From the Agora

Peace through Prosperity - Plan for Iraq?

2008-05-16T20:09:00.000-07:00

People are too caught up with words like "democracy" and "ally" in trying to solve Iraq. What is needed is a government that supports some form of the right to speak freely, so that you do not have to live in fear of your neighbors and those with guns for questioning tyranny by small neighborhood warlords or religious zealots. And people need to accept that just because someone has a different religion, it does not mean they lose their right to property, to be safe in their home, to not be held up by thugs while the police turn away because you are not one of "them."
Because frankly, if you have these things, or at least a genuine effort to turn towards these things, you will have peace. And people can flourish. And a state with good natural resources can let business grow with very little taxation. But that resource will always be a problem. Control of the oil means money and guns. It could be used for other political patronage like construction (helping a broken nation form local construction firms that work of government patronages usually work well for a country, like Japan and Korea). A Marshall plan mostly funded by oil. Is this ideal transparency and perfect government?
No. But just try to get to "peaceful." No bombs going off daily, no massacres, no death squads in the night. Corruption is a luxury concern of developed and peaceful nations. Let us hope they can get there in a generation. But you can get peace now with some tolerance of financial corruption and tolerated with a nod and a wink.
But that also forgets the past 5 years of bloodshed. 5 years of death. In a culture very focused on "honor" and the need to make tribes or families look strong. But in that system was an old policy of reconciliation, repayment for wrongs, and the making of peace. And Islam is instrumental in that rekindling of faith between the warring groups quite often. So given sufficient money coming in from the government to help lubricate the area and quench some of the unemployment (which leads people to be susceptible to plating bombs against an occupying force for a few hundred dollars so they can eat for some time).
People could buy into this if the US strongly announces it as an agenda and also begins a drawdown (interestingly, many of the opposition groups like the Jihadi Milita and Sadr, and some of the Sunni guerilla groups have only asked for a timetable to leave in a year. And when they control their troops, they do keep attacks down. Like the ones we're bribing at the moment in Anbar. If we can get a drawdown rolling, a good and reasonable schedule, and get the central gov. to start kicking money to the local power groups so they can fund reconstruction and job programs (aka patronage = power in democracy), then things might be able to settle down.
But the US needs to always be the public advocate for a position of peace, prosperity, and respect for basic rights (but tolerant of economic corruption as long as all the groups are getting a piece of the pie...). Not of torture, of checkpoint killings, and home raids.
After all, Al queda is not loved by the population. It has strong points in Mosul. But if the rest of the country agrees to focus on peace more (which means Maliki can't move on Sadr before the elections, and the fed's start sharing more with Sunni Anbar), then the US can put more resources into Mosul and also gain allies among the populace if they see that the rest of Iraq can relax a bit too.
Perhaps the October elections will change the situation. If people with actual political legitimacy take power and agree to get fat together off of the patronage system that the country is capable of (see the U.A.E. for that), then we can declare peace, get out, and the local Iraqis can mop up any Al Queda remainder (which shouldn't be hard because they are there because we are there, and the Iraqis have come to loath their brutishness).
So if we get Obama in and focus on something realistic and mutually beneficial for all the parties in Iraq, maybe we met get it.
And if there are very few American soldiers in Iraq by 2010, then there's hardly any saber rattling over "American soliders being killed by Iraqi insurgents trained by Iranians."
We're an occupier. There are a sizable portion of people that think it is a religious duty to attack occupiers. So that means you will always take some small level of casualties in running an occupation. Then you can talk to Iran without all the current heat and noise that our bungled occupation seems to generate. They reached out to the US after 911 and Afghanistan. But President Bush and his circle smacked the hand away.
If the Iraqi government is fully on your side and knows you are on the way out the door, it can be a much better partner in protecting you as well. Because you will still be giving money. You still have arms and can be used to quell disturbances.
The ripple effects of achieving stability in Iraq would benefit the whole region (especially, I think, Lebanon and our Iranian relations). But that is a topic for another time.

Criticisms or suggestions about the plan are welcome. Please feel free to copy the text and remix it to your own agenda (but I would appreciate a hat tip). Give peace (and money... democracy, whiskey, sexy?) a chance.

Jena and Iraq

2007-09-22T04:03:00.000-07:00

So the general allegations of Jena are here. As it is, 6 black high schoolers are being charged with murder because some white high schooler got beat up enough to have a mild concussion and some reoccurring headaches a few weeks later. This is after white kids hung some nooses above a tree when some black kids didn't stay in their place, and a massive escalation of tension and conflicts in the following months.
The real question seems to be "what happened the night of the alleged kicking?" Was the Kickee actually knocked out, viciously stomped, or did he just lose a schoolyard fight (which included a few kicks to the gut, but it's just an asskickin, not deadly assault. I mean, does this kid just need to suck it up, or was this serious?
The only complaint since the attack, after healing up, is recurrent headaches (there was a swollen eye and a bit of a concussion). With that level of injury, that the extent of the harm (when 6 humans, in an attack, could clearly do so much more if they wanted to kill or maim someone) the charge is clearly excessive.
That is excessive, and the individuals should be punished. Suspensions, community service, and participation in public discussions on respecting human rights and dignity (including not whaling on people to give then concussions, unless sanctioned by the Leviathan (strange how Hobbsean our society has become lately, with all authority ceded to the executive in the name of protection).).
Jena is almost a twisted metaphor for Iraq. There is a sectarian dispute, the local gov. just favors its own sect, past murderous violence is referenced, and one side starts taking matters into its own hands. Because they believe they are entitled to have... well, that's where the analogy dies. One is just high school, with some kid who got beat on a bit, the other is geopolitical chaos.
I am from the south, and while the executive and city council branch of that town were just pouring gas on a smoldering fire, it's not representative of the area. Hopefully, it will be a lesson to us all in the need to respect the freedom and dignity of our fellow man, and if we follow that precept (a value truly honored by our founding fathers), if we remember that we must live free or die defending individual liberty, we will continue to prosper as a people. I only hope the recent misconduct, both overseas and by corrupt and tyrannical government entities can cease.

Opiate of the Masses?

2007-01-18T18:19:00.001-08:00

Some Greek guy in a dress once said that the unexamined life is not worth living. I would tend to agree. But I like to use general reason, experience and empiricism to figure things out. Others prefer to put their stock in belief, in faith, in a "movement." Both lefties and righties can be guilty of this, both nanny-staters and libertarians.

There is a debate going on right now over at Sully's blog, with a discourse between an atheist, Sam Harris, who feels religion isn't so good and the practicing Catholic (who subscribes to the "theology of doubt"). In the linked post, he quotes Harris on the bible and koran, who stated:

So why not take these books less seriously still? Why not admit that they
are just books, written by fallible human beings like ourselves?

A reader responds to this attack on his favorite holy book (who knows which one) and states:

Religious books are not "just" books. Rather they are books that try to guide
human beings, and their conduct, through the mystery that is human life.
And when I say "mystery" I don't mean it in the sense of "Wow, that's
cool!" I mean it in the sense that we don't know where we came from, or
where we are going, or how, on the one hand, we can have a profound sense of
self, but, then, on the other hand, must live with the unease that our
entire sense of self - without religion - will somehow some day cease to
exist. (emphasis mine)

So if you truly believe that there is an afterlife, you get to toss off your angst. Nothing about the truth behind religion, more of "it's like prozac for me. I'm not as worried about what happens when I die when I turn my brain off and blindly believe in fairy tales."

The commenter further states:

Religion, and religious books are designed to help us with these problems of human existence. They are designed to show us - based on very old traditions - about the proper courses of conduct to lead one to the eventual pride in having lived to the full and to the good the one life that one was granted. They make us glad to be alive... Other books do not help. Even philosophers are of little use for these areas of life, and most will gladly acknowledge it. Perhaps some people don't need religion. But most of us do, even if our religious devotions are tinged with more or less worldly skepticism... For reasons we cannot put into words, we feel at times - after a Beethoven quartet or a Shakespeare play - that we have been touched by something so special, that it could not be the mere product of "just some guy." (my emphasis)

It's almost tough to know where to begin with this guy. I think the Bible is one of the best records we have of the brutality and barbarism of early man, of our tribal life. Constant warfare, slaughter, sacrifice to gods and idols, fire and brimstone, sinners in the hands of an angry god that brings fires and floods and earthquakes and plagues. That is the proper course of conduct? It's all about the smiting.

Listen, one of the greatest problems of the Islamic world is this constant yearning for the time of the Prophet, to go back to the 700s, because of the belief that everything was pure and just then, and it has been nothing but a corruption of Islam since that moment. Instead of looking ahead, they look back. There can be no progress, there can only be an eternal striving to return to the life of a warring desert and trading people, for that is the way of Mohamed and he is the purest man to ever live.

Perhaps if they did read these other books, books that the clown quoted above thinks are useless, then they would have a greater understanding of the human spirit. The great works of Hemingway, the poetry of Tennyson, the words of Bellow, the frenzy of Roth, the wise eye of Naipaul, all these books and more help man deal with the cruelties of existence, to persevere through this vale of tears. And they all help deal with the conundrum of human existence. Even the Bible can help, but the fact it is placed on a pedestal, that it's fantasies should hold mystical weight and the other books are blasphemous, this is a pernicious mindset that should be rejected. Sentiments like those quoted above lead to death sentences on the heads of writers. Just ask Salman Rushdie. And ask him if one of his masterpieces was inspired by God or though his own hard work.

We should not need some crutch to find peace of mind. We should not have to rely on thoughts of the afterlife and prayer to find comfort. We must come to terms with the fact of our mortality, and live our lives in recognition of this eventuality.

A man can spend his day on his knees in prayer, a supplicant to a silent god. He can hope that these actions will show his piety and ensure his place in the great beyond. Or, he can spend his days in good works, trying to leave the world better than he found it, to leave a legacy of accomplishment that will give him solace on his deathbed. I don't know which of these two men is right. But the one who gets off his knees is the better man in my book.

Obama the Anti-Everything?

2007-01-17T16:51:00.000-08:00

Obama is truly the golden boy of America at this moment. It really does prove what they say, that the longer you are in Washington and the longer your record, the more mistakes made on the record your enemies can hang around your head.

From Columnist Joe Sorban ( h/t Andrew Sullivan, who called Joe a conservative columnist, but in my first read seemed just common sense instead of ideological)

His greatest strength vis-à-vis Hillary is that he is even more different from
Bush than she is, which makes him more electable than she is. Bush has been a
worse calamity for the country than 9/11 itself. The 2008 election, like this
year’s, will be a repudiation of the worst president, by far, in most Americans’
memory.
Right now things are going almost too perfectly Obama’s way. Time will
of course force him to make definite and therefore costly choices, even if some
unforeseeable disaster doesn’t befall him. Or maybe — cruel fate! — he’ll turn
himself into a joke. A single televised gaffe could do it!

I think on the Dem side, he is the anti-Hillary. He's "fresh," in the sense that most dems only first heard him at the 04 convention. And he is quick on his feet verbally, and "uses his tounge prettier than a 20 dollar whore." Which makes him the anti-Bush in at least one way. Damn it would be good to have a president who doesn't mangle the English language unless he is reading from a teleprompter.

The thing about Obama is, he has enough goodwill and dexterity that a televised gaffe can't do him in. He's not stiff necked about things, so if he does something goofy, he will sheepishly apologize and America will love him even more. After all, he's the skinny kid with the funny name who used to knock back lines of blow and smoke weed, but still ended up in the plum (and intellectually demanding) position of editor of the Harvard Law Review. As opposed to Bush and his "gentleman's C's. He still smokes cigarettes, but states that it's a filthy habit. He already knows he's is flawed, as are we all. Once you take that position, you can't get trapped by some silly gaffe.

It's far too early to say that it's his to lose. But the race for the presidency is certainly his to win.

Things are Going to Take Some Time

2007-01-17T16:07:00.000-08:00

We've had six years where the Republican Congress put party over patriotism and respect for the Constitution. People who voiced dissent were branded as traitors, "blame America-firsters" (as if a handful of wealthy and corrupt Republican political elites were the avatars of America), and dirty hippies who couldn't be trusted in a time of war and "moral seriousness." And a stenographic media that let them get away with it. Despite that, Bush only got 51% in '04.

I think the Democrats need a good two to three months of hearings, buttressed by the honest Republicans who don't kowtow to King Bush (like Hagel) to really expose the malfeasance. It will take some time to dig up the dirt after 6 years of see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil done by any Republican, especially those named Bush. Then it will take a few more months for all this information to sink into the reporting of the media, then a few more to fully sink into the populace. I predict that by November of 2007, the President will lose more support and there will be much stronger calls for impeachment. However, it will be so close to another election, that he will just be censured and then kept under a tight leash by Congress.

Plus it will take some time for the Dems to really get their bearings and understand their constitutional powers yet. Obama used to be a part time law prof. on constitutional law. Perhaps he can lead the way... But why would he want to make those types of speeches and demands on the floor of the Senate when he's got a potential election to think about? Hmm....

P.S.: Long time no post. What are you going to do, I suppose?

Fear is the Bush Foundation

2006-12-17T14:08:00.000-08:00

What with the holy days approaching, I was browsing through some old chestnuts and noted this compelling piece from Mr. Russell. To make it more entertaining, mentally change every mention of Religion to Bush and/or his administration.

Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing -- fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion, against the churches, and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a better place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.

What We Must Do

We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world -- its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.

I think the saddest thing about the Bush era (aside from the mangled and broken bodies and minds) is that the constant fearmongering is destructive to our tradition as a proud and free people, as he encourages us to quake in fear of the "bad men" who "hate our freedom." Al Queda's leadership are men. They are actually fairly rational (just their premise that they must fight a war against America to defend the purity of their faith leads to violent and destructive choices). They wanted a lesser American influence in the mid-east, especially in Saudi Arabia. They think the Saudi kings are corrupt, and want a more strict, fundamentalist control over Mecca. And yes, they operate out of caves and safe houses. This aint the Warsaw pact with thousands of tanks, planes, and nukes. In Iraq, the forces can't defeat the US conventionally except in an ambush at the lowest level of foot patrol; they can't take a US base, they can't lay siege to our forces. But you can't stop them from suicide bombing or sniping.

We need a fearless outlook and free intelligence to discern the way out, and we need to put the Iraqis in the forefront in finding the solutions. Because once we leave (and we will, even if not until a new President is in charge), the Iraqis will have to enforce the new order.

Good Food for thought, even if my rambling Iraq musings don't have much to do with Russell's dictums.

Sadly, Bush is actually the Decider

2006-12-16T01:16:00.000-08:00

We had an ISG. There have been innumerable pundit plans, exit strategies, new plans for fortifications, troop rotations, and governmental permutations. But it matters not whose plan is best, for Bush is the man who outranks the rest.
The Decider continues to decide. And no matter how many ponys are put forth, we are screwed untill he and Cheney are gone from office.
However that eventually happens.

But don't trust me. Listen to Atrios.

Fresh Hate in Iraq Creates Conflict, Not Ancient Grudges

2006-12-10T12:01:00.000-08:00

Too many out there pontificate on the nature of 1,000 year ancient grudges, and asserrt a sort of hoplessness in stopping bloodshed in Iraq. They conclude that this sort of sectarian conflict is wired into the Arab DNA, so the US is powerless.

But just as all politics are local, so are greivances. Fueds exist because of their intenesly personal nature, because of what has happened in this generation, this year, this month. The people of Iraq lived under a cuel totalitarian dictatorship, wich also exploited racial (Kurd v. Arab) and religious (Sunni v. Shia) differences, so that the state, the bureacracy, favored Sunni Arabs.

Think of all the petty tyrannies that the burecrats of Iraq could inflict on the powerless, the many bribes demanded, the seizures of property, the abuses of the police, the torture inflicted by Saddam's internal intelligence agencies. And this is all before the American invasion. Once we toppled Saddam and disbanded the army and police, there were scores to settle. There were dead brothers, raped sisters, tortured parents to avenge. They did not thirst for payback because of some 1,400 year old schism regarding religious dogma, but for what happened to them personnally, what happened to their friends, family, and loved ones.

Fued begets fued. Now, approaching four years of war and fueds, there are few who do not have a dead or injured relative. There are those who hate the Sunni, the Shia, the police, the military, a tribal chief, a new burecrat, the American Army, or foreign terrorists. And Iraq is awash in guns and old Iraqi army munitions. There is more than enough fresh blood to keep these fueds going.

We stood by as the beast of revenge was set loose in Iraq. It had been chained by Saddam to some extent (in those days it was only the beast of Saddam that plagued the land), but we let it escape. Now it has grown strong. And hungry. And it must be fed. At this point, America's goal should be to ensure it feeds on Americans as little as possible.

The Denunciations of Bush Begin

2006-12-10T00:08:00.000-08:00

We know a politician is often a whore for money, but a politician is always a whore for votes. After all, as a wise man once said, "If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner." So if Bush thinks things are bad now, wait till the rest of the war party cheerleaders start dwelling on that election in 08 and the constant dwindling of support for the war and a presidential approval level in the 20s (if that high by the big November). It's already begun...

Senator Gordon Smith, R-Oregon, a Bush rubber-stamp man 'till this point, gives a speech CNN headlines as "GOP senator criticizes Iraq war in emotional speech." Money quote: "[I'm at] the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up the same bombs, day after day.That is absurd...It may even be criminal."

Like rats leaving the sinking ship. While sharks are circling. Some of the rats think they can make it out alive if they pretend to be a shark, especially if the sharks are busy attacking the big, meaty target in the middle.

Is this how the road to impeach begins? It reminds me of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto and his comments on another war... "In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success." Sounds like the ISG. As for the American people, Yamamoto said "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

The power of an angry and determined electorate can lead to some important changes in this country. And those that pander or get led by the polls will jump on the bandwagon. Republicans in the House and Senate are going to face the fact that they can toss Bush under the bus and give the Dems a veto proof power to shake things up or they'll go down with the ship. All those fellas teetering in the low 50s are doing the math and reading what's on the wall. If they want to listen? Only time will tell. But the ground is shifting and the tide is turned. Let's see how big this wave gets before it breaks.

