there, Iraqi and American alike, is angling for control over its oil wealth because they know if they get it they will end up like Saudi princes. This simple reason is why the Shia have zero incentive to pass legislation to equitably share the oil wealth with Kurds and Sunnis and without that there is ALWAYS going to be a civil war there. I'm not sure you will every strike a deal everyone will consider fair.

      A recent report suggests large quantities of Iraq's oil is disappearing in to the black market to enrich the people who have gained control over the wells or pipelines, who are mostly Shia in the South and Kurds in the north (though its also possible oil production is also being exaggerated).

      I'm not really sure Iraq will ever find peace as long as there is oil wealth to fight over. The fight for control of oil is a source of strife everyplace it is found today. The original Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was for control of oil, and I'm not sure the corrupt Emir of Kuwait has any more right to control it than Saddam did. The genocide in Darfur is largely over the oil fields there. A key element in the coup attempt in Venezuela was over oil fields which were recently nationalized. In Russia a bunch of kleptocrats suckered Yeltsin in to giving them control of the oil and gas fields and they got rich, Putin threw the ring leader in jail and seized control of the oil for himself and his dictatorial government. The Saudi royal family rules Saudi Arabia with an iron fist to insure they get the lions share of the oil riches. Not much chance of real Democracy in Saudi Arabia because the Saudi royal family wouldn't get most of the oil revenue in a real Democracy. Iran is in the mess its in after an American backed coup threw out a popular leader who nationalized the oil fields at Britain's expense. The U.S. installed the Shah as dictator who gave U.S. companies control over the oil fields to Britain's dismay. The Shah was so hated he was overthrown in favor of the Ayatollah so there is a repressive theocracy there that hates the U.S. to this day as a result. Its kind of routine in countries on the west coast of Africa with oil wealth for the people in power to pocket much of the oil wealth while most of their countrymen starve.

      Not sure you will find Peace in Iraq until you just partition the country, let the ethnic cleansing finish, and let each of the three factions control their own oil fields. The Sunnis were the odd man out but recent oil discoveries in their base in Anbar province suggest all three groups could have their own oil fields. The down side to this is Turkey will probably never tolerate an independent Kurdistan waging a guerrilla war to try to seize the Kurdish regions of Turkey.

      --
      @de_machina
    2. Re:A Good Book About the CPA by demachina · · Score: 2, Informative

      Expanding Iraq oil production, preferably under the influence of U.S. oil companies was certainly a motivator in the invasion. Not sure anyone real knows all the motives outside the inner circle of the Bush administration. They obviously tipped the fact it was one of their priorities by guarding the oil ministry, oil fields and oil infrastructure after Saddam fell and letting a museum full of priceless artifacts from the cradle of civilization be looted along with just about everything else.

      With Iraq embargoed under Saddam it was significantly under producing. It peaked at 3.7 million barrels in 1979 and was down to 2.6 million barrel in 2003 before the invasion. The oil fields were under a mix of Russian, French and Chinese companies under Saddam as I recall which may be one reason they were cool to the idea of toppling Saddam. It certainly would have eased current oil shortages and price spikes if Iraqis had welcomed us with the roses and oil production had gone up instead of down, or barely held even.

      The company that announced the big Anbar reserves is a U.S. company, Colorado based IHS, according to this article though its not clear yet which oil companies are going to get to develop the new fields. U.S. and British companies certainly have an inside track at the moment since the U.S. has the Iraqi government by the jugular. As I recall Poland's foreign minister admitted a key reason Poland joined the coalition of the willing in 2003 was to gain an inside track on some oil business.

      The discovery of oil in Anbar probably is the single best shot there is for peace in Iraq. It is a seismic shift in Iraq more important than the misguided troop surge or anything else that's happened since 2003. This discovery may be why Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar have turned on Al Qaeda recently. Those tribal leaders are now realizing they are sitting on their own gold mine and its in their interest to work with the global oil establishment to develop it and cash in on it. Prior to this it appeared the Kurds and the Shia were going to keep their oil fields to themselves and the Sunnis were facing long term poverty, which was a driving force behind the Sunni insurgency. The Iraqi government could, if they are wise, let each of the three factions have control of their own oil reserves and go their own way and Iraq could suddenly become a peaceful success story. If the Shia try to screw the Sunni's out of the new oil revenues from Anbar the war in Iraq will never end. People who are poised to reap billions in oil revenue have very little motivation to wage a guerrilla war.

      The whole dynamic of Saddam's Iraq is the Sunni were reaping the lion's share of the oil revenue while the Kurds and Shia were screwed, and currently that situation has been completely reversed. If all three factions have their own huge oil fields and revenues from them the whole dynamic changes.

      --
      @de_machina
  12. yet another reason for published formats by mikey_boy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Had they not heard of PDF?! Why anyone would publish Word, ODF, or anything like this I don't understand. Convert to PDF, and job done.

    1. Re:yet another reason for published formats by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 5, Informative

      The last time they tried PDF we just selected the text UNDER the black rectangles, remember?

