A Level Gaze |
|
|
"What effect must it have on a nation if it learns no foreign languages? Probably much the same as that which a total withdrawal from society has upon an individual." --G.C. Lichtenberg LinksNew Email Address! levelgaze@gmail.com Blogs NoWarBlog The Lefty Directory The Agonist aintnobaddude alicublog Alas, a Blog Altercation Ambivalent Imbroglio AmericaBlog American Street Amygdala Anger Management Angry Bear Armed Liberal Bad Attitudes Barney Gumble Bartcop Beyond Corporate Billmon Blah3 Body and Soul Booman Tribune Brad DeLong Busy Busy Busy Buzzflash By Neddie Jingo Calculated Risk CalPundit Chase me ladies Chris Nelson Contested Terrrain Cooped Up Conceptual Guerilla corrente Counterspin Crooked Timber Daily Howler Daily Kos Decembrist Demosthenes Driftglass D-Squared Digest Electrolite Eschaton Ethel Ezra Klein Fafblog! Fanatical Apathy Firedoglake First Draft Fistful of Euros get donkey! Globblog The Hamster Here's What's Left Horowitz Watch Housing Bubble Hullabaloo Intl News Istanblog James Wolcott Jesus' General Juan Cole Junius Lean Left Left Coast Breakdown Letter from Gotham Liberal Oasis MacDiva MadKane Mahablog Majikthise Making Light Marginal Revolution Mark Kleiman Matthew Yglesias MaxSpeak Media Whores Online Michael Finley Michael Froomkin MyDD My Left Wing Nathan Newman Off the Kuff Oliver Willis Orcinus Pandagon Pen-Elayne Pfaffenblog PLA The Poor Man R.B. Ham Raed in the Middle Ragout Raw Story ReachM High Cowboy Rittenhouse Review The Road to Surfdom Roger Ailes Rude Pundit Ruminate This Seeing the Forest Seize the Fish Self Made Pundit Sideshow Sirotablog Sisyphus Shrugged Skippy Slacktivist South Knox Bubba Steve Gilliard Talking Points Memo Talk Left The Talking Dog Tapped TBogg Ted Barlow Testify! Thinking It Through Through the Looking Glass TNR Online Tres Producers TRR Two Tears in a Bucket uggabugga Unknown News Vaara Wampum War Liberal Winning Argument Wonkette WTF Is It Now General Interest BBC News The Economist Metafilter RealPolitik Robot Wisdom 
Archives 
|
Tuesday, December 17, 2002
Search Hits I win. Somebody wound up here on "free naked pictures Early retirement Incentive Illinois" (#2!). Pay up. If it's a strike, don't workers have to be involved? Charles Dodgson at Through the Looking Glass has an insightful post about the "general strike" in Venezuela, and the Bush Administration's response to it. Meanwhile, back in Washington D.C., our petroleophile administration, not ordinarily a great friend to labor movements at home or abroad, might be expected to express grave concern and call for the restoration of oil shipments and civil peace, not necessarily in that order. For one thing, the current disruption of Venezuelan oil shipments is a real strategic issue for the United States, which gets 13% of its oil imports from Venezuela. Instead, they have issued statements publicly calling for elections --- effectively, lending the full support of the U.S. government to the demands of the leaders of the general whatever-it-is, which is causing disruption of oil shipments. I'd like to know whether the administration would suppport Chávez if he were to win the election they're calling for. Monday, December 16, 2002
Rising tax burden on the rich? What about tax benefits? Via Atrios, this article in The Washington Post, in which Bush & Co. lament the “rising tax burden on the rich and a declining burden on the poor.” Early this month, J.T. Young, the deputy assistant treasury secretary for legislative affairs, lamented in a Washington Times opinion article: "[Higher] earners cannot produce the level of revenues needed to sustain the liberals' increasingly costly spending programs over the long-term. . . . If federal government spending is not controlled, then the tax burden will have to begin extending backward down the income ladder." The “[higher] earners” do not include corporations, which are not mentioned anywhere in the article, and which are certainly capable of producing high levels of revenues, and whose share of tax revenues has fallen over recent decades. [Rep. Jim] DeMint [R-SC] and his allies have called for a national sales tax to replace the income tax. For those below the federal poverty line, sales taxes paid would be refunded, but under the system, at least they will have seen the cost of government, he said. The working poor would accept a higher tax burden because they would be relieved of the need to file a tax return. Really? Ya think? Steve Forbes proposed a 17% flat tax rate in 1996. That would equate to $3,077 for a family of 4 at the 2002 poverty line of $18,100, which they would get back at the end of the year. In return for the convenience of not having to fill out a 6-entry 1040EZ form, such a family would be giving the federal government an interest-free loan of $3,077. I suppose the private sector will step in and grant them interest-free credit to tide them over. Such families would still have to absorb Social Security, disability, state, and local taxes. A shift in the tax burden toward the poor carries with it no incentive for employers to increase wages, and so will increase poverty. Having larger numbers of people living in poverty isn’t good for anyone, rich or poor. It brings about higher violent and property crime rates, increased civil unrest, worse public health and deterioration of property values. Likewise, a reduction of middle class net income isn’t very helpful, either. Dollar for dollar, members of the middle class are far more likely than the rich to consume, start small businesses, and invest in education for themselves and their children. An examination of who is paying for the federal government is disingenuous at the least without an examination of who benefits from its activities. We’ve got (minimal) health care for the poor who, as defined in the programs themselves, cannot pay for it. I’m waiting to hear a republican get on the soapbox and tell the public the sick among the poor should be allowed to suffer and die untreated. If health care is further reduced, the labor supply will decrease, poverty will increase, crime will increase (to pay for medical care), and communicable diseases will spread further. Who benefits? Everyone equally. Additionally, we as a society will retain the ability to look at ourselves in a mirror. We’ve got the civil judicial system, which functions mostly to protect the assets of individuals and corporations. Who has the vast majority of assets? The rich. We’ve got the criminal judicial system, which functions to protect our persons and to ensure domestic tranquility. Who benefits? Everyone benefits from the former, and the benefits of the latter skew towards the rich, as it enables them to carry on the commerce and production from which they disproportionately benefit. We’ve got national defense, which, in addition to protecting the life and liberty of all American citizens, is also deployed to protect American commercial interests and property. Of the second and third of these, who has them? The rich. We’ve got the national network of roads and transit. The rationale for federal subsidies is that they enable the movement of goods and labor. Who owns the goods? The rich. Who gets the benefits of the labor? Split between employees and their employers. We’ve got the Federal Reserve, the chief function of which is to keep inflation to a sustainable minimum. Inflation reduces the value of money. Who keeps money? The rich. We’ve got funding for education, which benefits the poor and middle class, but also gives (rich) employers a pool of skilled labor with which they can make profits. Both rich and poor benefit. We’ve got the drug war, which keeps illegal drug prices high (benefit: rich high-level drug dealers, who don’t even have the decency to pay taxes), throws largely poor drug users and low-level dealers in jail (benefit: nobody), and contributes to crime (benefit: nobody). The entirety of the premise that the poor do not pay “their share” of taxes is a crock of shit if implicit in it is the idea that all should be obligated to pay equally for unequal benefits. Edit: I forgot, criminal courts also protect property. Advantage: rich. Friday, December 13, 2002
"Last but not least, I'd like to thank my 10th-grade history teacher" Dwight Meredith at PLA has an announcement: We have, therefore, decided to make Koufax Awards for the best of left of center blogs. For the non-sports fans, Sandy Koufax was, in our estimation, the greatest left-handed baseball pitcher of all time. We will accept votes by comment or email. A Blue Ribbon panel consisting of Arthur Anderson, Katherine Harris and Ken Lay will tabulate the results. Ari Fleischer will announce the winners shortly after the turn of the year. If we can locate one, each winner will receive a free link to Sally Fields’ Oscar acceptance speech (“you like me, you really like me…”). Et Tu, Nicholas? I'm rather a fan of Nicholas Kristof. Although overshadowed by Paul Krugman, with whose column Kristof's usually shares the Times' op-ed page twice a week, he's generally objective and logical. What, then, are we to make of his latest? Every evening at 8 p.m., middle-class Venezuelans pour out of their homes to bang pots to demand the resignation of President Hugo Chávez. If I were Venezuelan, I'd be with them. Mr. Chávez is an autocratic leftist demagogue who is running the economy into the ground, manipulating the Constitution and fostering hatred between rich and poor. Venezuela would be much better off if he resigned. I honestly don't know. Although I don't think I'd like to share an apartment with him, Chávez gives every appearance and evidence of trying to do right by his country and the vast majority of its people. While an argument from someone of Kristof's standing and track record could change my mind, he has not chosen (or is unable) to muster the requisite evidene to do so. Kristof speaks of Chávez' "manipula[tion]," of the Venezuelan Constitution, and quotes Admiral Daniel Comisso that Chávez has "systematically violated" it, but offers not even one concrete instance of it. Although Chavez has pushed for changes to his country's constitution, he has proceeded within the law and has moved only with public and legislative approval. On the record, however, is his opponents' coup attempt last April, which was decidedly not constitutional. Through all of his opponents' agitation, Chávez has ruled with a relatively light hand and left intact media outlets determined to remove him. Prior to his election, Venezuela had been run by a tiny elite that had left 4 in 5 of its citizens in poverty despite its status as the world's third largest exporter of oil. His attempts to wrest power from this elite have, predictably, led to unease in global capital and business markets and a vast outflow of foreign investment. The alternative, he believed, was a continuation of the status quo, so he pushed forward. Change is hard, and always meets resistance. Look at what the U.S. had to go through to make (more) actual the constitutionally mandated civil rights of its black citizens. Chávez is attempting something far bigger, to break the 100+ year hammerlock on political and economic power enjoyed by a tiny segment of his population, and he's doing it without kangaroo courts, firing squads, martial law, or even squelching dissent. As for "fostering hatred between rich and poor," how does that compare with prior administrations empty promises and utter disregard for the poor? It's a dead cinch that if Chávez is ousted, there will be no improvement in the lives of Venezuala's impoverished, only a return to the cozy, corrupt oligarchy of the past. So what is Kristof's beef? Why would he prefer the return of the cronies? Is it because Chávez fostered ties with Cuba? Because he isn't the compliant lapdog of Big Oil? Because he criticizes U.S. policy in Colombia and Afghanistan? Because he's (gasp!) a "leftist?" I'm having a Clara Peller moment here, Nick. Help me out. Wednesday, November 20, 2002