The Downward Spiral: Bush Stayin' the Course

2006-12-08T13:53:00.001-08:00

After everything that's happened since the fall of Baghdad, since Bremer and Bush's CPA in Iraq disbanded the Army and presided over the dismantaling of order and a state monopoly over violence, and the ensuing grinding, bloody decline, Bush still doesn't get it. He still actually believes he's winning and that he will be vindicated by History as some great man, too "enlightened" for his time. The greatest spinner, the man of stock talking points, who's taken America to it's lowest stature in foreign policy in decades, well... on his desk the buck never stops. (see dmsilev's diary for more). Why else is loyalty so built into the system? In the upper echelons of the Bush court, le e'stat, c'est Bush. The state must be defended and protected against all slanders, and can never be wrong, lest the people ask too many questions. And even after the ISG came out, the whole edifice still exists in denial. Maybe Bob "we're not winning" Gates, our new Sec Def, can change some things. Bush is still spouting the same garbage, though. Take a look.

The most striking demonstration that Bush remains totally in denial was his choice of language to respond to the two British reporters. To Nick Robinson, he says "it's bad in Iraq. Does that help?" But the remainder of his long response never says things are going bad, or are regressing, or falling apart. Instead, he just says that it is "tough." Which is the same as saying it's hard (like "it's a hard job being the president"). But how do you deal with toughness? By preservering, by exerting sufficent "will." You don't make massive course corrections because things are falling apart. He says "Make no mistake, I understand how tough it is, sir." But he fails to acknowlege how thoroughly awfully it is and how low its fallen since the bombing of the golden dome mosque.

In response to Neely asking about a change of stragegy, Bush says "I t hought we would succeed quicker than we did, and I am disappointed by the pace of success." It is a denial that Iraq is even failing. Instead, it says that the current stratgey is succeeding, but progress should be faster. As if everything will be fine in Iraq if we stay the course for 10 years, while the original plan called for success in 5 (and we're gettin close to 4 right now).

He should be disappointed by the total absence of success and the rapidly escalating pace of failure. But he still believes that his way leads to "victory" (whatever that is), and that everything would be fine if people accepted his gospel instead of asking why things are so bad. He sees the pace of success as slow but steady, of things getting better, instead of the spreading anarchy that's increased constantly since the fall of Baghdad.

Fun Robert Gates factoid: He twice turned down an offer to work for George Bush the younger (showing remarkable good judgment). The first was when he turned down the offer to head Homeland Security to remain at a (gasp) University. Tom Ridge got to preside over that burecratic horror (color code man), and now its the walking corpse Chertoff (heckuva job). He next declined the new Director of National Intelligence post, and instead John "intel czar" Negroponte took up the job. Gates, now Dean, explained his choice in an email to the students by saying he "had nothing to look forward to in D.C. and plenty to look forward to at A&M." I wonder, has he even talked with Bush about Iraq?

Fun Fact #2 (also from wikipedia): In January 2004, Gates co-chaired a Council on Foreign Relations task force on U.S. relations towards Iran. Among the task force's primary recommendation was to directly engage Iran on a diplomatic level regarding Iranian nuclear technology. Key points included a negotiated position that would allow Iran to develop its nuclear program in exchange for a commitment from Iran to use the program only for peaceful means.

Poor man. I'll be impressed if he lasts a few months in the bizzaro politicized world that is the Bush White House.

The Right and the Intelligent debate the Baker Commission

2006-12-06T19:29:00.000-08:00

Well, the Baker Commission came out with their report, and the land has been abuzz. Naturally, there's no idea that hasn't actually been discussed already, so there's nothing new. But there the Baker Boys (and one girl) did advocate diplomacy, active intervention to settle the Israel-Palestine dispute, milestones in Iraq, and eventual withdrawl. It recognized that despite the right's attempt to always demonize our foreign "enemies" as implacable madmen and little Hitler's in training, they are all actually fairly rational states with wants and needs like everyone else, and it is possible to negotiate.

Naturally, such an assesment causes the right-wing ideologues to freak out about the empending enslavement of the world if we don't show enough "will" by staying in Iraq until the Earth is destroyed by the sun.

From Hugh Hewitt:

Like I told a reporter buddy of mine: War sucks but a world run by
Islamofacists sucks more.

And therein lies the fatal premise.

The problem with the future is that it is essentially unknowable. So we create logical premises to determine how to act. The opererative premise debated right now?
If we leave Iraq then X will happen. If we stay, Y will happen. If X is worse than Y, we stay, if not, we should go.

For most rational people, Y = more dead American soldiers, waseted funds, more anti-americanism, and more loss of prestige and foreign policy ineffectiveness. X usually means continued chaos and civil war in Iraq, with maybe a 25% chance that things will improve once the Iraqis realize it's up to them, a maybe 25% chance of a massive blood-bath and a regional conflict, and maybe 50% chance of years of grinding civil war, de-facto partitian, and an eventual uneasy peace like in Lebanon.

For the right-wingers, Y is the same but X (if we leave) = the entire world will be ruled by Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda! So yes, Y sucks, but X is worse than anything in the history of the world.

It's fair to say that the West has dominated the globe since at least the 1850s, once Britan beat down China in the Opium wars. It has generally stood for some form of capitalism in various guises. There was a challenge after WWII from the Communist Block, which dissolved at the start of the 1990s. All the great powers have now adopted this basic style of societal orentation(US, Britan, France, Germany, Japan, China, India, Russia, etc.), with varying degrees of government intervention and support in their economies. There are varying degrees of civil liberties in these countries, but a modern capitalist society requires at least a certain level of free discourse and movement to function properly, and so you are generally all-right as long as you don't criticize the state.

Al-Queda had support in one country: The Taliban dominated Afghanistan from about 1996 to 2001, and had no real commerce or conventional military power to speak of. Members of Al-Queda launched a terroist attack against the United States, and the Taliban government was toppled and scattered shortly thereafter. This 5 year period, in an incredibly impoverished nation that suffered through decades of civil war, was the extent of the actual political control of Al-Queda approved government.

But if we leave in Iraq, somehow Al-Queda will find a way to defeat the EU, Japan, China, India, all of North and South America, Russia, and everywhere else, and impose their strict, fundamentalist Islamic rule.

Could someone please explain how this is remotely possible? Does the Right actually believe this, or do they just say it because it's the only way they feel they can defend the indefensible?

The Weight of the War on our President

2006-12-05T17:14:00.000-08:00

Been a long while since me last post. Bad blogger...

Anyway, in his first one on one interview since the election, Bush lets it be known how he preserves in the face of adversity to Brit Hume:

Bush: I had a bunch of our buddies from Texas up here this weekend, and they're
kind of -- they look at you, and go, man, how come you're still standing?
It's not so much the presidency on the shoals because of difficult decisions
I made; it's more, the weightiness of this thing must be impossible for
anybody to bear. And I tell them it's just not the case, that I'm inspired
by doing this job. . . .
"I also remind them, Brit, that Laura and I are sustained by the prayers of millions of people. That's hard for some to, you know, I guess, chew on."
Hume: "You sense that."
Bush: "Absolutely."
Hume: "I know they
tell you that, when you see them out on the hustings. But do you sense that?"
Bush: "I feel it."
Hume: "You
feel it."
Bush: "Yeah. Because the load is not heavy, I guess is the best way to describe it. Look, somebody said to me, prove it. I said you can't prove it. All I can tell you is I feel it. And it's a remarkable country when millions pray for me and Laura. So therefore I'm able to say to people, that this is a joyful experience, not a painful
experience. And yeah it's tough, but that's okay. It's tough times.

So, people pray for the president (something I recall everyday in Church, because its natural to want our head of state not to screw things up). And because people are praying for the office of the President, and for Bush himself, he isn't weighted down by all his mismanagement and incompetence. He doesn't feel bad for his mistakes, because someone's praying for him to be forgiven. See, all clean!

The problem with Bush's faith isn't the faith per se. There's nothing that makes religous people intrinsically bad leaders (and indeed history says otherwise). The problem is that the prayers and doctrine of forgiveness and assured assencion into heaven, which his faith tells him is a lock once he was born again, leads to a "what me, worry" attitude. So Iraq is failing badly? Well, people are praying for me, I know Jesus loves me, and I'm going to heaven, so relax. I'm bringng freedom to the Iraqis, which is just part of God's plan!

Maybe this is why Bush is so lazy. This is why he seems like he doesn't care. It's all in the hands of prayer and God to make sure things turn out right. Why, if all Americans prayed for victory in Iraq, especially publicly or in schools, then the insurgents would lay down their arms and we would have a big peace parade from Damascus to Tehran. That's why he's so obbsessed with spin and asserting "will" in the conflict. As long as we believe, it will all turn out all right. (Green lantern theory of war, h/t Yglesias)

Dammnit, man, when things are going to hell in a handbasket and its your doing, it better damn well weigh on you. Every maimed and dead American soldier, every crippled Iraqi child ought to way on your shoulders and your mind, because you have roally screwed the pooch. But just like with Katrina, just like any Bush disaster, he just shrugs it off. Not a big deal. Not when folks are out there prayin, right?

I fear that Bush will go to his grave without any sense of shame for his role in the greatest US foreign policy debacle in the Middle East. Or for the fact that his entire foreign policy was generally a debacle. Or that he fulfilled the goals of Al-Queda in a far better way then it could have ever done so on its own. Two more years of this...I hope it won't get too much worse.

Your liberal media and the Democratic Leadership Election

2006-11-17T09:42:00.000-08:00

The coverage of the leadership races in the House have been pretty pathetic all around. Instead of noting that the democrats are electing a leader, and there are two serious candidates for the position, it's all spun as some sort of vicious civil war, full of back-stabbing and betrayl. For the Republicans? There leadership race is some excercise in decisive and strong unity. Of course, all this spin takes little regard of reality (or sanity)

From today's NY Times:

The Republicans, selecting their leaders in less dramatic fashion than Democrats
picked theirs on Thursday, chose Mr. Boehner as minority leader over the
conservative Representative Mike Spence of Indiana by a vote of 168 to
27. A single vote was cast for Representative Joe Barton of
Texas. Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri was re-elected party whip by
137 to 57 over Representative John Shadegg of Arizona. (snip)

Cast in the minority role for the first time in 12 years, Republicans may
be taking solace in the battle that played out among House Democrats, who chose
Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland as their new majority leader on
Thursday, rejecting the choice of Ms. Pelosi, and straining the unity of the
new majority party. (emphasis mine). In an indication that
rank-and-file members would be willing to break from Ms. Pelosi, Democrats chose
Mr. Hoyer over Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania by a decisive vote of 149 to 86.

So the Democrats put two candidates out. One wins decisively with 149 votes. The Republicans put two candidates up. The relect an old leadership figure (who helped lead their party to defeat) with 168 votes. The Democratic representatives did what they came to Washington to do: vote their conscience. And the new leader won big. But it's painted as some ugly, bitter affair. Even though by all appearances there was nothing partisan or ugly about it and everyone is simply moving after taking care of this required business.

The Washington Post title? "Democrats Reject Murtha." The Press always pumps the negative about Dems. They then note that this election has exposed "a deep political divide even before the party takes control." Even thought this choice wasn't really about policy or ideology, just about which individual gets to hold the reins of power. And without citing any evidence, it disparages relations between Pelosi and Hoyer.

In a show of unity after the closed-door meeting in a House office building, she
and Hoyer smiled and embraced. But the two longtime rivals must now try to pick
up the pieces after a bitter intraparty fight and prepare for a new Congress in
January.

You know, it was an election campagin that lasted about three friggin' days. Murtha jumped in at the last minute after Hoyer already had the votes. Pelosi stood by her friend, but it didn't change anything (this aint no Tom Delay style leadership, there were no threats to drop the hammer). Nor should it have. And because the Democratic leadership let things play out fairly, they get crucified in the press.

The media loves message control (it boils things down to nice sound bites and talking points they understand). They hate the Democrats for not mandating a single, unified orthodoxy. They hate all the shades of grey, all the different opinions, and all the agendas that a truly representative, federal government brings. Because they are lazy bums who wouldn't know straight-forward and honets reporting if it slapped them in the face. Wankers.

[Update]: Please see the incomparable Mr. Greenwald, laying it out in a far more comprehensive and direct manner than my humble attempt.

Narcissists

2006-11-17T01:14:00.000-08:00

The leading voices of the right generally think that they are the great wise ones, and pontificate with endless certainty on the issue du juor. There are so certain because when they go to look upon the world, the only gaze on a mirror. They only see themselves. Reassured that others will act pretty much like they will (if they are good people), they bloviate without hesitation or doubt.

Here is the latest, from Charlie Krauthammer, titled "It's the Iraqis' fault." Shorter version? We are wonderful and gave the gift of democracy to Iraq, but I was shocked to learn that they weren't prepared to radically alter their society at the insistence of the US military. Those ungrateful wretches! He starts:

We have given the Iraqis a republic, and they do not appear able to keep it. (snip)

I think we made several serious mistakes -- not shooting looters, not installing an Iraqi exile government right away, and not taking out Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army in its infancy in 2004 -- that greatly compromised the occupation. Nonetheless, the root problem lies with Iraqis and their political culture. (snip)

I'm sure our invasion, disbanding of their army and police force, and forcing the entire elite out of the power structure and leaving them at the mercy of militias had nothing to do with it. I'm sure our only fault was not leaving cities in the south while attacking a popular Shite religious figure.

Are the Arabs intrinsically incapable of democracy, as the "realists" imply? True, there are political, historical, even religious reasons why Arabs are less prepared for democracy than, say, East Asians and Latin Americans who successfully democratized over the past several decades. But the problem here is Iraq's particular political culture, raped and ruined by 30 years of Hussein's totalitarianism.

Why, who could have ever predicted that? Oh wait. Everyone with a brain before the election. In cultures that have faced 30 years of chaos and violence, political power doesn't grow out of the ballot box. It comes from the barrel of the gun. They understand that. And if we are trying to force them to use the ballot box, they will use their guns when we aren't around to intimidate and assassinate. You can't push democracy out of the barrel of a gun. A people have to choose that for themselves. So quit faulting them for our incompetent occupation that let anarchy bloom, for bringing the whirlwind of violence into the heart of Baghdad.

Oh, STFU too.

The First Goal of Foreign Policy Should Be Peace

2006-11-16T22:42:00.000-08:00

We have lived in security, across the oceans, and generally safe from foreign violence on our shore, for quite some time now (aside from 9-11). Considering the drubbing everyone else got in World War II, our States never really saw war (since Hawaii and Alaska were still territories). And our democracy and society has brought great wealth. So we have become very belligerent in recent years about trying to force our version of things down peoples throats, because deep down it is a pretty good basic system we had going (although things have been a bit broken down lately). So we forget that in most areas, some of which never really lived under democracy, and have been the worlds battlefields for hundreds of years, the people really just want a respite from violence. They want to live in peace.

We think of the first Iraq war as a spirited jaunt actoss the desert, an amazing tactical and strategic campaign. And it was, from our perspective. But to the people of Iraq, they took 100,000 casualties and had many critical pieces of infrastruture destroued. Then there was the Shia uprising, which we let Saddam crush (the Coalition, which included many Sunni leaders, weren't keen on lending a hand), and instability and war in the kurdish areas. Then crushing economic sanctions (with occasional surgical air strikes against military positions). Then another American invasion and a continuing occupation. Before all this was the Iran-Iraq war, a stupid futile and ugly thing that bled a generation out of each nation for 8 years. Iraq alone had 400,000 + casualties. So things haven't been too pretty there in the last 30 years or so.

Iraq and Iran aren't the only countries in the area that have a large number of veterans, of wars that didn't really go all that well either (which can leave some resentment in a nation). Turkey's been fighting an insurgency of their own for about 2o years. Lebanon? Hell, their last war was just a few months ago. There have been recent conflicts and strife in Syria, Egypt, Algeria, Gaza and the West Bank (Palestine?), Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, etc. All with wars. All with much destruction and loss of life. Some have even lived for years now with a steady drumbeat of war and death in their communities.

So maybe what they are really looking for is peace. Let's just get everybody some damn peace so we can all relax and catch our breath and just try to work things out, instead of shooting for "regime change," or to "shake up the status quo." We are a bunch of democratic revolutionaries with the most powerful army in the world. The last time the world really say that kind of aggression was the French Revolution, after it was seized by Napolean. An acquiescent Republican Congress combined with Bush's imperial presidency (hopefully ending soon), has led our young, idealistic democratic soldiers into the sands of Iraq. It's no Waterloo, but it's still stirring up a lot of ill will and leading people to fearfully unite against us and scramble for ways to defend themselves. They'd prefer we didn't roll in guns blazing and pushing liberty, democracy, whiskey and sexy.

Foreign Policy has many branches, there are always many options on how to finesse a situation. The key is you got to sell what's buying. You'd think an industrious nation like us should recognize this. And the people in the mid-east are ready to buy peace. All the leaders would like some peace, maybe some more trade, and a solution to Israel. Hell, the Saudis have a proposal on the table right now that the other countries are behind, but Israel is being to damned stiff-necked about things (and going off half-cocked like that in Lebanon didn't help much either). So we need to get serious about bringing Peace to the middle east, not more war. Not destabilization. We have created a violent monster in Iraq, in the heart of the middle east. That's not exactly what they were hoping the new century would bring them in the year 2000. And then the second intifada began in September of 2000 when Sharon visited the Temple Mount and everything started falling apart. And since Clinton left, we've only made things worse.

So we need to focus on peace. Forget any of the other goals in mind (democracy, oil security, the neocon desire to show a strong "will," etc.). Make Peace the number one priority, and put some muscle into it, damnit. If the Bush administration put as much effort and face time into this as he did to his ill-conceived social security plan or the atrocious Medicare bill, then something positive could actually happen (although we'll probably have to wait for a new president). Hell, Bush ran away from the whole Palestinian situation from day one, because they viewed it as unsolvable, and so didn't want to look ineffectual by getting involved (always putting spin and perception as #1).