    2. Re:yet another reason for published formats by gosand · · Score: 3, Informative
      Convert to PDF, and job done.


      A prime opportunity to point out that OpenOffice.org can write directly to PDF while MS Word cannot, and you blow it! For shame.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  13. always always convert to text then polish by RobertLTux · · Score: 3, Interesting

    of course if you use a format that you can just link the formatting in at the end then you are gold but
    all final documents should always be converted to text to break the meta data chain.

    even if you have to save the document to a cdrw and then shred the disc when you are done remove the meta data
    or replace the meta data with the "correct" public data never have a document with privileged meta data "floating around"

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  14. Someone didn't follow policy by Tridus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Any government branch that releases information to the public (both "sensitive" and more mundane information) has a policy for how that information is to be released. That may be a set of instructions for how to make sure you're not unintentionally releasing extra information, or for more secured cases simply that the file must go through a group that does the process for you.

    Obviously somebody skipped a step. Whats actually in the file is more interesting then how it got there, given that all we're talking about is human error.

    --
    -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
  15. Control the Metadata by felixdzerzhinsky · · Score: 5, Informative

    Try contoling the Metadata with a tool that even Microsoft provides for free. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/help/HA011400341 033.aspx It can happen with .pdf as well: http://news.com.com/U.S.+military+security+defeate d+by+copy+and+paste/2100-1002_3-5694982.html Not sure about .odf

    --
    "Flags are bits of colored cloth that governments use first to shrink-wrap people's brains..."
  16. Looks like some competent analysis there. by wiredog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In this excerpt the last bit (Item 2, at the bottom of the page) looks like a pretty good analysis.

  17. Or just convert it to a PDF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not everyone has access to MSWord, after all. Meanwhile, PDF readers are free.

  18. Silly Bureaucrats by killmenow · · Score: 4, Funny

    Whenever I want to publish something in redacted form, I just change the color of the redacted text to black on black, then export to PDF. Duh!

    1. Re:Silly Bureaucrats by killmenow · · Score: 2, Funny

      That sound you hear is the clue train. You just missed it.

  19. Re:Same thing by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 5, Funny

    Volume and quality of information is scarce, often due to decisions from people at the top. Support is never what you expect. Cost overruns across the board. Bloat. Local insurgencies.

    So...Iraq has been invaded by MSCEs?

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  20. Summary by N8F8 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I hate (US/Bush/Republicans/US Military) and I'll believe anything (Iran/Chirac/Democrats/Liberal Reporters) say they reinforces my beliefs without questioning anything. Lots of pinheads write lots of reports for other pinheads while other people do real work.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:Summary by JoeZeppy · · Score: 4, Informative
      I hate (US/Bush/Republicans/US Military) and I'll believe anything (Iran/Chirac/Democrats/Liberal Reporters) say they reinforces my beliefs without questioning anything. Lots of pinheads write lots of reports for other pinheads while other people do real work. --

      Or conversely:

      I hate (brown-skinned foreigners/Hillary/Democrats/liberals) and I'll believe anything (Gonzalez/Bush/Republicans/Fox News) say they reinforces my beliefs without questioning anything. Lots of pinheads write positive spin for other pinheads while other people do criminal acts and gut the constitution in the name of freedom and Jesus.

      Ain't political discourse fun?

  21. Wrong tool for the job, by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The military is designed to attack and subjugate an enemy. It is trained fundamentally to kill the enemies and destroy their country. Take a machine like that use to build a country? To build friendship and cooperation? What a stupid idea. Military is designed to inspire fear and respect, and may be hatred as a side effect. But dont blame the politicians. Blame the Generals. The way the admin thinks, "Someone has to do it. And we have only military over there. So let them do it".The Generals should have stood firm and said, "We are not trained to get municipal sewer system running. We are trained to bomb sewage treatment plants. Dont give this shitty job to us. Send someone else".

    An officer is supposed to protect the soldiers under his command. It is the duty of the Generals to make sure that the job given to his division is within the capability of his troops. Just because the civilian authority orders "Find a cure for cancer", they should not embark on ordering their colnels and majors to mess with test tubes.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Wrong tool for the job, by flyingsquid · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The military is designed to attack and subjugate an enemy. It is trained fundamentally to kill the enemies and destroy their country. Take a machine like that use to build a country? To build friendship and cooperation? What a stupid idea.

      The American military used to be pretty good at this sort of thing. Think post-WWII Japan and Germany. But I think you accurately describe the situation with the modern U.S. military. There are other nations that are better at policing and nation-building, so perhaps if we'd gone in with more international support, this wouldn't have been such an issue.

    2. Re:Wrong tool for the job, by pipingguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "We are not trained to get municipal sewer system running."

      I've had this document linked at my site for a long time:
      http://www.usace.army.mil/publications/eng-manuals /em1110-1-4008/c-3.pdf

      I think the US Army had something to do with its creation, and I don't expect you to read or understand it.

  22. Re:The "U.S".? by Toon+Moene · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > So a handful of people don't know about or how to use the track changes features in Word and that
    > means the "U.S." is incompetent?

    No, it just means that *when people care* (i.e., on Wall Street) they know about this feature.

    If you're just a drone in the streets of Baghdad - well, who cares ...

  23. Move along. Nothing to see here. Move along. by PHAEDRU5 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Obviously the *entire* US is incompetent, the evidence being (a) its use of Microsoft Word, and (b) Iraq, *or* (c) both.

