Thirty-four years ago Mohammed Ali regained his heavyweight title with a massively hyped fight held in what was then called Zaire. The name was part of dictator Joseph Mobutu's equally massive piece of hype--the Africanization of the former Belgian Congo.
Unlike the overwhelming majority of fights in the Congo, the original Rumble in the Jungle was decisive. There was a winner (well paid) and a loser (very well paid.)
Also, running against the current of typical Congo battles, no one was killed. No rapes were reported. There wasn't any obvious looting.
The present Rumble in the Jungle runs to type. It is so far indecisive as to outcome. It is bloody. And, in the usual way of things in the Congo, the Congolese Army has shown itself very proficient at talking tough, running fast, looting with alacrity and raping with zeal. Congolese troops also continue to demonstrate a genuine talent for killing civilians during or immediately after the raping and looting phase of the exercise has been completed.
Comes now the European Union, or at least France, with a swagger and a stated desire to enter the Congo Rumble. Apparently heeding the cry of the High Minded and the UN, France is mooting the idea of sending an elite reaction force of somewhere between 1,500 and 3,000 men to back the 6,000 members of the 17,000 UN peacekeeping force present in the combat area around the provincial center of Goma.
"Wait one, Geek, where are the other 11,000 lads with blue helmets?" You ask.
Simple, they are spread around the rest of the Congo. It seems there is anti-government sentiment lurking everywhere in that jungle.
Noting that the majority of the peacekeeping force come from African Union members a South African defense and security analyst with a greater grip on reality than the requirements of political correctness, Henri Boshoff, maintains that a highly trained and capable force must be deployed to the land around Goma within five or six days. Longer would mean too late.
Only the EU has the capacity for such rapid deployment. (The US would as well were it not that Uncle Sam has two wars and an election on his hands.) Boshoff seems to think that an EU contingent would arrive ready, able and willing to use the weapons at its disposal.
The Europeans don't see it that way. French ForMin Koucher avers that any battlegroup sent to the Congo wouldn't be going there to fight but rather to assist in humanitarian operations.
Yeah. Right. Sure they will, Bernie. Or maybe you are of the belief that the men under General Nkunda will simply fold in panic and run like they were Congolese special forces when they see white dudes with guns get off the planes?
That may be the case. Nkunda has shown a willingness to turn peaceful before when the correlation of forces was not favorable. In any event the Congo way of war allows for time-outs. Even unlimited time-outs.
Should the threat of EU intervention or the efforts of UN and other negotiators and envoys prove successful in extending and broadening the ceasefire ordered by Nkunda, it would only signify one more destabilising, bloody and quite inconclusive military essay. The history of the Congo over its forty-eight years of independent existence is filled with such events.
Nkunda has an agenda. For the record he wants the immediate disarmament of the Hutu militia which he maintains is fighting alongside the Congolese National Runaway, Loot, Rape and Murder Force as well as preying on the Tutsi population along the Congo-Rwanda border. Also for the record is his objection to the deal between China and the Congolese central government which is valued at nine billion dollars. The deal exchanges rights to exploit mineral resources over a vast swath of the Congo in exchange for the building of a railroad and a highway.
Laurent Nkunda may well have a point there. The deal seems to be in line with the standard issue business transaction which has marked the Congo since Leopold I, King of the Belgians scarfed up the territory for his personal benefit. And, at the expense of generations of Congolese.
Leopold should have patented his business model since any number of foreign firms, usually backed by their governments have made similar "deals." Outsiders have exploited the natural resources of the mineral rich territory and the human resources of the people who live there for the benefit of the outsiders--and, of course, the insiders, the governing elite that make sure the deal goes down.
China has never been noted for making bargains that benefit the other party--beyond the local elite that made things happen and the security forces which protect the elite and the Chinese alike. Chinese involvement in the "development" of a country's resources will have no benefits for the people on the ground. Quite the opposite. After the Chinese and their local clients get up and running, the folks on the ground will look back at the bad old days of colonialism with fondness.
Don't believe the Geek? Ask the Burmese then. That is if you can get through to anyone who is not on the government's approved to talk to outsiders list. If that's too tough, try the Sudan.
The Geek has argued that the Congo is a geographic expression. A failing state that never really was. Well intentioned intervention by the UN, the EU or the US would only prolong the agony. Unnecessarily lengthen the time until the inevitable collapse of the Congo occurs.
Laurent Nkunda and his (highly probable) backers in Rwanda may be another passel of dictators and exploiters in the making. Then again they may not be of that mold. Nkunda has done something almost unprecedented in the dreary history of Congolese internal war. He called and enforced a ceasefire while the enemy and the UN peacekeepers were on the run.
Perhaps Nkunda and his backers want only a small portion of the vast territory called (for the moment at least) the Congo. Breaking away a piece of the geographic expression might be the necessary first step in creating a less bloody, more stable artifact--a collection of states based on population, on primary linguistic and cultural affiliations.
Sure it is unfashionable to argue that the dismantlement of larger entities into their several natural components is the best way to go. The Congo today like an artifact called Yugoslavia a decade and more ago points in that direction.
No man-made artifact lasts forever. Why should the Congo, the creation of one man's ambition, greed and skill be an exception?
If the locals want a unitary Congo it would be self-evident. It's not. What the folks who live there, love there and, all too often die violently there seem to want is an end to the Rumble in the Jungle and that means an end of the Congo.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Iran May Be Getting Desperate Soon
Since, historically, desperate countries do desperate deeds, the US and the world had best be prepared. It all has to do with the price of oil and the cost of ambition.
In a way the situation which is developing today is reminiscent of that which provoked the attack upon the US and the UK by Imperial Japan in December 1941. Then the reason was oil. The US was the single greatest source of oil for the factories and war machine of the Japanese Empire. When the Roosevelt campaign of escalating economic sanctions, which was intended (at least by Secretary of State Cordell Hull) to force the Japanese to end their aggression in China, reached its final stage, the Japanese were left without a supply of oil, particularly refined aviation gasoline.
This left the Japanese with two alternatives. The first was a humiliating capitulation to US policy demands. The second was the seizure of the oil fields and refineries of what was then the Dutch East Indies.
Taking the second option would assure war with both the US and the UK if for no other reason than the shipping routes from Indonesia to the Japanese home islands ran between the British outpost at Singapore and the US bases in the Philippines. Since both countries were dedicated to protecting the integrity of the Dutch East Indies, only removal of the threat to oil convoys would make the effort of taking the oil resources worth the effort.
The Japanese naval high command and its exceptionally able and honest strategist, Admiral Yamamoto bet that the UK and the US would be so preoccupied with the Germans that a single short series of shocks to both countries would allow the Japanese to achieve their strategic goal. Yamamoto was never sure that it would, fearing that the necessary surprise attacks upon the centers of US naval power at Pearl Harbor and in the Philippines would "awaken a sleeping giant who would pursue us without remorse."
Still, it was the least-worst of the options. The Japanese attacks were successful and for six months, just as Yamamoto predicted, the Empire rode high on the waves. The American eagle had its perch broken and its beak shoved in the dreck of defeat. It did, again as Yamamoto had predicted, take wing again and come after the Japanese with a complete dedication to the destruction of the Empire.
Desperate countries do desperate deeds.
Iran is now a desperate country. It is desperate because without oil prices above a minimum of ninety bucks a barrel, it cannot meet the needs of its population. Also, the mullahocracy cannot continue to invest vast resources in its effort to achieve both nuclear capacity and the status of regional hegemon.
When OPEC cut production 1.5 million barrels per day, that cut was no where near enough to boost the price of oil to the minimum required by Iran's budgetary requirements. The force behind the almost token cut was Saudi Arabia and it's fellows on the Arabian Peninsula. These oil states with the cushions of massive sovereign wealth funds need no more than fifty dollars a barrel to do handsomely.
(It might be noted that Iran's oil infrastructure is in such bad shape that it was not pumping all that it was allowed to before the cut and will not be able to move as many barrels per day as it is allowed under the new production regime.)
Iran (and Venezuela, but the Geek will ignore the New Workers' Paradise for now) was left in the cold of relative pauperdom. Due to the imprudence of President Ahmedinejad, the "rainy day" fund established during the glory days of triple digit prices under the control of the Iranian central bank no longer exists. As a result the Iranians do not have even a very short term reserve.
The central bank continues to crank out money, but the money is worthless. Inflation is currently running at the thirty percent level.
Eighty percent of Iran's foreign exchange comes from oil revenues, so the treasury is as empty as an Obama foreign policy statement. The last attempt by the mullahocracy's front man to up the government's internal take, a three percent value added tax, was withdrawn after the shopkeepers of the bazaar shut up shop and took to the streets. A new thrust in the VAT direction is not likely to go over any better.
It is definitely panic time in the mullah's corral. And, desperate countries do desperate deeds.
The desperation felt in the Iranian government is evident in the latest round of shrill rhetoric coming from both President Ahmedinejad and his rival for power, Speaker of the Majlis Larijani, regarding the near-collapse of the "world bully," the US. Ahmedinejad told his audience that the "American empire in the world was reaching the end of the road."
Yeah, right.
The empireless US is having a tough time. The tough time will continue and probably worsen in the months to come as the global recession deepens. But the US is not near the end of its road.
The situation for Iran is different. The economic distress currently being felt by the Iranian people can only get much, much worse. The combination of sheer ambition and fiscal mismanagement along with the cumulative impact of the sanction campaign assures that reality.
Desperate countries do desperate deeds.
Iran has a number of options available to it in an attempt to seek a higher price for its oil. The Iranian funded Mahdi Army in Iraq could be brought back on stream. Muqtada Al-Sadr could crank up his troops quickly and effectively should Tehran give the word. (This possibility should give the Sunnis in Iraq some pause for thought as the SOFA is under consideration. Do they really, really want the Shiites to start shooting again?)
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (naval section) could seize or fire on an oil tanker transiting the Straits of Hormuz under some transparent cover or another. Violation of sovereignty. Water pollution. Killing fish without a license. You get the drift.
The consequent impact upon insurance rates if nothing else would slow or end the transport of oil from Basra. (Another cause for thought on the part of (any) responsible Iraqi politicians considering the SOFA.)
Another option open to Iran is cranking up its creature Hezbollah. This could easily have the effect of producing another round of exsanguination as Israel seeks to squash once again the rocket firing lads in Lebanon or their Hezbollah aided, supported and trained colleagues in the Gaza. The inherent attractiveness of this option is enhanced by the upcoming Israeli elections, the relatively high degree of war-weariness in the Israeli population and the vulnerability of the population to casualties inflicted at acceptable risk (at least to Tehran.)
Even discounting the recent low-credibility reports holding that the recent seismic events in southwest Iran were caused not by nature but by Iranian nuclear weapons tests, the capacity of the Iranians to cause trouble on a large scale is impressive. It is certainly sufficient to cause the desired escalation in the price of oil.
Gosh, looks like there may be a challenge, a test, waiting for the next president as he steps into the Oval. The Iranians--at least Speaker Larijani--hope the man behind the big desk is named Obama. After all, as the Speaker observed, Obama is "more mature" than McCain.
Interesting question for all of us. Who is right? Sarkozy with his observation that Obama's views on Iran are "utterly immature" or the Speaker of the Majlis?
In a way the situation which is developing today is reminiscent of that which provoked the attack upon the US and the UK by Imperial Japan in December 1941. Then the reason was oil. The US was the single greatest source of oil for the factories and war machine of the Japanese Empire. When the Roosevelt campaign of escalating economic sanctions, which was intended (at least by Secretary of State Cordell Hull) to force the Japanese to end their aggression in China, reached its final stage, the Japanese were left without a supply of oil, particularly refined aviation gasoline.
This left the Japanese with two alternatives. The first was a humiliating capitulation to US policy demands. The second was the seizure of the oil fields and refineries of what was then the Dutch East Indies.
Taking the second option would assure war with both the US and the UK if for no other reason than the shipping routes from Indonesia to the Japanese home islands ran between the British outpost at Singapore and the US bases in the Philippines. Since both countries were dedicated to protecting the integrity of the Dutch East Indies, only removal of the threat to oil convoys would make the effort of taking the oil resources worth the effort.
The Japanese naval high command and its exceptionally able and honest strategist, Admiral Yamamoto bet that the UK and the US would be so preoccupied with the Germans that a single short series of shocks to both countries would allow the Japanese to achieve their strategic goal. Yamamoto was never sure that it would, fearing that the necessary surprise attacks upon the centers of US naval power at Pearl Harbor and in the Philippines would "awaken a sleeping giant who would pursue us without remorse."
Still, it was the least-worst of the options. The Japanese attacks were successful and for six months, just as Yamamoto predicted, the Empire rode high on the waves. The American eagle had its perch broken and its beak shoved in the dreck of defeat. It did, again as Yamamoto had predicted, take wing again and come after the Japanese with a complete dedication to the destruction of the Empire.
Desperate countries do desperate deeds.
Iran is now a desperate country. It is desperate because without oil prices above a minimum of ninety bucks a barrel, it cannot meet the needs of its population. Also, the mullahocracy cannot continue to invest vast resources in its effort to achieve both nuclear capacity and the status of regional hegemon.
When OPEC cut production 1.5 million barrels per day, that cut was no where near enough to boost the price of oil to the minimum required by Iran's budgetary requirements. The force behind the almost token cut was Saudi Arabia and it's fellows on the Arabian Peninsula. These oil states with the cushions of massive sovereign wealth funds need no more than fifty dollars a barrel to do handsomely.
(It might be noted that Iran's oil infrastructure is in such bad shape that it was not pumping all that it was allowed to before the cut and will not be able to move as many barrels per day as it is allowed under the new production regime.)
Iran (and Venezuela, but the Geek will ignore the New Workers' Paradise for now) was left in the cold of relative pauperdom. Due to the imprudence of President Ahmedinejad, the "rainy day" fund established during the glory days of triple digit prices under the control of the Iranian central bank no longer exists. As a result the Iranians do not have even a very short term reserve.
The central bank continues to crank out money, but the money is worthless. Inflation is currently running at the thirty percent level.
Eighty percent of Iran's foreign exchange comes from oil revenues, so the treasury is as empty as an Obama foreign policy statement. The last attempt by the mullahocracy's front man to up the government's internal take, a three percent value added tax, was withdrawn after the shopkeepers of the bazaar shut up shop and took to the streets. A new thrust in the VAT direction is not likely to go over any better.
It is definitely panic time in the mullah's corral. And, desperate countries do desperate deeds.