Corruption log/pass: metafilter A proposed corollary to "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely": "Absence of oversight of one's actions and lack of accountability for them vastly increases one's power." Give enough men power without accountability and some will abuse it to the detriment of the rest. You can set your watch by it, no psychohistory required. Are we, as a country, so stupid to have forgotten the lessons of millenia, the fixed laws of human conduct? "Well," some say, "nothing has gone wrong yet, so why all the hubbub?" It's as though the entire fabric of our nation, the rule of law, civil liberties, government for and by the consent of the governed has suddenly become superfluous. In practice, then, America's freelance warriors are free to misbehave--and to escape the consequences. When a number of DynCorp employees working in Bosnia were recently found to be running a sex-slavery ring, the Army's Criminal Investigation Division dropped its inquiry after determining the men fell outside of its jurisdiction. U.S. courts proved to be similarly impotent, and the fragile, corrupt Bosnian legal system did no better. Similarly, if Karzai's new bodyguards decide to flout the law in Afghanistan, a nation with ample opportunity for profiteering and corruption, there is very little that anyone--Karzai, the Pentagon, or U.S. courts--will be able to do about it. This is to say nothing about the 'disappearing' of Bush I/Reagan presidential papers, Bush II's refusal to hold press conferences, the administration's directive to thwart FOIA requests, the Energy Commission coverup, etc., etc., etc. Where is our goddamned press corps? It is not necessary to prove ill intent to demonstrate that removing restrictions on government power and secrecy is unacceptable and asking for trouble. via Metafilter Edit: I can't spell. Wednesday, November 06, 2002
Tim Dunlop, from The Road to Surfdom, has an absolutely brillliant analysis of the election that includes this sentence: How would American politics change if the actual President had to do what they pay Ari Fleischer to do? Go read it now. Giddyap Horse! I'm deeply grateful to Media Whores Online for all the long hours of sleuthing they(?) put in, and for their valiant efforts to push the other side back, even if it's just a bit. They had some items today that have me scratching my head though" But do not adopt the media whore/Naderite narrative: Democrats lost because they don't stand for anything, and Tuesday proved they must move to the left in order to energize their base. That sounds like exactly what we need to be doing. If we don't move left, we're in the mushy center, which is practically the definition of not standing for anything. The problem for Democrats was not that more would have been motivated to vote if only Democrats had opposed war with Iraq more strongly or proposed repealing the disastrous Bush tax cuts, the consequences of which are not yet clear to most. While most Americans are uncertain about war with Iraq, it was not an exploitable issue by itself. The truth is, Tuesday's characteristically pathetic voter turnout supports the point that most Americans don't care at the moment whether it happens or not, and they couldn't be made to care in time. As for proposing a repeal of tax cuts - vigorously opposing them before they take place is a winning position, repealing them isn't. Repealing that god-awful insult of a tax cut isn't a winning position? I beg your pardon? It wasn't all that long ago we could energize people by saying something like 'they're gonna take your money and give it to, of all people the rich! America, is that what you want?' With repetition and coordination, it would have sunk in and won us a lot of races. Yes, this debacle of an election is the media's fault. But it's our fault as well, and we need to drastically change the way we do things in the Democratic party, not diddle around with how to phrase things to make them palatable to the electorate. If we have to drag American voters, kicking and screaming to chose their own interests, so be it. Otherwise, let's just give up and leave the fray to Nader. Thursday, October 31, 2002
Nut Control Probably the most time and energy in the Bush administration's justification of a U.S. Iraq invasion has been put into the idea that Saddam is perilously close to developing a nuclear bomb and must be stopped at all costs. Now that North Korea has admitted to its own nuclear weapons program, Bush is pulling out all the stops in an attempt to derail it. Although little has been said on the subject of the two most recently confirmed members of the nuclear club, India and Pakistan, I believe it would be fair to characterize the position of this administration as being strongly against nuclear proliferation. Given the administration is firmly in the anti-gun control camp, I propose to examine that position in the light of an allegory: Individuals as sovereign nations, guns as nuclear weapons, clubs as conventional weapons, and the inverse of all three. Individuals in this country, some great, some small, coerce, compete and cooperate, make judgements about one another and act accordingly. Sovereign nations, although their relative proximity to one another is fixed, do much the same. Guns can kill with great efficiency at a distance. Nukes can 'kill' a country with great efficiency at a distance. It is much more difficult to kill with a club, as one must gain proximity to the victim and use it repeatedly. One must also thwart the other's defenses. Proximity and vigorous, repeated application of conventional weapons are likewise required to 'kill' another nation, while penetrating its defenses. The administration believes that gun control is bad, that all citizens should have the capability of resisting tyranny, and that law and order are strengthened by widespread possession of guns, because they deter unilateral aggression. The administration also believes that nuclear weapons control in the world is good. It's bad enough that some countries already have them (although we're keeping ours). As more countries gain nukes, the chance that one of them will decide to use them against other countries is unacceptable and justifies any actions deemed necessary to remove them. At the level of individual citizens, guns are the ultimate deterrent to the violence and oppression of others. The gun lobby believes that an armed populace is the best defense against incipient tyranny; people with guns don't have to sit back and take it should an unjust government attempt to excercise its power over them. As the level of tyranny that would justify armed resistance is nowhere defined, presumably it's up to the individuals concerned to define it for themselves. At the level of sovereign nations, nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent to the violence and oppression of other nations. If nuclear weapons were guns and sovereign nations citizens, then, according to current Executive Branch thinking, only a few priviliged rich and/or powerful people should have guns. The rest should be prevented, forcibly if necessary, from acquiring guns, in the interest of maintaing societal stability and preventing killings. If guns were nuclear weapons and citizens sovereign nations, then every sovereign nation should be allowed to have nuclear weapons to protect itself against the potential tyranny of other countries. Any restriction upon the acquisition or deployment of nuclear weapons would be bad for the world community as a whole. A rogue nation could decide to launch a nuclear attack against another country, just as a rogue individual could decide to start shooting his countrymen. The damage caused by either is awful and irreparable. Why accept one and not the other? It could be argued that the odd shooting is a reasonable price to pay for increased security in general, and the disincentive generated to governmental tyranny. It could be argued that the risk of a rogue nation using a nuclear weapon is too great for the rest of the world to countenance. We don't worry about individual lives in the US and we don't worry about the possibility of tyranny and unilateralism in the world. Which 'principle' does the administration favor? Wednesday, October 30, 2002
Come Together In the interest of disentangling the argument against a U.S. military action against Iraq from other, unrelated political issues, I am joining with bloggers on both (all) sides of the political spectrum in participating in NoWarBlog. This blog is an attempt to increase the perceived legitimacy of the anti-war cause by taking away one of the most oft-used of the hawks' specious arguments against it. "Oh, you know those left-wing kooks..." It's too bad we feel the need to resort to something like this; people should evaluate arguments on their merits, rather than the political leanings of the source, but whattaya gonna do? It's not as though the fact that, even leaving Muslims to one side, nearly every single person in the world outside of the U.S. thinks the idea of an Iraq invasion is illegitimate, short-sighted, and reckless has had much effect on the balance of opinion here. Hearing the same simple, obvious, irrefutable truths from people with profoundly different worldviews and politics may help convince a few more thinking people that war with Iraq is wrong. In the highly polarized arena that is American political discourse, unanimity is the only sure validity. This is our credo. Tuesday, October 29, 2002