    Thanks. I understand. Thanks. No need to keep beating the drum. Thanks.

    (Where would I be without /.? The mind boggles.)

    --
    668: Neighbour of the Beast
  24. The deleted text by brian0918 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Here's the deleted text that was repeatedly copied/cropped in their documents. This shows how absurdly inept those in charge were. Note that the most likely theory is the one the administrator rebuts as "a boring theory".

    Why are the Attacks Down in Al Anbar Province - Several Theories

    1. Over the past month attacks against Coalition Forces in Al Anbar province have gone from over 20 per day to next to none. There are a number of theories for why this is. It is entirely possible that it is merely a blip on the screen or a statistical aberration and we will return to larger numbers of attacks, but it has held for nearly five weeks now and both military commanders and Anbar's citizens are starting to openly talk about it and offer their theories for why it is happening. Among the reasons given:

    Rounding up the Bums: MG Swannack and all military commanders (as well as GC) believe that the many high yield raids of the past weeks have made a difference both in getting off the streets some of the leaders and financiers of the resistance and especially some of the technical experts that attackers rely on to carry out their attacks. This has had the spin off effect of causing others to go underground out of fear that they might be next. Most raids also leave in their wake a number of innocents who were either rounded up and detained or had their houses busted up. These can conceivably lead to bitterness over the occupation and spawn new attacks. But there appears to be sufficient care in how the attacks are carried out, adequate information in the community about the mild reality of detention, and sufficient civil affairs clean up afterwards that this has not been a major factor.

    Crossed the Line: Violence in Iraq is a form of political discourse as well as being culturally acceptable for settling disputes and scores. Thus for a people which is nearly universal in its opposition to being occupied, attacking the occupier is a natural reaction and is widely accepted, even by those who are friendly to us. "It is nothing personal," one businessman told me, "I like you and believe you could be bringing us a better future, but I still sympathize with those who attack the coalition because it is not right for Iraq to be occupied by foreign military forces." Thus a low level of violence has been widely accepted in Al Anbar and those carrying out the attacks have even been the recipients of admiration and praise. But with the spate of attacks in mid to late November, culminating with the shootdown of the Chinook, there may have been a sense that the insurgents had crossed a line. This was reinforced strongly by General Abizaid when he came here on the heels of that incident and told some 70 Sheikhs and community leaders that he planned to unleash hell if they kept it up. It was further reinforced by the dropping of several JADMs which may have served to get the attention of the province. It is possible that Anbar's leaders realized they had crossed a line and reeled the attacks in.

    Operational Pause: A boring theory is that the terrorists are in an operational pause, needing to regroup after the recent spate of roundups. There are very few persons we have met who subscribe to this.

    Occupation Ending: A number of individuals have expressed satisfaction at the announcement of the new political calendar, although they don't appear to fully understand it. What has caught their attention is the simple expression that in June a sovereign Iraqi government will be in place. What they have gotten wrong is the idea that the military will be leaving Iraq in June, which one individual said he was sure was a major factor in the diminishing attacks. Oh well, this is one time it might be best that folks don't fully understand things. By June, when there is a transition of the force rather than a pullout, we will have a new set of challenges anyway, but if this bought us some months of peace it will be worth the confusion.

    Project Money Flowing: Some individuals have expressed satis

  25. Secrets? by cybermage · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm all for the Nelson-esque "Ha, Ha!" on this one, but isn't this Salon article revealing state secrets in some way.

    I'm not looking to troll here. I'm serious. Wouldn't it have been better to quietly bring it to their attention than to go public. If this is typical government ignorance, who knows how wide-spread the problem is. Could revealing something like this to the public be considered treason?

    I don't think the fact that the articles are right out in the open is any defense. Anyone who's close enough to see troops knows where they are, but it could still be considered treason to pick up a phone and call the enemy and tell them where troops are.

    1. Re:Secrets? by Thanatopsis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. Because they didn't actual reveal the information - the government did. No pointing out that the government has published documents that reveal them to be inept isn't treason. It would be treason if the author were actively collaborating with the enemy. It has become fashionable by the right in the last 30 years to accuse the media of treason. Re-publishing something the government has published already in the public domain isn't treason.

    2. Re:Secrets? by Control+Group · · Score: 4, Informative
      No.

      The authors of the Constitution were very wary of the word "treason" being thrown around, and so were highly specific in what treason is. Article III, Section 3:

      Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.


      Salon certainly hasn't levied war against the United States. I don't think a reasonable case can be made that releasing these documents in any way aid or comforts the US' enemies (except in the loosest possible sense that they might enjoy some schadenfreude).
      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    3. Re:Secrets? by HBI · · Score: 2, Informative

      The document is FOUO and should never have been released to the public, but FOUO is not classified. Read more on FOUO here.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    4. Re:Secrets? by SoulRider · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, if any American discovers incompetancies in our government, I would consider it their patriotic duty to expose it. All governments run at a certain level of ineffeiciency, it is up to the people to find those ineffeiciencies and point them out so they can be fixed, at least it is suppose to work this way in a free society.

  26. Summary of the summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    9/11 scared me shitless and I'll believe anything (The Bush administration/DOD/GOP/Rush Limbaugh) says that reinforces my beliefs without questioning anything.