The desperation felt in the Iranian government is evident in the latest round of shrill rhetoric coming from both President Ahmedinejad and his rival for power, Speaker of the Majlis Larijani, regarding the near-collapse of the "world bully," the US. Ahmedinejad told his audience that the "American empire in the world was reaching the end of the road."
Yeah, right.
The empireless US is having a tough time. The tough time will continue and probably worsen in the months to come as the global recession deepens. But the US is not near the end of its road.
The situation for Iran is different. The economic distress currently being felt by the Iranian people can only get much, much worse. The combination of sheer ambition and fiscal mismanagement along with the cumulative impact of the sanction campaign assures that reality.
Desperate countries do desperate deeds.
Iran has a number of options available to it in an attempt to seek a higher price for its oil. The Iranian funded Mahdi Army in Iraq could be brought back on stream. Muqtada Al-Sadr could crank up his troops quickly and effectively should Tehran give the word. (This possibility should give the Sunnis in Iraq some pause for thought as the SOFA is under consideration. Do they really, really want the Shiites to start shooting again?)
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (naval section) could seize or fire on an oil tanker transiting the Straits of Hormuz under some transparent cover or another. Violation of sovereignty. Water pollution. Killing fish without a license. You get the drift.
The consequent impact upon insurance rates if nothing else would slow or end the transport of oil from Basra. (Another cause for thought on the part of (any) responsible Iraqi politicians considering the SOFA.)
Another option open to Iran is cranking up its creature Hezbollah. This could easily have the effect of producing another round of exsanguination as Israel seeks to squash once again the rocket firing lads in Lebanon or their Hezbollah aided, supported and trained colleagues in the Gaza. The inherent attractiveness of this option is enhanced by the upcoming Israeli elections, the relatively high degree of war-weariness in the Israeli population and the vulnerability of the population to casualties inflicted at acceptable risk (at least to Tehran.)
Even discounting the recent low-credibility reports holding that the recent seismic events in southwest Iran were caused not by nature but by Iranian nuclear weapons tests, the capacity of the Iranians to cause trouble on a large scale is impressive. It is certainly sufficient to cause the desired escalation in the price of oil.
Gosh, looks like there may be a challenge, a test, waiting for the next president as he steps into the Oval. The Iranians--at least Speaker Larijani--hope the man behind the big desk is named Obama. After all, as the Speaker observed, Obama is "more mature" than McCain.
Interesting question for all of us. Who is right? Sarkozy with his observation that Obama's views on Iran are "utterly immature" or the Speaker of the Majlis?
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Somalian Pirates Redefine Chutzpah
It used to be that the working definition of chutzpah was the kid who after killing his parents, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is now an orphan. Not anymore.
A fellow who goes by the moniker "Ali" and plays the role of pirate spokesman for the humble fishermen turned seaborne robbers says the world has it all wrong. We ain't no bunch of crooks with AKs and an attitude of greed. No, us pirates are just misunderstood. Here's his quote taken from SFGate http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/MN6913NSJK.DTL.
Well, golly, shiver me timbers, Ali. You sure had the Geek fooled along with beaucoup other people. And, the ransoms aren't really ransoms. No, the money collected for the release of ship and crew is a "fine" for littering or running over fish with malicious intent.
Yeah. Right, Ali or whatever your name is. You sure have a grip on reality--some sort of reality.alt.
Next the jolly buccaneers of the Niger Delta are going to proclaim that they aren't crooks or insurgents but simply a vigilance committee seeking to protect the delta from oil spills. And, anybody who says otherwise is a misunderstander. So, take that, UN. You ought to be applauding us and not calling for yet another international anti-piracy patrol.
Meanwhile, back in Somalia. Ali seems to have a hard time keeping his narrative neat, orderly and internally consistent as shown by the following quote regarding the tank laden M/V Faina from the deck of which he was speaking via satellite phone.
Not that the pirates--oops, the Geek forgot--the Volunteer Somalian Coastguard & Fishery Patrol have gotten any swag yet. Further it doesn't appear that any will be forthcoming in the near future. Tough break, Ali and the rest of you public spirited boys, but remember you all are volunteers doing this tough job out of pure love for your country.
By Ali's logic there is no need for NATO warships to protect food carrying vessels on route to the geographic expression called Somalia. The civic minded so-called "pirates" are simply taking the ships to assure more rapid and efficient delivery of critical foodstuffs to the starving people of the motherland.
Ali and assorted experts and members of the League of the High Minded all agree that the only way to stop the mirthful seizure of ships and crews for ransom is for Somalia to again join the ranks of the nation-states complete with an effective government and the institutions of law enforcement and criminal justice. Sounds good. Until you look a little deeper.
Somalia never existed as a genuine nation-state as this term is generally defined. Somalia is an artifact. Before the coming of the colonial powers, particularly Britain and Italy, the term was a geographic reference only.
The land described by the term was a loose assemblage of tribes held together primarily by a common language and religion (Islam.) Travellers in the region in the decades before the colonial powers took an interest in acquiring the real estate for assorted "strategic" reasons described a land of blood, blood feud, bloody sharia punishments, slavery, and miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles with patches of coffee bush and kif.
After the colonial powers abandoned the region, the artifact of "Somalia" came into existence. Geography gave it a measure of importance during the Cold War with the US first supporting Ethiopia in the long festering dispute over the Ogaden desert. Later the US supported the Somalian regime after Ethiopia went through a regime change installing a Marxist military dictatorship in lieu of the Emperor.
The reshuffling of governments in the waning days of the Cold War along with Eritrean independence started the process of Somalian collapse. The collapse came quickly and bloodily. The blood has not yet ceased to flow. Nor will it in the foreseeable future.
Not only has the blood been flowing non-stop for eighteen years, the artifact called Somalia has disintegrated. There are two de facto and almost de jure spin-offs of the old Somalian construct: Puntland and Somliland.
Both have managed with a fair degree of success to remain at some distance from the never ending war between Islamists, radical Islamists, the Ethiopian "peacekeepers" and the African Union peacekeeping force. Every now and then the violence reaches out and touches these two autonomous regions. Most recently in a wave of five clearly coordinated suicide bombing attacks against installations in both "lands."
The rest of Somalia has reverted to a more lethal version of what the foreign travellers saw a hundred and fifty years ago. There things will stay unless and until either the radical Islamists or the mere Islamists win out. Or, slightly less unlikely, until everyone gets sick and tired of all the meaningless destruction of lives and life itself.
The expectation that a government will arise from the swamp of blood that covers the land of the Somalis is as rational as presuming that aliens from Tau Ceti 4 will swoop down in their enormous triangular craft and spray peace, love and flower power vibes over the place.
Until the outbreak of peace arrives along with the Second Coming or some equally improbable transcendental event, the problem of piracy continues. It is a burden for the (dare the Geek be so politically incorrect as to write) civilized countries.
To quote Lenin, "What is to be done."
Urging proactive self-help as the US Navy has been doing is fine and good, but quite limited in effectiveness. Yes, ship's crews can defend themselves by evasive action and aggressive use of fire hoses as five did in the past day or so. But it is spitting in the ocean.
The naval powers represented in the region must put pressure on ship owners associations as well as the maritime risk insurance industry to require convoys. The NATO and other contingents at sea or coming to the area must provide effective escort services, particularly to vulnerable ships such as chemical or liquefied gas tankers.
Beyond that, it must be recognised that only by increasing the risks while decreasing the potential benefits can crime be constrained. Pirates must again be taught the lesson their progenitors in the 18th and 19th Centuries learned. Everyman's hand is turned against them.
Pirates must be challenged--with fire, if necessary. They must be arrested, if possible. Tried, even if it means the international community has to establish yet another one of those tribunals in the Netherlands.
Pirates must be killed if they do not surrender. This means that there is an excellent chance that non-pirates will die. Such is life--and war.
Get a grip on this. The pirates of Somalia are a legitimate target of war. They are Muslims, every man-jack of them. Most are demonstrably aligned at least somewhat with the Islamist entities that comprise the opposition in the "Global War on Terror."
While we're at it, would somebody please slap "Ali" upside the head. Chutzpah has a purely Jewish copyright and he hasn't paid royalties.
A fellow who goes by the moniker "Ali" and plays the role of pirate spokesman for the humble fishermen turned seaborne robbers says the world has it all wrong. We ain't no bunch of crooks with AKs and an attitude of greed. No, us pirates are just misunderstood. Here's his quote taken from SFGate http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/MN6913NSJK.DTL.
We don't know whether they are going to dump a toxin or collect marine resources, but we have to capture any ship that passes through our waters illegally. In Somalia, there is no functioning central government that can manage our waters, so we have appointed ourselves to guard our coast against foreign ships.
Well, golly, shiver me timbers, Ali. You sure had the Geek fooled along with beaucoup other people. And, the ransoms aren't really ransoms. No, the money collected for the release of ship and crew is a "fine" for littering or running over fish with malicious intent.
Yeah. Right, Ali or whatever your name is. You sure have a grip on reality--some sort of reality.alt.
Next the jolly buccaneers of the Niger Delta are going to proclaim that they aren't crooks or insurgents but simply a vigilance committee seeking to protect the delta from oil spills. And, anybody who says otherwise is a misunderstander. So, take that, UN. You ought to be applauding us and not calling for yet another international anti-piracy patrol.
Meanwhile, back in Somalia. Ali seems to have a hard time keeping his narrative neat, orderly and internally consistent as shown by the following quote regarding the tank laden M/V Faina from the deck of which he was speaking via satellite phone.
We saw a big ship, so we decided to capture it, and later we discovered that it was carrying tanks. That made us happy because we got a chance to demand more money
Not that the pirates--oops, the Geek forgot--the Volunteer Somalian Coastguard & Fishery Patrol have gotten any swag yet. Further it doesn't appear that any will be forthcoming in the near future. Tough break, Ali and the rest of you public spirited boys, but remember you all are volunteers doing this tough job out of pure love for your country.
By Ali's logic there is no need for NATO warships to protect food carrying vessels on route to the geographic expression called Somalia. The civic minded so-called "pirates" are simply taking the ships to assure more rapid and efficient delivery of critical foodstuffs to the starving people of the motherland.
Ali and assorted experts and members of the League of the High Minded all agree that the only way to stop the mirthful seizure of ships and crews for ransom is for Somalia to again join the ranks of the nation-states complete with an effective government and the institutions of law enforcement and criminal justice. Sounds good. Until you look a little deeper.
Somalia never existed as a genuine nation-state as this term is generally defined. Somalia is an artifact. Before the coming of the colonial powers, particularly Britain and Italy, the term was a geographic reference only.
The land described by the term was a loose assemblage of tribes held together primarily by a common language and religion (Islam.) Travellers in the region in the decades before the colonial powers took an interest in acquiring the real estate for assorted "strategic" reasons described a land of blood, blood feud, bloody sharia punishments, slavery, and miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles with patches of coffee bush and kif.
After the colonial powers abandoned the region, the artifact of "Somalia" came into existence. Geography gave it a measure of importance during the Cold War with the US first supporting Ethiopia in the long festering dispute over the Ogaden desert. Later the US supported the Somalian regime after Ethiopia went through a regime change installing a Marxist military dictatorship in lieu of the Emperor.
The reshuffling of governments in the waning days of the Cold War along with Eritrean independence started the process of Somalian collapse. The collapse came quickly and bloodily. The blood has not yet ceased to flow. Nor will it in the foreseeable future.
Not only has the blood been flowing non-stop for eighteen years, the artifact called Somalia has disintegrated. There are two de facto and almost de jure spin-offs of the old Somalian construct: Puntland and Somliland.
Both have managed with a fair degree of success to remain at some distance from the never ending war between Islamists, radical Islamists, the Ethiopian "peacekeepers" and the African Union peacekeeping force. Every now and then the violence reaches out and touches these two autonomous regions. Most recently in a wave of five clearly coordinated suicide bombing attacks against installations in both "lands."
The rest of Somalia has reverted to a more lethal version of what the foreign travellers saw a hundred and fifty years ago. There things will stay unless and until either the radical Islamists or the mere Islamists win out. Or, slightly less unlikely, until everyone gets sick and tired of all the meaningless destruction of lives and life itself.
The expectation that a government will arise from the swamp of blood that covers the land of the Somalis is as rational as presuming that aliens from Tau Ceti 4 will swoop down in their enormous triangular craft and spray peace, love and flower power vibes over the place.
Until the outbreak of peace arrives along with the Second Coming or some equally improbable transcendental event, the problem of piracy continues. It is a burden for the (dare the Geek be so politically incorrect as to write) civilized countries.
To quote Lenin, "What is to be done."
Urging proactive self-help as the US Navy has been doing is fine and good, but quite limited in effectiveness. Yes, ship's crews can defend themselves by evasive action and aggressive use of fire hoses as five did in the past day or so. But it is spitting in the ocean.
The naval powers represented in the region must put pressure on ship owners associations as well as the maritime risk insurance industry to require convoys. The NATO and other contingents at sea or coming to the area must provide effective escort services, particularly to vulnerable ships such as chemical or liquefied gas tankers.
Beyond that, it must be recognised that only by increasing the risks while decreasing the potential benefits can crime be constrained. Pirates must again be taught the lesson their progenitors in the 18th and 19th Centuries learned. Everyman's hand is turned against them.
Pirates must be challenged--with fire, if necessary. They must be arrested, if possible. Tried, even if it means the international community has to establish yet another one of those tribunals in the Netherlands.
Pirates must be killed if they do not surrender. This means that there is an excellent chance that non-pirates will die. Such is life--and war.
Get a grip on this. The pirates of Somalia are a legitimate target of war. They are Muslims, every man-jack of them. Most are demonstrably aligned at least somewhat with the Islamist entities that comprise the opposition in the "Global War on Terror."
While we're at it, would somebody please slap "Ali" upside the head. Chutzpah has a purely Jewish copyright and he hasn't paid royalties.
Sarkozy Is Blunt. But Right On
The Geek gives French President Nicholas Sarkozy a really big "thumbs-up." Not only is he the first TACAMO type to lead the French since le grande Charles, he has a unique willingness to call things as he sees them--a quality which would benefit politicians in other countries.
His most recent demonstration of Harry Truman style "plain speaking" came in a closed meeting of French diplomatic personnel. Fortunately some of Sarkozy's observations leaked out around the locked doors. To cut to the chase: Nick the Man eviscerated Senator Obama's stance on Iran.
According to Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1031943.html) Sarkozy perceives the views of the Nice Young Man From Chicago as "utterly immature." He went on to note that Obama's position was based on "formulations empty of all content."