Did Putin do wrong? It's entirely possible that the Russian government took the best of the available options, given the circumstances and their knowledge of them. If: 1. The theater had been wired with explosives, which, presumably, could have been detonated at very short notice. (True) 2. There were too many terrorists for the police to have a reasonable shot (ptp) at getting them all in a raid before one or more of them detonated the explosives. (True) 3. The government fully believed that the terrorists were willing to and intended to a) blow up the building, or b) just kill the hostages if their demands were not met. (??) 4. The government was unwilling to meet the terrorists' demands. (True) 5. The gas used was the only method (or the least lethal one) available that would incapacitate the terrorists quickly enough to prevent them from blowing up the theater and (thereby) killing all of the hostages. (??) If, and it's a big if, these five premises are true, then the use of an agent like the gas that was pumped into the theater makes sense. It might have failed, but, with the alternative being the death of all the hostages, it was worth a try (so their thinking might have gone). It's quite possible that the only agent that would work quickly enough had a high propensity to kill. If the alternative to the best of the government's knowledge was the probable blowing of the building/death of the hostages, then gassing with this substance might have seemed the only choice. I don't have all of the facts, either, so I'm not making any pronouncements on the issue, but there is a very plausible set of circumstances under which Putin did the right thing. ADDENDUM: Putin did do wrong in having the terrorists summarily executed. I'm sure it played really well for the locals, but it just ain't right. Hyde Urges Bush to Help Oust Venezuelan President Warning of the formation of a potential "Axis of Evil" in the Americas, an influential lawmaker has called on President George W. Bush to support the ouster of left-wing Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. Just days before Brazilians elected radical populist Lula da Silva as their president on Oct. 27, House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) sent President Bush a powerfully phrased letter warning that a triumvirate of political extremists leading economic powerhouse Brazil, oil giant Venezuela and the terrorist-sponsoring regime of Cuba constitute an emerging "Axis of Evil" that the United States must stop. Again with the oil? So our avowed enemy North Korea, which in all likelihood already has nuclear weapons and missiles potent enough to deliver said weapons to our shores, just needs a good talking-to, but Venezuela, which has neither, requires forcible régime change. And this on the strength of a presumed tie between it and Brazil, the new leader of which has made some noises about pursuing nuclear weapons. Hyde blusters on about how Venezuela's Chavez was elected with the help of "systematic violation of the Venezuelan Constitution," no instance of which he deigns to mention. He also fails to mention that Chavez was elected by a majority, against the vehement opposition of just about every monied interest in the country. And he gets in a jab or two at Bill Clinton. According to Hyde, "all the pro-democracy elements of the society, including the genuinely democratic political parties, the labor unions, business associations and religious institutions, have been gathered for two days in coalition with a group of active duty military officers of flag rank demanding that President Hugo Chavez resign and that new, free and open elections be held." I wonder if the timing and means of bringing about the elections Hyde proposes are in accord with the Venezuelan Constitution. Does it have provisions for the military forcing the resignation of the elected president? This is about two things: oil, and a fit of brutal pique at having our accustomed lapdogs in Latin America attempt to peek their noses out from under US hegemony. To hell with self-determination. To hell with democracy. If any further proof had been needed that brutal pigs are running US foreign policy, this letter supplies it. via Realpolitik Monday, October 28, 2002
Drug war has hidden agendas, says report The governments of struggling nations around the world prohibit the use of certain drugs not only to protect public health and safety, but also because launching and maintaining a war on drugs enables governments to expand their police powers, create enticing political rhetoric, and attract much-needed foreign aid, according to a recent report from an influential California think tank. What the heck is going on with Bush buddy Sun Myung Moon's UPI? First they compare Dubya with Herbert Hoover, and now they dare question the sanctity of the War on Drugs? Am I missing something, or is Moon coming over to our side? Friday, October 25, 2002
"Told you so!" I've noticed a lot of right wingers rubbing their hands with glee (and, likely, relief) that the sniper turned out to be a black, Muslim al Qaeda sympathizer as opposed to an angry, white, Christian, gun nut fundamentalist. I seem to recall that these were the guys who had let the issue of al Qaeda fall by the wayside in their frenzy to invade Iraq. Many of us on the left noted that al Qaeda had attacked us, not Iraq, and that many of its members were still at large and determined to attack us. So, who told whom? It's only nukes We don't need to deal with them unless there's a political advantage to be gained by scaring the bejeezus out of the American people. Despite its startling announcement a week ago, the Bush administration had detailed knowledge for more than a year about North Korea's program to covertly make uranium fuel for an atom bomb, the Mercury News has learned. North Korea's admission that the country's secretive, authoritarian government was pursuing a new route to nuclear weapons sparked international alarm last week. But interviews with experts and former Clinton administration officials, and a review of little-noticed statements by Bush officials, raise questions about why the administration waited so long to deal with this threat, now the subject of intense diplomatic efforts. In addition, the administration had strong evidence, dating back to the Clinton presidency, that North Korea got help from Pakistan's top nuclear weapons scientist. The Pakistanis appear to have given nuclear technology to North Korea in exchange for long-range ballistic missiles that could reach deep into the territory of its traditional foe, India. Bush administration officials pointed a finger at this in early June 2001, at a time when they were courting India. But since Sept. 11, when Pakistan became a key ally in the war on terrorism, they turned mum on the Pakistan connection. via Buzzflash Tuesday, October 22, 2002
Who gets the loot? We go to war with Iraq. We win. We get rid of Saddam and all of his cronies. We install a relatively inoffensive puppet régime. We begin to rebuild the country. We get control of the oil. In his victory address, does Bush: Propose to use the oil money to pay down the defecit? Propose to use the oil money to try to stabilize the region? Propose to use the oil money to cut checks to Americans hurting from the recession? Propose to use the oil money to rejuvinate the public school system or expand the G.I. Bill? No, no, no, and no. He gives the oil concessions to American energy companies for pennies on the dollar. They conspire to keep prices high, Bush works to keep the taxes they pay to a minimum, and the rest of us don't see squat. Monday, October 21, 2002
So, with the War on Terror, the assault on civil liberties, installation of a friendly regime in place of the Taliban, with all the flag-waving and chest-pounding that's gone on, "They're [still] coming after us?" Gee, that's disappointing. After all the trouble we went to to pretend that the causes of terrorism weren't important, that we'd be better off attacking the symptoms (or, failing that, things that somewhat resemble symptoms), we've got more attacks to look forward to. Translation: America doesn’t have the resources to take on the threats it’s hearing about, much less the ones it doesn’t yet know about. And that doesn’t include invading Iraq—which will require another level of attention, money and personnel. The CIA is already “stressed out,” says one agency officer. It’s not just a question of whether the United States may be biting off more than it can chew by taking on Iraq, says this source: “The fact is, we haven’t been able to chew what’s in our mouth for 10 years.” So, instead of getting the Israelis and Palestinians to the bargaining table, instead of removing our troops from Saudi Arabia, instead of rethinking our unilateralist policies and actually listening to what other countries have to say, we'll just buckle down and muddle our way through endless terrorism and endless war, for which we're woefully underprepared. Sounds about right. Thursday, October 17, 2002
General Anthony Zinni, former head of Central Command for U.S. forces in the Middle East, has a few things to say about the situation on the ground there and how the US has reacted to it, and what should be done in the future. Some highlights: Anything we do in this region requires that regional coalition, support, and partnership to work. The number one ingredient that makes it work--I heard this term time and time again--is consult, consult, consult. Understand what is going on on the ground. Listen to your partners. We all have interests; some of those interests collide. How can we smooth out the rough edges? How can we work out solutions that don't destabilize? *** ...when I was the combatant commander in Central Command, the first thing I asked all my friends and counterparts was, "Why do you see the U.S. military presence here as important?" The answer I had was stability, stability, stability. You can, and you do, if it's done right, provide a tremendous amount of stability to a very volatile region. But to maintain that stability, we need to consult when action is taken. You need to understand from our eyes and our viewpoint what happens when an action is taken. You have to day-in and day-out work that relationship and try to see those situations from those other eyes. You have to try and find a way to mutually fulfill our interests or obligations and take care of our threats. Again, if we do something here, that particular partnership has to be involved and has to be maintained. If rifts or divisions come out and are magnified by this, who comes and who doesn't come, and problems are created for those relationships, then we're going to have trouble. We have a potential failure. *** The next point I made was that the street had to remain quiet. A short war helps that, but the mood is not good. Anti-Americanism, doubt about this war, concern about the damage that may happen, political issues, economic issues, social issues have all caused the street to become extremely volatile. I'm amazed at people that say that there is no street and that it won't react. I'm not sure which planet they live on, because it isn't the one that I travel. I've been out in the Middle East, and it is explosive; it is the worst I've ever seen it in over a dozen years of working in this area in some concentrated way. Almost anything could touch it off. What would the reaction be? We can see the events that are taking place now in Kuwait with our forces. Will we have security issues, embassies, military installations, American businessmen, or tourists there? Do we become vulnerable? Do others that are involved with us become vulnerable? Are the regimes of our friends and the governments that are friendly to us vulnerable? Do we need to see demonstrations and blood in the streets? Do we need to see friendly governments that operate economically, politically and pretty close to the edge being pushed by a street that is resisting support and cooperation in the conduct of the war? It is a great unknown, and it's easy to blow it off by comments that there is no street or that it won't react and nothing will happen. The greatest moment on the street came after 9/11 when Osama bin Laden called for the Jihad. I told my friends to watch the result. I told them I could predict there would be no Jihad, that they might see some isolated demonstrations, but that we would see the true heart of the people in the region. We saw it in October, November and December. A year later now, we have lost that goodwill. We have lost that connection; we have lost that compassion. We have lost that moment when we could have corrected things, and now the language is getting hostile and bitter. We have the crazies that represent the ends of the religions and societies involved in this who are saying things that are inflammatory, inciting, and not helping. We need a lot of repair work on those relationships, culture to culture and society to society, let alone government to government. *** . If we think there is a fast solution to changing the governance of Iraq, then we don't understand history, the nature of the country, the divisions, or