We need to let everyone know that all we want is peace (John Lennon foreign policy, we'll brand it, get a good Beatles soundtrack. Now that's some image management). And mean it. And work for it like its the most important thing in the world. Every trip around the world for Bush is just a photo op with an occasional lecture on freedom. But he never really talks about working for peace.

We prepare for war, so that we may live in peace. But Bush prepared for war in Iraq, got inspectors in and could have secured peace, but choose war. We need to bring peace instead. If our home is attacked, we will respond, like in Afghanistan. But aside from responding to direct attacks, we will focus all our attention to championing peace, to find a way for people to just put their guns and bombs down. And if everyone can just have 10 or 15 years without all this bloodshed, the world will be a much better place. Let's keep the violence we face just from fanatical terrorists, and lets cut off the terrorist recruiting flows by preventing dead children in the streets (especially if killed by US weapons). And if we are living in peace, we can all work together to prevent and stamp out terrorism. Instead of picking fights, let's give the people what they want. The democracy, whiskey, and sexy will come. Just give it time. As Milton Friedman said, “The free market is the only mechanism that has ever been discovered for achieving participatory democracy."

Schadenfreude

2006-11-15T22:39:00.000-08:00

At least when you have a bunch of incompetent, unprincipled bunglers running the show they screw up in their personnal lives too, so we can at least take pleasure in their misfourtunes. They at least give us that.

There is Cheney shooting people in the face, Randy "the Duke-stir" Cunningham sobbing as led away to prison for corruption, Rick "Man-on-Dog" Santorum getting tagged with, well "santorum," Abramoff in looking both goofy and sinster in his fedora, and Mark "Caucus on Exploited Children" Foley chasing teen pages (and catching some after the big 18 too).

It leads to this natural conclusion, from America's Finest News Source:

Evangelical leader Ted Haggard, who stepped down last week after confessing that he purchased methamphetamines and various services from a male prostitute, revealed Wednesday that he was repeatedly molested by an unnamed Republican congressman in the late 1990s. "We would communicate on the Internet and then meet in his Washington office to, I thought, discuss faith-based initiatives," said Haggard in a tearful admission in which he asked for the forgiveness of God and his congregation. "Before long, he had progressed from praying alongside me to having me sit on his lap at his desk, and then to touching me in my bathing-suit area. I trusted the congressman, and he violated that trust." Authorities have not acted on Haggard's allegations, saying that Republicans are often accused of wrongdoings simply because so many of them lead secret gay or criminal lifestyles. (emphasis mine)

God Bless the Onion.

The Wild Tribal Areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan

2006-11-15T00:52:00.000-08:00

I think there is a failure of many Americans to even conceptualize what type of dynamic we are dealing with in Afghanistan. The Arab jihadis are one thing, but the Pashtun fighters are an entirely different people. They are fighters and Islamic, yes. But they are not oil rich like the Arabs. They are not of the desert. They are mountain fighters. They have lived by the gun for a long time now. And they are not afraid of stiring up trouble in the neighborhood, before and after we showed up. Naturally, our President and press have never really tried to understand any of this, or the realities and motivations of life in the Hindu Kush.

Here's how a young Winston Churchill found the land in 1898 as a reporter covering the ends of the British Empire (compared with Bush, who never really left the country before becoming President and at the same phase in his life was just carousing in New Orleans with the 'Bama National Guard):

The inhabitants of these wild but wealthy valleys are of many tribes, but of similar character and condition. The abundant crops which a warm sun and copious rains raise from a fertile soil, support a numerous population in a state of warlike leisure. Except at the times of sowing and of harvest, a continual state of feud and strife prevails throughout the land. Tribe wars with tribe. The people of one valley fight with those of the next. To the quarrels of communities are added the combats of individuals. Khan assails khan, each supported by his retainers. Every tribesman has a blood feud with his neighbor. Every man's hand is against the other, and all against the stranger.

Nor are these struggles conducted with the weapons which usually belong to the races of such development. To the ferocity of the Zulu are added the craft of the Redskin and the marksmanship of the Boer. The world is presented with that grim spectacle, "the strength of civilisation without its mercy." At a thousand yards the traveller falls wounded by the well-aimed bullet of a breech-loading rifle. His assailant, approaching, hacks him to death with the ferocity of a South-Sea Islander. The weapons of the nineteenth century are in the hands of the savages of the Stone Age.

Every influence, every motive, that provokes the spirit of murder among men, impels these mountaineers to deeds of treachery and violence. The strong aboriginal propensity to kill, inherit in all human beings, has in these valleys been preserved in unexampled strength and vigour. That religion, which above all others was founded and propagated by the sword -- the tenets and principles of which are instinct with incentives to slaughter and which in three continents has produced fighting breeds of men -- stimulates a wild and merciless fanaticism. The love of plunder, always a characteristic of hill tribes, is fostered by the spectacle of opulence and luxury which, to their eyes, the cities and plains of the south display. A code of honour not less punctilious than that of old Spain, is supported by vendettas as implacable as those of Corsica.

In such a state of society, all property is held directly by main force. Every man is a soldier. Either he is the retainer of some khan -- the man-at-arms of some feudal baron as it were -- or he is a unit in the armed force of his village -- the burgher of mediaeval history.
The Story of the Malakand Field Force: An Episode of Frontier War, (Churchill's first book)

Basically, like the Hatfields and McCoys (and the revenuers). You know, Bush has a bust of Churchill in his office. It is apparent that his speechwriters certainly favor the man. But does he have any understanding of the things Churchill saw in his formative years as a young man? Has he read "An Episode of Frontier War?" Somehow I don't think that was on his reading list in his little contest this summer. Good to know he did "read" Camus, though.

Their views about violence and attacks (and compare it to the current empty pundits advocating the need for more "will")

This state of continual tumult has produced a habit of mind which [reckons] little of injuries, holds life cheap and embarks on war with careless levity, and the tribesmen of the Afghan border afford the spectacle of a people, who fight without passion, and kill one another without loss of temper. Such a disposition, combined with an absolute lack of reverence for all forms of law and authority, and a complete assurance of equality, is the cause of their frequent quarrels with the British power. A trifle rouses their animosity. They make a sudden attack on some frontier post. They are repulsed. From their point of view the incident is closed. There has been a fair fight in which they have had the worst fortune. What puzzles them is that "the Sirkar" should regard so small an affair in a serious light. Thus the Mohmands cross the frontier and the action of Shabkadr is fought. They are surprised and aggrieved that the Government are not content with the victory, but must needs invade their territories, and impose punishment. Or again, the Mamunds, because a village has been burnt, assail the camp of the Second Brigade by night. It is a drawn game. They are astounded that the troops do not take it in good part.

They, when they fight among themselves, bear little malice, and the combatants not infrequently make friends over the corpses of their comrades or suspend operations for a festival or a horse race. At the end of the contest cordial relations are at once re-established. And yet so full of contradictions is their character, that all this is without prejudice to what has been written of their family vendettas and private blood feuds. Their system of ethics, which regards treachery and violence as virtues rather than vices, has produced a code of honour so strange and inconsistent, that it is incomprehensible to a logical mind. I have been told that if a white man could grasp it fully, and were to understand their mental impulses -- if he knew, when it was their honour to stand by him, and when it was their honour to betray him; when they were bound to protect and when to kill him--he might, by judging his times and opportunities, pass safely from one end of the mountains to the other. But a civilised European is as little able to accomplish this, as to appreciate the feelings of those strange creatures, which, when a drop of water is examined under a microscope, are revealed amiably gobbling each other up, and being themselves complacently devoured.

You cannot out "will" these people. Your presence is an invatation to fight. They don't understand why America isn't playing along. If we could just have a good firefight, then perhaps a truce party (which we will all break later, but nothing says we can't have some fun now), everything would be better.

Even some of the religious issues were the same back then (as with some preachers today, no matter what God):

Their superstition exposes them to the rapacity and tyranny of a numerous priesthood -- "Mullahs," "Sahibzadas," "Akhundzadas," "Fakirs," -- and a host of wandering Talib-ul-ilms, who correspond with the theological students in Turkey, and live free at the expense of the people.

Now its the Saudis, and the Taliban, but the underlying culture is the same. Prophetically, Churchill imagines this scenario, of a local tribesman who once fought with the British as a young man, telling tales around the fire in his village:

He will speak of their careless bravery and their strange sports; of the far-reaching power of the Government, that never forgets to send his pension regularly as the months pass by; and he may even predict to the listening circle the day when their valleys will be involved in the comprehensive grasp of that great machine, and judges, collectors and commissioners shall ride to sessions at Ambeyla, or value the land tax on the soil of Nawagai. Then the Mullah will raise his voice and remind them of other days when the sons of the prophet drove the infidel from the plains of India, and ruled at Delhi, as wide an Empire as the Kafir holds to-day: when the true religion strode proudly through the earth and scorned to lie hidden and neglected among the hills: when mighty princes ruled in Bagdad, and all men knew that there was one God, and Mahomet was His prophet. And the young men hearing these things will grip their Martinis, and pray to Allah, that one day He will bring some Sahib -- best prize of all -- across their line of sight at seven hundred yards so that, at least, they may strike a blow for insulted and threatened Islam. …

Their allegedly sudden "radicalism" is nothing more than the same stories told since the fall of the Mughal empire. Except now they load clips of blowing things up on the Jihadi YouTube.

Iraqi Kidnapping as a Microcosm

2006-11-14T15:56:00.000-08:00

The recent mass kidnapping in Baghdad shows what Iraq has become. This is the fruit of our effforts. Sure, most of the people were released or freed in raids the next day. But what of those who weren't? This is the new society we have built in Iraq. And it is a terrible place to live. You can't spin around the violence, anarch, reduction in the delivery of water and electricity, and general shititude. The administration likes to talk about some democratic example. But after branding the former professionals criminals and driving them into the insurgency, we've helped create a society focused more on vendetta and the spoils of power.

The breakdown of the whole mess from John Cole:

To recap, 80 gunmen walked into the Higher Education Ministry in broad daylight and rounded up between 30 and 150 Sunni men while the police stood by and watched. The regional chief of police and a chief deputy have apparently gone fugitive since the authorities didn’t simply arrest him in his office. Add this to your mental ledger regarding Iraq – entire districts are governed by security forces who have wholly gone over to the bloody sectarian conflict. How many Iraqi brigades do we have trained right now? How many police? Subtract the number who exist merely to kill their own countrymen and you have a force that might, on a good day, secure Liechtenstein.

Attack Dogs Against Diplomacy

2006-11-14T11:16:00.000-08:00

The recent GOP thought process applies the same logic to politics as diplomacy. Always attack and demonize, never try to compromise. Always pretend you are in position of strength (since perception is all that matters), and refuse to give ground or negotiate with those who have different views. Only talk to those who agree with you. After all, in the House of Representative,s the GOP would only bring bills to the floor if the majority of the GOP agreed with it. Who cares what the rest of the country (or world) thinks?

They exclude all opposing views, and label their very existence as evil. They live within an echo chamber, where every action is glorious and only some evil/liberal media prevents others from seeing this. This creates an utter fear of negotiation or compromise.

While Regan called the Soviet Union the evil empire, he also attended summits all the time to intimately discuss issues with the leader of this evil empire. Nixon visited Communist China just after the conclusion of the Great Leap Forward killed millions. It seems that today's pundits forget all of this and simply adopt the Bush black and white of "you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

A good example is a recent Instapundit post. When told the Baker commission encourages, you know, traditional diplomacy (as opposed to cowboy style regime change), he gulps "uh oh." He later notes:

John Hinderaker is very unhappy with this talk. He also thinks that any expectation of a deal with the Iranians is "delusional."
I'll just note that the last time folks in the White House tried to cut a deal with the Iranians, Don Regan characterized it this way: "We got snookered by a bunch of rug merchants."

Ooh, can't trust those wily Persians! Throughout all this hand-wringing, there's a failure to understand we are a far greater threat to Iran than they are to us. We occupy countries on two of their borders. Our ships ply their waters (and we could blockade them just as well as they could blockade the gulf). We have thousands of nuclear weapons, tell them our only diplomatic goal as to their government is "regime change," and call them part of the "Axis of Evil."

If we had a President with some balls who really wanted to change things (as just creating terrorists and bungling occupations), then he would fly to Tehran, admit to our past sins (overthrowing their prime minister in the 50s, installing the shah, selling arms to Saddam while he was gassing Iranians), and make a plea for respect and peace, I think we would get much farther in the world. As for Syria, if we force Israel and Palestine to take some action (we control a lot of money flows to both) and help them get Golan back, things would ease up as well.

But the Republicans would rather demonize and send out hostility, fear, and militarism.

*Sigh* I shouldn't have to say this, since it goes without question. But we would have to get Iran to grow up accept Israel's right to exist (out of the West Bank and Gaza, natch). And we would keep a wary eye on the Iranians and let them know that an attack on us is an act of war. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to live in peace.

Global Solution - Peace in Afghanistan Runs Through India

2006-11-14T00:40:00.000-08:00

The War on Terror Part one: The key to cutting off support for the Taliban

The US has ignored the UN and the international community since getting the resolution in 2002 to put inspectors back into Iraq, in the lead up to America's new quagmire.
This is a global problem. We are in a global struggle. We need the cooperation and assistance of the world to win on a global scale, just like in WW II and during the Cold War. And we need a global solution.

This is includes significant action on the four main drivers of conflict across the middle east: Israel, Iraq, the Pashtun areas of Southern Afghanistan and the Tribal areas of Pakistan, and Kashmir. The Israel and Iraq problems need to be addressed by all their neighbors (including Syria and Iran). But Pakistan is the key to the other two. First and foremost, there must be true peace in Kashmir and between the countries that were once brothers, Pakistan and India.

Let me explain. The two have fought three major wars since the British Raj on the subcontinent split in two. They are both nuclear powers. They have almost gone to war several times in the last 1o years. And while Pakistan turns a blind eye to militant infiltration into Kashmiri India, Pakistan has basically lost all three of the major conventional wars. So once the US sort of abandoned the Pakistani government after the Soviets left Afghanistan in the 80s and began making nice with India, they planned for the worst. The Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI, began to support a group called the Taliban. If India invaded Pakistan and took the capital (located very close to the Indian border), the Pakistani military could fall back into the mountains of the tribal areas and into Afghanistan, with their allies, the Taliban. Since India is majority Hindu, Pakistan supported a very religious sect so they could count on a jihadi sentiment (like we are experiencing in Iraq) to help them resist the outsiders. After the US gave an ultimatum after 9-11, Pakistan has mad some effort to change, but 20 years of investment in the Taliban creates a very close bond between many in the ISI, Pakistani religious parties, and the Taliban. So we must bring a true and lasting peace to the Eastern Indian border to change the dynamic on the Afghani Western border.

This will not be easy. But we must break the log-jam that is stifling the relationship between India and Pakistan. We must find a way to neutralize their stiff-necked pride and bitter, recent past. And once this sort of existential threat is lifted from the East, support for the Taliban from inside the Pakistani government will plumet. It will lose any strategic value, and will instead become a source of trouble. There will be no more strong Pakistani ISI and military support

We must neutralize this threat to stability, and prevent a resurgence of violence and strife in Afghanistan. But we cannot declare war on Pakistan, and the pride of the people in that region would never stand American invasion. We must show Pakistanis, Pushtuns, and Afghanis that America wants peace for the region, not war. But this requires action on the periphery as well in the center.

As Winston Churchill said, "it is better to jaw-jaw than to war-war." We cannot pretend we can bomb everyone in that part of the world away, since right now, the madrases are a veritable factory of Taliban production. The Pashtun tribesman on both sides of the border are bound by language, pride, and blood, and years of constant warfare and resistance from outsiders. They have lived through decades of conflict and war, first funded by Americans against the Soviets, then by the Pakistani ISI, which led to Taliban control of Afghanistan. And the motives and perceived needs of Pakistan that led to this alliance still exist. The instability in Kashmir. It is the key to the region.

This covers Kashmir and some of Afghanistan. I will discuss the rest of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel in future posts in the "Global Solution" series.

Update, 11-14-06:

The New York times just published a story about the recent rash of suicide bombers infiltrating into Afghanistan. It notes:

The would-be suicide bombers arrested recently, the Afghan intelligence official
said, emerge from two clear strands.
Some are linked to extremist groups that have long been set up and run by Pakistani intelligence as an arm of foreign policy toward rival governments in Afghanistan and India. They are technically illegal and the government now says it has cracked down on them.
Others are allied with Afghan groups like the Taliban and the renegade
militia commander Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, also a longtime protégé of Pakistani
intelligence, who has now allied himself with the Taliban, Afghan and NATO
officials say.

There are too many in Pakistan right now that either view the Taliban as either heroes or strategic assets. We have to change the dynamic in the region so that they are viewed as counter-productive and troublesome. The first step is to defuse the problem with India. Only then can the Pakistani government begin to take on the Madraseshat lionize the Taliban.

Update II:

For a smash up gathering of information on the tribal borderlands of Pakistan, go to this Frontline site. Movie clips, interviews, background stories and more. Only go if you want to know what we are fighting in southern Afghanistan though. And if you don't hate the troops. You don't hate the troops, do you?

The Simpson Factor: As goes Springfield, goes America

2006-11-13T21:13:00.000-08:00

The last two Simpsons have both critiqued the Iraq war. The first in the Halloween special, with Kang and Kodos stuck in "Operation Enduring Occupation," complaining about how they were not greeted as liberators (well, one complained, the other insisted that the invasion was necessary because of the weapons of mass disintegration the earthlings were building). This was just a quick gag, though.

The Simpsons with Homer in the Army was a far more brutal critique. It stated at the the end that a determined local populace will always be able to defeat an occupying army. Essentially, that we will be unable to impose our will on the local populace in Iraq. Which is about right, especially when we've let Iraq boil over into anarchy and a low-grade civil war over the last two years.