  27. One has to wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...how previous wars would have fared had they been subjected to the microscopic scrutiny of today...

    1. Re:One has to wonder... by t0rkm3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or perhaps one should consider the damage done to a child by an overbearing micro-managing parent. Maybe you could even consider that sort of relationship between manager and working stiff.

      It tends to make people uninsightful, fearful, and unimaginative. So, what do you get by over-scrutinizing the gov'ts every move? A gov't peopled by lackeys and lickspittles who lack the courage to do what is necessary to prevail.

      You get what you ask for I suppose. It just saddens me to know that most people are officious enough that they can't see how they've been played into making the political process a soap-opera.

      captcha: treasury

  28. Re:Disallow MS Word (I take back what I said) by eck011219 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Okay, I just did a quick search and found out that you can't really turn off change tracking. You can hide it, of course, but it's still in there tracking. So the only way to get rid of those changes is to accept or reject each one individually. The information is here (this is for Word 2007, but I assume it's the same for previous versions as well). This is a silly and cumbersome thing to have to do, and you're right -- it makes it a bad way to distribute documents.

    Now, the suggestions elsewhere around here that they simply standardize on PDF would solve everything, and they could still use Word if they're used to it. But posting .doc files (which has never seemed like a good idea in any area of business or government for countless reasons anyway -- why distribute something that can be so easily edited?) is rife with peril.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  29. This "Feature" Has Been Known For Years by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't even remember how many years ago that there were lots of news stories on how MS Word stores "deleted" text within documents. When the story originally broke, lots of people went looking at company/government Word documents and found all sorts of embarassing stuff.

    Those who don't learn from history...

    Anyone using Word in any kind of sensitive capacity needs to know how to make sure the changes are all really gone. Training should address this specifically. Other word processors also store deleted text within a document and users of those need to also know how to make sure deleted text is really deleted.

    Perhaps it is time that word processors kept twin files - one the actual document, and if the user wants to track changes, another that stores deleted text. Or maybe encrypt the deleted text. It wouldn't keep everyone out of it, but it would keep most people from reading the deleted passages.

    1. Re:This "Feature" Has Been Known For Years by Aesiq · · Score: 2

      We routinely provide final/external documents as PDF files. On OS X this is trivial but even on Windows based systems this is not altogether difficult and defintely eliminates the "track changes" issues and other problems. Also guarantees a easily printable copy when passing across multiple platforms.

    2. Re:This "Feature" Has Been Known For Years by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps it is time that word processors kept twin files - one the actual document, and if the user wants to track changes, another that stores deleted text. Or maybe encrypt the deleted text.

      Or, just publish your documents as PDF files, no?
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:This "Feature" Has Been Known For Years by homer_ca · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's another risk with PDFs. The army released a PDF that had redacted text blacked out, but the text was still in the document, just covered up with a black stripe. It was easily extracted from the file. It was also a report about Iraq, the incident where an Italian intelligence agent and the hostage he was rescuing were shot at a checkpoint.

    4. Re:This "Feature" Has Been Known For Years by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If I wasn't so overloaded with other personal tasks, I'd be sorely tempted to write a spider to dig through government websites, download files that might have hidden content (.doc, .pdf, etc), strip out any hidden content, and look for suspicious words that are found close together. Non-hidden content on the subject would be weighed negatively to help filter out, say, uncensored reports on a scandal. The suspicious word list could be gotten by compiling a list of all scandals within the past years, both congressional and executive, and looking for key people's names, events, places, etc. The docs could then be presented in order of suspicion for manual perusal.

      --
      "'If one must live then one must die.' - oh, the truth must be funnier than this..." -- MammÃt
    5. Re:This "Feature" Has Been Known For Years by OECD · · Score: 2, Informative

      We routinely provide final/external documents as PDF files

      You still have to be careful. There was a case (probably several) a few years ago where PDF files were redacted with black boxes drawn over the withheld text. It worked fine if viewed casually, but of course the text was still actually there.

      Even better, OSX's Preview (the default PDF viewer) didn't support whatever they used to make the boxes at that time , so they just didn't show up at all.

      --
      One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
    6. Re:This "Feature" Has Been Known For Years by toriver · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As I recall, it was readable to anyone using 1) an older version of Acrobat Reader without the feature, 2) Adobe Acrobat (where you could remove them), or 3) other PDF-viewers without the Adobe-specific feature, like Ghostscript/-view. Or using "strings" or the like in Unix I guess.

      Security through application and version requirement.

    7. Re:This "Feature" Has Been Known For Years by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Funny
      The Germans were denied their right to own weapons near the beginning of Hitler's reign.
      Americans have no such limits on their capabilities.


      If only that were so.... I tried to buy a simple tactical nuke the other day (just to defend my family against burglars, of course), and you wouldn't believe the paperwork you have to fill out! Then after all that, my application was denied. Land of the Free, my ass!

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    8. Re:This "Feature" Has Been Known For Years by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People are already doing this. If you have the same political beliefs as they do, you will see everything in the news eventually. But if your looking for an unbiased review, You better clear your schedule and start making it happen yourself.