the underneath-suppressed passions that could rise up. God help us if we think this transition will occur easily. We are going to need a period of order. We're going to need to have people come together. We're going to have to lower the passion, and we're going to have to control events in some way. That's going to be extremely difficult. There were 98 opposition groups the last time I counted; I think now it has increased a little bit. If you believe that they're all going to rush to the palace, hold hands and sing Kum Ba Yah, I doubt it. (laughter) If you think that people won't see opportunity to do things that will cause concern in the region, whether to the Iranians, the Turks or others, and go against what we hope will happen and against agreements that will be made, then I think you could be sadly mistaken. If you think it's going to be easy to impose a government or install one from the outside, I think that you're further sadly mistaken and that you don't understand this region. My next point was that the burden has to be shared. I don't only mean cost. I saw an estimate done by some of our financial analysts. They have predicted that the impact of a war would be an immediate 13 percent drop in the DOW and 14 percent in some of the tech stocks and NASDAQ. [emphasis mine] I'm sure the price of oil will spike; I doubt seriously that we could avoid that. The cost of this war can be great, especially if it becomes messy and long-term and if reconstruction becomes a significant issue. *** The change has to be orderly. The change will not be immediate. There is no history of Jeffersonian democracy here. If we think that this is going to happen overnight, we're wrong. In my experience with any involvement I've had in nation building--and I've had some--you need a period of transition. You need an immediate sense of order; you need to assess what is happening on the ground. You need to correct some things that are not going in the right direction. You need to build confidence. You need to rebuild institutions. You need to create a system of governance that will last, that the people can understand, participate in and feel confident in. If you think you're going to do that in a month or two, or even a year or two, I think you're dreaming. I've never seen it done like that. The attempts I've seen to install democracy in short periods of time where there is no history and no roots have failed. Take it back to Somalia and other places where we've tried. It's not an easy concept. It's not an easy form of governance to put in place and to be understood. Remember it happened well for us. We had a revolution of elites in this country, which is the exception. Every place else where this has happened, it's been bloody, difficult, and long-term with a lot of friction. We can ill afford that in this part of the region. *** It's the onset of winter in Afghanistan. President Karzai faces a situation with massive refugee problems, major reconstruction problems, and tremendous political fragility in his ability to govern from Kabul. You'd better fix that one. The last time we went to help them, we left. We ended up with Mullah Omar and the Taliban. That is burned into the memories of the people in the region; they're going to be looking to us to see if we will stick this one out and stay with them until they get there. How many of these can you put on your plate? You can't have those fail where you want to see a turnaround. *** My last point was that our other commitments have to be met. We have embarked on a global war on terrorism, GWOT as they call it in the Pentagon. If we are going to be involved in a global war on terrorism, we'd better understand that it goes beyond the tactical. The tactical means you go into the field, you go after the terrorists with your military, your law enforcement agencies cooperate to take down cells, your financial institutions work to peel away the resources needed, but you are treating the symptoms. Terrorism is a manifestation of something greater. There is extremism out there that is manifesting itself in the violent way of terrorism. What are the root causes of this extremism? Why are young people flocking to these causes? Could the issues be political, economic and social? Could disenfranchisement or oppression be what drives them rather than the religious fanaticism that may be the core element to only a few? How do we cooperate to fix these problems? How do we help a part of the world that's trying to come to grips with modernity? I would suggest that we ought to think in terms of a Marshall Plan, not a Marshall Plan in terms of a large dole necessarily but one that is international and cooperative, one that looks at what needs to be done on the economic, political and social fronts to help this important critical part of the world get through this rough patch. There are Ambassador Edward S. Walkers out there about a great religion in the process of transformation adjusting to modernity. There are Ambassador Edward S. Walkers out there about the forms of governance and whether they're going to evolve into something more responsive to the twenty-first century. There are Ambassador Edward S. Walkers out there about issues of human rights and different ways we see individual rights. Do you best work those issues in confrontation or cooperation? I think you best work them in cooperation. Our other commitments require that as the leader of the world now and the last empire standing, not one of conquest but one of influence that has attempted to be the beacon for the world and not to conquer the world, how do we best exert that influence? How do we reach that hand out? How do we muster the resources of the world, of others who look to us for leadership to help in this region now? How do we cooperate with those in the region that want to see change and that want stability and reform? How do we do it in a way that minimizes friction instead of always resorting to what I spent thirty-nine years doing, which is resorting to the gun? When you unleash that kinetic energy on a part of the world, you never know what's going to come out of the other end. More often than not, it makes the conditions worse. In a question-and-answer session following the speech, an audience member asked Zinni, "Do you think the war is unavoidable? Do you think that we are rushing into the war with Iraq without studying the consequences?" He responded: I'm not convinced we need to do this now. I am convinced that we need to deal with Saddam down the road, but I think that the time is difficult because of the conditions in the region and all the other events that are going on. I believe that he can be deterred and is containable at this moment. As a matter of fact, I think the containment can be ratcheted up in a way that is acceptable to everybody. I do think eventually Saddam has to be dealt with. That could happen in many ways. It could happen that he just withers on the vine, he passes on to the afterlife, something happens within Iraq that changes things, he becomes less powerful, or the inspectors that go in actually accomplish something and eliminate potential weapons of mass destruction -- but I doubt this -- that might be there. The question becomes how to sort out your priorities and deal with them in a smart way that you get things done that need to be done first before you move on to things that are second and third. If I were to give you my priority of things that can change for the better in this region, it is first and foremost the Middle East peace process and getting it back on track. Second, it is ensuring that Iran's reformation or moderation continues on track and trying to help and support the people who are trying to make that change in the best way we can. That's going to take a lot of intelligence and careful work. The third is to make sure those countries to which we have now committed ourselves to change, like Afghanistan and those in Central Asia, we invest what we need to in the way of resources there to make that change happen. Fourth is to patch up these relationships that have become strained, and fifth is to reconnect to the people. We are talking past each other. The dialogue is heated. We have based this in things that are tough to compromise on, like religion and politics, and we need to reconnect in a different way. I would take those priorities before this one. Saturday, October 05, 2002
Hesiod notes a suggestion for the addition of a new member to the "Axis of Evil." One of the main points in Murdock's argument is that Brazilian presidential candidate Ignacio da Silva "chillingly hinted on September 13 that Brazil should resume its quest for atomic weapons." Let me make it clear that I don't think the existence of more nuclear-armed countries is a good thing, but da Silva's position does make sense. Latin American countries in particular have to be concerned with their relationship with the 800 lb. gorilla to the north. The US has tremendous economic and military dominance, and its diplomacy has been lately comprised wholly of threats, veiled and direct. With the exception of China and Russia, every other country in the world sees itself as nakedly exposed to our power. Without something like nuclear weapons to give us pause, they'll have to roll over whenever we feel like flexing. Past experience has shown the Brazilians (and Argentinians, Columbians, Bolivians, etc.) that we flex often, and rarely for their benefit. The rest of the world sees us demanding the right to use force wherever and whenever we see fit. Is it any wonder we make them nervous? So long as we continue tromping around the globe in our nuclear-tipped boots, every other country cannot help but see itself as acutely vulnerable. Friday, October 04, 2002
Atrios beat me to it, but... I don't get all this crap about people in this country "hating America." With the exception of an infinitessimally small number of people on the extreme fringes of society, nobody here "hates America." How could we? Would we hate the land? The people? The constitutional system of government? Would anybody here be happier if the country were defeated in war or subjected to more terrorist atrocities? Is anyone here advocating the overthrow of the government and its replacement with a dictatorship, theocracy, or monarchy? No. It's an insultingly simplistic overgeneralization. Many people here disagree with one or more governmental policies. It's their right to do so, and to be expected given that at least 40% of the voting population in most districts voted against their current elected officials. That percentage is significantly higher with regard to the president. Some people just cannot wrap their heads around the idea of constructive dissent. It's the same crowd who got "doesn't respond well to criticism" on their first-grade report cards. Although I wouldn’t say that anyone outside of the aforementioned lunatic fringe hates America, but I will say that some people seem to like it more than others. Who is attempting to squelch the fine American tradition of free speech with shouts of “treason?” Who is in favor of curtailing more and more of our constitutionally guaranteed civil rights at every opportunity? Who is in favor of eliminating governmental initiatives to ensure equality of treatment for all under the law? Who is attempting to do away with the division between church and state upon which America was founded? We get the “hate America” treatment for acting in the tradition and according to the laws of the land. They get to call themselves