It may mean nothing. But maybe our President watches the Simpsons, and is mulling over the lessons of last Sunday. Is Homer Simpson the Walter Cronkite of our generation?

No. But hell, the whole Fox animated line-up has been ragging on the war lately. The atmosphere of relentless cheerleading for the war and assertions that any realistic assessment of our progress only helps the insurgents has evaporated, suddenly replaced with a general consensus that we are in a quagmire and things aint good. Hopefully, we can stop digging that hole, now.

Why Does Bush Lie? Becuase it is Convenient.

2006-11-13T15:51:00.000-08:00

A huge problem with our Washington press corps? There are too concerned with the 'winger accusation of "liberal bias" to do their job, so they hide behind their stenography reporting. They won't call a Republican out, and will report spin as worthy and meaningful statements.

George Bush on why he lied to the country about Rumsfeld's tenure as Secretary of Defense before the election.

The only way to answer that question, and get it on to another question, was to
give you that answer.

In essence? I had to feed you something to get you to shut up. So I gave you a lie. It worked. My image as a strong and resolute decider remained.

This pretty clearly implies that he's used this tactic before and he will use it again. He wasn't even sheepish about being exposed as an empty political liar. Just a bit of a nod and a wink, since the press corps knows he lies all the time, but they are afraid to say so to America. So Bush even openly admits that he is a liar, because he knows it won't be reported. To report that simple truth would be unpardonable liberal bias, after all.

Sure enough, on Meet the Press, David Gregory (who actually can ask some pretty probing questions in a press conference), proves that in front of the public eye the Washington press can't admit to basic facts about the President:

MR. GREGORY: Right, well, he deliberately misled those reporters, and he said he
did it because he didn’t want to inject politics in the campaign. You have to
wonder why–how he could–was there a way to, to get around that question in some
fashion so he didn’t have to give that ammunition to people who thought the
policy was a failure. And that’s what he did right at the end.
(snip)
MR. RUSSERT: Does that hurt his credibility with you and the press
corps?
MR. GREGORY: Well, I–look, you know, you like to get a straight answer
out of the president. He laid out his case for, for why he did it, and there’s
no question that would’ve injected politics. So I think people see it different
ways.

Translation: I wish he wouldn't lie, but some people say the lie was OK, so who am I to question the credibility of a liar? That would be partisan.

It is unfathomable why he didn't answer that question like a normal human being. That answer should have gone "Absolutely, Tim. The President admitted lying to our face for partisan political reasons, and without shame. Whenever he opens his mouth, how do we know he isn't playing the same game? He is clearly willing to lie to the American Public about our military situation, and frankly has lost credibility on that count." Is that a radical response? No. It is the response of a normal human being when he finds out someone lied to his face. A person loses credibility when they are caught in a lie. That's kina of how credibility works, you know?

Different people see it like this: normal people see what happened as brazen, bald-faced lying. Bush partisans think Bush should do whatever Bush feels is best, and if Bush felt it to be the right choice, then it was. So by the act of Bush choosing to lie, it is justifed. They will even applaud Bush for admitting it (Good for Bush for fooling those pesky reporters!). But unprincipled 'wingers schooled in newspeak should not control the definition of what is acceptable.

What To Do About Iraq to Find a Worldwide Solution

2006-11-12T20:54:00.000-08:00

Change is afoot in Iraq. But change in Iraq has been for the worse for quite some time. So it's time to understand that we cannot shift our policy, strategy, or troop levels and expect to erase the effects of the last three years. There is nothing we can do to change the fact that we are trapped in a low-grade civil war between many competing factions. To find a solution to our quagmire, we need to expand our horizon of possibilities. It's time admit to the world we've screwed up, we need some help, and we're willing to cede control to the world if its ready for that burden.

There was an idea infecting Washington at the end of the 90s of "We have this military so we might as well use it." Bush took this policy and ran with it, but running too far is one of the dangers inherent in such a reckless philosophy. We should always try to debate things in the arena of world opinion, and if we can't win that debate and there's no actual attack or actionable intelligence, we should simply remain vigilant and ready, like in the Cold War.

Lest we forget our history, The UN did authorize a rigorous inspection program, and Saddam let them in. An inspection team came in, and it made a report to the General Assembly only half-way through its search for WMDs (which we know now didn't exist). When they didn't find anything upon making a status report to the UN, Bush threw the inspectors out and invaded. He didn't adapt his belligerent policy to reality, and let his dogma rule his actions. Because in the minds of the Bush admin., resolve is all important, and never back down. So if you have started massing troops on the border, why not use it? That might a good surprise battle plan. But it is an utter failure politically. Invading before the search is done, against a crippled military we toppled in a few weeks? It didn't look good to the rest of the world, and it's all kind of gone downhill, with increasing anarchic violence and a decreasing Coalition of the Willing.

It's now a low grade civil war with us caught in the middle trying to keep the peace, but there is a substantial fraction of the various violent factions that view us as target number one. It creates a cloud of violence that hovers around our troops, and once the explosions start going off, neutrals get caught in the middle and bodies start to pile up. We're both targets and hunters, so we both inflict and invite violence. We do stop the local sects and militias from going at each other's throats 100% (we keep them down to about 25%, just assassinations, kidnapping, car-bombs, and the occasional ethnic cleansing bus hijacking). So that's what we're doing right now, the status quo we're defending. Here's what it looks like:

As a first step, we should scale back a heavy presence in the middle of urban areas. I think we can prevent the formation of armies or large mobs from mounting significant offensives, but from a more protected and remote position. That way, there will be less attacks on our forces (although I would expect it to increase some against our supply convoys), and less random violence against the civilians and kids. But that first step isn't enough for peace. And that is our goal. Peace. That's what winning is. And Bush doesn't seem to understand that.

We need to announce that we are open to a status quo change big time. And that means saying sorry to the world for kinda goin' off half-cocked into Iraq. We tell them we are going to establish a timetable for departure, but we're ready to commit to a totally different type of military presence in Iraq if the rest of the world is behind us. And we are willing to talk to the world and debate around the world how to handle this. And we're even willing to let another nation take the lead of any military force (subject to our veto, natch). Because leaving Anarchy in the midst of a bloody civil war and terrorist fanatics in the heart of the middle east would be a tragedy for the world.

Our last civil war? 141 years ago, and fought over slavery. There's been a hell of a lot of ugly civil wars around the globe over the last 50 years. We should ask around and see if anyone's got any good ideas on how to go forward. We understand economic based ideological civil wars a bit (like in Vietnam), but don't really get the nationalistic aspect much (also Vietnam). So let's ask around, and have some honest conversations about how to make peace and what the rest of the world is willing to do.

Right now, it's America, the local Iraqis, and the terrorists. But if it was the World instead of just America (and a few others), it could totally change the dynamic. We need to lay it on the shoulders of the world as well, so at the very least, if the world decides to let it all go to hell, we'll at least know where everything stands on the international level when we ask the world to deal with a problem collectively. We should offer to bear much of the burden and lend the firepower of our armed forces, but be open to whatever the world-wide debate produces. But we must put some real pressure on the world to find an answer to this question together.

But how often do we really put on the pressure in the UN? We put on some pressure in the run up to the Iraq war, but the UN needs general peace and stability to operate. Unless specifically authorized to use force, like in Korea, it can't operate in the violent anarchy of Iraq at the moment. We put on the pressure and got a serious resolution before the war. Let's get one to end the war too.

We'll establish a timetable to move completely to the periphery of Iraq (Murtha style re-deployment) in one year. But we will also announce our determination to ask all mankind to find a solution to this devilry. This will include a world-wide diplomatic tour for an honest conversation on the whole state of affairs in the Middle East and how to make it right: Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Iran's nuclear program, Hezbollah and Lebanon, the Golan heights and Syria: everything. Our executive leadership (President, VP, Secretaries of State, Defense) and our Senators will barnstorm the globe. Local Iraqis of all stripes will be invited to go travel for a solution as well, and the U.S. will pick up the tab. We will hold regional summits. And at the end of it all, with about four months left on our timetable, we'll take it to the UN for another month of debate. We will open the floor for a free-wheeling debate in the U.N. General Assembly and Security Council. Then we'll vote. And if one vote doesn't work, we'll make changes and vote again. And we'll vote on an official General Assembly recommendation, and then we'll have a vote in the Security Council. And I'll be damned if I know where we will be standing when the dust clears, but it can't be uglier than what we're looking at now.

I won't be naive. I won't expect this year-long bout of worldwide diplomacy to solve all our problems. But it might stop this downward spiral we're in of violence, threats, and suspicions. Let's pull away from this all-consuming fear-mongering and ascribing the fanaticism of Al-Queda to traditional Heads of State, and try to inject some rational cooperation on shared interests. It will be a noble and honest effort, unprecedented in the history of human conflict, and it might be crazy enough to work.

If it doesn't and things have deteriorated in the meantime...well, our I'll folks will be working on plan B. And we'll see what the Iraqi people and government think about things at the time. But I don't see how it could be a worse situation than our current trajectory.

The Empty Rhetoric of the Pundit Class

2006-11-12T19:06:00.000-08:00

It is fair to say that the punditry class and journalism in general has failed America. At the dawn of the new century, we face a myriad of daunting problems and complexities, but the our press does not want to help the people deal with these issues. They want to obscure the consequences of policy and turn everything into a contest, a horse-race. They do this through dis-information and stenography reporting.

A great example of this is Greenwald's recent post on the media treatment of Feingold. He notes

...when Feingold stood up and advocated censure -- based on the truly radical and crazy, far leftist premise that when the President is caught red-handed breaking the law, the Congress should actually do something about that -- the soul-less, oh-so-sophisticated Beltway geniuses could not even contemplate the possibility that he was doing that because he believed what he was saying. Beltway pundits and the leaders of the Beltway political and consulting classes all, in unison, immediately began casting aspersions on Feingold's motives and laughed away -- really never considered -- the idea that he was motivated by actual belief, let alone the merits of his proposal.

They felt it reflected his desire to run for president. That's all they seem to care about: elections. Not who gets elected, but how. Dirty tricks? Exciting! Lying about their opponent? Just part of the game. However, it seems impolite to bring up the substance of someone's policies. For example, I never heard it mentioned by the MSM that Bush radically lightened the tax load and ran up massive deficits, a grave threat to the country, and only the democrats offered to right this problem. Instead, they wanted to talk about a Kerry joke, or how the latest dirty trick du jour showed how tough the Republicans were, how admirable it is that they are so committed to winning. Victory above all (if its Republican).

When the President was caught breaking the law, they decided this was good for him, because he was strong in national security. Nothing about how it violates the 4th amendment to the Bill of Rights. You know, our Constitution. They would let partisans (as in those with an articulated agenda) bring it up, like Feingold. But they would only do it stenographically, and would always post such a comment next to a Republican hack saying there is nothing wrong with this, and you can't enjoy your rights under the Constitution after a scary terrorists kills you and your whole family. Instead of clearly identifying the issue (President determined to violate the Constitution and your rights), the press would just shrug it off as a political dispute with two sides and no answer. They would then cite some polls and note since this was about national security, it helps the GOP and Republicans will use this to attack Democrats as weak, and they will win the election.

The stenography of two positions as equal combined with a horse-race mentality, trumpeting electoral tactics over policy substance, is corrosive to our democracy. When people lie to the press, the press needs to either not print it, or call the liar out. Editors get paid to make these judgment calls. If they could call Clinton a liar, they should be able to call anyone else a liar too. When Bush was on the trail demonizing the Democratic Party, the lead line before any of his quotes should have been "grossly mischaracterizing and at time outright lying about the Democratic position, the President said X before a partisan audience. The carefully screened audience, whom the President forced to take loyalty pledges, cheered on these distortions. The actual position of the candidate Bush disparaged is Y." There are plenty of smart, honest experts out there who don't have a dog in certain political fights. Get their opinion on paper about what it all means. But the press needs to quit going to the well of empty partisanship to pad their reporting.

A national election will roll around every two years. Focus on policy proposals combined with the facts on the ground, and how the two could interact. Honest reporting will create its own dynamic of a more informed electorate that votes based on policy and ideas, not campaign tactics. In the last Presidential election, the press devoted more stories to the meta aspects of the campaign (election strategy) than to actual policy. False narratives were peddled with a straight face (Karl Rove said it, so it must be true!). The pundits only amplified those types of empty discussions.

There should be a real story on the Feingold attempt to censure the President. It should truly examine all the actions taken by the President inconsistent with the Constitution. It should talk about how Republican corruption and acquiescence in the House and Senate helped abet these failures. It should talk about how our forefathers fought and died to prevent these various abuses, like arbitrary and indefinite detentions, torture, and suspension of habeas Corpus. Then, it can talk about the current levels of support in the Senate for such a motion. But no meta talk about this potentially affecting elections, or that national security is a GOP strong spot without any evidence of GOP competence in the field. Reporting the facts in their proper historical context creates changes of opinion. That's what is supposed to happen when new information comes to light. The current punditry merely seeks to perpetuate tired political stereotypes, regardless of the changing reality.

GOP Pundits: Trying to make Iraq like the American Civil War

2006-11-12T16:13:00.000-08:00

I was perusing right blogistan, and found this highly recommended article in the Weekly Standard from the ole perfesser on what to do in Iraq (he actually liked it so much he recomended it twice). It says, in part:

A seemingly quick and easy military victory has turned sour. The costs, in blood and treasure, have escalated. Victory looks uncertain and distant. It seems the time has come, if not to cut and run, then surely to cut our losses. If ever the principle of sunk cost applied to warfare, it would seem to apply here.
But that instinct is wrong. Warfare is not like investment banking. At precisely the moment an economist might say to stop throwing good money after bad, a wise military strategist might say to double the bet.

Why might that be so? For one thing, willingness to raise the stakes often wins the game. Why do insurgent gangs, who have vastly smaller resources and manpower than the American soldiers they fight, continue to try to kill those soldiers? The answer is, because they believe they only have to kill a few more, and the soldiers will leave. They need not inflict a military defeat (which would be impossible, given the strength of the American military)--all they need to do is survive until American voters decide to throw in the towel, which might happen at any moment.

The proper response to that calculation is to make emphatically clear that the fight will not end until one side or the other wins, decisively. That kind of battle can only have one ending, as Abraham Lincoln understood. In a speech delivered a month after his reelection, Lincoln carefully surveyed the North's resources and manpower and concluded that the nation's wealth was "unexhausted and, as we believe, inexhaustible." Southern soldiers be gan to desert in droves. Through the long, bloody summer and fall of 1864, the South had hung on only because of the belief that the North might tire of the conflict. But Lincoln did not tire. Instead, he doubled the bet--and won the war.

First of all, this is ridiculous. How exactly is our fight in Iraq like the Civil War? Where is the Confederate Army? What provinces does this army hold? What is the analog for IEDs?

We are fighting an insurgency, made up of both locals and jihadists. We can add another 150,000 troops (that we don't have) and neither of these two will stop fighting. The locals who resent us aren't going anywhere. They live there. And the jihadists think it is a divine duty to fight against foreigners. They will continue to flock to Iraq as long as we are there. They will fight us if we are there. Period. Maybe they think if they kill a few more people, we will leave. But even if they don't, they would continue to fight.

The Union won the Civil War through a long, bloody slog. It gradually destroyed the South's armies and conquered its territory, first by taking the Mississippi river, then with Sherman marching to Atlanta. They took Richmond in the last days of the war, and an outmanueverd Lee, trapped between Grant's army from the North and Sherman's from the South, surrendered. When conventional combat ended, so did the war.

We beat the conventional Iraqi army in a few weeks. Resenting our occupation, the sunnis started an insurgency. Then Al-Queda type jihadists moved in. They are our counterpart. The yin to our yang. They will remain as long as we do, no matter how many people we add. Our very presence creates a destabalizing dynamic, since our presence draws conflict from both the nationalists in Iraq who resent our presence (mainly Sunni, but some Shiite like Al-Sadr) and the foreign Arabs who come only to fight the US. We cannot provide stability the way we do in Kosovo or the Balkans, becuase there are too many who are comitted explictly to attacking American troops through snipers, IEDs, RPG attacks, and the like. People who think they will become martyrs for Allah are not disuaded when you promise to double your resources.

The failure to grasp this basic issue on the part of many conservative commentators is staggering. They still believe that willpower is the most important tool in winning a battle. That if we clap our hands enough and believe, it will all work out. Do they honestly believe that if the US poured more troops into Iraq, the guerillas would say "gee, looks like they are serious. I guess I will lay down my arms?" It shows a fundamental failure to even understand our enemy and their motivations. It violates some of the oldest dictates of warfare: to know thine enemey.
Later on in the article, the author notes:

Iraq is not an unwinnable war: Rather, as the data just cited show, it is a war we have chosen not to win. And the difference between success and failure is not 300,000 more soldiers, as some would have it. One-tenth that number would make a large difference, and has done so in the past. One-sixth would likely prove decisive.

This shows the conventional warfare mindset of the author. What is winning? How will these troops create a "win?" There is no army facing off against the Iraqi government. There are just gurellias fighting a US occupation, terrorists bent on havoc, and competing sectarian death squads. More troops doesn't change any of these. It might lower the amount of death squad violence, since we'd have more eyes to police the area. But it would just create more targets for those who wish to attack US forces. They attack American troops to satisfy their manhood, to stand up to the perceived oppressor. We can't conventionally win against that kind of mindset. Al-Queda is there to kill Ameicans, no more, no less. More troops = more targets.

These morons want us to play right into the hands of our enemies. They want us to waste our resources in Iraq like the Russians did in Afghanistan. We already won the conventional war. It is up to the Iraqis to win the peace. And they can't do it while we are there. Our presence distorts the entire process. Less is more (less troops, a less visible presence, and less of a target) in Iraq. We are the outsider. Once we are out of the picture, the Al-Queda types will become the hated outsider, and they will be dealt with by the Iraqis at that time.