Back during the all-conquering Obama World Tour last July, the French president met at some length with the smiling senator. At the shake-and-grin press conference afterwards, Obama allowed as how the Iranian nuclear research and development effort was serious and endangered Israel.
The Obama exhortation directed at least in part to the mullahocracy was a slight genuflection to Sarkozy's strong argument that any change in direction regarding Iran by the next US president would be "very problematic."
Apparently now Sarkozy fears that Obama might "arrogantly" ignore the semi-united front offered by the P5+1 to open direct talks with the mullahs. Without preconditions, if one takes the Nice Young Man at his word.
Over the months since meeting with Obama on his European Triumph, Sarkozy has reportedly fretted over the reality that the senator's position on Iran was "not crystallized" and like unset Jello could wiggle all over the plate--and the table. Reportedly senior advisers of Sarkozy who met with the Nice Young Man came away with an identical set of impressions.
The criticism leveled by Sarkozy against Senator Obama on Iran could be extended accurately to other important foreign policy venues. Arguably, the Nice Young man has positions on Iraq and Afghanistan which are not yet "crystallized" or are "utterly immature" and founded on "formulations empty of all content."
One cannot help but wonder whether a man who is obviously without the slightest grip on the realities of Islamist goals and strategies or the nature of counterinsurgency would take charge and move out on Afghanistan where the US could still fail to achieve the minimum necessary strategic goal of "not-losing." Considering that Obama clings to the long disproved thesis that poverty causes Islamist terrorism, how would he deal with the on-going struggle with those who promote and employ indiscriminate violence to effect political change?
Sarkozy and an increasing number of European political leaders and opinion molders are becoming increasingly aware that there is an alternative worse than the hyper-hawk unilateralism of George W. Bush and Associates. The growing consensus is that an Obama in the Oval would have a high probability of resulting in super-dove unilateralism.
The world is a far more unstable and dangerous place than the Nice Young Man appears to recognize. Islamists litter the mountainsides in Afghanistan. They also lurk in the souks and mosques spreading in the vast arc from Morocco to Indonesia.
The North Koreans are nuclear and less than predictable. The Russians are upgrading their military capacities both conventional and nuclear. The PRC is an ever more potent threat to US interests both in Asia and around the world.
Then there are the failed and failing "states" of Africa.
Of course, there is the growing trend to dictatorship in Latin America led by Hugo Chavez whose latest "democratic" move is jailing of opposition candidates in the upcoming provincial and municipal elections less than two weeks after We the People may give Obama the keys to power.
The Geek could go on, but it is too depressing. Suffice it to mention the glowering presence of a global recession (depression?) and the historical reality that very bad economic times are usually associated with increases in international political instability and the rise of revolutionary regimes promising prosperity at the expense of others.
You want to bet on Joe Biden bringing adult supervision to the Obama Administration?
Don't. That was the role presumed to be fulfilled by Dick Cheney in the current administration. We know how that came out. Not that the Geek sees Biden as another Cheney. He isn't. Not goal oriented (or if you prefer) sociopathic enough.
Even so, Joe the Bloviator is not suitable for the mission of adult supervision. There is one reason for this the Geek opines based on reviewing Biden's Senatorial career.
In foreign policy and national security matters, Joe the Mouth is roughly as competent as Joe the Plumber.
His most recent demonstration of Harry Truman style "plain speaking" came in a closed meeting of French diplomatic personnel. Fortunately some of Sarkozy's observations leaked out around the locked doors. To cut to the chase: Nick the Man eviscerated Senator Obama's stance on Iran.
According to Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1031943.html) Sarkozy perceives the views of the Nice Young Man From Chicago as "utterly immature." He went on to note that Obama's position was based on "formulations empty of all content."
Back during the all-conquering Obama World Tour last July, the French president met at some length with the smiling senator. At the shake-and-grin press conference afterwards, Obama allowed as how the Iranian nuclear research and development effort was serious and endangered Israel.
The Obama exhortation directed at least in part to the mullahocracy was a slight genuflection to Sarkozy's strong argument that any change in direction regarding Iran by the next US president would be "very problematic."
Apparently now Sarkozy fears that Obama might "arrogantly" ignore the semi-united front offered by the P5+1 to open direct talks with the mullahs. Without preconditions, if one takes the Nice Young Man at his word.
Over the months since meeting with Obama on his European Triumph, Sarkozy has reportedly fretted over the reality that the senator's position on Iran was "not crystallized" and like unset Jello could wiggle all over the plate--and the table. Reportedly senior advisers of Sarkozy who met with the Nice Young Man came away with an identical set of impressions.
The criticism leveled by Sarkozy against Senator Obama on Iran could be extended accurately to other important foreign policy venues. Arguably, the Nice Young man has positions on Iraq and Afghanistan which are not yet "crystallized" or are "utterly immature" and founded on "formulations empty of all content."
One cannot help but wonder whether a man who is obviously without the slightest grip on the realities of Islamist goals and strategies or the nature of counterinsurgency would take charge and move out on Afghanistan where the US could still fail to achieve the minimum necessary strategic goal of "not-losing." Considering that Obama clings to the long disproved thesis that poverty causes Islamist terrorism, how would he deal with the on-going struggle with those who promote and employ indiscriminate violence to effect political change?
Sarkozy and an increasing number of European political leaders and opinion molders are becoming increasingly aware that there is an alternative worse than the hyper-hawk unilateralism of George W. Bush and Associates. The growing consensus is that an Obama in the Oval would have a high probability of resulting in super-dove unilateralism.
The world is a far more unstable and dangerous place than the Nice Young Man appears to recognize. Islamists litter the mountainsides in Afghanistan. They also lurk in the souks and mosques spreading in the vast arc from Morocco to Indonesia.
The North Koreans are nuclear and less than predictable. The Russians are upgrading their military capacities both conventional and nuclear. The PRC is an ever more potent threat to US interests both in Asia and around the world.
Then there are the failed and failing "states" of Africa.
Of course, there is the growing trend to dictatorship in Latin America led by Hugo Chavez whose latest "democratic" move is jailing of opposition candidates in the upcoming provincial and municipal elections less than two weeks after We the People may give Obama the keys to power.
The Geek could go on, but it is too depressing. Suffice it to mention the glowering presence of a global recession (depression?) and the historical reality that very bad economic times are usually associated with increases in international political instability and the rise of revolutionary regimes promising prosperity at the expense of others.
You want to bet on Joe Biden bringing adult supervision to the Obama Administration?
Don't. That was the role presumed to be fulfilled by Dick Cheney in the current administration. We know how that came out. Not that the Geek sees Biden as another Cheney. He isn't. Not goal oriented (or if you prefer) sociopathic enough.
Even so, Joe the Bloviator is not suitable for the mission of adult supervision. There is one reason for this the Geek opines based on reviewing Biden's Senatorial career.
In foreign policy and national security matters, Joe the Mouth is roughly as competent as Joe the Plumber.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The Congo Goes To Hell--What Else Is New?
History is alive and well in the Democratic Republic of the Congo! For the umpteenth time in the Congo's less than fifty years of independence, refuges flee and "rebels" advance.
This time around, the "renegade" is General Laurent Nkunda. With him are approximately five thousand well equipped, well trained fighters. Behind Nkunda and his five thousand apparently very effective trigger-pullers is a political entity called the National Congress for the Defense of People (CNDP.)
The people being defended, like the gun-toters of Nkunda' force are Tutsi. Many of these Tutsis are left overs from the refugee camps in the eastern Congo formed nearly fifteen years ago in the wake of the Rwanda genocide. Others, probably most, are natives of the Congo.
The national identity of the troops and "protected people" gives good reason to believe reports that behind the CNDP and Nkunda's force is the small but very well trained, equipped and motivated army of Rwanda.
The prize in play is not the territorial capital of Rutshuru or even the major center of Goma with its refugee inflated population of 600,000. These are unimportant.
The prize is the mineral rich eastern section of the Congo. The east, centering on Katanga province, is the economic heart of the Western Europe sized country. It has always been the focus of the coups, counter-coups, uprisings, take-overs and the like which have marked the history of the Congo since June 1960.
While Nkunda recently proclaimed his intention to "liberate" all of the Congo, the real aims of the General and those behind him are far more limited in geographic scope. Katanga will do just fine, thank you.
This is not to say that Nkunda and the CNDP are not expansive in their ambitions. Both the General and his political peers started operations with the stated goal of protecting the Tutsi from the depredations of the Hutu militia, which crossed into the Congo to avoid the consequences of their genocidal acts.
Wars between various parties have been the hallmark of the Katanga region since 1997. The most recent ceasefire brokered by the UN between Nkunda and the government lasted from January to August of this year. This means it lasted a little longer than most ceasefires brought about by international agencies over the past forty-eight years.
The UN deployed a 17,000 member peacekeeping force in support of the ceasefire. It is a typical UN collection, mixing a few good units with assorted rabble. It could keep the peace as long as Nkunda and company allowed it to.
Time to get a grip.
There are two realities underlying the current stream of refugees to say nothing of such ancillaries as the UN helicopters firing without demonstrable effect upon the advancing "rebels" and the locals heaving rocks at the ineffectual "peacekeepers."
The first, most important reality is simply that the Congo is not and never has been a nation-state. Like other failed or failing states such as Afghanistan, Somalia and Sudan, it is a mere geographical expression.
The Congo came into existence a century and a quarter ago as the result of the personal ambition, greed and diplomatic skill of one man. King Leopold of the Belgians saw that exploiting the resources, human and otherwise, of a large and unclaimed area of Africa would lead to great personal wealth and status. His lengthy and often brilliant campaign of duplicity and taking advantage of rivalries between several of the European Great Powers resulted in the birth of Leopold's personal preserve--the Congo.
Over the next half century and more the raping of the Congo was looked upon with favor by the Great Powers including the US because its resources ranging from rubber to uranium were critical to economic growth or even victory in at least one war. Independence came more quickly and completely than any, repeat, any outside observer whether Belgian or otherwise thought either wise or possible.
Independence ignited a seemingly endless series of internal wars including genocidal violence directed against the small number of Belgians who stayed behind for reasons both selfish and altruistic. Stability, the stability of efficient repression, finally emerged under the dictatorship of a one time clerk for the Colonial Police, Joseph Mobutu. The US supported Mobutu through most of his less than gentle ruling period as a consequence of Cold War imperatives.
Mobutu's megalomaniac reign came to an end not long after the collapse of the Soviet Union rendered his version of law and order nugatory. Then, once again, it was let-the-killing-begin.
The wars both official and informal of the past decade and a half along with the underlying fractionation of any sort of body politic in the Congo has left the place both without a viable central regime, any sense of pervasive loyalty to a national entity on the part of most inhabitants and a long series of scores demanding settlement now and into the future.
The Congo is a failing if not yet a completely failed state. Any attempt by the African Union, the UN or the US to pretend the contrary is simply to perpetuate the bloodshed and attendant horrors. Period.
If outside agencies such as the AU and UN want to pretend the Congo is a viable nation-state, if the High Minded in Western Europe and the US want to wish the Congo would become a progressive model of enlightened liberal democracy, there is only one option. And, it ain't peacekeeping.
No.
The option is peace imposition. Imposing even a semblance of peace on the Congo will require a very major effort. Increasing the current 17,000 member UN force twenty fold would scarcely be enough.
Imposing peace will require combat. Combat requires death. Death will not be limited to combatants in or out of uniform.
Combat generates refugees in enormous numbers. As recent years have shown conclusively massive numbers of refugees have two consequences: Humanitarian crisis and future generations of gunslingers.
Absent both the political will and material resources for a major, prolonged military operation including years of occupation, the choices for dealing with the wreckage of the geographical expression called the Congo are few.
Essentially there are two. Keep on with the charade of peacekeeping in the hopes that some diplomatic/political miracle will occur and peace will break out. Accept that Nkunda and his merry band will take Goma and then Katanga with the hope that then peace will break out.
The Geek won't bet on either bringing a new era of fellowhip and love to the place.
History is powerful, too powerful for a Disney-type ending.
This time around, the "renegade" is General Laurent Nkunda. With him are approximately five thousand well equipped, well trained fighters. Behind Nkunda and his five thousand apparently very effective trigger-pullers is a political entity called the National Congress for the Defense of People (CNDP.)
The people being defended, like the gun-toters of Nkunda' force are Tutsi. Many of these Tutsis are left overs from the refugee camps in the eastern Congo formed nearly fifteen years ago in the wake of the Rwanda genocide. Others, probably most, are natives of the Congo.
The national identity of the troops and "protected people" gives good reason to believe reports that behind the CNDP and Nkunda's force is the small but very well trained, equipped and motivated army of Rwanda.
The prize in play is not the territorial capital of Rutshuru or even the major center of Goma with its refugee inflated population of 600,000. These are unimportant.
The prize is the mineral rich eastern section of the Congo. The east, centering on Katanga province, is the economic heart of the Western Europe sized country. It has always been the focus of the coups, counter-coups, uprisings, take-overs and the like which have marked the history of the Congo since June 1960.
While Nkunda recently proclaimed his intention to "liberate" all of the Congo, the real aims of the General and those behind him are far more limited in geographic scope. Katanga will do just fine, thank you.
This is not to say that Nkunda and the CNDP are not expansive in their ambitions. Both the General and his political peers started operations with the stated goal of protecting the Tutsi from the depredations of the Hutu militia, which crossed into the Congo to avoid the consequences of their genocidal acts.
Wars between various parties have been the hallmark of the Katanga region since 1997. The most recent ceasefire brokered by the UN between Nkunda and the government lasted from January to August of this year. This means it lasted a little longer than most ceasefires brought about by international agencies over the past forty-eight years.
The UN deployed a 17,000 member peacekeeping force in support of the ceasefire. It is a typical UN collection, mixing a few good units with assorted rabble. It could keep the peace as long as Nkunda and company allowed it to.
Time to get a grip.
There are two realities underlying the current stream of refugees to say nothing of such ancillaries as the UN helicopters firing without demonstrable effect upon the advancing "rebels" and the locals heaving rocks at the ineffectual "peacekeepers."
The first, most important reality is simply that the Congo is not and never has been a nation-state. Like other failed or failing states such as Afghanistan, Somalia and Sudan, it is a mere geographical expression.
The Congo came into existence a century and a quarter ago as the result of the personal ambition, greed and diplomatic skill of one man. King Leopold of the Belgians saw that exploiting the resources, human and otherwise, of a large and unclaimed area of Africa would lead to great personal wealth and status. His lengthy and often brilliant campaign of duplicity and taking advantage of rivalries between several of the European Great Powers resulted in the birth of Leopold's personal preserve--the Congo.