great patriots for undermining them. Do these people even know what America is? A salesman was traveling between towns in California and got a flat tire In the middle of nowhere. Checking the spare, he found that it was flat too. His only option was to flag down a passing motorist and get a ride to the nearest town. The first vehicle to stop was an old man in a van. He yelled out the window to the salesman, "Need a lift?" "Yes, I do," replied the salesman. "You a Democrat or Republican?" asked the old man. "Democrat." "Go to Hell!" yelled the old man as he sped off. The next to stop rolled down the window and asked the same question, to which the salesman gave the same answer, "Democrat." The driver gave him the finger and drove off. The salesman thought it over, and decided that maybe he should change his approach, since there appeared to be few Democrats in this area. The next car to stop was a red convertible driven by a beautiful blonde. She smiled seductively and asked him if he were a Democrat or Republican. "Republican!" shouted the salesman. "Hop in!" replied the blonde. Driving down the road, he couldn't help but stare at the gorgeous woman In the seat next to him; the wind blowing through her hair. "A picture of perfection," he sighed, glancing at the short skirt that continued to ride higher and higher up her thighs. Finally, he yelled, "STOP THE CAR! STOP THE CAR!" She slammed on the brakes and, as soon as the car stopped, he jumped out. "What's the matter?" she asked. "I can't take it!" he replied. "I've only been a Republican for five minutes and already I want to screw somebody!" Thanks, Jim! The Push For War Anatol Lieven's comprehensive analysis of the Bush administration's drive toward invading Iraq is an absolute must-read. Some highlights: The most surprising thing about the push for war is that it is so profoundly reckless. If I had to put money on it, I'd say that the odds on quick success in destroying the Iraqi regime may be as high as 5/1 or more, given US military superiority, the vile nature of Saddam Hussein's rule, the unreliability of Baghdad's missiles, and the deep divisions in the Arab world. But at first sight, the longer-term gains for the US look pretty limited, whereas the consequences of failure would be catastrophic. A general Middle Eastern conflagration and the collapse of more pro-Western Arab states would lose us the war against terrorism, doom untold thousands of Western civilians to death in coming decades, and plunge the world economy into depression. These risks are not only to American (and British) lives and interests, but to the political future of the Administration. If the war goes badly wrong, it will be more generally excoriated than any within living memory, and its members will be finished politically - finished for good. If no other fear moved these people, you'd have thought this one would. *** It's far more probable, therefore, that most members of the Bush and Sharon Administrations hope that the crushing of Iraq will so demoralise the Palestinians, and so reduce wider Arab support for them, that it will be possible to force them to accept a Bantustan settlement bearing no resemblance to independent statehood and bringing with it no possibility of economic growth and prosperity. How intelligent men can believe that this will work, given the history of the past fifty years, is astonishing. After all, the Israelis have defeated Arab states five times with no diminution of Palestinian nationalism or Arab sympathy for it. But the dominant groups in the present Administrations in both Washington and Jerusalem are 'realists' to the core, which, as so often, means that they take an extremely unreal view of the rest of the world, and are insensitive to the point of autism when it comes to the character and motivations of others. They are obsessed by power, by the division of the world into friends and enemies (and often, into their own country and the rest of the world) and by the belief that any demonstration of 'weakness' immediately leads to more radical approaches by the 'enemy'. *** The planned war against Iraq is not after all intended only to remove Saddam Hussein, but to destroy the structure of the Sunni-dominated Arab nationalist Iraqi state as it has existed since that country's inception. The 'democracy' which replaces it will presumably resemble that of Afghanistan - a ramshackle coalition of ethnic groups and warlords, utterly dependent on US military power and utterly subservient to US (and Israeli) wishes. Similarly, if after Saddam's regime is destroyed, Saudi Arabia fails to bow to US wishes and is attacked in its turn, then - to judge by the thoughts circulating in Washington think-tanks - the goal would be not just to remove the Saudi regime and eliminate Wahabism as a state ideology: it would be to destroy and partition the Saudi state. The Gulf oilfields would be put under US military occupation, and the region run by some client emir; Mecca and the Hejaz might well be returned to the Hashemite dynasty of Jordan, its rulers before the conquest by Ibn Saud in 1924; or, to put it differently, the British imperial programme of 1919 would be resurrected (though, if the Hashemites have any sense, they would reject what would without question be a long-term death sentence). *** Under the guise of National Missile Defense, the Administration - or elements within it - even dreams of extending US military hegemony beyond the bounds of the Earth itself (an ambition clearly indicated in the official paper on Defense Planning Guidance for the 2004-09 Fiscal Years, issued this year by Rumsfeld's office). And while this web of ambition is megalomaniac, it is not simply fantasy. Given America's overwhelming superiority, it might well work for decades until a mixture of terrorism and the unbearable social, political and environmental costs of US economic domination put paid to the present order of the world. *** To understand the radical nationalist Right in the US, and the dominant forces in the Bush Administration, it is necessary first of all to understand their absolute and absolutely sincere identification of themselves with the United States, to the point where the presence of any other group in government is seen as a usurpation, as profoundly and inherently illegitimate and 'un-American'. As far as the hardline elements of the US security establishment and military industrial complex are concerned, they are the product of the Cold War, and were shaped by that struggle and the paranoia and fanaticism it bred. In typical fashion for security elites, they also became conditioned over the decades to see themselves not just as tougher, braver, wiser and more knowledgeable than their ignorant, innocent compatriots, but as the only force standing between their country and destruction. *** Twice now in the past decade, the overwhelming military and economic dominance of the US has given it the chance to lead the rest of the world by example and consensus. It could have adopted (and to a very limited degree under Clinton did adopt) a strategy in which this dominance would be softened and legitimised by economic and ecological generosity and responsibility, by geopolitical restraint, and by 'a decent respect to the opinion of mankind', as the US Declaration of Independence has it. The first occasion was the collapse of the Soviet superpower enemy and of Communism as an ideology. The second was the threat displayed by al-Qaida. Both chances have been lost - the first in part, the second it seems conclusively. What we see now is the tragedy of a great country, with noble impulses, successful institutions, magnificent historical achievements and immense energies, which has become a menace to itself and to mankind. via Metafilter Thursday, October 03, 2002
Osama Bin Laden hasn't been mentioned in a presidential speech in 7 months. Does that mean we've won the War on Terror? Hey, Ashcroft, are you done with our civil rights? We'd like 'em back. [Edit -- that's 7 months, not 8] D-Squared Digest has a very good idea on how to avoid being mischaracterized when criticizing the policies of a certain Middle Eastern government: Let's just stop using the words "Israeli" and "Zionist" and replace them with "Likudist". It couldn't hurt. [Edit: Link "fixed." Permalink n/a.] Wednesday, October 02, 2002
I done seen about everything... ...when I see Al Gore winning points for Democrats by calling on W. to more closely emulate Ronald Reagan: [Gore] said the president has "tried to create the impression that our economic problems are primarily due to the terrorist attacks." But he said no objective economist could come to the same conclusion, adding that current economic policies have played a major role. The president is "like a lost driver who won't stop to ask for directions." "The president clutches his old plan and continues racing in the wrong direction, farther and farther into the economic wilderness," Gore said, "with the fate of nearly 300 million Americans in tow." Gore said, "If we turn a blind eye to our weak economy, it will eventually undermine everything else we're trying to accomplish -- from winning the war on terrorism to giving all families the economic opportunities they deserve." He urged Bush to do what Ronald Reagan did at the same point in his presidency before the midterm elections of 1982 -- reassess economic policy "to examine what is working and what is not." Regime Change for Everybody! Does the Bush cabal have balls, or what? Richard Perle, über-hawk and über-administration insider, is on record in the German Handesblatt Daily suggesting that the best thing German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder can do to improve US-German relations is resign. "It would be best if he (Schroeder) resigned. But he's obviously not going to do that," Pentagon adviser Richard Perle said in an interview with Wednesday's Handelsblatt daily, released ahead of publication. *** Perle, a leading voice in U.S. efforts to oust Saddam Hussein, told Handelsblatt that Schroeder's stance on Iraq would set back Berlin's desire to win a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council "for a generation". With innovative diplomatic initiatves like this, is it any wonder the whole world is lined up behind us to do our bidding? via Buzzflash Friday, September 27, 2002
Instapundit's True Colors Revealed Affinity for Bush Policies Explained I think that the anti-death-penalty crowd (like the anti-war crowd) made a serious mistake by lapsing into moral posturing on this issue and thus destroying its credibility. The notion that it's per se immoral for the state to kill peple is absurd -- or at least, proves too much, as killing people is the core function of nation-states, and always has been. Government power is based ultimately on violence; all else is superstructure. emphasis mine Whoa. As for myself, I can think of nothing more intrinsically moral than the issue of whether and why a person should be killed. Brothers in Arms Chris Floyd points out some similarities between our president and his nemesis arising from the administration's newly minted National Security Strategy. Tellingly, Bush's list of basic freedoms contains no right of privacy, no inviolability of person, no right to information about government actions, no right of redress for wrongs inflicted by the powerful, nor a host of other freedoms once considered essential to the liberty of an independent citizen. No, what we have here is simply a candy-coated model for a militarized world, a fanatical ideology enforced by the ever-looming threat of punishment and death. What we have here is bin Laden writ large. Tim Dunlop at The Road to Surfdom goes to town on the Bush administration's truth-handling ability. What really gets up my nose, though, is the fact that what generally happens is that there is no good faith, we are spoken to as if we were idiots or children, and that we are strung along on partial and unsubstantiated information that changes as the needs of the government in question changes. In other words, we are routinely lied to and the business of government is not about doing the right thing for the country or the world (as is always piously claimed) but in managing information for maximum political advantage. Thursday, September 26, 2002