Our Culture is Our Best Weapon in the War on Terror

2006-11-12T11:54:00.000-08:00

Ideas are like viruses, spread through speech and writing. The ideas of John Locke about the rights of man spread to American and created a revolution. A strain of these ideas traveled back to Europe and, with some mutations, created the French Revolution. And these ideas have been travelling around the globe ever since; sometimes supported and sometimes supressed. The same can be said of the ideas espoused in the Communist Manifesto by Engels and Marx.

The principle works the same with Al-Queda and its doctrine of a unified, theocratic Islamic block, of the wahabbist umma that Bin Laden seeks. It is an idea, and the 9/11 attacks and subsequent American Global War on Terror have put these ideas on the map. Like it or not, the concept is acknowledged, discussed, and debated. However, while it is rejected by the majority of Muslims, Al-Queda and its oppenents still enjoy bringing it up. Al-Queda, because that is their goal, and elected western leaders (especially the Bush administration) because they use the idea of the umma as a convenient bogeyman. They argue if we leave in Iraq, Al-Queda will take over and then conquer all of Arabia. Of course, the people of the middle east reject the idea of an Al-Queda style umma just as they reject American occupation and military presence, so the argument is just disingenuous.

Because there is a broad rejection of an American military presence to transform the Middle East by the Arabs themselves, then how can the area be changed? The status quo of petty tyrants and schlerotic socialist economies cannot continue forever. But in this age of internet connectivity, the best weapon for change (albeit of a more gradual scale) is our culture itself. Our ideas. Our political system itself. Because these ideas cannot be supressed, and we must try our best to infect the middle east with these principles. When people are marching in the streets to demand fundamental civil rights as often as they protest Israel or America, we will begin to win this conflict.

As an example of this idea based (as opposed to weapons based power), take a look at this recent Washington Post article. A key paragraph that struck me says:

When he was a college student in Washington state, Saudi Arabia's most popular blogger, Fouad al-Farhan, donned a T-shirt emblazoned with "Animal Rights Equals Human Rights" and slept on the campus lawn during a hunger strike protesting the slaughter of foxes.
That type of freedom during six years in the United States gave Farhan a taste for expressing himself that he was unable to satisfy when he returned to Saudi Arabia in 2001.
You can't write whatever you want in the newspaper here; you can't even lift up a poster in protest," said Farhan, 31, a computer programmer who attended Eastern Washington University in Spokane.

We must give these people more tastes of freedom. We must infect them with ideas of democracy and liberty. We need to expose them to authentic North American culture (Canada is OK too, but I fear there is too much latent racism in Europe for a meaningful and free exchange at the moment), so they can expose their fellow citizens to our ideals. It can't just be through the internet and television. That creates a bit of a warped view of things (many misguided Arab men think that Western women all act like porn stars, for example). We need to open up more cultural centers in their countries, more libraries, more books, more freedom, so they can understand our ideals firsthand.

I believe they do respect our freedoms, and want to enjoy them as well. Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy, and all the rest of it. But they hate our militaristic foreign policy. We need to make sure they don't see dead Arab children on the nightly news. And we need to live up to our own ideals. Terror is a tactic. The theocratic rule of a Taliban style government is an idea, just like communism, and just like democracy and civil liberties. We have to fight ideas with superior ideas. You cannot bomb an idea away. You must show it to be bankrupt and empty. We did that with communism by standing firm and continuing to assert the ideals of liberty. If physically attacked, of course we must defend ourselves. It was right to oust the Taliban just as it was right to crush the Nazis. However, while we defeated Hitler with our military, we defeated the ideals of Nazism by exposing the Nazis' depravity in the holocaust and their war crimes at Nurenburg.

The most important tool in this long struggle is our ideals. We must change the thought of the next generation in the middle east, and must work to infect this generation with our ideas as well. And we must stay true to our ideals as well, so we do not become monsters who abrogate civil liberties, who tortue, who indefinitely imprison. This is how you win a war on terror. A war on an idea. By spreading your own values and holding firm to them.

Corruption in emerging democracies

2006-11-09T14:29:00.000-08:00

A afghan poll just came out saying they feel things look good for democracy, but worry about corruption. That's not surprising, since politics is in essence a spoils system. Corruption will always occur. The question is, how to stem its pernicious influences and make corrections to the system.

The goal in our support for new democracies should be to create competing power centers that use information, not violence to change things. If there is something that isn't working, or corruption in the system, the proper way to halt things is not violent change, but clear exposure of the corruption. Sunshine is the best disenfectant. A government needs to seperate some powers, both for the standard separation of powers arguments (that factions can be dangerious and self-interesed, sometimes fanatically so), but for reasons of embarassment. Part of the Bush era problem was that Republicans marached in lockstep demonizing their opponents while refusing to ever say anything wrong about their fellows. In an open, established society like ours, the First Amendment and the internet at least lets damning information out. The new democracies need idependent power systems within the state that can audit the government and bring information out for the public, to help expose individuals natural proclivity for corruption and abuse of power to check the excesses that will spring up.

While the GOP here called those who questioned them terrorist lovers and the like, at least there were no death squads. This is not the case in many fragile democracies. So those in power must be exposed witout fear of reprisal. The US should support (and physically protect) this "audit" branch of government, which would be armed with certain investigative powers. However, the "audit branch" will have no power but that of investigation. The results cannot be used to force a change directly. The information will be gathered, a report issued to the federal and state/province governments, and also to the public. Then it will be up to the citizenry and competing factions to use this information to create change, through protest, elections, etc.

Frankly, the US must essentially commit itself to protection of the fourth estate in Iraq and Afghanistan. If there was an investigative group empowered to ask questions, get answers, examine documents, and report on the state of affairs without fear, an informed and enlightened populace could be created, one that both understands and has a stake in civil society.

If such a system has some effect in cleaning up corruption, faith in deomcracy will grow.
The enemy of a democratic government by the people is secrecy within the halls of government itself. If those in office can hide their dealings, they cannot be called to acccount. For what is in the shadows, but darkness?

How Democrats Should Govern v. The GOP

2006-10-28T17:48:00.000-07:00

This an administration, in both the Congress and the executive, that seeks to cut corners and avoid the actual, hard responsibilities of governing so they can spend time fundraising with their fatcat buddies at fancy $500 plate (or even $10,000) dinners.

The only thing that ever gets an sort of interest in a GOP Congress is blow jobs and gay sex. These perverts need to quite nosing around in bedrooms and focus on how our government is performing, because its doing a lousy job, from Katrina to Iraq to the administration of our health system. This is a government of the people, and it needs to be making sure its spending the peoples money wisely.

Bush runs massive deficets so he can give a break to his rich buddies, and talks about raising taxes (or even just not constantly lowering them) as the greatest evil that can be inflicted upon America. But he has raised spending more than any president in a generation. He just doesn't want his rich cronies to have to skip out on buying that second yacht, so he just won't pay for his spending binge and incompetently managed wars. He'd rather have our kids pay for that.
Bush denigrates work, says what's important is to have us "invest," become part of the "ownership society." He disagrees that work is always to be more valued over wealth. So he wants the owners to get rich. To Bush, wealth isn't created by innovation and gumption, but from wisely acquiring companies, sitting on the boards of companies, or owning sporting teams. Essentially, prosperity comes from playing with money, not getting a paycheck. And sometimes your investments really pan out, and you can double your wealth, but sometimes they bust. Then you have to go back to your mansion, think about the failed deal for a bit, and then take some other millions you have and buy part of another company. It's not small business ownership he understands, but corparate posturing. He doesn't understand the concerns and needs of the middle class, and it shows.

He's not working for the vast majority of Americans. He'll cynically frame every little thing in America in the most partisan way to try and pick fights with the opposing party (and his oppenents frankly aren't politically clever enough to rebut it), and to portray them as either gay, cowards or some sort of Tax Monster. But he doesn't want to talk about the issues. And neither does the Congress. They want to stay in power so they can keep giving their buddies federal tax breaks and federal contracts. Then their buddies take 'em out to fancy meals and travel junkets, employ their family and staffers, and let their Congress what a swell guy he is for seeing things his way. And thats the MO of the governing party right now.

Their only pitch is the divisive political angle, and that's the only thing they try to work on when they are in session. They haven't actually dealt with any real problems. They don't hold hearings on Iraq, how the medicare implementation is working, reconstruction efforts in New Orleans, the endemic corruption stalking and felling so many members of Congress, or hold debates on the proper role of American Power in the world to promote Peace and Prosperity. But the moment their is sex talk, be it Clinton's or even Foley's, the Congress will hold hearings. They will pontificate on Terri Shiavo. Someone sees a breast, they'll rave on about it for 100s of hours. To them, the war is something to applaud, not something to actually investigate to ensure it's not all going to hell. Because they only thing they really see is their next campaign ad for the next election, and the next fancy party their big money sponsors will throw. They don't even work five days a week when they are around. They are do-nothing bums. Any new Congress, led by Democrats, should operate monday through Friday. Is that too goddamn much to ask of our elected leaders? That they actually show up to work?

They do not want to actually govern. They are just kicking everything down the road, figuring someone will eventually clean up their mess. And they shouldn't govern. And everyone running against them should be constantly pointing this out. They should be railing on the corrupt, flaccid, hear-no-evil , speak-no-evil, see-no-evil (about Republicans in office, at least) who govern only for the rich. The sad thing is that those in Congress proposed many rational and sensible laws and attempts to investigate the dysfunctions and failings of our government. But they were always shot down by the Republican party, and the hack agenda was implemented instead.

A very strong argument should not be on policy, but on competence. And that requires a democratic leadership to stand firmly for oversight, for investigation, for good governance, oversight, and, above all, hard work. They should be in DC no less than Monday morning to Friday afternoon. And if that means an individual representative or two doesn't get re-elected, that's too damn bad. It is far greater for the party to push an agenda of hard work, and a rising tide lifts all boats. Furthermore, once this oversight and investigating concludes on a particular area, Democrats should say they'll then hold some substantive debates, with many viewpoints offered. Some people with the best ideas and most interest will get together to hammer out a bill, then this bill will be debated. If it looks good, there will be a vote. No earmarks will be attached. The Congress should have constant votes on little or medium sized things (which will keep people at the Capitol working. The days of dirty tricks and backroom Committees should be finished.

I think the American people would be greatful, and would pay them respect for their hard work on election day.

Liberal Manifesto

2006-10-21T20:41:00.000-07:00

I see that the good folks over at the American Prospect have planted the flag of liberalism and reasoned government upon the internet. Good to have some reassertion of this traditional term, which was once associated with advancement of the rights of man and of meritocratic, open governments of the people (not just for the heriditary rulers or propertied interest). Just as Andrew Sullivan does try to lead a way to a rationed defense of traditional conservative principles, there ought to be an effort to bring to the forefront the traditional liberal principles, so that these principals stand out when people speak of liberals or conservatives. See this Prospect post, "We Answer to the Name of Liberals."

The media has sadly steered the political discourse of this country first into the gutter, then into the bedroom, and finally, back into childhood. Parties became the "mommy party" and "daddy party," the horserace and individual tactics of a campaign took primacy over policy arguments, and any focus on the competence or diligence of a lawmaker. Reasoned analysis replaced with sound bites, and investigative journalism to stenography. Attempts to appela to mature and grown up thought disregarded, and instead reporting like its some sort of high school contest; an actual sheer popularity contest with no sort of realization that leaders of this nation should be ready to bear a heavy burden and to sacrifice themselves for the people. Instead, the only relevant question they enjoyed asking was "would you prefer having a beer with this man?"

I don't think this declaration will change the infantalized tone in politics, but it is a good start. There should be a consistent political voice refusing to be defined by a our media. The voice of rational governance, against the voice of the vacuous, no attention span talking heads who currently try and control our discourse.

Churchill and the Dignified Response to Terror

2006-10-02T17:42:00.000-07:00

I was reading up a bit on Churchill, on the way he viewed a struggle of total war against an implacable foe, and for the umpteenth time, I again had to shake my head at the failings of our president. Especially this gem:

"You might however consider whether you should not unfold as a background the great privilege of habeas corpus and trial by jury, which are the supreme protection invented by the English people for ordinary individuals against the state. The power of the Executive to cast a man in prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government, whether Nazi or Communist. (my emphasis)
In a telegram by Churchill from Cairo, Egypt to Home Secretary Herbert Morrison (21 November 1943).

There you have it. Stalwart Conservative and the Lion of Brittania, declaring our new policy on imperial presidential power: The highest degree odious and the foundation of totalitarianism and the Nazi Party. And yes, I do think that the Nazi threat in World War II (which had alread killed hundreds of thousands of Britons by the time he made this statement)
was a more significant threat to civilization then a few thousand Al-Queda types sitting in caves, planning to blow up airliners. We all must deal with risks, and until the danger of driving to the airport is less then the danger of flying in the airplane, we frankly shouldn't waste so much time fretting.

Also, since this fight is said to be the defining moment of our times, I would also like to compare Bush and the reactions of Churchill to leading the British in the defining moment of their times.

"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror..."
Speech in the House of Commons, after taking office as Prime Minister (13 May
1940).

He also introduced food rationing to the British public in 1940, to ensure that the soliders could get enough meat. Naturally, the draft was cumpolsory.

Bush...lowered taxes on stock dividends. He also decided to invade a country that had no link to 9-11. Victory was apparently not the aim. But he has won the suspension of Habeus Corpus. Odious. Odious. He has apparently recently read Camus. He should also read a little Nietzsche.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146

We have looked into the abyss, the ledge has given way, and we are falling. Despite the damage done, perhaps soon we shall begin the long climb back up, the climb to decency, liberty, and truth.

I leave you with more of Sir Winston.

"The day may dawn when fair play, love for one's fellow men, respect for justice and freedom, will enable tormented generations to march forth triumphant from the hideous epoch in which we have to dwell. Meanwhile, never flinch, never weary, never despair."
Churchill's last major speech in the Commons, 1 March 1955.

Never flinch. Hold your head high. Do not lose your convenctions when you peer into the abyss (which lies within all our souls). Refuse to be terrorized. Important principles, all of which our executive has discarded.

Governance Ruminations

2006-09-27T10:13:00.000-07:00

Good Represenative Government
One of the great failings of the lastCongress was their essential do-nothingness. They logged one of the least working hours ever. A simple (but surprisingly hard) way to win over the American people is to support working 5 days a week.

I know the house of representatives got used to 3 day work weeks with 4 days of schmoozing and money raising, but the Dems could really get the support of us average workers if they would have the grace to Treat Their Job Like It Is Fucking Important. They are running the country, not a country club. So do your job for a whole work week. Hold extra hearings if you can't find ways to fill the day. Exert some oversight. You know, do your job. That is a simple concept. The American people will respect it.

Good Representative Governance
Also, try to end corruption. Police yourself above all (with respect to unethical behavior). Remember your role as a public steward. And try to keep earmakrs down, for the love of god. If someone wants money in their district, make them earn it. Make them at least work on their appropration enough to put it through a committee based on actual merits. Naturally a signature piece of legislatation made need a bit o' the bacon grease. But vow to keep it below 100, even thought the outgoing folks (R) were around 6,000+

A Democratic President and Congress
Only a Democratic Presidential candidate can propose a solution that could actually be implemented. The only action the Dems can take is to investigate.The mistakes made in Iraq have been hidden by the GOP and Bush, not to mention the reality of the situation on the ground. The Dems should vow to hold 5 or 6 day work weeks, with lots of long hours, in order to discover what really has been going on the last three years. Only once we have the true picture of the facts on the ground can we devise a change. Have 'em even send congressional investigation committees to Iraq and the neighboring countries (hopefully composed of ex-military staff and hard nosed professional diplomats, not some namby pamby staffer who's parents donated a lot of cash, a la "Life in the Emerald City").

The Federalism of Persuasion

2006-09-27T09:43:00.000-07:00

I would like to make a call for a new Federalism, which will redefine the role of the federal government to the states. It will be that of a more nuetral and non-partisan government that focuses on gathering data, promulgating (but not mandating) new polices, and more trusting of states to fulfill their own duties. It will be a Federal government that focuses less on how it spends money, because it will spend less. Instead, it will provide more discretion to the states to spend, but it will aggressively audit the spending to ensure that the taxpayers money is not wasted on frivolous or corrupt projects.

Currently, the federal government is a source of mandates, like the No Child Left Behind. I will use educational policy as an example to describe the new federalism. The NCLB act mandated all kinds of testing on our schools. It provided some money, but certainly not enough to fulfill the orders from DC. It is administered in a haphazardly and counter-productive fashion, becuase it is run inflexibly by Dept. of Eductaion bureaucrats in D.C. The new federalism would have handled things much differently.

First off, the focus would be on good policy, as divorced from the political process as possible (difficult as that may be). This is because there is no guarantee that the policy will be enacted. The implementation of the policy will be permissive. Instead of mandates and limited funds, there will be suggestions and block grants to the States to help their educational systems. Money sent from DC will only be very general. Money for facilites/equipment, teachers, or training. The states will receive the grants, and they can spend it as the choose in that general field. However, there will be very strict audit requirments by the folks in DC on documentation of how the money gets spent. This will be a federal job, and the feds will not only pay for their own auditors, but will also help provide a little additional money to the states to help them with the audit compliance requirments. The auditors will have the power to subpoena and investigate if they feel something fishy is going on. They can hold public hearings, which will be in the state, not in DC (the audit teams will be based in the staes, paid by the feds, with the HQ in DC). If there is misues of funds, it will be investigated and publicized in the local area. The state will then be penalized by having to give the money back, and hopefully the local state corruption will be rooted out.