    9. Re:This "Feature" Has Been Known For Years by networkBoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When I'm publishing a world readable document from sensitive source (NDAs can be really sticky things) after I have all my text that I want I copy and paste the whole load into notepad, save as a file, close all editors, re-open file, copy and paste back into (sigh) word and format it.
      I like my job and if I was the reason "track change" text got into the wild I'm sure my job would be at risk.
      More often than not I've gotten information I shouldn't have because of higher managers not understanding what track changes really does.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    10. Re:This "Feature" Has Been Known For Years by Speare · · Score: 2, Informative

      Er, I hope you meant that in jest-- there have been a number of incidents with PDF files that had virtual "blackout" rectangles floating over the text, but the actual redacted text was still stored in the PDF as well. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/05/pdf_ radacting_f.html

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
    11. Re:This "Feature" Has Been Known For Years by Alsee · · Score: 2, Interesting
      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  30. Re:Always see the bright side. by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You show me one auditing company who would disqualify a gov agency from receiving an ISO certificate and I show you an auditing company that never gets government contracts anymore.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  31. Linkie linkie by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting
    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  32. Wow, poor IT configuration by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Informative

    I opened up Word 2k3. It seems that under Options -> Security (I know, a crazy place to expect the government to look). There is a checkbox that reads

    Warn before printing, saving or sending a file that contains tracked changes or comments.

    I just tested it, and yes this feature seems to work.

    Oh, sorry, what I meant is for a large no-bid contract, I can help the military prevent this in the future via real-time user warnings.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  33. Those who don't learn from history... by benhocking · · Score: 5, Funny

    Those who don't learn from history...
    Are loyal Bush supporters!
    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
    1. Re:Those who don't learn from history... by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It seems rather foolish to think that ignorant people are all bush supporters. Keep on living in this world and blame Bush for everything you let go wrong with your life. After all he is at the same time the dumbest president alive that was able to conspire and outsmart most of the people in the US including all the opposing congressional leaders who non bush supporters seem to support. So it really doesn't say much about the big picture and neglect a lot of the little picture.

    2. Re:Those who don't learn from history... by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "It seems rather foolish to think that ignorant people are all bush supporters."

      I agree. Let's say the vast majority of the most ignorant people are Bush supporters.

      --
      --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
    3. Re:Those who don't learn from history... by Analogy+Man · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I agree it is foolish to assume all idiots are Bush supporters...there are so many idiots and so few Bush supporters left. His approval rating is down to the hardcore loyalists that would eat glass before they spoke ill of any Republican from Texas.

      I commend you for not going down the "when Clinton was president path" with your response. That is also an equally flawed bit of logic along the lines of a 9 year old justifying throwing rocks at cars with "Jimmy did it too!"

      --
      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
    4. Re:Those who don't learn from history... by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Insightful

      he is at the same time the dumbest president alive that was able to conspire and outsmart Why is there people in this world unfamiliar with the concept of a "front man"?
      You really think the Bush Administration is a one-man show?
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    5. Re:Those who don't learn from history... by smilindog2000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The really scary ones aren't the idiots who support Bush... it's the genuinely intelligent ones. My extended family contains an inter-racial (Jewish, Asian) couple, both with advanced college degrees from great schools, and neither is religious. The absolutely love Bush, and are convinced that every Bush backed idea is the gospel truth (no global warming, the Iraq war is good, AT&T should be able to charge Google a toll to reach it's customers, etc). They also are convinced that Bush's Supreme Court will not reverse Rowe vs. Wade (oddly, my Republican friends who are very religious feel otherwise). They absolutely believe that all those terrible appointments, from Brown of Hurricane Katrina fame, to Wolfowitz, were great appointments, and that Democrats are to blame for their failures. They think Colin Powell was fired for his own incompetence.

      In other words, they believe whatever Bush tells them, even though they are super-smart. It's a crazy world. A few such guys even seem to hang out here on /.

      --
      Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
    6. Re:Those who don't learn from history... by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We don't blame Bush for the things that have gone wrong with our lives. We blame him for invading a sovereign nation on trumped up charges, dismantling constitutional protections of our most basic and precious rights, providing welfare in the form of tax relief to the wealthiest individuals and corporations, usurping power for the executive branch, presiding over the most secretive administration in US history, botching the job in Afghanistan, letting Osama escape, botching the job in Iraq, fucking up the economy, raising the deficit to undreamed of heights, fucking over the environment, billions of dollars of cash missing in Iraq, no WMDs, increased threat of domestic terrorism, fucking up on port security, firing republican DAs midterm for investigating republican wrongdoing and/or not investigating democratic wrongdoing, squandering international good-will and alienating our allies, setting back the progress of science in America, pandering to the religious right, imposing un-republican ideals of Federal power over States rights, borrowing against future generations of citizens to fund his fiscally irresponsible policies, and being a smarmy, self congratulatory, ignorant frat-boy with a track record of business failures and DWI convictions.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    7. Re:Those who don't learn from history... by hardburn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And if congress was a single person instead of a collective entity, that would be relevant.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    8. Re:Those who don't learn from history... by smilindog2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Heck, that's the short list. You didn't even mention stealing two elections in a row, his oh-so-qualified appointments, or his role as puppet for truely scary neo-cons. You missed pandering to Big Oil, the Katrina fiasco, and 3,000 dead soldiers in Iraq. I guess it's hard to get all the really horrible stuff in only one short paragraph...