Hey everybody! It finally happened! Dr. Weevil has responded to my open letter! He says it was "serious" and "relatively coherent!" I'm legit now, baby! I think he missed the point. In the Shropshire Challenge, he called upon those opposed to the war to go to Iraq as human shields against the US armed forces. If they didn't, they should "shut the hell up about chickenhawks." He did not feel that an equivalent level of commitment to his side was appropriate. I replied that he and the rest of the warbloggers are the ones advocating change, and, if anyone were to "put up," they should. Then I called him a hypocrite. He responds: This is more than a bit misleading. The status quo is highly unlikely to continue. Everyone knows that a U.S. invasion of Iraq is very likely, and that it will come soon, unless something happens to stop it. Non-invasion may be the status quo, but invasion is the default. That means that I don't have to do anything to bring about an invasion, since it will go ahead with or without me. (Not to mention that I can't do anything but argue, since I'm too old to enlist and, even if I weren't, I wouldn't make it through boot camp and specialized training in time to see action.) But anyone who seriously opposes an invasion of Iraq can and should do something to prevent it while there is still time. 'Level Gaze' has it exactly backwards: I don't have to do anything except argue against objections such as his. He on the other hand needs to do some serious work if he wants to stop the war, and sitting around bitching about it isn't going to suffice. Got that? It's going to happen anyway, so it magically becomes the "default," which is somehow different from the "status quo." Leaving that to one side, it could make one question the reasoning behind Dr. Weevil's (and the rest of the warbloggers') need to argue in favor of invasion. If it's inevitible, cheering it on won't help. Even the need to "argue against objections such as [mine]" dissolves. It's also nice to know that Dr. Weevil believes that our government cannot be swayed by means short of direct physical intervention. I and others who are against the war are "do[ing] some serious work...to stop the war." Besides, the last I heard, we're still waiting on United Nations and congressional approval for invasion, which seems to indicate that the question is still up in the air. For all of the administration's bluster, we may yet be deterred. I and a lot of other people throughout the world believe it's possible, otherwise our speaking out against invasion would be equally pointless. He wants an invasion and I don't. But the main point is that those of us against the war, including Phillip Shropshire, aren't obligated to put their lives on the line because of our opinions. Honestly, stopping the war in Iraq isn't worth my life,however many other lives it may wind up costing. If it is your opinion that standing up for what you believe in--or even stating your beliefs--requires putting your life on the line, then it applies to everybody, not just to those with whom you disagree. And them what starts a fight has to go first, as a show of good faith. Shropshire was supposed to put himself in the line of fire, but, sadly, Dr. Weevil is too old to enlist, and shouldn't have to because war is inevitible anyway. That's as far as he got with the argument, and that's why I called him a hypocrite. The rest of the response is taken up with: his belief that invasion will do more good than leaving things as they are (I disagree--what happens when Israel gets into the slog, that'll be good for everybody, right?); his interesting hypothesis that I would have opposed the Normandy invasion (which, I believe, was one of many results of unprovoked aggression, and therefore righteous); about his nephew-who-almost-enlisted-in-the-Marines (whatever); a non-argument to the effect that the armed forces are not only (I had said "mostly") comprised of people from the lower classes and minorities (they are, very disproportionately, especially the infantry); that Iraq poses a threat to us (sure, if Saddam is willing to have his country flattened for him); that Iraq intends harm to its neighbors as can be deduced from its actions toward Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia (the war with Iran we actively encouraged and suppported, the war with Kuwait we pretended to green-light (see April Glaspie), and Saudi Arabia is a non-issue); a confusion of Iraq with Afghanistan (which, although in some ways is better off than it had been under the Taliban, has seen a return of the rule of warlords and looks about ripe for a re-descent into civil war); that "war is necessary" because Hussein is a "psychopathic thug" who has "good reason" to hate the US (hmm...a psychopath with good reason...will he use it? Will we be removing the rest of the thugs of the world? Does Musharraf count?); that I "have a seriously exaggerated idea of the importance of the Blogosphere" because I put him in the same sentence with the Bush administration (I'm addressing you, who agree with the administration. I want you both to do the same thing. Why on earth wouldn't I put you in the same sentence? Cheap (and inaccurate) shot); more arguments that I should be willing to die a traitor because I am against a proposed policy of the administration (let's all go stand in the way of a tank to protest the tax hike!); that none of the chickenhawks have threatened to punish any human shields (they have indeed; they're called Iraqi citizens, and Saddam will be using tens of thousands of them); and how many celebrities will fit on the head of a cruise missle (all of them). Note the absence of a response to my argument. In the process, he describes my post with nice words like "pretentious," "fifth-rate," "absurd," and "bilge." He tells me I need to "shut the fuck up about chickenhawks" because I'm not willing to go stand in the middle of a war zone. Shut the fuck up or die. A beautiful sentiment from one American to another. And I should apologize. To whom? I think I'll do neither, thank you. Wednesday, September 25, 2002
P.L.A. knocks the crud off the usual discourse, and makes an excellent point about the Bush administration's decision-making process, with plenty of examples. It is a fundamental axiom of decision-making that one’s decisions are only as good as the information on which they are based. Bad information, or simply an absence of information, leads to bad decisions. The acquisition and assessment of information is the sine qua non of decision-making. One of the reasons that we have little confidence in President Bush’s decision-making with regard to almost any issue is that he exhibits a complete lack of respect for the collection or assessment of information prior to making his decision. Reminds me of the one immortal Bush quote: "Who cares what you think?" via Ted Barlow Michael Kelly, thy name is WHORE. Gore uttered his first big lie in the second paragraph of the speech when he informed the audience that his main concern was with "those who attacked us on Sept. 11, and who have thus far gotten away with it." Who have thus far gotten away with it. The government of Gore's country has led a coalition of nations in war against al Qaeda, "those who attacked us on Sept. 11"; has destroyed al Qaeda's central organization and much of its physical assets; has destroyed the Taliban, which had made Afghanistan a state home for al Qaeda; has bombed the forces of al Qaeda from one end of Afghanistan to the other; has killed at least hundreds of terrorists and their allies; and has imprisoned hundreds more and is hunting down the rest around the world. All this while Gore, apparently, slept. Well, perhaps Gore was talking loosely. No. He made clear in the next sentence this was a considered indictment: "The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the coldblooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized." If there is a more reprehensible piece of bloody-shirt-waving in American political history than this attempt by a man on the sidelines to position himself as the hero of 3,000 unavenged dead, I am not aware of it. And, again, this sentence is a lie. The men who "implemented" the "coldblooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans" are not at large. They are dead; they died in the act of murder, on Sept. 11. Gore can look this up. In truth, the "vast majority" of the men who "sponsored" and "planned" the crime are dead also, or in prison, or on the run. The inmates at Guantanamo Bay, and the hunted survivors of Tora Bora, and the terrorist cell members arrested nearly every week, and the thousands of incarcerated or fugitive Taliban, might disagree as to whether they have been located, apprehended, punished or neutralized. Ok, Mike, riddle me these: How many people are/were in Al Qaeda? What are their names? Did we get them all? What percentage of them did we get? Are you sure it was "a vast majority?" Do you have any proof? I seem to recall reports of large numbers of them fleeing to Pakistan. Did we get them? Did we get every cell in Germany? In Italy? In Belgium? In Egypt? In Algeria? In Saudi Arabia? In Central Asia? In Indonesia? In the Phillipines? In saying they didn't get away with it, are you saying that we no longer have anything to fear from them? You're sure there won't be any more attacks? Would you bet the lives of your children on that? How about the lives of everyone else's children? Although Gore knows that Bush is also seeking, as Democrats also demanded, United Nations approval, he pretended this represented a failure of leadership as well because "thus far, we have not been successful in getting it." True enough -- because the Security Council hasn't voted. Thus far. Cute. The approval of the UN is different than the approval of the Security Council. You do know that, don't you? Also, are you agreeing that failure to get UN approval before invading Iraq represents a failure of leadership? If so, then Gore's right on the money. With the exception of Britain, every other country in the world that has spoken on the issue--including Kuwait--has come out against a US invasion. Does it look likely they'll vote with us? Do you think Bush's "we're gonna do it, so you better be with us or else" approach has the ring of great leadership? Doesn't seem like it to me. If you want to talk about "bloody-shirt-waving," maybe you could look to the words of our glorious President on the subject in the weeks and months after the attacks. By the way, "on the run" means the same thing as "at large." You can look it up. Tuesday, September 24, 2002