This is more of a traditional balance of powers benefit. There is freedom to act by the state, but oversight to ensure responsible use of funds by the federal government. These policy departments will have a mix of political apointments and of career civil servants. Additionally, the political apointees will have fixed, multi-year terms (so they can outlast any particular executive leader and offer advice freely, without fear of offending the orthodoxy). There will be a range of 2 years to 10 years, which will ensure a eclectic mix of opinions. The agency will then issue their policy, based on a mix of the opinions of the career experts and the appointees. If the President doesn't like what he sees for political reasons, he can refuse to issue the report for that year (i.e. provide additional funding for adopting these measures). However, then the President will be exposed as against good policy. Naturally, the continued adherence to older policies will still be valid for additional federal funds.

The feds will also promulgate policy on a yearly basis. There will be policy plans issued, which wil focus on the areas the US most needs to tweak. It is not required to follow these policies. However, the policies will have a certain number of key points (say 10). If a state chooses to follow most of these (say 8 of 10), it will be entitled to additional funding from the feds for adopting what is believed to be a better and more rational policy. The policy arm of the feds will constantly liason with their counterparts in the states to reformulate their ideas. Additionally, while new polices will come out each year, the States themselves only have to adjust to follow the newest federal policy (in order to get the extra funds) once every 10 years or so. They can adpot earlier if they wish, but in order to avoid constant, yearly upheavels, they can wait. States that like a new idea can lead the reform, more cautious States can adpot only the tried and true methods. Such an operation is an incalculable boost to the laboratory of ideas that is our federal system.

Naturally, this should only be for most policies, not all. For example, Civil and Voting rights should be protected by the feds, and following such federal laws won't be optional. But with anything regarding basic administration, the control on such choices should lie with the states. Liberty and due process should remain protected by the federal government (in a meaningful wya, not like it is now with suspension of Habeus Corpus and basic due process).

American Energy Renissance and Employment Ruminations

2006-09-17T13:16:00.000-07:00

There is a failure of immagination in energy in the republican party.

100 years ago, people tried all kinds of energy system, and we went with the dirty and cheap one. It's time to actually support, as opposed to Lip Service, real energy goals.

The current policy from Bush Co. is to "hope" that the free market comes up with something. Just like he "hopes" Iraqis will just figure it out and make peace. But just like the great American advances in the space race and the Manhattan project, we need serious government investment into these fields.

We should fund new state university based research centers and new government labs that contain the best and the brightest focusing on critical energy ideals (perhaps with the help of some of them university folk!)

There should be increased grants, sure, but the focus should be on increased american engineering students and physicians. Setting these people loose in our economy, especially after theoretical job experience in cutting edge state and federal research labs, will only increase economic innovation.
State governments should get grants to create joint degrees in both the nuts and bolts of engineering and the concepts associated with pure energy theoretical applications to encourage new ways to conceptualize energy
After sputnik, we invested heavily in these types of things (math, science), and we should increase state block grants for these technical subjects. To make sure the money is well spent, there should be serious audit professionals (who's ethics will hopefully migrate into morally bankrupt industries that need sober auditing).

We should subsidize scholarships for americans in engineering areas, especially for students from finacially disadvantaged areas. Instead of a message of no escape from econmically blighted areas, we should preach that all students in a certain income range will get help to go to college and become an engineer. The poorest should get a free ride, on a slowly decreasing scale, finally peteting out to no tuition assistance around 75 K (and indexed to the CPI). Children from families without means should know that there is a reward to focusing on education: a valuable education about the physical world. Even if it creates a glut of engineering jobs, it creates a vitally educated and practical poulace.
It is a simple sloganan, and many can actually succed quickly under such a program. Want to succed? become an engineer for amcerica!
A hope of working hard and getting an education as a path out of poverty is a far better enticement for society than excellence in sports. Don't belive me? Go ask Maurice Clarrett.

Just as an aside, there ought to be a program helping the children on those who lose their jobs through globalizaton, like scholorship opportunities and tutoring programs.
Even if we give up on a worker's job, we should at least let them know we want their child to have a future.

Government technology centers should also be built in areas based on their economic blight (and despite Kelo, it should be ok to do a little bit of extra rennovation in really bad area, but it needs to be associated with the gov. center. Just saying all right to have a slight commercial [bars, restaurants] incorporated into the gov. rennovation)

The government should invest some in helping the auto industry become more efficent. Locate these research centers in the rust belt and Michigan.

We also need to invest in better basic energy systems. Efficencey creates gains throughout the economy.

Immigration Workers in America

2006-09-17T13:11:00.000-07:00

Some Ideas:

Immigration
Immigrants should be able to come to america the capitalist way, by paying a fee (and passing a security clearance). Smugglers get all the money from the trade in illegal entry. We should bring it out of the shadows and capture that revenue stream to help immigrants ajust. Naturally, citizenship would have to be earned (and paid for).
First year immigrants would have to pay a certain amount. The next year, it would be slightly less, it decreases another 2 years, then starts going up slowly. This will increase to a certain point until it is equal (or maybe a bit higher) than a new arrival. Unless, that person begins working towards citizenship. If there efforts reach a certain point (say 3/4 of the citzenship requirments/american political normalization), then the costs will decrease significantly. They can then continue through citizenship and become a citzen later on, or just push through with citizenship. There could also be a benifit credit once you are an immigrant worker (say 25 years) that gets a discount too.

Prison Reform
To give access to better jobs, America should work on a construction job training and supervision program for some of our prisoners. They should earn this privilege, but those who want to earn their keep on the outside should get that chance.

Immigration
Here's a principle to apply creatively to Immigration policy
If there has been a long period of work, don't want permanent "guest worker." So either put them on the path to citizenship (lower fees if taking right steps). If not, raise fees to encourage a return. Immigrants/guest workers as incubators of democratic and governmental norms, so that they will return to their home countries with both capital and with reformist, democratic ideas.

Democratic Refom/Immigration
Encourage demcroacy, especially through internal reforms. One benefit of teaching demoractic ideals to registered immigrants combined with a felixable fee system is that if after a few years (and Liberty based classes focused on civil rights and capitalist efficency) when the guest worker goes home, they will be "infected" with the great ideals that buttress free societies. Even if only 20% of the guest workers actually go home, it will be the spread of great ideals to areas of the world lacking in enlightenment advocates.

Public Works and the New Deal of the 21st Century

2006-09-17T13:06:00.000-07:00

What is the purpose of a good government? What should its aims be? I think the best investment for the future should be guided by two key aims. A more comprehensive, American public transit infrastructure and a massive investment in energy and generally hard science research.

Introduction

To help create the new deal of the 21st Century, we need both investment in ideas and investment in infrastructure. In a quick and simple sense, government should develope the systems and structures that will help build a strong, essentially free market system for the future. This is not the abstract future of our grandchildren, but that of our own future, 5 years, 10 years, and 25 years from now. Now, this discussion could devolve into a sort of philosophical discourse on what is appropriate for the federal government to undertake, but I leave that for my post on a New Federalism (see sidebar). The current policy of the government seems to be to operate more like a patronage machine for the favored doners. See (http://agorabum.blogspot.com/2006/09/patronage-machine.html). Clearly, that's a philosophy of "I'll get mine now, and let's not think about tomorrow.

We like to belive in the power of the market, but there are certain large scale enterprises that benefit the commons that the market cannot feasibly handle. This is where the government should step in to help direct investment to plan for the civic future. This is not to suggest a planned economy, but more of to help guide fundamental realingments of policy, into which private funding will then flow. For example, I need only point out our current highway policies. We expand and build, and the private market fills in with certain developments suited to our arterial highway system expansion. The public sector leads with a certain key development, and private investment exploits the opportunities this creates. Another good example is the Hoover Dam and Las Vegas, or the Tennessee Valley Authority and the South. Even the development of early America was spurred by the construction of the Eire Canal and the transcontinental railroad.

Unless you subscribe to the most extreme libertarianism, there is a recognized need for public sector investment. This is recognized through investment in Universities, roads, public health, police, fireman, schools, etc. This is necessary to defeat the problem of free riders, and also to destroy negative incentives that could, for example, encourage people to not pay private fees to send their children to schools or pay for fire protection. A self interested person could choose to reject such payments for short term gain. Regardless, sometimes investment is best served by the market, other times it is of a scale and scope that requires national investment, as in investment by the government.

Energy

When Sputnik entered the stratosphere, there was a general recognition in America that a new focus was necessary to prove the superiority of the free mind. The same challenge exists today, witht the omniprescent existence of oil-based regimes that export demogaugery and fundamentalism much in the same way the Soviet Union sought to export communism. We helped bypass the claims of superiority of the USSR by putting a man on the moon. In the same way, we should bypass the smug preaching of the oil regimes by undercutting the basis of their power: energy in a hydrocarbon society.

The development of alternative energy is not a matter of preference. It is a matter of survival for liberal democracies. Our economies, in this post-industrial age, are energy. We use it in every facet of our existence, from the internet, power to our PC's, our cars and trucks that transport ourselves and our goods, and even the toast we have for breakfast. Our use of energy in the future is something that is not in doubt: we will continue to use it, and the world will undoubtedly seek to use more. There must be freedom from the oil we pump from the earth to a harnessing of the energy which is the source of oils power: the power of molecular connections and the power of the sun.

The only way to do this is to spark a new scientific race in America. This should be done in three key wasy: the construction of new, government sponsored research facilities, new engineering universities focused on improving the studies of sheer energy itself, efficent use of energy, and general scientific applications; and the establishement of a massive scholarship program focused on the youth of America to funnel them into these new instituitions.

Government Energy Research

It is a key national security goal that America have baisc energy independence from non-democratic regimes. These countries focus on one thing: slavish support of those in power. In a free market, we have little to fear, but in a system based on obeying the will of one individual over those of the general populace, there is no way a market based system can efficently devine the future. The only solution is to trade energy needs with other free market systems (and a system can only be free if there is no undue political inteference with the means of production by non-market forces). Such a system is essentially impossible today, because the entire system is based on hydrocarbons (oil, natural gas, coal, etc.). Institutions devoted to pure research of energy must be established, in numerous locations across America, to help wean ourselves, and the world, off hydrocarbons.

Oil is valuable. But it is also valuable as a manufacturable commidty. We should endeavor not to simply burn away this resource of many uses, but ensure it can continue in our manufacturing chain throughout numerous generations.

Another important factor in establishing these facilites is that they should be located in areas of America that have suffered recent economic depressions. As our economy evolves, it is tragically true that certain secotors are left behind. It is these areas that the government should invest to help create the industries of the future (which leads me to my next point).

New Energy Universities

When it comes to manipulating the elements to create new possibilites, nothing beats engineering. America has some of the best engineering instituitons in the world, but that doesn't mean we can't use more. We should encourage the founding of new state insitutions (especially in historically economically regressing areas), both through the use of state funds (see "new federalism" at sidebar) and through private encouragement. No reason for Bill Gates or Buffet not to found new universities for the 21st century, much like Rockefeller founded the University of Chicago for the 20th Century. There should be additions to current campuses, but there should also be entirely new campuses created, centered around research labs and the new governmnt research centers, that would provide a fulcrum to both provide jobs to the burgeoning new engineering professions in the public sector, and provide paternships with the private sector. The public sector resarch labs could be a valuable conduit between the Univesity education and private technology transfer initiatives.

Scholarship Program

We must encourage more American scientists. This is easy to accomplish. Heavy government funding for scholarships of disadvantaged youth. With such a progtam, if a student takes math and science in jr. high and high school and perform well, the enterprising child will go to college. This will apply to the traditional poor (both in neglected urban/inner city environments and rural areas), as well as offers to the children of workers who lose their job from globalization.

People like to talk about retraining 50 year old factory workers. That's a tall order, to push an industrial worker like that into the IT sector and expect a quick absorbtion of skills. But it may ease the pain if there is a promise that their children, if they only study in school, will be guranteed a college education in the hard sciences, which will teach them practical facts about the world they inhabit. One of the great existential worries that comes with a loss of a job is the question of the future, and a good parent worries more about the future of their children. Greater investment in the education of these children at the very least gives them the opportunity to succeed.

If we are to invent our way out of our current energy predicatment, we should invest in the intellectual structures that will encourage such investment, and provide the essential raw material of young and dedicated minds for our information economy.

Mass Transit

America's system of mass transit, aside from limited areas on the Eastern seaboard, are frankly embarassing. We had far better transit systems 60 years ago. But we choose to tear them up to build highways to create an Auto-topia. Instead, most cities now have bumper-to-bumper gridlock at rush hour.

The solution is obvious. A new transit paradigm. It should be based on differnet levels of distance and speed. Inter-city travel should be very fast (100 mph +) with very few stops. Slightly slower systems (50 mph +) should feed into these stations. Local feeder routes should feed into these mid-level stations (25-50 mph). Light rail/subway/bus to regional to national systems.

Naturally, this requires heavy investment by the public sector. And there shoudl be assurances that this work is done by Americans. Managers must swear, under penalty of law, that their workers are Citizens (or the appropriate level of immigrant worker: see Homeland security and immigration post). Willful ignorance will not be tolerated. To avoid complaints about companies unable to find competent workers, there will also be money available for training programs in the interested states.

With any large government project, there is always the danger of public investment pulling resources away from the capital and labor of the private sector. But there is also a danger that exists from inaction on this front. National Security dictates that a comprehensive transit system be developed, both for use in the case of national emergencies and to help America cope with its oil addicition. If costs are driven up in such a fashion as to discourage sprawl (as should be done with tax policy as well), and more energy efficent development is planned, then such an effect is actually a benefit. Already, road building sucks in a massive amount of money in America, so redirecting some of these emminent domain actions and construction costs to rail transit isn't really much of a change.

Most importantly, these acts will go slowly. Major transit systems will likely take many years to come online. The funds for this work will go only to states who are willing; the system should not be unilaterally imposed. This will allow for a variety of ideas and actions, and the "laboratory of the states" can hopefully lead the way, creating new efficencies. Additionally, the research of the new school facilities and grants can also focus on promoting infrastructure improvements.

Conclusion

America is a land of modernism and progress. But the acheivements that helped create the American 20th Century did not happen in a vaccum. They often happened with express or implied government support. The American people and the greater humanity deserve cutting edge energy research for a cleaner, more economical future. America also deserves a state of the art mass transit system. Government should support both of these laudable goals.

U.S. Influence in Iraq

2006-09-12T19:40:00.000-07:00

I think one of the great mistakes of this administration is its manichean ways of dividing the world into two camps. The fact of the matter is, every person, militant group, tribe, or nation has its own will and specific agenda. In Iraq, there are 27 million people. There are 150,000 U.S. troops, and only a fraction of this number actually goes outside the gate on any given day to exercise U.S. influence, say 30,000 (a generous figure). That's 30,000 Americans trying to move the destiny of 27 million people with their own thoughts, dreams, vices, and aspirations. Frankly, it is not enough to make a difference, not by a long shot.

The President and his administration speak of a need to have "will," like some sort of Nitzchean mantra that sheer desire and gumption will turn Iraq into a democratic, capitalist haven. But the Iraqis themselves have plenty of will, and there are a lot more of them willing their reality. As long as gangs rule unchecked, be they religious militas, Bathaists thugs dreaming of former glory, Al-Queda inspired terrorits, or just plain kidnapping criminals, it is their will that rules the daily life in Iraq. We have been unable to change that simple fact for three years. We have been unable to acknowledge that there are other wills than ours. We can act, but they can act back, and they have been, for the last three years.

The influence of triabl roots and religious ties runs much deeper in Iraq than the ideals of Locke or Montisque. Those ideals don't even run deep in many parts of America. A "democracy" that seems to put religious death squads in charge of the police will not get much love in a country, nor will it get trust, nor will it get effectiveness. We cannot run every facet of Iraq, nor have we tried. It is the Iraqi people themselves that will control how power is distributed throughout the Iraqi society. Until this basic fact is recognized, our policy will remain a shambles.

The Iraq government will live if the people of Iraq want it to live. It will die if enough of them don't. Since neither Shia, Kurd, or Sunni is particularly happy with the way things are, it will likely die. It will turn into something. Maybe even have several years of ugly civil war around Baghdad. But in the end, it is the people in the cities and towns of Iraq that will determine the face of the country.

There is only one struggle of wills we should be concerened with: that of terrorists who want to strike Americans and America. And while there are quite a few that want to hurt American and Americans in Iraq right now, part of that is because they view us as occupiers. No amount of our "will" or "resolve" will change that basic fact. If we aren't around, it would likely make many of those simply hate us, but no longer actively try to kill us. More importantly, we don't have the local skills, knowledge, or support in Iraq to actually find these people who want to kill us and eliminate them all. We just present ourselves as an easier target.

Naturally, we must continue to disrupt Al Queda terrorists bent on killing others wherever they go. The Al-Queda types want to kill any Muslim they see as heretic, westerners, and Americans. It is easy to find allies in this fight. I'm sure there are even plenty of Iraqis who would join the fight against those who bring car bombs to their cities and towns.

We should exercise our influence where it will make a differnece. Our national will and resolve should not be pissed away trying to establish a Western style democracy in the midst of an Iraqi civil war. Besides, if we leave Iraq, it will not fall to Osama (see previous post). Our will should be focused on Al-Queda.

Just how do terrorist win in Iraq?

2006-09-12T19:29:00.000-07:00

This is an important question. The administration likes to define terrorists winning if Americans do something he doesn't want us to. Like dissent, or call on a pull-out of Iraq. But if we leave Iraq, do the terrorists actually win? What do they define as a victory? Could Al-Queda turn Iraq into another Afghanistan before 9-11? Of course not.

I do not want to make the mistake of claiming that all who use the tactic of terror are united. So let us look specifically at our enemy of september 11, Osama and Al Queda. How do they win?
Well, they define it as creating a theocratic, Sunni fundamntalist state. Something like the Taliban. That was a win for them, and they wanted to spread it from Afghanistan and the border areas across the Islamic world. So, if we pull out, do they win? Of course not.
The foreign terrorists comprise only about 7% of the fighters in Iraq. Additionally, the Al Queda types are the enemy of: Bathists, Secular Iraqis, Turkomans, Shi'ites, and the Kurdistan north. Who does that leave on their side? Some of the Al Queda inspiried sunnis (not much), and some foreign trouble makers. Could they actually conquer Iraq? When they consist of only a small number of the population, and are actively hated by the vast majority because of their Sunni religious extremism and acts of terror?