      --
      Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
    9. Re:Those who don't learn from history... by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 4, Informative

      And even more telling, the approval rating for Congress is even lower. The new, Democrat controlled Congress.

      From your article:

      Although ratings are quite low, Americans have been more positive in their assessments of Congress this year than last year, when an average of just 25% approved of Congress.

      And...

      Approval ratings of Congress are higher among Democrats than Republicans,

  34. And this is why... by ericferris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is why it's hard to subscribe to these huge conspiracy theories about anything involving the Federal Government. I mean, if you want to successfully lead a conspiracy, you have to be competent and you have to cover your tracks.

    This latest example of bumbling incompetence shows us that you cannot trust the Feds to do either.

    That's why we should fear the Feds when they want to help us: considering their track records at taking care of their own problems, only a suicidal madman would trust them to manage other people's lives.

    --
    Fantasy: http://ferrisfantasy.blogspot.com/
    1. Re:And this is why... by Glowing+Fish · · Score: 2, Funny

      Unless...they are just pretending to be incompetent to lull you into a false sense of security?

      --
      Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
  35. Close, but no cigar. by replicant108 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So...Iraq has been invaded by MSCEs?

    Actually, it was liberated by MBAs.

  36. Can you data type a whole document? by gelfling · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seems to me what's lacking is security taxonomy overlay for classes of documents. If you assign a document to a class of security then there are certain operations which are required and others which are prohibited.

  37. Suggestion for how to do this in the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hello military, I shall provide my consultancy service at a cost of $0 because I am feeling good today:

    Create an email address that it is possible to send Word or PDF (or any other) documents to. The documents are automatically treated and returned instantly, according to:

    - Word documents have all comments stripped out
    - PDF documents have all the "censored" sections (read: sections where the black text has been made unreadable by adding a black background) be truly removed from the document and replaced by black boxes

    The document gets renamed accordingly, e.g. REDACTED-[previous document name].

    If you want to be truly generous you could also allow for putting a number in the subject line, where the number allowed different levels of treatment - e.g. for a Word document also stripping out all details of author, last modified, etc.

  38. DMCA violation by jridley · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wouldn't that make the reporter guilty of circumventing an access control mechanism?

    That DMCA sure is a versatile tool, isn't it?

  39. That's actually a pretty good analysis by DG · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Having read my share of int briefs, that's actually a pretty good analysis with what looks to me like an honest attempt at figuring out what is going on.

    I see no incompetence there - I see good, honest staffwork. Perhaps a touch informal in places, but that's about it.

    Intelligence is a slippery fish, not an exact science. It is normal to have a great deal of uncertainty.

    DG

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    1. Re:That's actually a pretty good analysis by Jonas+the+Bold · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The analysis you linked is extremely slanted and unfair. Seriously, the writer just comes off as a jerk.

      The memo acknowledges collateral damage, but is blithely unaware of the implications. "Most raids also leave in their wake a number of innocents who were either rounded up and detained or had their houses busted up ... But there appears to be sufficient care in how the attacks are carried out, adequate information in the community about the mild reality of detention, and sufficient civil affairs clean up afterwards that this has not been a major factor." By April 2004, the infamous Abu Ghraib pictures had begun to surface, visual evidence of how the military had been alienating the Iraqi civilian population.

      No it isn't unaware at all, it says the implications are mild. I'd like to know how the author knows exactly what the impact is of the collateral damage. They are thinking about this stuff, and have concluded the impact is mild. And Abu Graib- it isn't concievable that the Iraqis know that was an abberation, since many may know peole who were detained and released, who told everyone it wasn't so bad?

      A second explanation hinges explicitly on an old ethnic stereotype about how Arabs only understand force. The "Crossed the Line" argument insists that violence is intrinsic to Arab culture: "[It] is a form of political discourse as well as being culturally acceptable for settling disputes and scores." The memo then argues that the violence in Anbar was quelled once the Americans proved they could be more violent. The Americans brought out a bigger stick, namely Gen. Abizaid's threat to "some 70 Sheikhs and community leaders" in Anbar "to unleash hell," twinned with the U.S. Air Force dropping some timely Joint Direct Action Munitions on the province.

      The writer of the memo wasn't be racist at all. Saying Iraqi culture is very violent is not the same as saying anything about arabs. It maybe very well be true that Iraqi culture is very violent. If you say that american culture is very literate, it doesn't mean all white people can read. The analyst is the one being racist, equating Iraqi with arab.

      "A third explanation, "Occupation Ending," says that the insurgents are backing off because they think the U.S. is about to depart. "What they" -- meaning the Iraqis -- "have gotten wrong," says the memo's author, "is the idea that the military will be leaving Iraq in June, which one individual said he was sure was a major factor in the diminishing attacks. Oh well, this is one time it might be best that folks don't fully understand things." Supposedly, the CPA's June 2004 deadline for handing over sovereignty to the Iraqis was misread by some locals as implying the withdrawal of American troops, and thus caused the number of insurgent attacks to decrease. (Four years later, the Bush administration often says any deadline for troop withdrawal would increase attacks.)"

