SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Earlier this year I wrote a story about the Joint IED Neutralizer (JIN), a device intended to destroy roadside bombs. The JIN is built by an Arizona-based company called Ionatron—a firm created out of the shell of a bankrupt lawn-care company—and is supposed to zap IEDs with a massive jolt of “man-made lightning.” As I noted, Ionatron, which hires all the right lobbyists and makes ample political contributions, has received millions in taxpayer money for the JIN, though the device has never been proven effective.
Now go read the terrific article on the JIN in today’s Washington Post. “On April 30, 2005, [Paul] Wolfowitz signed a memorandum that called for funneling $30 million into JIN as a countermeasure with the potential to ‘dramatically alter the balance of power on IEDs,’ the Post reports. “Bold claims began to circulate in Arizona. ‘This will save lives the minute it gets’ to Iraq, said Thomas C. Dearmin, Ionatron’s chief executive, according to the Journal of Electronic Defense. ‘If you get enough of these out there, you will eliminate the IED as we know it’.”
The JIN never did make it to Iraq–military commanders were so unimpressed with its performance during testing that they refused to accept it—but it did get sent over the Afghanistan. For 45 days, with help from an Ionatron technical team, JIN was tested in the Pech River Valley in northeast Afghanistan. At one point, three senior officers said, the kill switch failed and the device continued to fire bolts of electricity. Steep mountain terrain and poor roads also proved difficult; one JIN rolled downhill and flipped over, the officers reported. Last spring, Col. Chuck Waggoner, commander of Task Force Paladin, the counter-IED unit at Bagram Air Base, ordered that the tests be stopped. “We’re shipping this thing out of theater,” he said.
More from Ken Silverstein:
Perspective — October 23, 2013, 8:00 am
How pro-oil Louisiana politicians have shaped American environmental policy
Postcard — October 16, 2013, 8:00 am
A trip to one of the properties at issue in Louisiana’s oil-pollution lawsuits
I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:
The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.
Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”