Of course not. There is no way for the terrorists to win. There is no way the terrorists can win in Iraq if we are there (because we have the firepower to destory them if they sieze command of even a sizeable municipal government). There is no way they can win if we are gone, because the Sunnis, Kurds, and even Bathists would not let them. Furthermore, if there is no US in Iraq and there is constant acts of terror, I believe that the general Arab community would be repulsed and more border countries would take action to help stabalize Iraq.

As usual, the president is giving Osama and Al-Queda the one thing they don't deserve: our respect, and fear of their power.

Now, why can't anyone in the media ask this simple question? "How is it even possible for Al Queda to take over Iraq when A: the vast majority of Iraqis hate them, and B: the vast majority of Iraqis are heavily armed?"

Reflections on Saftey after 9-11

2006-09-11T18:01:00.000-07:00

Are we safer today? Some say yes, some say no. 3000 people died in 9-11. There has been no major terrorist attack on American soil since then. But there was no major attack on our soil the five years before. And many Americans have died since then. According to the official statistics from the Department of Defense, 2,669 American solidiers have died in Iraq. 19910 have been wounded. Also, this war has been fought with mercenaries, CIA operatives, and American contractors. Their casulties I do not know, although I'm sure the numbers are out there.

Not counting respiratory illness and other lingering chronic problems from 9/11, there were a total of 5367 casualties (adding dead and wounded) as a result of that terrible day.
As a response, we went into Afghanistan. To be frank, we appeared to score a quick victory, and then the political leadership lost interest. Troops began to leave the country before we even had a chance to catch Bin Laden at Tora Bora. Since we entered that country, we have lost approximately 336 soldiers killed and 901 wounded, a total of 1237 casualties.
Imagine if that was the final number. Just 1237. Instead, our total casualties from the war on terror after 9-11 is 23,816 American soldiers, and probably a few thousand more government civil servants, contractors, and U.S. mercenaries.

So has the president kept Americans safe? Or did his actions lead to the death or maiming of about 30,000 Americans since 9-11?

As usual, the only ones asked to sacrifice by the President are the military. Their deaths are not honored by acknowledging this grim toll, but instead, they are hidden. The administration has censored their pictures and downplayed the cold facts.

The administration did not keep these young men and women safe. That’s a fact. So since we have had a bit less than 10 times the casualties of 9-11, of Americans hurt in our “war on terror,” does it matter if a shopping mall in Topeka is “safe,” when it never was going to be a target anyway? Does the life of civilians now matter more than a soldier? What kind of respect is that for our military?These casualties are a cost of our struggle. I believe the enemy is Al Queda and Bin Laden. He is the one who struck on 9-11. And yes, he has an ideology. But you can’t kill an ideology with bombs. Nor can you do it by invading Iraq and then managing an incompetent occupation. So if you ask are Americans safer, remember that our military consists of Americans too, and the policies of the Bush administration did not make them safe.

The Patronage Machine

2006-09-09T15:23:00.000-07:00

Today, we have a federal system of Government. There is a national income tax, so the governmental system with the most money is in Washington D.C. It also is the most powerful, accoridng to the Constitution and the Supereme Court's interpretations thereof. So just what is it supposed to do with this money and power? Currently, the idea is Patronage.

What it has Done:

Since the Republicans took Congress in 1994, the stated policy was that Government is no good. The private sector, affected by the "invisible hand" of the market, can always do a better job. And so taxes have been cut, and services privatized. However, the Government is still distorting the market. It does not demand accountability or stringent audits (like a responsible private sector contractor would). In fact, the practices of Congress and the current administration shows that efficency and low costs are not a goal. The goal is patronage. The use of earmarks (where a congressman adds provisions to a bill that basically serves to send money to one of his friends) has ballonned at an astonishing rate. Vast programs have been proposed and initiated that do not work, but do employ Republican donors. A good example of this is the missle defense shield. Every test the Air Force sets up for this program is rigged, and about half the time, they fail. Nonetheless, we are building and investing in a massive deployment of this system. Presuming that the government is a rational actor (a big presumption), the only plausible purpose for rewarding such a failure is to bribe their defense contractor buddies. Who will then donate generously to electoral campaigns

The current crop of Republicans have even downsized the military and sent many former military jobs to contractors. It actually didn't seem like a terrible idea in the 90's. The military can be lumbering and ineffecient, and every soldier knows that its just Uncle Sam footing the bill, and that he can afford it. So cost is often disregarded. But the soldiers do understand following orders. So the right solution was not to privatize, but make officers more accountable on costs. They would then order their subordinates to keep those things in mind. These orders come in handy in a war zone as well. Contractors don't mind working when its quite, but when the bullets fly, it takes a soldier.

So when our soldiers went to Iraq, so did the contractors. And they needed massive pay raises to work in the war environment. Suddenly, these "savings" became losses. It also became huge profits for the politcally connected companies, like Halliburton. Indeed, the US began sponsoring private militas to protect these contractors, since the soldiers were busy. More profits for companies, but still, no efficency.

Another example is health care. When someone had the idea to reform Medicare, the Republicans didn't examine the system and try to devise a way to deliver the most care for the least cost to the US taxpayer. Instead, the forbid the government to act efficently by negotiating for drug prices. It allows deceptive and confusing advertising for competing drug plans. It encouraged private sector bureacracy and paperwork. Why? Because there were big companies, in the pharamaceutical and hospital industry, that wanted a big injection of taxpayer money to boost their bottom line.

This is patronage government. By the party, for the friends of the party, in order to keep the election campaigns of the party filled.

The professional nature of the government burecracy was created to avoid the problems of patronage. Certainly, the top positions are always open to the friends of the politcal party, and especially to the friends of a victorious president. But the actual employees, the people who run the system through fair weather and foul, have to pass certain tests to get their job. They are also "professionalized," so to speak, in that they will work for the U.S. people and the citizenry instead of the political ledaer of the moment. In practice, they often work in their own interests, in order to make their own job easier. The solution to that is to demand higher standards and better management. The "privitization" of these jobs just ensures one thing: that the people running the programs care about profit most of all.

The private sector cares about profit. That is the reason for its existence. To make money. All other concerns are secondary. Even if a bureacrat is lazy, he can't pad his bills. And without oversight, which is woefully lacking in the current government, the privatized worker can be lazy as well. But by permitting these false invoices, the patronage machine continues.

A government of patronage is the enemy of any patriot. It is not wrong to ask for good government. Every citizen should ask no less. But the current Republican refrain is that government is no good and it can't be trusted. They then go out and prove this to be the case by delibertly subverting good government in order to provide patronage. The hold no hearings to investigate the corruption, but instead participate (see Delay, Cunningham, etc.).

There is only so much money the government has to spend. This money can go to worthy projects that help build a stronger nation ready for the challenges of the coming years. Or it can go into the pockets of the wealthy and corrupt. The current Republican Party has choosen the later. Congressmen hold lavish parties for their cronies, and buy gilded commodes out of the Palace of Versailles. And the patronage machine rolls on.

Iraq and Freedom (Locke and Hobbes)

2006-09-02T12:07:00.000-07:00

There there many in charge of our government right now who enjoy cloaking their foreign policies in the mantle of freedom. They speak of how it is a gift, from the Lord, who will deliver to the poor, unenlightened masses of the Middle East. As if they are the messengers sent to bring this "divine" gift.

However, the word "freedom" by itself is meaningless. I recall one bitter Iraqi's statement on freedom, saying that he now had the freedom to wait in gas lines, to loot, and to be blown up. He was not so happy that the Iraqi people were now exposed to such freedoms. We truly did bring a freedom, a license, for the people to do whatever they wanted after our occupation began, becuase we did not control the country.

One of the most important freedoms is the freedom from fear. Security should be freeing, it should be liberating. In America, I can go down to the street corner and speak outrageous slanders on the heads of state, or on the mayor, or the local police cheif. And I can do this without worry of violence against me. I am free to stroll down the street on a sunny day without a care in the world, and perhaps even slip inside a dark saloon for a cool glass of beer. There is a loosening of the tensions of life when the threat of random violence; it allows a person to focus on loftier goals.

This freedom is conspicuously absent in Iraq. It was absent before, in the era of Saddam, and it is absent today.

I think the intent is, that we shall bring a representative form of government to the Country. But one of the prerequisities for a government of this type, one that relies on the will of the people, that there aren't armed secarian groups at each others throats. The will of the people tends to be inflamed after violent acts are perpetrated against their religious shrines, schools, hospitals, and government leaders. We want to build a sytem of government influenced by Locke and Montesquieu, but there is no check or balance against the senseless violence of the current Iraqi civil war.

The county, to put it simply, lacks its Hobbes. There is no Leviathan. There is no monopoly of the use of perceived legetimate violence in the hands of the state. And so various political actors, be they Bathist, Badr Brigade, Al-Queda, the Mahadi Army, or just bandits, smugglers, and kidnappers for profit, perhaps a virulent strain of highly violent organized crime, that bred unchecked from extended lawlessness.

This lack of control is a direct result of two failures of the U.S. leadership. The first is he failure to secure the peace. This is a result of Rumsfeld's decision to go in with the minimal troop levels of 150,000 people to keep the order in a county of 26 million people. But most of these were logistical, and haven't been outside keeping order.

The problem of Hobbes must first be tended to before the question of Locke. There must be order in Iraq for the U.S. to be efective in brokering the creation of a new democracy. There was basic peace and order in Germany and Japan, and there was success. People had a swift opportunity to see what living in a more just society could bring. But there has only been bloodshed, murder, bombings, and assassinatons since we captured Saddam. This is a failure of a society on a fundamental level. We have witnessed the birth of shadow armys of death squads, and have been powerless to prevent it.

In order for there to be a Leviathan, there must be some degree of legitimacy of the party who controls the last word on violence. Right now that is the U.S. military. Their use of violence is always legitmate, and the prosecution of breaches of military law rests with the U.S. Now, as far as an occupying army in the midst of a gureilla war, we have done a decent job in prosecuting some low level perpatrators of unacceptable violence, but our reputation is currently soiled by the various killings and prison abuse that is very difficult to avoid in prosecuting an insurgency. The U.S. has failed to avoid these difficulties.

The U.S. has also done a poor job of preventing basic crime from plaguing the citizens. Shopkeepers are firebombed. Many family members face threats of kidnapping. Frankly, it is a poor environment for investment. No one is comfortable investing heavily into an active civil war or an epedemic of banditry. The people simply do not trust the U.S., although it is sad to say that they generally trust the U.S. forces more than someone wearing a police uniform.

Saddam Hussein understood Hobbes. He kept the order. But he had a loyal cadre of Bathists willing to enforce his brutal regime. The U.S. has 150,000 soldiers, most of which do not leave their large, fortified compounds. Most of our troops do not understand those they seek to control and order. They lack both a literal understanding of language, and also a cultural understanding that would both permit a true communication of goals and desires and an understanding of how to effectively apply force to the society. We have generally failed to create the Hobbesian world of government since the day Baghdad fell and the looting began. Three years of impotent control. I believe that is three years too long. Only a massive influx of troops, on a scale we are clearly unprepared to comit, could have a chance to reverse this history of failure.

Imagine it, though. Order. Normalcy. Garbage men able to do their jobs without fear of assassination. Civil servants performing their duties normally.

A society will seek out its Hobbes in one way or another. If the Leviathan fails to materialize, one will be made. This new Leviathan may not gain full control of a a political sphere. But people will give up freedom for safety. This is a sad lesson of history, from time Julius Ceasar was declared dictator for life, to the rise of fascism in Europe after World War I. Such chaos is the meat and drink of demagouges.

How to Secure the Homeland

2006-08-29T19:02:00.000-07:00

Overview:

When Bush created DHS, all he did was "move around the boxes," as in simply change the burecratic organization of the departments that made up DHS. That is no policy. Clearly, new policies, which involve large changes in how we think of and operate on our security (domestic analysis only), are necessary. Here they are:

Creation of "Homeland Brigades" made up of fireman, police, first responders (paramedics and the like), and componenets of the National Guard. Most importantly, these Brigades will be organized locally, on the state level, regionally, and nationally, and will have actual live deployment exercises within the US to test their ability to respond. Units in surrounding states will learn to work with each other on regoinal problems, and units far from a disaster site will work on organizing a swift logistical response to a crisis that will be coordinated nationally. No more standing around with total chaos while a disaster continues, as happend in New Orleans. This will be supported with federal funding for more police, fireman, and first responders, so that all communities will be more secure, even when there is no disaster.
Creation of a domestic intelligence agency dedicated to infiltrating, surveiling and eventually arresting those plotting acts of domestic terrorism. All surveilance must be done through warrants, although through a special court process. This system will not be as permissive and secretive as the current FISA courts. If the system is abused, U.S. citizens will have the right to sue over it. If the US is willing to act in its defense, it should own up to if when it gets it wrong. However, appropriate safegurads will exist to protect undercover operations.
A revitalized mass transit and nationwide train system. As we learned during Rita when the evacuation of Houston bogged down, large US cities can't evacuate in a few days relying on automobiles. With a robust mass transit system in cities and a revitalized national train system, mass evacuations will have more options and more ease, especially for poor Americans without cars.
The creation of a civillian coordination agency to harness the power of the average American when disaster strikes. We are a people who are willing to help out in hard times. If the government can coordiante this outpouring of support, it will help aleviate any problem. The agency will be a wing of the Homland Brigades, so it properly coordinates with the professional disaster response team. That way, DHS can use private boats, trucks, helicopters, and cargo jets to quickly leverage aid and assistance. Like a sort of Dunkirk.
No more color coded terror alerts. It serves no purpose but to fear monger. If there is a credible threat, then the proper agencies will be mobilized. Anything else is counter-productive.
Less secrecy. It is the terrorists that do the evil deeds and must plot in the shadows. DHS should be the response of a free society in an attempt to organize the security of its people against physical violence. No byzantine procedures to keep people off, no empowering of faceless burecrats in windowless rooms. DHS should embody the will of the people, and as such, must respect the individual people themselves.
No cosmetic security. For example, at countless airports, people are asked to remove their shoes, even though the equipment that scans the shoes can't detect explosives. This is busy-body intrusiveness at its worst: it is annoying, and it doesn't do anything to help. Any security move or policy should truthfully and honestly answer the question "how does this make my life better?" And sometimes, a slight fraction of an increase in potential personal safety will not outweigh simple convenience and comfort. The logical conclusion of many TSA policies (not to beat a dead horse, but it's just easy to pick on the TSA) enacted in response to the latest potential threat is that we will all be flying naked. When you prevent people from bringing water onto an airplane and take their fingernail clippers away, the terrorists have already succeeded in terrorizing us. Don't help the terrorists inflict terror (see #5).
Change immigration policy so that we actually know who is here. That can be done only in one way: the capitalist way! People pay smugglers vast sums to get them into the U.S. so they can work. We should let people buy work visas (of limited duration, from 6 mos to a year) to come to the U.S. That way, the government captures that money instead of a smuggler, and the worker will be on the books. Immigrants can travel back to their families without fear. They can participate with law enforcement without fear. They can stand up to work abuses without fear. And after a certain number of years, the visa holder can apply for more permanent status. That's much better than an amnesty. This way, a person has to pay the U.S., work in the U.S., and then they can choose to join the citizenship process if they decide to stay. This makes deportation easier to all, even the immigrant community. Now its not a case of someone coming to America at great personal risk to provide for their family. Rather it's someon who cut corners and isn't willing to pay their share. There can even be arangements between an immigrant and the government that the immigrant can pay the fee over time through their wages. An immigrant who isn't paid up won't be allowed back in. Another path of immigration, without a fee, will be open to those who are just applicants to get a green card, but the U.S. can keep quotas on that.

These are all quick and common sense solutions to change the dysfunctional polices we have. I will elaborate more on them at another time.

Preface:

The Bush creation of the Department of Homeland Security has clearly been a failure. There were three great threats that our nation had to prepare for, a massive west coast earthquake, a terrorist attack in New York, and a big Hurricane in New Oreleans. There was no DHS on September 11, and besides, once the buildings fell, that was it and the destruction was over. The test came in late August of 2005, with Katrina. Bush and the current DHS failed. So how do we secure the homeland?

The Dignified Response to Modern Terror by a Free and Democratic Society

2006-08-18T14:16:00.000-07:00

The Dignified Response: Introduction

Terrorism is a tactic, designed to take a small application of force (a bomb, grenade, hijacking, etc.) and amplify its psychological effects on a populace through the creation of fear. Terrorism can only succeed through the amplification of their actions, otherwise it remains an isolated violent act that damages only those unfortunate enough to be a direct victim. For terrorism to truly succeed, the people must be led to believe that the terrorists are actually more dangerous and effective then they truly are. However, there are greater dangers out there then terrorism, and our everyday lives are filled with these dangers. There is a greater threat of dying in a car accident each morning on the way to work than to be killed by a terrorist act. Yet we do not throw our car keys away and cower helplessly in the fact of this threat. We accept this danger and we live our lives. No risk can ever be reduced to zero, for there is always the chance of both human error and human irrationality.

Do Not Give In to Fear

The goal of terror is to terrorize. And the greatest cheerleader of Osama bin Laden and Al-Queda, the greatest amplifiers of terror for the last five years, have been the administration of George Bush. They feel that spreading terror to the American public, and to the world, gives them a few points in a poll. Instead of telling America that the only thing we need fear is fear itself, the Bush Administration constantly does the opposite. The terror alert system’s only real purpose seems to keep our citizenry terrorized and anxious. It permits the mere rumor of a terrorist act gain the same power as the actual act, because the rumor is sanctioned by the government and broadcast across America, bringing yet more terror into the homes of the American people.