Ann Salisbury directs our attention to a place where military action could be justified and do some good. BOUAKE, Ivory Coast -- More than 100 American and other foreign children were trapped in this rebel-held central city Sunday as government forces tried to retake northern areas seized by renegade soldiers last week. The children, ranging from infants to 12-year-olds, attend a boarding school in the city. They are the sons and daughters of missionaries working across West Africa. It's tempting to imagine the scene at Chickenhawk Central: POWELL: Mr. President, I believe we could get those children out of the country and safely back to the US in 48 hours. I'm imagining a future in which Gore has defeated Bush in 2004. It is now 2008. Dubya has done literally nothing since handing over the White House. Now he is put forward to reclaim his throne. He "writes" articles and gives speeches and raises money. Would anybody take him seriously? I think he benefits from the trappings of office. I think if he were just some guy with a history of disard for public opinion saying the same kind of things he says now, he'd look like an idiot. Without his buildings-full of bureaucrats to burnish his BS, he'd go 'clunk' a lot more often. He'd look like an impotent figurehead. And there would still be people voting for him! Monday, September 23, 2002
Ampersand has a very insightful post up entitled "Anyone who doesn't fund Israel is an anti-Semite" (permalinks n/a), in which is elucidated the revolutionary idea that it's possible to be and work against Israel's policies without being anti-Semitic. Saturday, September 21, 2002
Government is the source and arbiter of all legitimacy I haven't been blogging much lately. I've felt discouraged. In addition to the remarkable community of bloggers on the left that makes my words too often seem like a weak, hollow 'me-too' echo, I also have been feeling that we're making no headway whatsoever. Sure, once in a great while, MWO slightly bends media coverage (in a tiny paragraph, say, somewhere around page 17 of the Washington Post). But that's about it. Paul Krugman, arguably the most effective and erudite critic of the Bush Administration, has had no meaningful impact whatsoever. This is not an indictment of either him or his writing. However, all he has managed to accomplish outside the ranks of the already converted is to bring calumny upon himself. A very well-respected economist, writing in the nation's paper of record, who gets everything right, has accomplished nothing of substance. So what chance do I have? Here's what happened when he wrote that Bush's tax cut was a bad idea: He laid out a number of incontrovertible reasons why the tax cut is bad medicine for the economy, and for the country as a whole. Moderates and centists ignored him completely. A large number of voices on the right vilified him personally. A smaller number of voices on the right said something to the effect of 'No it isn't!' A still-smaller number of voices on the left (who had virtually no chance of getting a wider hearing beyond themselves) applauded the arguments and Krugman's intelligence and honesty. In the furthest, most obscure reaches of political debate (blogdom, et al.), the issue of Krugman's veracity was more or less rationally debated. And that's it. In the face of a clearly enunciated, rationally consistent refutation of its assertions, the government was obliged to do exactly nothing. Anywhere else, the obligation would have been much greater. Imagine a squad of soldiers in unfriendly territory. The sergeant has been ordered to follow a particular road en route to the squad's objective. A soldier on recon comes back to the unit and reports that an enemy ambush has been set up on the road and suggests an alternate path. Should the sergeant a) plow ahead on the planned route; b) radio to his superiors, inform them of the ambush and request reinforcements or alternate orders; c) proceed along the alternate path; or d) cautiously move forward and verify the presence of the ambush. In this situation, any sane person would choose b or d, or c at the very least. No one in his or her right mind would ignore the warning and take the previously determined route. If the unit were decimated by the ambush as a result, the sergeant would be court-marshalled, and all the world would put the blood of his unit on his hands. There is widespread agreement that the government had the responsibility to take credible threats of terrorism into account in its actions prior to last September's attacks. There is widespread agreement that it is essential that we improve our performance in that respect as soon as possible, and that doing so requires an examination of what went wrong in and prior to 2001. By the same logic, it had the same responsibility to take Krugman's (who is nothing if not credible) warnings into account before pushing for its mammoth tax cut. It has the same obligation with regard to Iraq; we must fully examine the risks, potential gains, potential expenses, and complications of invasion and its aftermath before acting. In each of these cases, the Bush administration has shirked its duty. Only yesterday, more than a year after we were attacked, did it drop its opposition to a congressional investigation of intelligence failures prior to 9/11. Before the 2000 election, Bush and his backers assured the public that the then-anticipated surplus justified their proposed tax cut (which at the time was even larger than the one that was passed). After the surplus vanished, they argued that the cut would stimulate the economy enough to restore surpluses. Neither argument addressed Krugman's (credible) objection, namely that it would seriously compromise the health of the economy for years to come, and exacerbate the growth of the divide between rich and poor. On Iraq, the administration continues to push forward, heedless of any caution or objection, failing even to address them even as thousands of innocent lives are placed at risk by its actions. The problem here is that the government of a country is the ultimate source and arbiter of legitimacy. That is, after self-defense, its primary obligation. A free society cannot function when it fails to discharge this duty in good faith. Until the government pronounces on an issue, it has not been settled; every disagreement is merely a situation of he said/she said. Disputes are only ever truly and finally settled by a court. The words of an individual, a company, a university or foundation are merely that, words, until they are upheld or denied by one or more arms of the government. When a government's legitimacy is broken, the incentive to work for the public good is removed and replaced by the incentive to maximize one's own well-being at the expense of others. Trust in the government's even-handedness is dissolved, as protections and advantages given to some are denied to others. Respect for the rule of law is destroyed, as there is no indication that it will be applied fairly or evenly. People become either helpless victims of governmental tyranny or toadying sycophants of power. This is the situation on the ground in hundreds of countries around the world, and we are well on the way to joining them. Bush's recent move to repopulate HHS scientific review committees overwhelmingly with those who agree with his policies (and who, therefore, are willing to ignore scientific data in favor of political considerations) is one of the best and clearest examples of the administration's abdication of its obligations as arbiter of legitimacy. It alone has the force to enforce its viewpoint via the law. It has all but announced its intention to impose its will by fiat, regardless of the potentiaal damage caused to the well-being of the people. Truth itself cannot stand in the face of a government unwilling to acknowledge it. Our republic was set up with the good of its citizens in mind, and its government was therefore constructed to be accountable to them to provide for the public good. Democracy was chosen as the best means to assure the long-term continuity of this accountability. But democracy is not infallible. In order to work properly, democracy requires: 1) Government's absolute obligation to truth, and full disclosure of same. 2) Enforcement of sanctions against those who contravene the public good. 3) Good-faith efforts to advance the good of the greatest number in both the short- and long-term. 4) Equality before the law as interpreted and enforced. --Of individuals, both native and foreign --Of various corporations and industries --Of regions, races, sexes, and religions --Of rich and poor, especially with regard to their respective treatment in the court system. 5) Courts that uphold the Constitution and the historical precedents deriving therefrom. 6) Transparency in its workings, in the interest of both accountability and evolution in response to changing conditions. 7) Rewards for good service other and greater than re-election (e.g., the public must respect and esteem public servants who succeed in their mandate). 8) A voting public capable of discerning the above. With the exception of #7, the Bush administration has worked actively to undermine each of the factors listed above. Instead of respecting truth, the administration has mischaracterized the effects of its tax cut, its committment to the environment, and the state of the economy (especially with regard to the deficit). In speaking about Iraq, it has made pronouncements in the absence of corroborating evidence, and, in some cases, in opposition to existing evidence. Instead of enforcing sanctions against those damaging the public good, the administration has moved to limit corporate liability for workplace injuries, to relax penalties for mendacious accountants and lawyers, to limit punishment for polluters, and to limit damages awarded to those injured by corporate negligence and malfeasance. Instead of working for the general good, the administration has reduced subsidies for home heating for the poor, effectively denied health care to veterans, and taken the side of energy companies against Californians. Adding injury to injury, it is using the money saved to preferentially reduce taxes on the wealthy and to build a useless missile-defense system. Instead of equally applying the law to all, the administration has incarcerated foreign nationals indefinitely without charging or trying them or allowing them access to counsel. The administration has constructed its energy policy with the interests of oil and energy, and not those of the general public, in mind. The administration has repeatedly favored the interests of corporations over those of the people who work for them. Instead of supporting the constitutionality of the court system, the administration has time and again put forward for appointment individuals with histories of disregarding precedent in favor of advancing their ideologies. Instead of working transparently, the administration has resisted a public inquiry into pre-9/11 intelligence failures, has broken the law by hiding from public scrutiny the presidential records of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, has directed its agencies to ignore the Freedom of Information Act, and has refused repeated court orders to make public its energy policy deliberations. Instead of accepting the judgment of the public, the administration has worked to actively obfuscate issues, arguing first one way, then another. When the public responds unfavorably to its proposed actions, it changes tack, always repeating its objective until enough of the country wearily acquiesces. It has characterized abrogations of civil liberties as promoting freedom. It has used faulty logic and grossly inaccurate mathematics to confuse voters on issues of great national importance. While these executive branch actions and initiatives have worked against governmental legitimacy and democratic oversight, the opposition and the press are equally at fault for allowing it to happen. Their obligation to governmental legitimacy is equal to the president's, and their failure to honor it is equally destructive. Richard Nixon was forced to resign by a legislative opposition and skeptical press that would not acquiesce to his inaccurate version of the truth. Bill Clinton directed the appointment of special prosecutors against himself to determine the truth of charges (which now seem petty, and of which he was innocent), because the press and the opposition demanded it. Without such demands for true legitimacy and a refusal to accept this administration's hopelessly inadequate substitute, we will turn from self-determining free people into subjects of the will of a cabal. Thursday, September 19, 2002