Over the next half century and more the raping of the Congo was looked upon with favor by the Great Powers including the US because its resources ranging from rubber to uranium were critical to economic growth or even victory in at least one war. Independence came more quickly and completely than any, repeat, any outside observer whether Belgian or otherwise thought either wise or possible.
Independence ignited a seemingly endless series of internal wars including genocidal violence directed against the small number of Belgians who stayed behind for reasons both selfish and altruistic. Stability, the stability of efficient repression, finally emerged under the dictatorship of a one time clerk for the Colonial Police, Joseph Mobutu. The US supported Mobutu through most of his less than gentle ruling period as a consequence of Cold War imperatives.
Mobutu's megalomaniac reign came to an end not long after the collapse of the Soviet Union rendered his version of law and order nugatory. Then, once again, it was let-the-killing-begin.
The wars both official and informal of the past decade and a half along with the underlying fractionation of any sort of body politic in the Congo has left the place both without a viable central regime, any sense of pervasive loyalty to a national entity on the part of most inhabitants and a long series of scores demanding settlement now and into the future.
The Congo is a failing if not yet a completely failed state. Any attempt by the African Union, the UN or the US to pretend the contrary is simply to perpetuate the bloodshed and attendant horrors. Period.
If outside agencies such as the AU and UN want to pretend the Congo is a viable nation-state, if the High Minded in Western Europe and the US want to wish the Congo would become a progressive model of enlightened liberal democracy, there is only one option. And, it ain't peacekeeping.
No.
The option is peace imposition. Imposing even a semblance of peace on the Congo will require a very major effort. Increasing the current 17,000 member UN force twenty fold would scarcely be enough.
Imposing peace will require combat. Combat requires death. Death will not be limited to combatants in or out of uniform.
Combat generates refugees in enormous numbers. As recent years have shown conclusively massive numbers of refugees have two consequences: Humanitarian crisis and future generations of gunslingers.
Absent both the political will and material resources for a major, prolonged military operation including years of occupation, the choices for dealing with the wreckage of the geographical expression called the Congo are few.
Essentially there are two. Keep on with the charade of peacekeeping in the hopes that some diplomatic/political miracle will occur and peace will break out. Accept that Nkunda and his merry band will take Goma and then Katanga with the hope that then peace will break out.
The Geek won't bet on either bringing a new era of fellowhip and love to the place.
History is powerful, too powerful for a Disney-type ending.
It's Time To Snarl--Not Whimper--At North Korea
And, while we are at it, do a little fang-baring at the PRC.
The stakes are high. Specifically, the continuation of North Korea's role as the leading nuclear proliferator on the planet.
And, the (to use an old Soviet term) the correlation of forces favors the US.
"But, wait," you insist, "North Korea has blinked on the plutonium production and our current administration has taken it off the terrorism sponsorship list."
The Geek allows as how your observations are correct. They are, however, to an important extent meaningless. Let's walk through the rest of the matter.
The agreement as it presently stands does not cover the North Korean uranium enrichment program. This is the same kind of centrifuge based excursion into fissionable materials productions which has the US so exercised against Iran.
The agreement does not adequately address technology transfer. The same applies to the thirty kilos of Pu239 which the North Koreans admit (privately to the PRC) having on hand. Debate exists as to whether or not independent auditors can accurately confirm the amount of plutonium produced by the North.
Then there are a set of contextual factors. North Korea is dead broke. For the third straight year the North's economy has sunk. Once again a goodly chunk of its population faces famine. The bad economic conditions have not yet impaired the NKPA or its ability to wage destructive even if ultimately suicidal war against the South. Finally, there is the question of Kim Jong Il's health. Recent reports from Japan state the 66 year old Dear Leader is still in the hospital and not a good life insurance risk.
Time to take a dekko at the correlation of forces.
Up until roughly two years ago the governments of both South Korea and Japan were inclined to an accomodationist posture with the Hermit Kingdom of the North. Now the governments of both countries are headed by men quite disinclined to embrace policies smacking of appeasement.
The only regional player that is inclined to give support or cover to the North Koreans is the PRC. There are several factors contributing to this stance.
One, perhaps the most important, is the Chinese government's conviction that it is the regional hegemon. Providing cover or running interference on behalf of the North is a component of flexing hegemonic muscles against rivals such as Japan. It is also a way of gaining bargaining leverage against the US regarding the status of Taiwan.
(In conjunction with this final consideration, keep in mind just how annoyed Beijing is with the US over the recent sales of military equipment to Taiwan.)
Then there is the consideration of North Korea's potential future utility. A potent, but not too potent North might some day be able to establish a political relationship with the South which would amount to de facto if not de jure reunification under the North's leadership. This possibility, no matter how remote, is appealing to Beijing. (It would be a relatively easy matter to take a reunified Korea, notionally governed from the North, under Chinese "protection.")
Finally there is the matter of emotion. While it is common to see the men of Beijing as remote, calculating and preternaturally rational actors in self-interest, that one dimensional view does little justice to reality.
The PRC took horrendous losses during the Korean War. Both North Korea and PRC are at least nominally "Communist." In a real sense the Korean War was the time when the Communist regime both firmly established its grip on power and created a national army from the earlier communist cadre. There is a lot of history, a lot of emotional attachment there. It should never be overlooked or underrated.
A little history is in order. Death has played a crucial role in diplomacy between North Korea and its assorted interlocutors. The death of Joe Stalin was pivotal in achieving the 1953 armistice. Fourteen years ago the death of Kim Il Sung was a central factor in the Agreed Framework talks.
If the Dear Leader is as far along the road to the grave as many indications hint, the time may be ripe to practice some coercive diplomacy. Admittedly, such a course would be risky given the nature, character and belligerence of the NKPA command echelon.
The counter is simple: Is it less risky to allow the North to put some Pu239 on the market? Is it more prudent to let the North go ahead with uranium enrichment?
Coercive American diplomacy should--must--focus on the PRC. Even though the Chinese government holds vast supplies of dollar denominated debt instruments and, in principle, has the capacity to commit economic mischief on a large scale, the current global recession militates against this sort of response.
The global recession also means that right now and for some months if not years to come the PRC needs us a lot more than we need them. We are the largest market for Chinese manufactured goods (thanks Walmart.) Any slowing of the US consumption of these Made in China products will cause PRC more than a little discomfort.
China needs access to US origin technology. We have little if any need to provide it without appropriate compensation. (No. The Geek does not mean more money for Boeing or Raytheon.)
The US need only employ normal bureaucratic techniques to inflict severe economic pain on PRC. A "work-to-rules" approach to trade, technology transfer and financial interchange would be sufficient. At the same time, a strict and rigorous application of all relevant rules would not give the PRC a cause to take to the WTO.
Then, leave it to Beijing to put the screws to the North Koreans. They are already in a position to do some creative rattling of sabers given the recent increase of PLA deployments to the border region.
The North Koreans may be rude, obnoxious and rhetorically aggressive, but they are still quite rational. Why else the recent expatriation of funds to friendly and close-mouthed bankers in small European states?
The stakes are high. Specifically, the continuation of North Korea's role as the leading nuclear proliferator on the planet.
And, the (to use an old Soviet term) the correlation of forces favors the US.
"But, wait," you insist, "North Korea has blinked on the plutonium production and our current administration has taken it off the terrorism sponsorship list."
The Geek allows as how your observations are correct. They are, however, to an important extent meaningless. Let's walk through the rest of the matter.
The agreement as it presently stands does not cover the North Korean uranium enrichment program. This is the same kind of centrifuge based excursion into fissionable materials productions which has the US so exercised against Iran.
The agreement does not adequately address technology transfer. The same applies to the thirty kilos of Pu239 which the North Koreans admit (privately to the PRC) having on hand. Debate exists as to whether or not independent auditors can accurately confirm the amount of plutonium produced by the North.
Then there are a set of contextual factors. North Korea is dead broke. For the third straight year the North's economy has sunk. Once again a goodly chunk of its population faces famine. The bad economic conditions have not yet impaired the NKPA or its ability to wage destructive even if ultimately suicidal war against the South. Finally, there is the question of Kim Jong Il's health. Recent reports from Japan state the 66 year old Dear Leader is still in the hospital and not a good life insurance risk.
Time to take a dekko at the correlation of forces.
Up until roughly two years ago the governments of both South Korea and Japan were inclined to an accomodationist posture with the Hermit Kingdom of the North. Now the governments of both countries are headed by men quite disinclined to embrace policies smacking of appeasement.
The only regional player that is inclined to give support or cover to the North Koreans is the PRC. There are several factors contributing to this stance.
One, perhaps the most important, is the Chinese government's conviction that it is the regional hegemon. Providing cover or running interference on behalf of the North is a component of flexing hegemonic muscles against rivals such as Japan. It is also a way of gaining bargaining leverage against the US regarding the status of Taiwan.
(In conjunction with this final consideration, keep in mind just how annoyed Beijing is with the US over the recent sales of military equipment to Taiwan.)
Then there is the consideration of North Korea's potential future utility. A potent, but not too potent North might some day be able to establish a political relationship with the South which would amount to de facto if not de jure reunification under the North's leadership. This possibility, no matter how remote, is appealing to Beijing. (It would be a relatively easy matter to take a reunified Korea, notionally governed from the North, under Chinese "protection.")
Finally there is the matter of emotion. While it is common to see the men of Beijing as remote, calculating and preternaturally rational actors in self-interest, that one dimensional view does little justice to reality.
The PRC took horrendous losses during the Korean War. Both North Korea and PRC are at least nominally "Communist." In a real sense the Korean War was the time when the Communist regime both firmly established its grip on power and created a national army from the earlier communist cadre. There is a lot of history, a lot of emotional attachment there. It should never be overlooked or underrated.
A little history is in order. Death has played a crucial role in diplomacy between North Korea and its assorted interlocutors. The death of Joe Stalin was pivotal in achieving the 1953 armistice. Fourteen years ago the death of Kim Il Sung was a central factor in the Agreed Framework talks.
If the Dear Leader is as far along the road to the grave as many indications hint, the time may be ripe to practice some coercive diplomacy. Admittedly, such a course would be risky given the nature, character and belligerence of the NKPA command echelon.
The counter is simple: Is it less risky to allow the North to put some Pu239 on the market? Is it more prudent to let the North go ahead with uranium enrichment?
Coercive American diplomacy should--must--focus on the PRC. Even though the Chinese government holds vast supplies of dollar denominated debt instruments and, in principle, has the capacity to commit economic mischief on a large scale, the current global recession militates against this sort of response.
The global recession also means that right now and for some months if not years to come the PRC needs us a lot more than we need them. We are the largest market for Chinese manufactured goods (thanks Walmart.) Any slowing of the US consumption of these Made in China products will cause PRC more than a little discomfort.
China needs access to US origin technology. We have little if any need to provide it without appropriate compensation. (No. The Geek does not mean more money for Boeing or Raytheon.)
The US need only employ normal bureaucratic techniques to inflict severe economic pain on PRC. A "work-to-rules" approach to trade, technology transfer and financial interchange would be sufficient. At the same time, a strict and rigorous application of all relevant rules would not give the PRC a cause to take to the WTO.
Then, leave it to Beijing to put the screws to the North Koreans. They are already in a position to do some creative rattling of sabers given the recent increase of PLA deployments to the border region.
The North Koreans may be rude, obnoxious and rhetorically aggressive, but they are still quite rational. Why else the recent expatriation of funds to friendly and close-mouthed bankers in small European states?
Monday, October 27, 2008
Fighting Pirates--Blackwater Or The Navy
Blackwater Worldwide and the rather bluntly named security company from Mississippi, Hollowpoint, are among the mercenary outfits looking for work in the waters off Somalia. Admittedly not all these private purveyors of security are trigger-pulling thugs like those deployed by the infamous Blackwater bunch. Some, primarily British, don't use lethal force depending instead on brains and less-than-lethal technology to enhance the chances of their clients when faced by fisherfolk turned maritime bandits.
Don't get the Geek wrong, he has no particular objections to killing pirates. He thinks it is a rather good idea. Raising risk while reducing benefits is a time-honored and effective technique of defeating piracy. If anything, the Geek is perturbed by the generous concern for the well-being of the seaborne opportunists of the Somalian coast.
It appears that the fear of lawyers and their landbased ilk is driving a desire on the part of governments, including that of the United States, to "privatize" the risks and liabilities of seeking to end the pirate plague by forceful action. Frankly, it galls the Geek to read a spokesperson for the US Navy encourage the use of private means to repel hostile borders.
It is equally galling to read of NATO hiding behind the need for "regulations" before the assembled armada can do any more than twiddle collective thumbs while the merry raiders of Puntland go about their business of seizing ships and crews. History indicates beyond the law's much beloved "reasonable doubt" that force and force alone ends piracy.
It is quite true that the Somalian pirates are not so forthright as to fly the Jolly Roger before opening fire. It is true that difficulty exists in distinguishing between fishermen and pirates. The same sort of problem as has bedeviled generations of counterinsurgents trying to parse between peasant and guerrilla.
It's nothing new.
We've been there before. And the reality is that some non-guerrillas are killed by mistake. The same would happen if the US or any other nation's navy opens fire. The probability of killing or wounding fishermen can be reduced, but never eliminated. Still, the possibility that non-pirates might be hurt should not be allowed to impair the effort to end a threat to the twenty thousand or so ships transiting the Gulf of Aden on route to or from the Suez Canal.
Impediments to shipping whether in insurance costs or travel time will do harm to an already shaky global economy. Resolute and robust action against piracy will be of global benefit. Failure to take such action will only embolden the marine marauders and put more trade at risk.
To put it simply: make the risk averse lawyers walk the plank and get serious about ending the threat. A large naval force which simply drives around or "monitors" the situation aboard one seized ship or even one which limits its activities to providing convoy escorts to food aid ships bound for Somalian ports is as useless as mammary glands on a bull.
Perhaps the Russians will show the world how pirates can be stopped. Their long-awaited frigate took on water and fresh supplies in Aden the other day. It has to be closing on Somalia and the captive M/V Faina shortly.
In the past the Russians have shown a genuine capacity for robust action and an accompanying willingness to accept innocent casualties when confronted by terrorists and the like. Perhaps that proclivity will be demonstrated in the near future on the Somalian coast.
The Russians seem to understand that warships have weapons. They have guns. As the Squadron Leader Mandrake put it in the film Dr Strangelove, "You have a gun. Use it! That's what the bullets are for. Shoot!"
To stop piracy in the Gulf of Aden or elsewhere, shoot and then let the lawyers dither. That's what lawyers are for. Dithering.