      Bush is not the military. Military analysts are not Bush. Don't equate the two.

      A fifth theory, "Engagement," says that Iraqis have begun to have hope thanks to sustained contact with Americans. "We'll take some credit here. We have been engaging widely with ... ex-Baathists, ex-Army. While many are tiring of the refrain that if you stay with us things will get better, for some they actually have improved and that many have given hope to entire groups." The author calls these people "the various groups of losers in the New Iraq."

      Yes, losers, as in, people who had position and power in the old Iraq, but have little in the new Iraq. People who lost as a result of the invasion. Perfectly fair.

      Nowhere in any of these theories, including the "boring" one, does the author address the dissolution of the Iraqi Army as a major contributor to the violence.

      That's because this is about why violence has stopped, not why it's been happening in the first place.

      Nowhere, in fact, does the author seem to know which "bums" or

      --
      Everything seemed to be going so nice
      'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
    2. Re:That's actually a pretty good analysis by DG · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And having read Salon's analysis... I stand by my assessment.

      What the Salon author is missing - actually, misreading - is the military tone. Taken at face value, yes, it comes off as arrogant and even a little clueless. But when read by a person accustomed to the military tone in writing (which is usually heavy in irony and black humour) one sees the actual intent. For example, I can tell that the author is more than a little frustrated at his inability to nail down the precise cause of the reduction of the attacks. He *knows* he doesn't know the exact answer. When he calls the idea of an operational pause "boring", this is an acknowledgment that this isn't the answer that anybody wants to hear, but is quite possibly the most likely answer. And he genuinely thinks they are doing a better job of engaging the local people, although he subtly hints that barging into the homes of innocents isn't doing them any favours.

      I like Salon; I read it almost daily, and agree with a large part of what I read there. But this time, they're off base.

      DG

      --
      Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    3. Re:That's actually a pretty good analysis by Jonas+the+Bold · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What Iraqis think the condition of detention is, or what the condition of detention in Iraq actually typically is, is something neither you nor I can know. It could be a situation where eveyrone has heard of someone who was raped or turtured, but nobody has met one and the three people they met who actually were detained said nothing happened. We don't have enough information to know this stuff. The soldier writing it seems to think that Iraqis think the reality of detention is pretty mild. I'm inclined to believe him, because there is no reliable data. Speculation from people thousands of miles away and attempts at opinion poles in a war zone don't convince me.

      You're right the racism thing was pedantic, but that's not exactly what I meant. I meant it's ok to generalize about cultures. It's useful. Certain cultures have different attitudes toward violence than others. Certain ones are more literate. Certain ones are more religious. These are useful generalizations, and when you're talking about reactions of populations, you have to take into account the general trends of attitudes and beliefs of that population. Even though it says nothing about an individual, it will give you useful information about a population.

      About the ex-iraqi army contribution, maybe there's no plausable theory regarding the ex-iraqi sodiers which would explain why the violence stopped in the last five weeks. What exactly changed five weeks before writing that which effects them? If nothing changed regarding them they can be left out of the speculation.

      Personally I thought this war was a terrible idea, but I don't fault the military on the way it went. As I see they were given an impossible job. War is ugly and we should have learned in Veitnam that you can't have a clean one. I'm certainly not going to fault the soliders for being slightly insensitive in an internal memo, non-PC concepts don't fit well into PC language. Concepts like "Iraq has a violent culture and widespread hatred between sunnis and shiites." I'm also by no means think the Army is stupid. And I certainly trust what they have to say about the condition on the ground over there more than I trust analysts thousands of miles away or the lying politicians that sent them in the first place.

      --
      Everything seemed to be going so nice
      'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
  40. Re:The "U.S".? by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We're so quick to:
    • Accept whatever the media publishes as gospel
    • Believe any negative report about the US government
    • Understand that no good whatsoever can come of US involvement in the Middle East

    but they still want us to somehow vote for candidates that promise extend government meddling in areas such as retirement and health care.

    Hm. Not as flexible with these mental gymnastics as I used to be. Request additional kool-aid here. Extend government medling in health care?
    This from the country that spends the most per-capita on healthcare in the entire world, yet still has 20% uninsured?

    Maybe if you spent your taxes on healthcare instead of on no-bid contracts to haliburton? No? That's not an option?
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  41. Re:Avoiding embarassment. by multipartmixed · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That reminds me once, of a resume I got in word format.

    "Track Changes" revealed that he was either lying to me, or to the other employer he'd recently sent it to.

    Either way, it spared me from having to schedule him an interview...

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  42. a real security failure by Jon+Kay · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My grumble is that, note, CPA only cared about attacks on Coalition troops, not about attacks on Iraqis, which were steadily increasing the whole time. I mean, generally speaking, the point of an occupation isn't just to have lots of annoying foreign troops arround, but to KEEP THE OCCUPIED PEOPLE SECURE.

    And this shows in the document. Lots of speculation and thought about ATTACKS ON THE COALITION. You can't even begin to guess what the security situation for Iraqis on the street is from this document.