Tuesday, September 17, 2002
Science? We don't need no steenking science! The Bush administration has begun a broad restructuring of the scientific advisory committees that guide federal policy in areas such as patients' rights and public health, eliminating some committees that were coming to conclusions at odds with the president's views and in other cases replacing members with handpicked choices. In the past few weeks, the Department of Health and Human Services has retired two expert committees before their work was complete. One had recommended that the Food and Drug Administration expand its regulation of the increasingly lucrative genetic testing industry, which has so far been free of such oversight. The other committee, which was rethinking federal protections for human research subjects, had drawn the ire of administration supporters on the religious right, according to government sources. A third committee, which had been assessing the effects of environmental chemicals on human health, has been told that nearly all of its members will be replaced -- in several instances by people with links to the industries that make those chemicals. One new member is a California scientist who helped defend Pacific Gas and Electric Co. against the real-life Erin Brockovich. *** "It's always a matter of qualifications first and foremost," [HHS spokesman William] Pierce said. "There's no quotas on any of this stuff. There's no litmus test of any kind." At least one nationally renowned academic, who was recently called by an administration official to talk about serving on an HHS advisory committee, disagreed with that assessment. To the candidate's surprise, the official asked for the professor's views on embryo cell research, cloning and physician-assisted suicide. After that, the candidate said, the interviewer told the candidate that the position would have to go to someone else because the candidate's views did not match those of the administration. Asked to reconcile that experience with his previous assurance, Pierce said of the interview questions: "Those are not litmus tests." From now on, if scientists have any information relating to government policies, they'll have two choices. Either go to 'First Amendment Zones,' or write their recommendations on the back of a check to the RNC. Friday, September 13, 2002
Bush 'Highly Doubtful' Iraq Will Meet Demands to Disarm Man, that didn't take long. "I can't imagine an elected United States-elected [sic] member of the United States Senate or House of Representatives saying, `I think I'm going to wait for the United Nations to make a decision,' " he told reporters. "If I were running for office, I'm not sure how I would explain to the American people and said, you know, `Vote for me, and oh, by the way, on a matter of national security, I think I'm going to wait for somebody else to act.' " Just one day, one day, after delivering a speech that for the first time began to address some of the concerns of other countries in the UN, Bush comes out and demonstrates that he doesn't even understand the idea of international cooperation. As Bush is given credit for his startlingly coherent speech before the UN General Assembly, I'd like to pose this question: If the 9/11 attacks hadn't happened, what would the world make of our talk of "regime change" in Iraq? Would we be talking about it at all? All available evidence indicates that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda's attack upon us. It looks, though, like Al Qaeda has a lot to do with our impending attack upon Iraq. Thursday, September 12, 2002
Chrétien denies suggesting U.S. arrogance fuelled attacks This article discusses the reaction to a July interview that was aired on Wednesday. In an interview that aired last night on CBC-TV, the Prime Minister for the first time suggested the strikes against New York and Washington stemmed from a growing international anger at the way the United States flexes its muscle around the globe. "You cannot exercise your powers to the point of humiliation for the others. That is what the Western world -- not only the Americans, the Western world -- has to realize. Because they are human beings too. There are long-term consequences," Mr. Chrétien said in the pre-taped interview. "And I do think that the Western world is getting too rich in relation to the poor world and necessarily will be looked upon as being arrogant and self-satisfied, greedy and with no limits. The 11th of September is an occasion for me to realize it even more." Chrétien's main political opponent, Opposition Leader Stephen Harper, characterized Chrétien's statements as "blaming the victim" and "shameful." Ok, first, does anybody dispute that the conduct of the U.S. government toward the rest of the world, especially under GWB, has been arrogant? Anyone? Did we ever act towards other countries and their citizens out of anything other than our own interests? Does anybody think that the the rest of the world, especially the poor, would have been more disposed in favor of the U.S. if we had been less arrogant? If we had been (gasp!) sympathetic to their plight, would they hate us as much? It's one thing to see a big, rich, well-dressed guy on the street, but when he looks down his nose at you and growls that you'd best get out his way or be kicked, it's another. Does anybody think it's a good idea to be arrogant? If so, how do we benefit from it? Does anybody really think it's a coincidence that so many people in so many different parts of the world have come to the same conclusion about us? If not, then why to they say such things? Do conservatives think it's a plot to...uh...hurt our feelings? Is it really so far-fetched that we might not be the best judges of how we're perceived by the citizens of other countries? If they do think we're arrogant, does it make them more or less likely to attack us? Sorry, they're all no-brainers. via Instapundit Wednesday, September 11, 2002
I live in New York. In 1995, I worked on the 74th floor of WTC Tower #2 for six months. Like everyone else in the country and much of the world, I was stunned, shocked, shaken and angered by the events of a year ago today. All but the last of these emotions have faded by now. I'm still angry. Regular readers know I'm generally anti-war. I have been all my life. I always made one exception, though. I'd pick up a gun and jump right in if someone attacked the U.S. Nobody takes a shot at my country and gets away with it. The one glimmer of respect I ever had for George W. Bush came when I watched his first speech after the attacks. We were going to get those sons of bitches. We were going to hunt them down and kill them, and I couldn't have agreed more. God help me, I cheered the bastard with tears in my eyes. But we didn't do it. One unequivocally justified course of action presented itself after 9/11, and we didn't take it. We toppled the Taliban, dropped some bombs from a safe distance, and let nearly all the Al Qaeda escape. As we bend all of our energy and attention to effecting "regime change" in Iraq, somewhere there are people who got away with planning, staging, financing, and facilitating the attacks. Bin Laden 'isn't a priority' for us anymore. 'Maybe he's dead,' they say. We hear endless variations on the threat Iraq supposedly poses to America and its interests, and nothing about those who've already attacked us, and who have vowed to do so again. We've even seen fit to squelch any meaningful investigation of the circumstances that allowed the attack to succeed. In short, we've done next to nothing to bring the perpetrators to justice or to protect ourselves from further attacks. It's a disgrace. I can't wait to see Sully's latest imbecility demolished by the capable minds on the left. I just don't have the energy today. But I will point out one howler to get things started. Why would the conflict between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East, bubbling for millennia, automatically be required one day to end? The conflict between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East, Andy, has been bubbling in anything approaching its current form since the 1880's, tops. Compared to any other two very different groups in such proximity to one another, Jews and Arabs have historically gotten along better than anyone else. The conflict has to do only with the state of Israel in Palestine. Get your facts right before you start twisting them. Tuesday, September 10, 2002
U.S. Not Claiming Iraqi Link To Terror Although administration officials say they are still trying to develop a strong case tying Hussein to global terrorism, the CIA has yet to find convincing evidence despite having combed its files and redoubled its efforts to collect and analyze information related to Iraq, according to senior intelligence officials and outside experts with knowledge of discussions within the U.S. government. Most specifically, analysts who have scrutinized photographs, communications intercepts and information from foreign informants have concluded they cannot validate two prominent allegations made by high-ranking administration officials: links between Hussein and al Qaeda members who have taken refuge in northern Iraq and an April 2001 meeting in Prague between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent. *** "At some point we will certainly make the case concerning Iraq and its links to terrorism," a senior administration official said yesterday. "We still have to develop it more." Asked about this story, an imaginary White House staffer had this to say: "This is not, I repeat, not to say that we're just making this shit up. We have secret evidence even we don't know about yet, and it proves Iraq was on the same continent as Al-Qaeda. We know they were up to something." It's a good thing we're all terminally stupid, or this would look bad for the Bush administration. Sunday, September 08, 2002
Man, I hate coincidences. Another blogger shows up in my referral logs (by coming here via his referral logs). Not half an hour later, he posts on the same subject as my last entry, making many of the same points, and all of the main ones. This being a coincidence, I'm not sore that there's no link or mention of ALG, just disappointed in fate. Update: All's well that ends well. It's nice to see guys who can hit so hard in possession of so much class. Additionally, I should apologize for the (however veiled) imputation of 'cribbing.' Anyone who's spent the briefest span of time on his blog knows he has no need of such help. |