Don't get the Geek wrong, he has no particular objections to killing pirates. He thinks it is a rather good idea. Raising risk while reducing benefits is a time-honored and effective technique of defeating piracy. If anything, the Geek is perturbed by the generous concern for the well-being of the seaborne opportunists of the Somalian coast.
It appears that the fear of lawyers and their landbased ilk is driving a desire on the part of governments, including that of the United States, to "privatize" the risks and liabilities of seeking to end the pirate plague by forceful action. Frankly, it galls the Geek to read a spokesperson for the US Navy encourage the use of private means to repel hostile borders.
It is equally galling to read of NATO hiding behind the need for "regulations" before the assembled armada can do any more than twiddle collective thumbs while the merry raiders of Puntland go about their business of seizing ships and crews. History indicates beyond the law's much beloved "reasonable doubt" that force and force alone ends piracy.
It is quite true that the Somalian pirates are not so forthright as to fly the Jolly Roger before opening fire. It is true that difficulty exists in distinguishing between fishermen and pirates. The same sort of problem as has bedeviled generations of counterinsurgents trying to parse between peasant and guerrilla.
It's nothing new.
We've been there before. And the reality is that some non-guerrillas are killed by mistake. The same would happen if the US or any other nation's navy opens fire. The probability of killing or wounding fishermen can be reduced, but never eliminated. Still, the possibility that non-pirates might be hurt should not be allowed to impair the effort to end a threat to the twenty thousand or so ships transiting the Gulf of Aden on route to or from the Suez Canal.
Impediments to shipping whether in insurance costs or travel time will do harm to an already shaky global economy. Resolute and robust action against piracy will be of global benefit. Failure to take such action will only embolden the marine marauders and put more trade at risk.
To put it simply: make the risk averse lawyers walk the plank and get serious about ending the threat. A large naval force which simply drives around or "monitors" the situation aboard one seized ship or even one which limits its activities to providing convoy escorts to food aid ships bound for Somalian ports is as useless as mammary glands on a bull.
Perhaps the Russians will show the world how pirates can be stopped. Their long-awaited frigate took on water and fresh supplies in Aden the other day. It has to be closing on Somalia and the captive M/V Faina shortly.
In the past the Russians have shown a genuine capacity for robust action and an accompanying willingness to accept innocent casualties when confronted by terrorists and the like. Perhaps that proclivity will be demonstrated in the near future on the Somalian coast.
The Russians seem to understand that warships have weapons. They have guns. As the Squadron Leader Mandrake put it in the film Dr Strangelove, "You have a gun. Use it! That's what the bullets are for. Shoot!"
To stop piracy in the Gulf of Aden or elsewhere, shoot and then let the lawyers dither. That's what lawyers are for. Dithering.
H.W. Bush Created A Test--And Flunked It
As posted previously, presidents are more often than not faced by unanticipated tests thrown in their faces by the dynamics of global politics--not necessarily the machinations of persons of evil intent. On occasion presidents become essential co-conspirators in the making of the test.
An excellent example of this is LBJ and the decision to escalate the US involvement in the Vietnamese War. He did this by authorizing Operation Rolling Thunder, the air campaign against North Vietnam.
There was no need for the operation. Intelligence had shown clearly that the flow of weapons and other materiel from North to South was of no moment to the Viet Cong capacity and will to conduct offensive operations successfully. Intelligence also demonstrated clearly that there were no US national or strategic interests at stake in the region. Indeed, the often cited "Domino Theory" had been shown to have no basis.
The air campaign had two easily foreseen if unintended consequences.
The first, in the words of a perceptive historian of the period was, "In an effort to end a problem which did not exist--infiltration of men and supplies from North to South, the US created a problem which could not be solved--the infiltration of men and supplies North to South."
The second effect of Operation Rolling Thunder was the investment of American political prestige and potency. Air operations are not stealthy. They announce to the world that an area has become of great importance to the US. Thus the potential for de-commitment from the area is greatly impaired.
The continued deterioration of the military situation in South Vietnam left LBJ with a test. To cut our losses before they became politically and diplomatically unacceptable or to escalate the American commitment by introducing ground combat forces. The President opted for the latter.
The results we know. All too well.
George H.W. Bush was more than a co-conspirator in the greatest foreign policy test which he faced. Arguably, he created the test which he ultimately failed with consequences which remain with us today.
H. W. was not inexperienced in the summer of 1990. Rarely had a man come to the Oval with a more impressive resume. He had foreign policy experience out the ying-yang. He knew his way around the corridors of international politics well enough to navigate them blindfolded.
The President and the senior members of his administration that summer must have been aware of the long festering dispute between Iraq and Kuwait over the latter country's slant drilling under the hazily marked border and tapping oil reserves which Saddam Hussein believed in all sincerity were Iraqi. They must have been situationally aware regarding Iraq's need for money in the wake of the long and very costly war with Iran.
These two factors taken together strongly indicated that the new US ambassador to Iraq should receive very carefully drafted and detailed instructions on US policy regarding the Iraq-Kuwait dispute. Instead the instructions both written and oral were vague.
As a result Ms Glaspie conveyed the impression of US indifference to the manner in which Saddam solved his problem with Kuwait. The Iraqi dictator concluded that the US saw the problem as an Iraqi internal matter.
Saddam's conclusion was not irrational. Nor was it unjustified. He interpreted the American vagueness in an Iraqi historical context. This context defined Kuwait as a "lost" Iraqi province based upon the political nature of the Ottoman Empire and the consequences of the Franco-British dismantlement of that empire following WW I. The context also contained the recent US "tilt" toward Iraq during the recently concluded war with Iran.
In short, Saddam took the hazy American stance as an operational green light to seize Kuwait.
The posture of the Iraqi Army during and immediately after the crossing of the Kuwait border showed that there was no intention on the part of Baghdad to continue military operations into Saudi Arabia. The quick and decisive blitz of Kuwait was the limit of Saddam's ambitions.
Given the American surveillance and reconnaissance assets extent at the time there is no doubt that we were quite well apprised of the Iraqi intentions and capacities. This did not stop the Bush Administration from flatly lying to the Saudi regime regarding the threat to it.
The manufacturing of this "test" of US resolve and power projection capacity did not end with pouring duplicity upon the House of Saud in super-tanker quantities. The same sort of duplicity was poured all over the world as well as within the US.
Even a few months into the build-up phase of the war, the cynic (which is to say the realpolitik oriented historian) had the clear impression that the exercise had been intentional, provoked and desired. It was not a crisis forced upon the US and the world by the ambitions of a single dictator.
In short, the Gulf War was one that was wanted by Washington (and arguably a number of other capitals around the world.) A short, successful war against Iraq would serve long-term US policy interests such as assuring that no single state would have the potential to dominate the Persian Gulf region. A crippled Iraq would not pose a threat to the Gulf, the Mideast (read Israel) or the stability of regional oil production and prices.
As in a more recent US war in Iraq, the real failure of the test came the day after conventionally defined military victory had been achieved.
While we will not know until some day in the distant future when the relevant documents are finally declassified it may well be that the Deep Thinkers of H.W.'s administration didn't realise until the guns fell silent that Saddam would remain in power and Iraq would become the classic "wounded enemy." It may well be that not until the 100 hour blitz ended with worn machines and exhausted troops that unless one of two equally distasteful and risky actions were taken, the Saddamites would remain in power leaving us with a long duration, low-grade crisis.
As the war ended with US troops on the outskirts of Basra and dramatic pictures of the "Highway to Hell" on our television screens, the administration had to bite the cliched bullet. The guys in and around the Oval had three choices. They were all bad.
The first was to continue the war. Drive on to Baghdad. This would mean more time, more troops and, most compellingly, a hell of a lot more bodies in bags coming into Dover AFB. We knew from observing the Iran-Iraq War that the Iraqi Army had a great capacity for resistance. We also knew that the best components of the Iraqi Army had been withdrawn from harm's way in a prudent and timely fashion. It could be a long, long and very bloody slog.
The second choice was arming and equipping (and probably directly supporting) Shiite insurgents. This implied a strong possibility of inviting Iranian sub rosa elements into the affair. Any benefit to Iran would violate the US policy requirement of assuring no one state emerged paramount in the area. It would also mean having to somehow contain the obnoxious Tehran regime. Also implicit in the calculus was the probable impact upon Saudi Arabia of seeing Shiites gain bloody hegemony over the Sunni minority.
The third option was the one we took. Pressure intended to spark a military coup against the Saddamite regime. The third option marked the failure.
It is one thing to manufacture a "crisis." It is another to manipulate the outcome of the "crisis" so that a meaningful policy success is achieved.
The administration of H.W. Bush succeeded in creating a test for itself. It failed the test of its own making.
In so doing the father provided the ground for the son. W. Bush created a test with the invasion of Iraq, an invasion intended in pertinent part to finish the uncompleted work of H.W. Like the father, the son failed the test of his own devising.
The lessons from H.W.'s failure, from W.'s failure are the same as that of LBJ's failure. Before creating a "crisis" either in whole or in part (or for that matter responding to a genuine crisis) an administration must have both the wit and the will to do three things.
First, there must, absolutely must, be an awareness of the historical context in which one is and will be operating. This means an awareness of the history, both objective and subjective of the human terrain upon which we will be operating.
The second is to be fully attuned to the universality of the Law of Unintended Consequences. This can best be understood as being the full-bore application of Clausewitz's small caliber dictum "no plan survives first contact with the enemy."
Finally, when the use of military force is considered, an administration and its military commanders must focus not so much on the achievement of mere military victory. No. They have to focus on the days after the victory parade.
After all the purpose of war is to produce a better state of peace.
An excellent example of this is LBJ and the decision to escalate the US involvement in the Vietnamese War. He did this by authorizing Operation Rolling Thunder, the air campaign against North Vietnam.
There was no need for the operation. Intelligence had shown clearly that the flow of weapons and other materiel from North to South was of no moment to the Viet Cong capacity and will to conduct offensive operations successfully. Intelligence also demonstrated clearly that there were no US national or strategic interests at stake in the region. Indeed, the often cited "Domino Theory" had been shown to have no basis.
The air campaign had two easily foreseen if unintended consequences.
The first, in the words of a perceptive historian of the period was, "In an effort to end a problem which did not exist--infiltration of men and supplies from North to South, the US created a problem which could not be solved--the infiltration of men and supplies North to South."
The second effect of Operation Rolling Thunder was the investment of American political prestige and potency. Air operations are not stealthy. They announce to the world that an area has become of great importance to the US. Thus the potential for de-commitment from the area is greatly impaired.
The continued deterioration of the military situation in South Vietnam left LBJ with a test. To cut our losses before they became politically and diplomatically unacceptable or to escalate the American commitment by introducing ground combat forces. The President opted for the latter.
The results we know. All too well.
George H.W. Bush was more than a co-conspirator in the greatest foreign policy test which he faced. Arguably, he created the test which he ultimately failed with consequences which remain with us today.
H. W. was not inexperienced in the summer of 1990. Rarely had a man come to the Oval with a more impressive resume. He had foreign policy experience out the ying-yang. He knew his way around the corridors of international politics well enough to navigate them blindfolded.
The President and the senior members of his administration that summer must have been aware of the long festering dispute between Iraq and Kuwait over the latter country's slant drilling under the hazily marked border and tapping oil reserves which Saddam Hussein believed in all sincerity were Iraqi. They must have been situationally aware regarding Iraq's need for money in the wake of the long and very costly war with Iran.
These two factors taken together strongly indicated that the new US ambassador to Iraq should receive very carefully drafted and detailed instructions on US policy regarding the Iraq-Kuwait dispute. Instead the instructions both written and oral were vague.
As a result Ms Glaspie conveyed the impression of US indifference to the manner in which Saddam solved his problem with Kuwait. The Iraqi dictator concluded that the US saw the problem as an Iraqi internal matter.
Saddam's conclusion was not irrational. Nor was it unjustified. He interpreted the American vagueness in an Iraqi historical context. This context defined Kuwait as a "lost" Iraqi province based upon the political nature of the Ottoman Empire and the consequences of the Franco-British dismantlement of that empire following WW I. The context also contained the recent US "tilt" toward Iraq during the recently concluded war with Iran.
In short, Saddam took the hazy American stance as an operational green light to seize Kuwait.
The posture of the Iraqi Army during and immediately after the crossing of the Kuwait border showed that there was no intention on the part of Baghdad to continue military operations into Saudi Arabia. The quick and decisive blitz of Kuwait was the limit of Saddam's ambitions.
Given the American surveillance and reconnaissance assets extent at the time there is no doubt that we were quite well apprised of the Iraqi intentions and capacities. This did not stop the Bush Administration from flatly lying to the Saudi regime regarding the threat to it.
The manufacturing of this "test" of US resolve and power projection capacity did not end with pouring duplicity upon the House of Saud in super-tanker quantities. The same sort of duplicity was poured all over the world as well as within the US.
Even a few months into the build-up phase of the war, the cynic (which is to say the realpolitik oriented historian) had the clear impression that the exercise had been intentional, provoked and desired. It was not a crisis forced upon the US and the world by the ambitions of a single dictator.
In short, the Gulf War was one that was wanted by Washington (and arguably a number of other capitals around the world.) A short, successful war against Iraq would serve long-term US policy interests such as assuring that no single state would have the potential to dominate the Persian Gulf region. A crippled Iraq would not pose a threat to the Gulf, the Mideast (read Israel) or the stability of regional oil production and prices.
As in a more recent US war in Iraq, the real failure of the test came the day after conventionally defined military victory had been achieved.
While we will not know until some day in the distant future when the relevant documents are finally declassified it may well be that the Deep Thinkers of H.W.'s administration didn't realise until the guns fell silent that Saddam would remain in power and Iraq would become the classic "wounded enemy." It may well be that not until the 100 hour blitz ended with worn machines and exhausted troops that unless one of two equally distasteful and risky actions were taken, the Saddamites would remain in power leaving us with a long duration, low-grade crisis.
As the war ended with US troops on the outskirts of Basra and dramatic pictures of the "Highway to Hell" on our television screens, the administration had to bite the cliched bullet. The guys in and around the Oval had three choices. They were all bad.
The first was to continue the war. Drive on to Baghdad. This would mean more time, more troops and, most compellingly, a hell of a lot more bodies in bags coming into Dover AFB. We knew from observing the Iran-Iraq War that the Iraqi Army had a great capacity for resistance. We also knew that the best components of the Iraqi Army had been withdrawn from harm's way in a prudent and timely fashion. It could be a long, long and very bloody slog.