  43. Interesting with OpenOffice by jgoemat · · Score: 3, Funny

    A company I worked with had decided to switch from Microsoft Office to OpenOffice to save money instead of upgrading to the new version of MS Office. A week later everyone was running MS Office again. Apparently one of the executives sent out a Word document that had some embarrassing comments he made "deleted", but they were still there because of "Track Changes". When you opened up the document in OpenOffice, you could see them easily. I was just a peon, or I would have tried to explain that if he had been using OpenOffice himself it wouldn't have happened, and that someone knowledgeable could have viewed them in MS Office anyway. Instead they decided to spend tens of thousands on new licenses to go back to MS Office...

  44. Those numbers include democrats by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A lot of us don't think the supposedly democratic congress is doing enough, so those numbers don't mean what you imply they mean.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  45. Re:Those who do learn from history... by smilindog2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry to have caused any infuriation. I don't easily get upset over posts on /. Please don't consider my following comments as an attack or meant to upset you:

    - "Concerns over global warming are frequently overblown" - To me, the scary part about global warming is the massive and highly successful campaign by Bush and friends to convince us that it's a) not happening, and b) we're not causing it. For example, his efforts to corrupt and/or bury the results of his own scientific inquiry scare the heck out of me. Humans making the Earth warmer is just one of the truly scary hurdles in front of us. The Middle East building nukes is another one, as is controlling the world's population before we strip it of all it's resources. From that point of view, I agree, it is sometimes overblown. If that's you're position, it's reasonable. If you think we're not causing it, you should become better informed.

    - Almost nobody at this point that I run across thinks that things are rosy over in Iraq. Anyone who thinks we've handled Iraq well should become better informed. If you hold out hope that the world will be a better place than if we'd not invaded Iraq, then I'd say your an optimist, though not unreasonable. If you feel we should stay and try to complete the mission, even if Iraq is a mess, then you agree with many other reasonable people, just not most.

    - All the government has to do to keep the Internet neutral is nothing. Even better would be a law enforcing no change. If it meddles with what has been working for over 10 years, the value of the Internet could drastically fall. In particular, we need to insure that ISPs do not discriminate against packets based on their origin. That's all. They can still do traffic shaping, charge more for higher levels of service, etc. But, if they want to block all the Democrat web sites, and only allow through the Republican ones, that's a problem. That's exactly what will happen if Murdoch gets control, and packet origin discrimination is allowed. I find that a compelling argument for keeping the status quo, which has been working so well.

    - Are you also upset that the Supreme Court ended segregation? It's the court's job to fill in context when laws are unclear. In Rowe v Wade, they tackled the toughest issue: defining when human life begins. It's a slippery area to rule in, and highly contentious, since many of us believe God gives us a soul at conception, while others of us believe that we gain our humanity as our brain develops and we become conscious of our environment. Jews traditionally believed that God gives us a soul at the quickening. I believe life begins when my kids go to college :-) I bet we would agree that having the Supreme Court rule correctly about when human life begins would be a good thing. We just may not agree about what that correct answer is. Unfortunately, it's not an easy area to find agreement, and it's probably more productive to collaborate on reducing unwanted pregnancies, which is probably common ground.

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
  46. Tool to fix that problem by dave562 · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?fa milyid=144e54ed-d43e-42ca-bc7b-5446d34e5360&displa ylang=en "The Remove Hidden Data Tool" One of the girls upstairs in the PR department ran into the same problem today. It took all of three minutes on Google to find the solution to the problem.

  47. Re: Nothing for you to see here. Ultimate Irony is by cvos · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The ultimate irony is Microsoft helping expose the tyrannies of untouchables in government and providing a true level of transparency. Combine total MS vendor lock in with data archiving and tech-ignorant workers and you have a solution that, in this instance, has given the people actual real information. Much like Nixon did himself in through a tape recorder, the Bush administration is doing the same thing, aided by Microsoft software.

    This would not have happened if presidential staffers were using Linux.

    Linux=security
    Microsoft=(inadvertent)transparency

    --
    I'm just here for the sigs
  48. Re:Those who do learn from history... by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 3, Informative

    threatened by the Justices behaving like philosopher-kings finding new "laws" in the Constitution that the oafs in Congress should've passed (practice often derided as "legislating from the bench").

    People who complain about this remind me of whiny sports fans who blame the refs every time they lose a game. First off, let's be perfectly clear on one thing--most law is case law, i.e. law that is made by the precedent of judicial rulings. This allows the law to grow organically from case analysis rather than simply being handed down from Congress every so often. This is a vital feature of the system of common law we inherited from Great Britain, so if you have a problem with it, take it up with them.

    It also protects us from the tyranny of the majority. The civil rights rulings of the 1960's are a perfect example of this--the "will of the people", the laws Congress did pass, all this stuff you people claim to protect, were in this case part of a horrifically evil system that oppressed people for no reason other than their racial origin. It was the Supreme Court, upholding the principles of the Constitution, which stopped this.

    I'm not saying the Court never makes bad rulings--they clearly do, particularly in cases like Kelo. But majority rule makes bad decisions far more often, and it's vital that there be some way to put majority rule in check in situations where it is clearly acting unjustly. And that will necessarily involve overturning what Congress and the President do from time to time.

    --
    In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
  49. Re:"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It really is a pity Bush, Cheney et al did not pay attention during the Vietnam war

    Oh they paid attention all right, they did everything they could to ensure they didn't get sent to serve there.