H&I* Fires, 01 MAR 2007

JRobb's piece - he just described blogs, didn't he? We're a yellow node, TheNewGuy is a green node who just went blue, and you're a red node. Not sure where Owen fits... 8^)

ry - I read the descriptions and I have to agree with John that you are definitely a red node. Accept your fate and be proud of your position.

This is from a couple of different sections in my thesis on Immigration (to be submitted/defended the week after next) [bracketed text added today]: "Although the U.S. military is not a location, per se, it is in fact a destination for many of America's newly arrived immigrants and it has been since the beginning of the 19th Century. In the 1800s, military service was a way of earning a living that did not entail mining or other backbreaking labor, and for many immigrant men it was the only way to escape "slums, dangerous working conditions, industrial pollution, crime, and prejudice." [In the Civil War era, as much as 25% of the Union Army was thought to be foreign born.] In the 20th century, however, especially after WW II, the military service came to be not only a form of employment, but a 'fast-track' path to citizenship. Today, approximately 68,711 foreign born men and women serve on active duty in the U.S. armed forces, representing "approximately 5 percent of the total on active duty." [Mostly in the Navy] More important, of the foreign born, "almost 37,000 non-citizens are serving," the bulk of whom "come from Mexico, the Philippines, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic and Haiti." In addition to simply serving, foreign born members of the Army were also an (of-ten overlooked) influence on U.S. expansion and cultural diversification. In the Army, "the mixture of soldiers at small frontier posts created a unique 'melting pot' situation. Irish, German, English, Italian, Scots, Welsh, Norwegian, and French born soldiers found themselves to be bunk-mates of men that in Europe might have been bitter enemies. In order to maintain a peaceful existence between themselves and their American born comrades, each had to adjust, learn, and accept the traditions, customs, religion, and lifestyles of the others. Many of these...veterans re-enlisted and made a long career of military service with the Regular Army. At the end of their careers they sometimes settled near the last post at which they were stationed, helping to create a diversity of cultures on the frontier. --- In addition to those who attain citizenship normally, quite a few immigrants take advantage of the expedited citizenship programs available to those who serve in the U.S. Armed Forces, like the one authorized by President Bush in a July 2002 executive order. Since then, "more than 13,000 foreign-born members of the armed forces have applied for U.S. citizenship, and since September 11, 2001, 84 military personnel killed in the line of duty" have been granted citizenship posthumously [I guess at least 85, now]. Since 2004, the Citizenship and Immigration Service (CIS) has granted citizenship to approximately 2,500 foreign-born service members. Families of soldiers posthumously awarded citizenship are considered American citizenship-eligible. --- It still amazes me what some people are willing to do for that which so many take for granted and think so little of. This is just bittersweet beyond words.... --- Read these: Dowd, Alan. 2006. "Melting Pot Military, American Enterprise Online, Sagamore Institute For Policy Research 17 Jul 06. www.sipr.org/default.aspx?action=PublicationDetails&id=362 Barker, Laura and Batalova, Jeanne. Jan 2007. "The Foreign Born in the Armed Services," Migration Policy Institute, Migration Information Source (On-line) www.migrationinformation.org/USfocus/display.cfm?ID=572

One thing it is important to understand about the networking theory is that yellow nodes are NOT necessarily the people in charge (the people filling the slots titled HMSIC*). The yellow nodes are called leaders because they do leadership stuff, even if they are not officially designated yellows. I've never seen this taxonomy, but I've read a bit about networks, organization hierarchies, etc. And this tracks, but there are caveats regarding the ability of people to transition from one role to another quickly, and to the idea that there is almost always more than one power center in any organization, one formal and one informal. Sometimes there are more. It is possible therefore, to have an informal yellow who is actually working at cross or counter purposes to the primary yellow, who may not even be aware of the existence of the informal power center. This can very complex and is an extremely interesting subject, especially when you watch it at work in organizations. It's not a joke that you are better off aggravating the boss than his assistant, but it may be that his assistant is actually very loyal to the person running the training department (who may be the primary informal yellow) and defers in subtle but important ways, so you need to really not aggravate the Training Director. The other thing that is important to remember is that networks with less rigidly defined roles are more robust and self-healing than those with clear, precise roles and lines of control. That is a major distinction between US and other militaries, especially our former Warsaw Pact foes (and a problem with Arab armies in general). The US military hierarchy, while very structured for command and authority purposes (the person with the title gets to be in charge, tell others what to do, and take the heat for goofs), it is actually a lot looser in important ways. Anyone can become a yellow by being next in line, by being willing to step up, or by being the person with the best plan at the moment. Interestingly, the role of leader does not always match the command/authority chain in the U.S. Military, a perfect example of which is actually seen in two movies (I am not talking about the movie accuracy, etc, just the relationships portrayed), Blackhawk Down, where a number of people at different times were in leader roles based on situation and skill sets; the one that stands out is the minor confrontation between the Delta guy and the Ranger Captain over what to do next. Both are leaders at the same time in the same place, but the authority for each comes from a different source. Both were right--the Ranger Captain more so, by virtue of the constitutional source of his authority, but he dealt with it well, as a professional engaged in common cause... The other movie was Tears of the Sun (an excellent movie). The loose relationship between the SEAL Lt and his men was similar to that shown in Private Ryan between the Cpt and his men--the command authority leadership role was clear, but at various times, other people were in charge. The truth is that people can be different colors in different networks at the same time. A yellow in network one, might be a red in an overlaid or adjacent network. All of which comes down to: the color labels are cool and all, but it really is a 'powerpoint slide' explanation for a 3d CGI model construct. Hopefully, people will not now start looking for ways to 'operationalize' this taxonomy. I can see it: Got a 'yellow' on 3, but 2 blues in tandem moving through a group of greens; might want to interdict the recruitment effort... blah, blah, blah... I don't know how these added features tune the terrorist networks, but this is one reason it is not always sufficient to take out the obvious main squeeze. V/R *MS=MotorScooter

I would say that recent examples of Mao's theory that eventually these disseminated "nodes" have to coalesce would be the Taliban and AQIZ in Fallujah, Mosul, Qaim and other towns where they have tried to constitute themselves as, not just a guerrilla army, but a de facto government, making them "killable".

Sphincters and diamonds. LOL Thank goodness The Wall was a long time ago, none of the girls have my current contact info, and I only heard about it from "friends". LOL

We are all gonna die. None of us will get out of this alive. That is why we dance in memorium. What matters is how we live.