The second choice was arming and equipping (and probably directly supporting) Shiite insurgents. This implied a strong possibility of inviting Iranian sub rosa elements into the affair. Any benefit to Iran would violate the US policy requirement of assuring no one state emerged paramount in the area. It would also mean having to somehow contain the obnoxious Tehran regime. Also implicit in the calculus was the probable impact upon Saudi Arabia of seeing Shiites gain bloody hegemony over the Sunni minority.
The third option was the one we took. Pressure intended to spark a military coup against the Saddamite regime. The third option marked the failure.
It is one thing to manufacture a "crisis." It is another to manipulate the outcome of the "crisis" so that a meaningful policy success is achieved.
The administration of H.W. Bush succeeded in creating a test for itself. It failed the test of its own making.
In so doing the father provided the ground for the son. W. Bush created a test with the invasion of Iraq, an invasion intended in pertinent part to finish the uncompleted work of H.W. Like the father, the son failed the test of his own devising.
The lessons from H.W.'s failure, from W.'s failure are the same as that of LBJ's failure. Before creating a "crisis" either in whole or in part (or for that matter responding to a genuine crisis) an administration must have both the wit and the will to do three things.
First, there must, absolutely must, be an awareness of the historical context in which one is and will be operating. This means an awareness of the history, both objective and subjective of the human terrain upon which we will be operating.
The second is to be fully attuned to the universality of the Law of Unintended Consequences. This can best be understood as being the full-bore application of Clausewitz's small caliber dictum "no plan survives first contact with the enemy."
Finally, when the use of military force is considered, an administration and its military commanders must focus not so much on the achievement of mere military victory. No. They have to focus on the days after the victory parade.
After all the purpose of war is to produce a better state of peace.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
The Geek Goes Off Message--Sort Of
Today the Geek read a post by a blogger for SFGate. (Sorry, the Geek lost the link, but as a button-pusher he is a fine tuba player.) The post well and truly rankled the usually easy going Geek.
In the estimate of the SFGate dude, the US and the world stand on the cusp of a genuinely world-historical moment. By this the writer meant the forthcoming election. Suffice it to aver that whatever the reasons may be, they have little if anything in common with Dr Martin Luther King's demand that Americans judge a man not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character.
It is true that the election of a man with a half African genome may serve to convince many Americans that the days of racism and exclusion are behind us. It is even more true that such is not the case. The celebration of the forthcoming world-historical moment is based on myth, not reality. Worse, it is a pernicious form of racism--giving a man a free pass on his character, ability, policies and proposed programs because of the color of his skin (and perhaps the charm of his smile)
The Geek will leave aside any commentary on the probable course of domestic policies under an Obama administration, particularly one backed by a solidly Democratic Congress much as he may fear the looming tidal wave of Progressive interventionism and the concomitant establishment of a run-by-the-experts "Nanny State." After all, the Geek's real area of interest and experience is foreign and national security affairs.
The bloviating Joe Biden, whose career as a "foreign policy expert" in the senate the Geek has watched with much mirth, was right when he opined that a President Obama would be tested in the first months or year in office. While contemporary public opinion polls may show that Obama is much loved outside the US and that many around the world expect that there will be vast changes in the relation between the US and other countries, there are more than a few sharp, able and sinister men waiting with long knives in hand to "test" the newby at the White House.
Even experienced and very able presidents have been tested, not by sinister design but by the normal course of world affairs. FDR was tested by the rise of expansive and aggressive Nazism. He knew he was being tested. He knew perfectly well that the Nazis represented a threat to core American strategic interests. Still, there was nothing he could do to ward the growth of the threat or even its breaking over the map of Europe with seismic force.
Harry Truman, another vastly experienced man, infinitely more experienced and able than either Senator Obama or Senator Biden, was caught flatfooted by the North Korean invasion of the south in June 1950. However, Truman's strength of character, well of experience and coterie of very able advisers allowed for the quick, effective and, in the short-term, very unpopular decision to go to war under the auspices of the United Nations.
Mr Truman's "police action" was widely condemned by the Republicans of the day. The war was unpopular--more unpopular than the Vietnam War during the worst days following Tet. It was decried as a "no-win" war, an endless war without point and without favorable result.
The long term view shows Truman was right. The war was "no-win" but, more importantly, it was the war that we did not lose. The outcome of the war established a paradigm useful today: the accomplishment of the minimum strategic goal of "not-losing."
When General Eisenhower defeated the loved one of American academics and liberals, Governor Stevenson of Illinois, those on the Left predicted horrors beyond count. The reality was different. Ike's military experience gave him both the moral authority at home and the stature overseas to take advantage of the death of Stalin and (with the accidental assistance of the South Korean government) end the Korean War.
Beyond that Ike's knowledge and ability allowed his administration to forge the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction which made the Cold War years stable (most of the time). Ike was tested in Southeast Asia and the Mideast and passed the tests not with an "A" perhaps but with at least a C+.
JFK, who in comparison with Obama was quite experienced, was tested multiple times. He failed the following: The Vienna Summit, The Bay of Pigs, the war in Laos, the war in Vietnam, the Hawk missile sale to Israel. If the Soviets had not proven more responsible than the jocks of the Kennedy administration, the world would still be recovering from the very narrowly averted nuclear exchange.
Flashing forward a few years, the Geek asks, "Do you remember the vastly inexperienced one time nuclear engineer turned Georgia governor and then president?"
You got it! Jimmy Carter. He was tested. As by the coming of the Iranian Revolution. He failed. Failed badly. Sure, the Shah was a less than lovable guy. His regime did violate human rights. But, is the aftermath, the mullahocracy an improvement?
Then there was the policy wonk from Little Rock (or Hope, if you prefer his boyhood home.) He was tested too. He failed. But, foreign policy was not his thing. You might recall that he was bigger on such matters as after dark basketball, school uniforms and Monica Lewinsky. Enough said.
The blogger in SFGate wrote one thing with which the Geek agrees completely. He characterised the past eight years of Bush/Cheney/neocon ninny regime as a "fetid swamp." It has been just that--at best. The current administration was tested and failed.
It failed because of ideology and willful ignorance. The failure of the current administration has been severely negative on the US and the world.
Senator Obama has no experience. He has little noticeable positive character. He does have much ambition. He possesses much capacity at building and playing to the myth of American racism and its bright shadow, inclusiveness.
Also the Senator embodies a great body of ideology. The Geek is impressed by the degree to which Obama is a True Believer in the Western European Left Democratic Socialist world view and political agenda.
The deadly combination of a miserable deficiency in character and experience and a hyper-abundance of ideology assures that when the long knives of test are drawn and sharpened, they will plunge deeply into the senator turned president--and the United States.
That may constitute world-historical moment. But, it won't be one to celebrate.
In the estimate of the SFGate dude, the US and the world stand on the cusp of a genuinely world-historical moment. By this the writer meant the forthcoming election. Suffice it to aver that whatever the reasons may be, they have little if anything in common with Dr Martin Luther King's demand that Americans judge a man not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character.
It is true that the election of a man with a half African genome may serve to convince many Americans that the days of racism and exclusion are behind us. It is even more true that such is not the case. The celebration of the forthcoming world-historical moment is based on myth, not reality. Worse, it is a pernicious form of racism--giving a man a free pass on his character, ability, policies and proposed programs because of the color of his skin (and perhaps the charm of his smile)
The Geek will leave aside any commentary on the probable course of domestic policies under an Obama administration, particularly one backed by a solidly Democratic Congress much as he may fear the looming tidal wave of Progressive interventionism and the concomitant establishment of a run-by-the-experts "Nanny State." After all, the Geek's real area of interest and experience is foreign and national security affairs.
The bloviating Joe Biden, whose career as a "foreign policy expert" in the senate the Geek has watched with much mirth, was right when he opined that a President Obama would be tested in the first months or year in office. While contemporary public opinion polls may show that Obama is much loved outside the US and that many around the world expect that there will be vast changes in the relation between the US and other countries, there are more than a few sharp, able and sinister men waiting with long knives in hand to "test" the newby at the White House.
Even experienced and very able presidents have been tested, not by sinister design but by the normal course of world affairs. FDR was tested by the rise of expansive and aggressive Nazism. He knew he was being tested. He knew perfectly well that the Nazis represented a threat to core American strategic interests. Still, there was nothing he could do to ward the growth of the threat or even its breaking over the map of Europe with seismic force.
Harry Truman, another vastly experienced man, infinitely more experienced and able than either Senator Obama or Senator Biden, was caught flatfooted by the North Korean invasion of the south in June 1950. However, Truman's strength of character, well of experience and coterie of very able advisers allowed for the quick, effective and, in the short-term, very unpopular decision to go to war under the auspices of the United Nations.
Mr Truman's "police action" was widely condemned by the Republicans of the day. The war was unpopular--more unpopular than the Vietnam War during the worst days following Tet. It was decried as a "no-win" war, an endless war without point and without favorable result.
The long term view shows Truman was right. The war was "no-win" but, more importantly, it was the war that we did not lose. The outcome of the war established a paradigm useful today: the accomplishment of the minimum strategic goal of "not-losing."
When General Eisenhower defeated the loved one of American academics and liberals, Governor Stevenson of Illinois, those on the Left predicted horrors beyond count. The reality was different. Ike's military experience gave him both the moral authority at home and the stature overseas to take advantage of the death of Stalin and (with the accidental assistance of the South Korean government) end the Korean War.
Beyond that Ike's knowledge and ability allowed his administration to forge the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction which made the Cold War years stable (most of the time). Ike was tested in Southeast Asia and the Mideast and passed the tests not with an "A" perhaps but with at least a C+.
JFK, who in comparison with Obama was quite experienced, was tested multiple times. He failed the following: The Vienna Summit, The Bay of Pigs, the war in Laos, the war in Vietnam, the Hawk missile sale to Israel. If the Soviets had not proven more responsible than the jocks of the Kennedy administration, the world would still be recovering from the very narrowly averted nuclear exchange.
Flashing forward a few years, the Geek asks, "Do you remember the vastly inexperienced one time nuclear engineer turned Georgia governor and then president?"
You got it! Jimmy Carter. He was tested. As by the coming of the Iranian Revolution. He failed. Failed badly. Sure, the Shah was a less than lovable guy. His regime did violate human rights. But, is the aftermath, the mullahocracy an improvement?
Then there was the policy wonk from Little Rock (or Hope, if you prefer his boyhood home.) He was tested too. He failed. But, foreign policy was not his thing. You might recall that he was bigger on such matters as after dark basketball, school uniforms and Monica Lewinsky. Enough said.
The blogger in SFGate wrote one thing with which the Geek agrees completely. He characterised the past eight years of Bush/Cheney/neocon ninny regime as a "fetid swamp." It has been just that--at best. The current administration was tested and failed.
It failed because of ideology and willful ignorance. The failure of the current administration has been severely negative on the US and the world.
Senator Obama has no experience. He has little noticeable positive character. He does have much ambition. He possesses much capacity at building and playing to the myth of American racism and its bright shadow, inclusiveness.
Also the Senator embodies a great body of ideology. The Geek is impressed by the degree to which Obama is a True Believer in the Western European Left Democratic Socialist world view and political agenda.
The deadly combination of a miserable deficiency in character and experience and a hyper-abundance of ideology assures that when the long knives of test are drawn and sharpened, they will plunge deeply into the senator turned president--and the United States.
That may constitute world-historical moment. But, it won't be one to celebrate.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
To Tell The Truth Means To Be Attacked
Otero county is a sparsely populated area in south-central New Mexico best known as the home of the White Sands and (for those who are fans of nuclear history) Trinity Site. Other than that it is a place of nothing but miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles. Actually a goodly portion of the county reminds the Geek of the Arabian Peninsula and the vast emptiness of western Iraq.
Otero county is the sort of place where nothing much happens. Its major town, Alamagordo, is not noted as a culture medium for controversy.
Because of these factors the Geek was shocked when Otero county became the dateline for a series of stories relating to the presidential campaign.
It seems that Marcia Stirman, the head of the county Republican Women's Federation wrote a letter to the Alamagordo newspaper laying out nearly twenty reasons why she is a Republican. Most of them were standard conservative boilerplate regarding guns, lower taxes and personal responsibility. Totally unexceptional ya-dah, ya-dah.
She did make two statements which some have found both exceptional and objectionable. One of these was, "I believe Muslims are our enemies." The other denied that Senator Obama is "a messiah or a democrat."
Ms Stirman concluded by averring that in her view the junior Senator from Illinois is "a Muslim and a socialist."
The Geek takes the Senator at his word and accepts that he is not and never has been (at least in post-pubescence) a Muslim. The statement that the Senator is a socialist is accurate and should not disturb anyone, particularly the supporters of Mr Obama.
The Geek is unconcerned over the concluding statement in Ms Stirman's profession of faith. His interest is in her animadversion, "I believe Muslims are our enemies."
Ms Stirman's view brought a heated response from Nihad Awad, the Executive Director of the Council on American-islamic Relations (CAIR). He characterised the Stirman statement of opinon as "hate-filled remarks," and demanded that state and national Republican party officials "repudiate her divisive and intolerant views."
Stirman did not hang her head in shame and scuff the dust of the Otero county corral with the toe of her boot in proper aw-shucks, I've been a bad, bad girl manner. Not on your bippy. The interior decorator told the Las Cruces Sun, "...if the Islamic group doesn't like it, well, I don't like what's going on in their camp either."
OpEd News and the Huffington Post have ridden into the New Mexico desert on a search and distroy mission aimed at Ms Stirman. The posse would be joined by other stalwarts of the Left if there was time enough before the election.
Why all this concern over one woman's opinion? Why all the burrs under all sorts of saddles considering the words were in a letter to the editor in a very minor newspaper in the wide marches of a very large state?
The Geek cannot help but see this dust-up as one more sign of a very alarming and very large exercise in intellectual bankruptcy which has affected not only the US but Western Europe and other countries as well. Individually and collectively we have been and continue to be unwilling or unable to recognise that Ms Stirman's characterization of Islam is correct.
Notice. The Geek made one small but critical change in Ms Stirman's indictment. He wrote "Islam" in place of her word, "Muslims." Muslims, like members of other religions come in assorted sizes.
Some are nominal, cultural, occasional. They like their religion lite.
Other take their religion full strength. Full bore. Pedal to the metal.
The core of Islam, the Quran, the Hidith, the Sira demand that the the Message of the Prophet be taken without any dilution. The core of the belief system demands full and complete acceptance of and submission to the word of Allah as transmitted to the Prophet by the angel Gabriel. Anything less than that, anything less than the whole-hearted attempt to emulate the life of the "perfect man," Mohammad, is apostasy.
