I haven't digested all of this yet, but it's interesting.

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), May 17, 1999

Answers

Fascinating it is. Print out a copy and possibly print the text on a new thread, Puddintame?

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), May 17, 1999.

Thanks for the nudge, Puddintame, Lisa. I was going to cut and paste a few bits but there's so much superb material at these sites, I couldn't choose. It's almost like being that fly on the wall. . . Am astonishingly rich deposit of useful info.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), May 17, 1999.

The links below: I wonder how long they will stay "active"?

My apologies too - these were three links I didn't follow up on until alerted by another reader. See other comments in that thread.

What amazes me is that nowhere is these 200-odd comments, remarks, and criticisms is there any idea that "If we get the people ready for 2-3 weeks of disruptions, there will be no panic, no need for DOD intervention, traffic control, and generators, and no need for mass manipulation of the media - -- - many, mnay comments about using CNN though - here and abroad. Hmmmmn, just what were those "closed door" private " off the record" briefings between the national media and Clinton all about in February and March.

Kosovo of course, and what else?

One comment only about the need for a "churchill" - the rest are how to manipulate the media, and how to control the panic-mongers. Expect that to become the next buzzword. These guys are really scared of Gary North too. Funny, he doesn't look that big - why does the military fear him so?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 17, 1999.

where is this post? Am I looking right at it without seeing it?

-- a mom (where@what.com), May 17, 1999.

http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/6926/Mar1.html http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/6926/Mar3.html http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/6926/Mar5.html

Courtesy of another reader - see the original message in the "Govt & Panic" thread.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 17, 1999.

For example:

"Prioritize efforts not country-by-country but "world-by-world," that is, some worlds, such of the OECD countries, and a couple of transitional areas (e.g., East Central Europe) should be the primary focus of our effort. In effect, focus on the engine of the modern world and those who are and will be members of the "global economy" club.

There is an interesting and very important sociological phenomenon occurring between some of the owls and roosters responsible for national-level political or financial policy. It has already begun and will begin to harden as we approach 1 January. The owls ridicule even the rational roosters as the owls' fears of what panic may mean becomes more palpable. The more reasonable roosters become even more concerned as they see the owls' continuing disinformation about what is ground truth concerning levels of remediation/confidence in our systems working properly. This in turn makes the roosters (that is, the reasonable ones, not the wackos) dig in their heels, because their perceptions are that those who should be responsible are not being so. This is all to say that there will be much greater distrust and lack of cooperation at the highest policy levels unless a bridge can soon be found. Dr. Landes' approach is, I believe, correct. The owls' approach will not work for this crisis. It is all pervasive. A proper approach should be to encourage populations and entities to have some preparation just as they would buy insurance against an unlikely event. That doesn't mean it will happen, but it would calm fears among a great number of people in the US. [The hardening of boundaries between roosters and owls is the single greatest risk to clear and successful planning.]

Shaping the media is going to be very difficult in the age of the Internet. I think that the more authorities try to assure the population, the Net will provide a vast and lively playground for playing out all sorts of scenarios, centralizing conspiracy theories, etc. Civil libertarians already oppose "excessive" military involvement in domestic civil matters. Notwithstanding the appeal in some people's minds of accessing human and material capabilities held by military, I'd suggest we must be very conscious of potential objections, and should carefully fold in a soothing message in areas of "sunset clauses" [editor: referring to rule sets with predetermined expiration dates] of such organizations or use arrangements. "

Comments from the original people who responded (whoever they are) are in the square brackets.....there are another 8 pages of similar discussions.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 17, 1999.

Here is the link to the thread

A good article on the govt. and PANIC
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000qAT

-- Brian (imager@home.com), May 17, 1999.

These links seem to originate from the personal home page of one Dr. Thomas Barnett, a consultant who claims to work for the Naval War College. These links are not Military links, although Naval War College does appear in the titles. On his bio page, Dr. Barnett does provide a hotlink to the Naval War College (www.nwc.navy.mil), but the DoD is usually pretty tight about what goes on web pages, particularly things like logos, disclaimers, security statements, etc. None of Dr. Barnett's pages have these features.

I'm not saying these pages are fakes; but we've been burned before, so lets find out if this guy is for real before we get roped in...

Spindoc'

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), May 17, 1999.

Agree - one can't tell, see other coments in the original thread.

On the other hand, tis hard to keep secrets nowdays, and mistakes do happen that are "unintended" or "Freudian slips"; which could also be "Fraudulant" slips.

I'd recommend capturing the text anyway - since if real conversations, they will vanish quickly - as have other sources. If fraudulant - none the worse for wear and more casual analysis.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 17, 1999.

Ok, this guy seems to be for real; he is listed as being on the faculty of the NWC:

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/cnws/

Why he would list these links on his home page instead of the NWC site is a bit puzzling, though. Interesting reading...

Spindoc'

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), May 17, 1999.

A lurker speaks. If you follow the links in the articles to the US Naval War College, you can find a list of the names of the participants(some are VERY familiar)

-- BigDon (talk2don@globalpac.com), May 17, 1999.

Check this link out...

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/dsd/thomas_barnett.htm

-- Hmmm (checkItOut@real.com), May 17, 1999.

Appears to be real...

Here is the same page set on the nwc.navy.mil site:

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/dsd/y2ksited/y2ksite.htm

Sheeeeesh!!!!

-- Hmmm (checkItOut@real.com), May 17, 1999.

Spindoc', BigDon, and Hmmmm,

Thanks, and compliments, for the detective work, tracking this back to an "official" site. I trust others on this forum appreciate your efforts, too. If there were a Diane J Squire award for persistence in research, you would surely take it for this month. :-)

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), May 17, 1999.

P.S. The project summary at the unofficial site appears to be more recent than at the offficial site.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), May 17, 1999.

Well, capture the words and responses then - they will probably "go away" shortly.....

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 17, 1999.

P.P.S. The project summary is not the only part that appears to be more recent at the unofficial site.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), May 17, 1999.

Folks, I too am very interested in what I just read. It seems though that I have a radically different take on them. These guys are being asked to define the US role in a situation that they DO NOT KNOW. Their intel is no better than OURS. They sound like about 25 or so (50?) of us who have been gathered to assess the US role in the Global theater in ref Y2K. There is so much stuff there that needs to be on the front page of the Anytown,USA Gazette, and I wish I could put it there.

They were looking at primarily STRATEGIC options. We are concerned with TACTICAL options. They are afraid of the same stuff we are. Yes, they mentioned Gary North, but the mention was 80% positive!!!! They ALSO asked what they were to do with a (aprox quote) "Wild assed EO".

And, yes, I'm going to capture and print 'em.

Chuck who is glad at least SOMEONE is asking the questions that were asked here. (Please note that these guys have figured that the news media is no longer unbiased and may NOT get on board for any valid help request.)

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 17, 1999.

Stuff at Naval War College site is always a bit out of date. Why? I post all the stuff first to geocities site, then let participants from workshops look it over and comment. Once I feel the stuff basically set, I download a copy for NWC webmasters, who, according to their bureaucratic drills, stick it in a closet for three weeks before doing anything with it. Very Dilbert, but such is life.

Wish I had a juicier, more conspiratorial answer for you, but sometimes life is just that dull.

Enjoy this thread though.

-- Thomas Barnett (barnettt@nwc.navy.mil), May 20, 1999.