A model to emulate is India, and Israel, as countries that better understand the price of an open society. In an open and free society, every public space is open to all. This openness and freedom can be used against these societies by those who seek to sow fear, death, and chaos, because it is impossible to prevent a lone, determined individual from taking a small explosive into this public space. But we must hold our heads high, and we must bear this burden, for it is the price of freedom. In India, when they had the deadly bombings of the trains in Mumbai, where hundreds of people died, they did not shut down the train system. They cleaned off the tracks and got the trains rolling, that very day. While we must honor those we have lost, we must advance the cause of liberty. We must remain unbowed, undaunted, and unbroken.

The key is to remain unterrorized. That is not to say that any victim of terrorism will be forgotten. They should be mourned, and their killers should be cursed as cowards. The intelligence and investigative services should vow to hunt the perpetrators down and bring them to justice, just as they should penetrate radical terror cells before they strike to prevent such actions. The populace should not be encouraged to live in fear and jump at shadows, however. They should be told to hold a stiff upper lip in the face of this senseless violence, to continue with their lives in order to show the killers that a free society cannot be intimidated.

The Goal of Freedom Over Terror

The minds of man contain the seeds of both great good and great evil. Whatever security measures we devise, I assure you there is some way around them. But the goal is not total security. That is impossible. The goal is freedom. The goal is to live meaningful lives, unchained from paralytic fear. We must not live in a land of constant checkpoints, pat-downs, and searches, of men with guns always watching, always watching. We must not live ever suspicious of the millions of muslims across the world, and in our own communities. We must live for liberty and justice for all, for it is these common, humanistic ideals that can defeat the pathology of terror.

Ideas are like viruses. This applies to good ideas, like democracy and the rule of law, and to bad ideas, like fascism and terrorism. You cannot bomb an idea away. You cannot exterminate a tactic. You can only inoculate a society against bad ideas by supplying them with the good. These ideas must develop naturally in a society, brought by the sons and daughters of a land, who grow to understand these ideas and embrace them on their own terms. The age of globalization should provide a great opportunity for this exchange of ideas. But fearmongering and war can spoil this bounty. When the stench of Death and misery fills the air, the ideas of law and democracy, based as they are on reason, cannot thrive, and become choked off by the reptilian desires of hatred and vengeance. We must serve as that shining city on the hill, we must serve as an example to those who yearn to think, and reason, and live free. But we must recognize that what we name “collateral damage” is often the death of the innocent. Such deaths give rise to hatred, vengeance and fear. We must live our lives as an example, not act as a scold and a bully. It is difficult to offer peace, freedom, and brotherhood with one hand while the other hand is busy destroying buildings, torturing prisoners, and taking actions that produce innocent corpses.

The Idea of Terror as a Tactic Can Only Be Fought With Other Ideas

We must fight a war, but a war of ideas. A war that champions liberty, justice, and freedom over terror and repression. We must not forget our past in fighting this war. We could not establish democracy and capitalism through the barrel of a gun in Vietnam. We fought, and we killed, and we bombed, and we won every tactical battle we engaged in, and we lost the war. We lost because we tried to fight Nationalism and Post-Colonialism with platitudes about freedom and napalm. However, we won the war of ideas in Cold War Europe without firing a shot. That is not to say that we were not wary, not prepared, and not willing to fight, and yes, to kill, to defend our ideas. But we must act to defend them, not to aggressively insert them. The communist east fell once enough people, even those in power, realized that their ideas could not compete with ours, and, most importantly, that their ideas fail their people.

How to Fight Terrorist Ideals

We must win by appealing to common humanity. If we treat others as humans, with dignity and respect, and support democracy and justice in their country while not eroding their sovereignty, then less people will want to hate and kill. Those killers will still exist, though. We must keep proper tabs on foreign visitors, but we also must ensure that the communities these killers come from reject them. Osama is a murderer and a brigand. But many people respect him. They think he is a great man, for standing up to the US and for lashing out when they feel weak, because they view the U.S. as a colonial occupier. But if they do not feel compelled to lash out, then our intelligence agencies and those of our allies can penetrate the groups and foil the plots. It is a far greater thing to turn a potential terrorist into an agent who will work for peace and work to prevent murder, than to simply kill the man. Winning hearts and minds is not just an empty slogan, although it has been bandied about far too much by those that clearly do not believe in it.

If the muslim communities of the West feel they are part of society, then it will lead to several positive goals. The London airline bomb plot was foiled by people inside the muslim community reporting on suspicious activity. If these immigrant communities feel they are part of the broader society, then they will have a vested interest in defending the society, and will make contributions to prevent attacks.

In a similar vein, if the nations of the middle east are treated as sovereign entities with full status at the table of nations, it will also defuse some, although certainly not all, of the present hostilities. Much too often are terms dictated to these nations, through demands and veiled threats. A consensus is not reached through negotiation and respectful discourse. The Arabs feel that the U.S. and the West are merely seeking to reassert a colonial mantle to control natural resources, which leads to hostility. The Algerian war for independence only ended in 1962. The U.S. helped Britain overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mossadegh, in 1953. Britain and France invaded Egypt over the Suez in 1956. While we in America forget about these things, and we believe in letting the past be the past and always looking forward, the Arabs do not forget. There is a constant and collective fear on their part of a return to colonialism and manipulation of their lives by distant Western powers. Combined with their generally repressive state governments, this fuels numerous conspiracy theories which paint the West in a generally ugly light. If the U.S. makes sure to deal with these countries in a respectful way, it will improve both the American standing and security. Invasions and bombings under false pretenses, such as in Iraq, have only hurt our cause.

There is No Need to Trade Liberty for Security

The current administration generally argues that Americans must give up their freedom and rights to be safe. That thought echoes numerous repressive regimes throughout the 20th Century. If there is an inefficiency in the gathering of information or monitoring of suspected terrorists, the Constitutional solution, the legal solution, is to ask for the law to be changed and the intelligence agencies reformed. However, it is clearly improper to assert that the Executive is unbound by the law. We have a system of laws in America, not a system of men.

The London liquid bomb plot shows that it is easy for the authorities to obtain warrants for surveillance of suspect characters. The British obeyed the law and kept track of a potential threat. Our freedom is that of a government that cannot do as it pleases against who it pleases. Requiring government forces to move through proper channels, generating the attendant paper trail, will ensure two key goals. First, it will ensure that this paper trail can be spread to associated government intelligence agencies, so that the national security apparatus fully understands who is a potential threat, what the potential threat is doing, and how the government is keeping tabs on the threat. It will help the agencies connect the dots. Second, it ensures the liberty of our citizenry, and if governmental powers are abused (and all power and authority given to man is eventually abused), then these abuses can be corrected and the harm redressed. The strength of the American system is that we should be able to honestly deal with failures of both liberty and security, and that we can then move to correct these failures. Repression and silence not only hides potential abuse, but it hides incompetence and ineffectiveness. The 9-11 Report took a good hard look at American intelligence failures, and it didn’t conclude that the only way to solve things is warrantless wiretaps and secret prisons. The solution was an open, communicative government that could efficiently transmit information and put the puzzle pieces together.

Bush is fond of saying the terrorists hate us for our freedoms. If that is the case, then destroying our freedoms can only bring joy to the terrorists. We once had a slogan in this country: Give me Liberty or give me Death. General Stark, a hero of the revolution, toasted his men “Live Free or Die: Death is not the worst of Evils.” New Hampshire adopted this as their state motto, so at least someone in this country still remembers our revolutionary ideals. We must never surrender our liberty for any enemy, be it foreign or domestic, because it is for our freedom that we fight.

Conclusion

We must have the strength of our convictions, and we must let freedom and liberty triumph over fear. This is accomplished by refusing to allow the threat of terrorism, which is an essentially psychological weapon, to close our societies and curtail our liberty. The greatest rebuttal to a terrorist is a refusal to be intimidated, to continue to leave free despite the threat of senseless violence. The message to terrorists should not be that they are the embodiment of evil, upon whom we focus all the energies of our society. This only feeds the narcissism of Al-Queda to help them believe that they lead the Islamic world against a Western crusade. Instead, we should mock them and let them know that as they cower in their caves, we shall always hold our freedom dear and will not surrender it because a few have fallen. We have our own martyrs, martyrs to freedom, whose blood only serves to refresh the tree of liberty. If an airplane is bombed, or if numerous planes are bombed, we will not stop taking to the air, but we will grit our teeth and carry on without intimidation. The terrorists must know that we shall never let their acts of childish violence prevent us from breathing the outside air, from speaking our mind, and from living as proud Americans. We defeat the tactic of terrorism when we refuse to be terrorized. As President Franklin Roosevelt said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself— nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."

Iraq Solution - Put it to a Vote

2006-08-14T19:42:00.000-07:00

There is an optimal solution for the paradox of the Iraqi occupation. Let the Iraqis vote on the continued presence of the U.S. led "Coalition of the Willing" (henceforth simply the U.S.). If they vote we stay, the U.S. presence gains legitimacy, both in Iraq and the international community. If they vote we leave, then we leave with honor. We leave, as perhaps no occupying army has ever left a country it so recently conquered, merely because we were told to by the people. This is an importatn question we must have the people (and not their parlimentary representatives) answer. Democracy cannot be created in the midst of a sectarian civil war with an occupying army hated by the local populace. Since pithy names and sloganering seem to be a prerequisite to selling any Iraq policy, I herby dub this plan the "Democracy and Dignity" plan, since it gives dignity to the Iraqi people by allowing them to use the democratic process as they wish against the U.S.

Preface:

The Iraq war was originally sold to the world as basically a defensive action (irregardless if the World bought that particuar product). A majority of the representatives of the American people in Congress agreed that Saddam was a mortal threat, who was preparing an eminent strike of WMD's against the American people. The invasion occured, and these stocks of weapons proved nonexistent. Additionally, there is no evidence that ties Saddam to 9-11. Therefore, the war gains no legitimacy as one fought in self-defense, or even one fought as revenge or a comeuppance for the 9-11 attacks. Naturally, Bush argues that we are there to build a flowering democracy.

Viewed from the perspective of the average Iraqi on the ground, the U.S. was jumping at shadows. It invaded Iraq and destroyed its entire governmental system, as well as killing many unfortunate civilians along the way. The U.S. then failed to impose order, which is the first duty of a soverign actor; to secure a monopoly on the use of force for both justice and to enforce property rights. Looting began, as well as forced displacement and some limited ethnic cleansing, especially in areas bordering the Kurdish north. Reconstruction was promised, but after three years all services are still below a pre-war level. Sectarian violence is now common, with deaths appearing to average around 50 a day. The average Iraqi must wonder why the Americans are even in his country, and if they can do any good. The average American is begining to wonder the same thing.

Clearly, this situation is untenable. The only proper solution is to put the continued American presence to a vote. If the Iraqis can go to the polls to elect a government, they can handle a simple plebescite.

The Vote:

There will be two options. The first is to have the Americans stay, until either the next general election for parliament, when this issue will be back on the ballot. A good alternate (or addition) to this "stay" vote would be to permit parliament to ask the U.S. to leave two years after the vote. It is important to make the "stay" option not an open-ended grant, but permit the Iraqi people or their representatives to revisit the issue.

The "leave" option will require the US to pull all forces out of the borders of Iraq in one year and six months. This will be done in gradual phases, slowly at first, but then accelerating. U.S. forces will begin a very slow drawdown (almost non-existent) for the first six months, as more responsibilities are turned over to the Iraqis. The next six months will see a gradual redeployment of the U.S. to the periphery, on the edges of cities in the center of Iraq and a greater concentration of troops in the north, into Kurdish areas, and into the south, near Kuwait. In the last six months, these bases the U.S. troops have withdrawn into will themselves draw down, starting in central Iraq, and then winding up the lines of communication until only border outposts are left. As each base is closed, there will be formal ceremonies turning each base over to Iraqi army commanders, which will be broadcast, hopefully to help the Iraqi people witness the friendly and consenting transfer of power.

Flexibile Withdrawl:

It is indeed possible that this drawdown leads to chaos. Since there is an Iraqi government, one condition is that the government can delay the process, after the first six months of the drawdown, by a parlimentary vote. This vote will have to explain that there is a state of emergency, and continued U.S. forces are needed to help maintain order. However, this would be limited to a hold on the withdrawl plan for a maximum of one year. If the people voted the U.S. out, their will is supreme. The parliament will also be authorized to ask for another vote at the end of this one year delay (so this vote will be held 18 months after the first vote). The U.S. will do nothing to influence this election. If the parliament feels the U.S. presence necessary, after the people disagreed, then they must convince their countrymen.

During the first six months of the withdrawl, the engagement of all Iraqi parties hostile to the U.S. presence is vital. Provided a timetable for withdrawl, many hostile elements will lose much of their motivation to fight (what they see as an "infidel occupation" and a never-ending crusade), and will see they must plan for a time when the U.S. is gone and Iraq is controlled by Iraqis. Also, insteading of standing over the people of Iraqi as a colonial overlord, the U.S. will have bowed to their will. This empowerment can hopefully help enamour the skeptical ones about the power of democracy. If these formerly hostile elements can be turned, then they will likely turn on the Al-Queda elements in Iraq, who only seek to sow death and destruction.

War is Hell:

Although the conduct of the U.S. forces was and is generally exemplary, one must not forget that war is hell. This does not refer to the abberations of abuse, murder of civilians, Abu Ghraib, or other such problems that have seen the limelight. War itself is simply hell. And war must always be so. We cannot make the Iraqis give the country to the U.S. and Al-Queda as a battlefield in the War on Terror, to let their country be the place we bring the hell of war, without their consent in the matter. Many politicians at home are fond of saying "we fight them there, so we don't have to fight them here." Leaving aside the falsity of this statement, it says to the Iraqi that we think that war is a terrible, ugly thing that must never come to the American Homeland. Of course, it is fine for Iraq. It says that their innocent war dead count less then any potential terroist victims. So if we claim to fight against terror and for freedom (and we do), then we must ensure that our fight has the legitimate backing of the people we purport to protect. War will still be hell, but at least we can be sure that we are fighting together, supported by the populace. If we cannot do so, then we must leave. Democracy cannot be created in the midst of a sectarian civil war with an occupying army hated by the local populace.
General Sherman stated "War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out." He refered to the South, in America's Civil War. It would do us well to remember this statement in Iraq, where we so glibly and willingly brought this cruelty.

Washington Wisdom:

There is a current frame of thought in vogue in the elite circles of Washington (whereby I mean the traditional version of elite, i.e. those who hold power and wealth in our society) that we musn't "abandon" Iraq. Some, usually Republican, claim that a withdrawl means a victory for Al Queda. The logic then goes that we must never withdraw until every last "terrorist" in Iraq is dead or captured. This ignores that many Iraqi "terrorists" are now Shiite militamen on the government payroll, criminals, tribal leaders, old-time Batthists, and resentful locals who seek revenge from some sort of "collateral damage" inflicted by the U.S. Coalition. There are also the Al-Queda inspiried jihadists, who do seek a return to the times of an Islamic Caliphate, hate modernity, and are clear enemeis of the United States. The occupation cannot succed against the Al-Queda elements with the other elements also sowing chaos in Iraq, and the population groups that shield these elements refusing to coopearte with either U.S. forces or the elected government. However, if the occupation is legitimized by the people of Iraq, then it drastically alters the equation. Additionally, if the people of Iraq ask us to leave and we do so, then it demonstrates to the Muslim world we harbor no ambitions of empire and only wanted to help, no matter how incompetently this help was executed.

Many in Washington, especially the current administration, label any departure a "cut and run" strategy. Their current policy seems to be "stand and die." The "dignity and democracy" plan (or "Iraqi Choice" plan, or "Honor and Freedom," etc.) avoids that which any politician fears most: to be labeled a coward, in league with Al-Queda, or an "appeaser." Many Americans were taught as children that sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me. Politicans operate under the oppostie principle, and after 9-11, feel the need to out-tough each other. Pundits only seem to rate a foreign policy on how "muscular" it is, not on if it makes sense and will lead to an expansion of peace. No politician can successful waive the bloody shirt against a vote, for a vote is the purest expression of the will of the people. Anyone who opposes this policy can be labeled an imperialist, a colonial overlord, someone who endangers our troops by not allowing the occupation to be legitimicized, etc. It can be said that "they oppose freedom and democracy in Iraq." "They want to keep our troops there forever, without even asking the locals if they want us." Any political sloganist can surely come up with better, pithy statements. The Vote plan completely nuetralizes any sort of attack based on alleged weakness. That may be its sublime quality.

Conclusion: The Vote is the key to solving the paradox of America in Iraq

The vote can only do two things: Legitimize the American presence in Iraq, or provide an exit for America with honor. If we have legitimacy, then the fight for order and stability in Iraq will be greatly strengthened. If we are asked to leave, and do so, then we exit with honor. Either way, it shows to the entire Muslim world that we are not occupiers, that we wish to help, and that we respect the opinions and soverignty of the people in the middle east. It will be the single greatest act we could do to help win the hearts and minds of the people.

2006-08-13T16:25:00.000-07:00

The First Post: Why am I Here?

Welcome. I have started this instrument as a Series of Humble Proposals, submitted for the General Benefit, although perhaps most apt for the American Political Class. I offer these Ideas and Ruminationsin a non-partisan fashion, and approve of the Use or Adoption of any one or even all of these Ideas. I believe that a Pragmatic application of our faculties and reason to the world around us, combined with a hearty dose of Caution, Skepticism, and Flexibility can only serve to better our Lives and the Future of this great Republic.

That being said, it has become clear that the incompetent administration of our present Government by the certain Cabinet presided over by the Honorable messers Bush has failed to helm the ship of state in a manner that leads to prolonged Honor, Prosperity, and Glory of the Republic. Additionally, the Republican stalwarts of the Legislature have failed to hold Mr. Bush accountable for these inexcusable failures. As such, they herby adopt them as their own.
This criticism, as is the nature of our government, must be reserved to those in the leadership positions of the party or those who fully approve and endorse the Bush policy of negligence. A policy that will only wish things work out, rather than of ensuring that they do through leadership and hard work.