Islam admits of no compromise. It allows no adulteration. Islam is not open to attenuating interpretation. It is as harsh, stark and forbidding as the land of the desert that gave it birth.
Islam demands unending struggle against the infidels living in what the religion terms the "House of War." It demands as well an unending struggle against the apostates living in the House of Islam.
When our government searches for the "moderate" Muslim it is actually looking for the apostate. The Good, True Muslim cannot be moderate and adhere to the severe requirements of his religion.
Islam is not and cannot be as George W. Bush and other well-intentioned but totally gripless people have asserted, "the religion of peace." Peace can only come when and if the entire human race submits to the requirements of Islam. Period.
Islam, the Islam of the Quran, the Hidith, the Sira, the Islam of al-Qaeda, Taliban and the Islamists generally as well as those who quietly, tacitly offer support demands war in the name of Allah against the unbelievers, be they Christians, Jews, idolaters or whatever. Good and True Muslims accept the requirement for unending jihad against the House of War.
Islam is the unending enemy of every belief which underpins not only the West in general but the United States in particular. Islam is against all that is at the center of what makes us us. It is an enemy without rest, without mercy and without any chance of negotiated compromise.
With this as context, another question comes to mind. Why the extreme unwillingness to acknowledge the inherent hostility between Islam and us?
The short, misleading answer is political correctness. The use of this term is misleading because it ignores the historical background which resulted in the creation of the concept by those of us who came of age during the Cold War and its hot expression in Southeast Asia.
Those of us born during the Forties and Fifties spent our childhoods in the most chilling winds of the Cold War. We were indoctrinated to fear and loath the "commies." We were assured that these "commies" were the worst lying, god-hating, rape loving, freedom killing spawn of hell ever to have crept from the abysmal depths of human depravity.
It was the worst sort of rhetorical overkill. The Great Anti-Communist Crusade of the post-World War II era was overblown, overdrawn and overdone. It is small wonder that the generation which was the focus of these 'protective" actions by government, church and school reacted against the America-Is-Supremely-Good, Commies-Are-All-Evil message of our early years.
More than a few members of this generation hoped, vowed to be different from and better than their parents. This generation would not be so quick to judge. So eager to brand as evil and wrong beliefs that differed from ours. This generation would be tolerant.
No. It would be more than merely tolerant. It would be accepting. It would seek to embrace those who were different. It would welcome all views, all beliefs--even those antipodal to our own.
Can we say, "multi-culturalism?" Can we say, "cultural relativism?" Can we say, "moral relativism?"
Some of this generation, in the main those who have become members of the self-ascribed elite of politicians, journalists, academics and chattering class adherents in general went further than this. Their view became increasingly distorted as the decade of the Sixties wore on along with that long-ago, endless war in Asia and the seemingly futile struggle for economic, social, political and racial "justice" here at home.
This Amphyctony of the Disenchanted came to view America and the ideas or ideals which gave rise to the country as being inherently evil. In their eyes the US must withdraw from the world less the world suffer more from us. From their perspective the US must pay penance to the world as well as the wretched in our midst.
In sum, this Amphyctony of the Disenchanted agreed and agree with the Iranian mullahocracy: The US is the Great Satan.
This world view admits of no alternative to acceptance of the Muslim critique. It forces the conclusion that Islam is "the religion of peace," regardless of the words of the Quran, the Hidith or the life of the sociopath who elevated himself to the role of Final Prophet.
The world view of the Disenchanted provides the rich and fertile soil for the Muslim Brotherhood and its spin-offs such as CAIR to engage in the Islam-validated concept of war by "every stratagem" including lying. It demands ignoring the nature of Islam.
The Soviet Union may have lost the Cold War. The Soviet Union may exist no longer.
But, get a grip on this, the most horrible legacy of the fifty years of that "victorious" fight against the Kremlin soldiers on. The fanaticism of the counter-subversive anti-Communist Crusaders has bred another fanaticism. The convictions of the Disenchanted which open the US to a long term defeat by the Good and True Muslims marching under the sword emblazoned green banner of Islamism.
Ms Stirman's sin was recognising that--and writing it.
Poorly worded as her charge may have been, she was correct. To deny that is to claim that ignorance is bliss.
While ignorance may be blissful, it is also the door marked, "Defeat."
Otero county is the sort of place where nothing much happens. Its major town, Alamagordo, is not noted as a culture medium for controversy.
Because of these factors the Geek was shocked when Otero county became the dateline for a series of stories relating to the presidential campaign.
It seems that Marcia Stirman, the head of the county Republican Women's Federation wrote a letter to the Alamagordo newspaper laying out nearly twenty reasons why she is a Republican. Most of them were standard conservative boilerplate regarding guns, lower taxes and personal responsibility. Totally unexceptional ya-dah, ya-dah.
She did make two statements which some have found both exceptional and objectionable. One of these was, "I believe Muslims are our enemies." The other denied that Senator Obama is "a messiah or a democrat."
Ms Stirman concluded by averring that in her view the junior Senator from Illinois is "a Muslim and a socialist."
The Geek takes the Senator at his word and accepts that he is not and never has been (at least in post-pubescence) a Muslim. The statement that the Senator is a socialist is accurate and should not disturb anyone, particularly the supporters of Mr Obama.
The Geek is unconcerned over the concluding statement in Ms Stirman's profession of faith. His interest is in her animadversion, "I believe Muslims are our enemies."
Ms Stirman's view brought a heated response from Nihad Awad, the Executive Director of the Council on American-islamic Relations (CAIR). He characterised the Stirman statement of opinon as "hate-filled remarks," and demanded that state and national Republican party officials "repudiate her divisive and intolerant views."
Stirman did not hang her head in shame and scuff the dust of the Otero county corral with the toe of her boot in proper aw-shucks, I've been a bad, bad girl manner. Not on your bippy. The interior decorator told the Las Cruces Sun, "...if the Islamic group doesn't like it, well, I don't like what's going on in their camp either."
OpEd News and the Huffington Post have ridden into the New Mexico desert on a search and distroy mission aimed at Ms Stirman. The posse would be joined by other stalwarts of the Left if there was time enough before the election.
Why all this concern over one woman's opinion? Why all the burrs under all sorts of saddles considering the words were in a letter to the editor in a very minor newspaper in the wide marches of a very large state?
The Geek cannot help but see this dust-up as one more sign of a very alarming and very large exercise in intellectual bankruptcy which has affected not only the US but Western Europe and other countries as well. Individually and collectively we have been and continue to be unwilling or unable to recognise that Ms Stirman's characterization of Islam is correct.
Notice. The Geek made one small but critical change in Ms Stirman's indictment. He wrote "Islam" in place of her word, "Muslims." Muslims, like members of other religions come in assorted sizes.
Some are nominal, cultural, occasional. They like their religion lite.
Other take their religion full strength. Full bore. Pedal to the metal.
The core of Islam, the Quran, the Hidith, the Sira demand that the the Message of the Prophet be taken without any dilution. The core of the belief system demands full and complete acceptance of and submission to the word of Allah as transmitted to the Prophet by the angel Gabriel. Anything less than that, anything less than the whole-hearted attempt to emulate the life of the "perfect man," Mohammad, is apostasy.
Islam admits of no compromise. It allows no adulteration. Islam is not open to attenuating interpretation. It is as harsh, stark and forbidding as the land of the desert that gave it birth.
Islam demands unending struggle against the infidels living in what the religion terms the "House of War." It demands as well an unending struggle against the apostates living in the House of Islam.
When our government searches for the "moderate" Muslim it is actually looking for the apostate. The Good, True Muslim cannot be moderate and adhere to the severe requirements of his religion.
Islam is not and cannot be as George W. Bush and other well-intentioned but totally gripless people have asserted, "the religion of peace." Peace can only come when and if the entire human race submits to the requirements of Islam. Period.
Islam, the Islam of the Quran, the Hidith, the Sira, the Islam of al-Qaeda, Taliban and the Islamists generally as well as those who quietly, tacitly offer support demands war in the name of Allah against the unbelievers, be they Christians, Jews, idolaters or whatever. Good and True Muslims accept the requirement for unending jihad against the House of War.
Islam is the unending enemy of every belief which underpins not only the West in general but the United States in particular. Islam is against all that is at the center of what makes us us. It is an enemy without rest, without mercy and without any chance of negotiated compromise.
With this as context, another question comes to mind. Why the extreme unwillingness to acknowledge the inherent hostility between Islam and us?
The short, misleading answer is political correctness. The use of this term is misleading because it ignores the historical background which resulted in the creation of the concept by those of us who came of age during the Cold War and its hot expression in Southeast Asia.
Those of us born during the Forties and Fifties spent our childhoods in the most chilling winds of the Cold War. We were indoctrinated to fear and loath the "commies." We were assured that these "commies" were the worst lying, god-hating, rape loving, freedom killing spawn of hell ever to have crept from the abysmal depths of human depravity.
It was the worst sort of rhetorical overkill. The Great Anti-Communist Crusade of the post-World War II era was overblown, overdrawn and overdone. It is small wonder that the generation which was the focus of these 'protective" actions by government, church and school reacted against the America-Is-Supremely-Good, Commies-Are-All-Evil message of our early years.
More than a few members of this generation hoped, vowed to be different from and better than their parents. This generation would not be so quick to judge. So eager to brand as evil and wrong beliefs that differed from ours. This generation would be tolerant.
No. It would be more than merely tolerant. It would be accepting. It would seek to embrace those who were different. It would welcome all views, all beliefs--even those antipodal to our own.
Can we say, "multi-culturalism?" Can we say, "cultural relativism?" Can we say, "moral relativism?"
Some of this generation, in the main those who have become members of the self-ascribed elite of politicians, journalists, academics and chattering class adherents in general went further than this. Their view became increasingly distorted as the decade of the Sixties wore on along with that long-ago, endless war in Asia and the seemingly futile struggle for economic, social, political and racial "justice" here at home.
This Amphyctony of the Disenchanted came to view America and the ideas or ideals which gave rise to the country as being inherently evil. In their eyes the US must withdraw from the world less the world suffer more from us. From their perspective the US must pay penance to the world as well as the wretched in our midst.
In sum, this Amphyctony of the Disenchanted agreed and agree with the Iranian mullahocracy: The US is the Great Satan.
This world view admits of no alternative to acceptance of the Muslim critique. It forces the conclusion that Islam is "the religion of peace," regardless of the words of the Quran, the Hidith or the life of the sociopath who elevated himself to the role of Final Prophet.
The world view of the Disenchanted provides the rich and fertile soil for the Muslim Brotherhood and its spin-offs such as CAIR to engage in the Islam-validated concept of war by "every stratagem" including lying. It demands ignoring the nature of Islam.
The Soviet Union may have lost the Cold War. The Soviet Union may exist no longer.
But, get a grip on this, the most horrible legacy of the fifty years of that "victorious" fight against the Kremlin soldiers on. The fanaticism of the counter-subversive anti-Communist Crusaders has bred another fanaticism. The convictions of the Disenchanted which open the US to a long term defeat by the Good and True Muslims marching under the sword emblazoned green banner of Islamism.
Ms Stirman's sin was recognising that--and writing it.
Poorly worded as her charge may have been, she was correct. To deny that is to claim that ignorance is bliss.
While ignorance may be blissful, it is also the door marked, "Defeat."
Friday, October 24, 2008
What Happened to the "Hidden Hand?"
Periodically, when the Geek is feeling entirely too masochistic to read the usual dull, tendentious and all-too-often agenda driven works of academic historians, he returns to his favorite piece of intellectual torture--Das Kapital. The current global exercise in the markets' version of the China Syndrome required another visit to the narrow guage view of history put forth by Karl Marx.
Showing his inherently schizoid nature, the Geek followed that excursion by reacquainting himself with Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and touching base with a strong Adam Smith maven--Allan Greenspan's memoirs.
When the reading was over, the Geek was struck with a couple of salient lacks shared equally by Marx and Smith, and, of course, Greenspan--
"Wait one, Geek!" I hear you interrupting, "What do you know about micro or macro-economics, your thing is history?"
All the Geek can do is agree. The dismal science is not one with which the Geek is overly well acquainted. However, decisions about economic matters are made by human beings, by Joe the Plumber as well as the glittering elite of international finance. You have to remember that the study of history is the study of the record of human choices, good and bad. History is the sum total of all humans' hopes and fears, strengths and weaknesses, greed and altruism, all the good and evil of which people are capable.
To those exemplified by Marx, Smith and Greenspan, economic matters are strangely isolated from the realities of the human condition. Reading these men one is left with the impression that while economic imperatives operate on people, people and their choices have little to do with the processes of wealth creation, distribution and usage.
One human emotion runs through the writings of Smith and Marx as a bright thread. Greed. Both men quite explicitly acknowledge the power of greed as a motivator of economic choice. Greenspan makes the same point.
Smith and Greenspan seem to agree with the noxious character Gecko, in the movie Wallstreet, in extolling greed as a good. Marx does not share this favorable position on greed, or "self-interest," as Smith termed it.
There is a sub-text to Smith and Greenspan (and to a somewhat lesser extent, Marx.) That sub-text is that the market is inherently rational. That it is an institution of rationality based on the enlightened, knowledgeable pursuit of self-interest.
Get a grip, boys!
Humans are not primarily rational. Greed is not the primary emotion motivating decisions whether in the economic area or any of the others which comprise the human experience.
The primary emotion of humans is fear. Naked, unadulterated fear. Not anxiety. Not apprehension. Not even worry. Fear, pure and simple.
We are all born globally afraid. Life's journey consists of restraining, controlling, domesticating fear. Turning the voracious wolfpack in our guts from feral creatures eager to devour us from the inside into a useful and well tethered band of watchdogs warning us of danger.
The wolves of fear are always straining at the leashes. Always trying to break free. Always seeking a way to gnaw and yowl. We are all--each and everyone of us--fractions of a second away from being eaten alive by our fears.
Life is inherently risky. As a species we emerged to occupy a precarious ecological niche. Fear was and is necessary, utterly essential, to stay alive. Fear, like fire, is a wonderful servant but a terrible master.
All human institutions have emerged to address the risks and fears of life. They all exist, all justify their existence, by how well they serve to reduce and distribute risk. By appearing to provide a reason to keep our wolf packs of fear under control.
Greed (or self-interest, if you prefer a milder term) is the flip side of fear. In a manner identical to the striving for power, status, prestige, potency, greed is a mechanism by which individual fear is addressed, the individual's risks apparently reduced.
The Democratic Socialist's call for "fairness" is an attempt to reduce risk through distribution. The more widely risks seem to be distributed among a group, the less reason exists for any individual to give free expression to fear.
The free-market capitalist's call for minimal regulation of his activities is motivated by an attempt to reduce risk through distribution. Or, to err on the side of accuracy, to reduce risk by displacement. The free-market capitalist seeks to place his individual risk onto the backs of others. To reduce his fear by transferring it to others.
The point that Smith, Greenspan and, yes, even Marx missed is simple. The capitalist is not the only or even the major risk-taker in a market oriented economy. Arguably, the worker takes a much greater risk. While the capitalist may have many places for investment (after all, distribution of money equals distribution and thus limitation of risk) the worker has only one job. Lose that and the worker loses all.
In addition to the worker, the employee of a capitalist enterprise, there are many other actors with as much at risk as the capitalist. Suppliers and customers for example. Or the town where the business is located.
Life is risky and fear is universal. It is no surprise that the capitalist, large or small, seeks to distribute risk, reduce his own vulnerabilities and keep his wolves under control. The market model might serve to be an effective way to do this, to protect and reassure not only the investor but also the worker, the buyer, the seller, and, heck, even the tax collector.
However, the market can only be both free and effective if all players, no matter what their role might be, act on the basis of equal, perfect information and with a supreme detachment from the emotions, particularly fear and its direct anodynes such as envy and greed.
Perhaps there is a world where that sort of halcyon situation exists. But, planet Earth is not to be found among their number. As a result the free-market so admired by Adam Smith and Allan Greenspan will never be a perfect or even an effective means to reduce and distribute risk--to assist us in the never ending task of keeping our wolves of fear under control.
The record of socialism whether of the European Democratic sort or Soviet style Communism is no better historically than is that of the free-market. Perfect fairness, true equality is a chimera, and a dangerous one at that.
In so far as talents, abilities and motivations of people differ, inequality and unfairness of outcome will necessarily result. In any system dedicated to the proposition that society can and should guarantee equality and fairness, some will find the loopholes.
Some will find ways and means to become somewhat more fair and equal than others. Still others will harbor bitter resentment and sour envy. We all meet our inner wolves in different ways. We all hear the warning barks of our watchdogs within differently.
History powerfully argues that the answer to economically based fears is not found in systems. Neither the hidden hand nor the government dictate can assure outcomes which are non-risky, not likely to produce fear in one form or another.
The answer, history suggests, is to be found within each and every one of us. It is to be found in how well we understand the evolutionary psychology which lies between our ears and how it expresses itself. The answer to fear is the knowledge necessary to keep a firm hand on the leash.
History teaches that when humans give in to the wolves within, they become howling beasts on two legs.
Showing his inherently schizoid nature, the Geek followed that excursion by reacquainting himself with Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and touching base with a strong Adam Smith maven--Allan Greenspan's memoirs.
When the reading was over, the Geek was struck with a couple of salient lacks shared equally by Marx and Smith, and, of course, Greenspan--
"Wait one, Geek!" I hear you interrupting, "What do you know about micro or macro-economics, your thing is history?"
All the Geek can do is agree. The dismal science is not one with which the Geek is overly well acquainted. However, decisions about economic matters are made by human beings, by Joe the Plumber as well as the glittering elite of international finance. You have to remember that the study of history is the study of the record of human choices, good and bad. History is the sum total of all humans' hopes and fears, strengths and weaknesses, greed and altruism, all the good and evil of which people are capable.
To those exemplified by Marx, Smith and Greenspan, economic matters are strangely isolated from the realities of the human condition. Reading these men one is left with the impression that while economic imperatives operate on people, people and their choices have little to do with the processes of wealth creation, distribution and usage.
One human emotion runs through the writings of Smith and Marx as a bright thread. Greed. Both men quite explicitly acknowledge the power of greed as a motivator of economic choice. Greenspan makes the same point.
Smith and Greenspan seem to agree with the noxious character Gecko, in the movie Wallstreet, in extolling greed as a good. Marx does not share this favorable position on greed, or "self-interest," as Smith termed it.
There is a sub-text to Smith and Greenspan (and to a somewhat lesser extent, Marx.) That sub-text is that the market is inherently rational. That it is an institution of rationality based on the enlightened, knowledgeable pursuit of self-interest.
Get a grip, boys!
Humans are not primarily rational. Greed is not the primary emotion motivating decisions whether in the economic area or any of the others which comprise the human experience.
The primary emotion of humans is fear. Naked, unadulterated fear. Not anxiety. Not apprehension. Not even worry. Fear, pure and simple.
We are all born globally afraid. Life's journey consists of restraining, controlling, domesticating fear. Turning the voracious wolfpack in our guts from feral creatures eager to devour us from the inside into a useful and well tethered band of watchdogs warning us of danger.
The wolves of fear are always straining at the leashes. Always trying to break free. Always seeking a way to gnaw and yowl. We are all--each and everyone of us--fractions of a second away from being eaten alive by our fears.
Life is inherently risky. As a species we emerged to occupy a precarious ecological niche. Fear was and is necessary, utterly essential, to stay alive. Fear, like fire, is a wonderful servant but a terrible master.
All human institutions have emerged to address the risks and fears of life. They all exist, all justify their existence, by how well they serve to reduce and distribute risk. By appearing to provide a reason to keep our wolf packs of fear under control.
Greed (or self-interest, if you prefer a milder term) is the flip side of fear. In a manner identical to the striving for power, status, prestige, potency, greed is a mechanism by which individual fear is addressed, the individual's risks apparently reduced.
The Democratic Socialist's call for "fairness" is an attempt to reduce risk through distribution. The more widely risks seem to be distributed among a group, the less reason exists for any individual to give free expression to fear.
The free-market capitalist's call for minimal regulation of his activities is motivated by an attempt to reduce risk through distribution. Or, to err on the side of accuracy, to reduce risk by displacement. The free-market capitalist seeks to place his individual risk onto the backs of others. To reduce his fear by transferring it to others.
The point that Smith, Greenspan and, yes, even Marx missed is simple. The capitalist is not the only or even the major risk-taker in a market oriented economy. Arguably, the worker takes a much greater risk. While the capitalist may have many places for investment (after all, distribution of money equals distribution and thus limitation of risk) the worker has only one job. Lose that and the worker loses all.
In addition to the worker, the employee of a capitalist enterprise, there are many other actors with as much at risk as the capitalist. Suppliers and customers for example. Or the town where the business is located.
Life is risky and fear is universal. It is no surprise that the capitalist, large or small, seeks to distribute risk, reduce his own vulnerabilities and keep his wolves under control. The market model might serve to be an effective way to do this, to protect and reassure not only the investor but also the worker, the buyer, the seller, and, heck, even the tax collector.
However, the market can only be both free and effective if all players, no matter what their role might be, act on the basis of equal, perfect information and with a supreme detachment from the emotions, particularly fear and its direct anodynes such as envy and greed.
Perhaps there is a world where that sort of halcyon situation exists. But, planet Earth is not to be found among their number. As a result the free-market so admired by Adam Smith and Allan Greenspan will never be a perfect or even an effective means to reduce and distribute risk--to assist us in the never ending task of keeping our wolves of fear under control.
The record of socialism whether of the European Democratic sort or Soviet style Communism is no better historically than is that of the free-market. Perfect fairness, true equality is a chimera, and a dangerous one at that.
In so far as talents, abilities and motivations of people differ, inequality and unfairness of outcome will necessarily result. In any system dedicated to the proposition that society can and should guarantee equality and fairness, some will find the loopholes.
Some will find ways and means to become somewhat more fair and equal than others. Still others will harbor bitter resentment and sour envy. We all meet our inner wolves in different ways. We all hear the warning barks of our watchdogs within differently.
History powerfully argues that the answer to economically based fears is not found in systems. Neither the hidden hand nor the government dictate can assure outcomes which are non-risky, not likely to produce fear in one form or another.
The answer, history suggests, is to be found within each and every one of us. It is to be found in how well we understand the evolutionary psychology which lies between our ears and how it expresses itself. The answer to fear is the knowledge necessary to keep a firm hand on the leash.
History teaches that when humans give in to the wolves within, they become howling beasts on two legs.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
(Some) Iraqis Want US Out--
Perhaps we should oblige.
Not that long ago the current administration was talking of a prolonged American stay in Iraq. The end of US combat operations would not be synonymous with the end of US presence. John McCain and Robert Gates both made reference to the Korean analogy. Both were of the view that the situation within Iraq and adjacent states would compel the Iraqi government to acknowledge the necessity of an on-going American deployment.
The view espoused by these two men and so many others ignored the reality of history as a force in contemporary Iraqi politics. The prospect of the Iraqis accepting a prolonged US force presence with utter equanimity requires ignoring two salient features of the Iraqi experience over the past seventy-five or so years.
First, it is necessary to pretend that the British never occupied Iraq in the aftermath of World War I. Along with that it is essential to ignore the impact of the British economy-of-force approach to counterinsurgency in the Twenties.
Dubbed by the responsible officials of HMG, "The Imperial Policing Scheme," this product of cheapness and enthrallment with advanced technology employed bombers against insurgents. Well, not the trigger-pullers exactly, more like their families. Bombing villages and nomadic camps might have been a cheap way of killing Iraqis and it even might have played some role in ending the resistance to the British military occupation.
It sure as hell left a foul cloud in the memories of Iraqis generally. The foul cloud was renewed year to year in the Iraqi educational system in the long years following the withdrawal of HM Forces after World War II. No matter who wears the uniform, the Iraqi view is that foreign military forces are occupation forces. Period.
The second feature of the recent Iraqi experience focuses on the role of the minority Sunni population during both the occupation period and the years of Baathist rule. The Sunnis became the chosen "native" component of the on-the-cheap British semi-Raj. They kept this favored position during the short-lived post-war monarchy and expanded it during the Baathist decades.
Shiites have a sneaking suspicion that the Americans would compel or inveigle a recapitulation of this past Sunni supremacy if given sufficient time. Certainly the American views of secular, multi-party democracy fueled this suspicion.
The most obvious exponents of a hidden American agenda to restore the Sunnis to former power are those such as al-Sadr. But, he and his more-or-less pro-Iranian ilk are far from the only Shiites who harbor the sneaking fear that given sufficient time the Americans can and will reduce the Shite majority to their former powerlessness.
More cynically, it is payback time from a Shiite perspective. The American shadow might fall across the bright goal of Sunni squashing.
Whether one takes the cynical view or not, the end result is the same. The Shiite majority sees itself repressed and stripped of its freedom of action by any long term US presence.
Freedom of Shiite action is encoded in the constant refrain of "protect our sovereignty."
Freedom of Shiite action is behind the willingness of the Kurds to keep the Americans around. Of course the Kurds would be better off if the US left. They have the political coherence and military capacity to carve out and defend an economically viable Kurdistan. But, a rational appraisal of risks suggests to many, if not all, Kurd leaders that taking a pro-US stance at the moment is the better option.
So, where are the Sunnis in all this?
It would seem to be in the better interests of the Sunnis to keep the Americans around. They are quite aware that payback is a medivac and the inhibitory effects of the US forces would lessen the risks of a possible Shiite Night of Very Long Knives.
Many Sunni politicos and (more importantly) tribal leaders are quietly in favor of a continued US presence perhaps without time limits. But, even with self-interest involved, Sunnis remember the Imperial Policing Scheme. They were primary targets of the lumbering biplane bombers of the day. The idea of occupation rests heavily on their minds, no less than it does on the Shiites.
Perhaps the time has come to take the Iraqis at their word. Iraq is their country. The Iraqis, whether in government or not, must decide if they want a unitary state even if it is populated by three not completely compatible "nations."
The Iraqi political/religious leaders must know that they have two alternatives. One is a unitary state complete with messy compromises of power and revenue sharing. The other is fragmentation complete with proxy war as Iran sides with Shiites and Sunni Arab states move to "protect" their Sunni Arab Iraqi comrades.
The second option would not fit well with the grandiose goals of nation-building so often and loudly proclaimed by the current administration, but would it impair core US national or strategic interests?
No. Probably not. Unless one wishes to posit that the price of oil is a or the core US interest. We have accomplished the minimum necessary strategic goal. We have assured that the opposition can't declare a military victory over us. We cannot "not-lose" in Iraq.
Perhaps we should accept that standing down our military efforts on the expiration of the current UN mandate is an acceptable option. We could use the next few weeks to do two things: Wait for the Iraqis to re-evaluate their stance on our presence and start packing for an orderly exit.
An exit and redeployment to Afghanistan. Afghanistan, a place where we can still loose.
Not that long ago the current administration was talking of a prolonged American stay in Iraq. The end of US combat operations would not be synonymous with the end of US presence. John McCain and Robert Gates both made reference to the Korean analogy. Both were of the view that the situation within Iraq and adjacent states would compel the Iraqi government to acknowledge the necessity of an on-going American deployment.
The view espoused by these two men and so many others ignored the reality of history as a force in contemporary Iraqi politics. The prospect of the Iraqis accepting a prolonged US force presence with utter equanimity requires ignoring two salient features of the Iraqi experience over the past seventy-five or so years.
First, it is necessary to pretend that the British never occupied Iraq in the aftermath of World War I. Along with that it is essential to ignore the impact of the British economy-of-force approach to counterinsurgency in the Twenties.
Dubbed by the responsible officials of HMG, "The Imperial Policing Scheme," this product of cheapness and enthrallment with advanced technology employed bombers against insurgents. Well, not the trigger-pullers exactly, more like their families. Bombing villages and nomadic camps might have been a cheap way of killing Iraqis and it even might have played some role in ending the resistance to the British military occupation.
It sure as hell left a foul cloud in the memories of Iraqis generally. The foul cloud was renewed year to year in the Iraqi educational system in the long years following the withdrawal of HM Forces after World War II. No matter who wears the uniform, the Iraqi view is that foreign military forces are occupation forces. Period.
The second feature of the recent Iraqi experience focuses on the role of the minority Sunni population during both the occupation period and the years of Baathist rule. The Sunnis became the chosen "native" component of the on-the-cheap British semi-Raj. They kept this favored position during the short-lived post-war monarchy and expanded it during the Baathist decades.
Shiites have a sneaking suspicion that the Americans would compel or inveigle a recapitulation of this past Sunni supremacy if given sufficient time. Certainly the American views of secular, multi-party democracy fueled this suspicion.
The most obvious exponents of a hidden American agenda to restore the Sunnis to former power are those such as al-Sadr. But, he and his more-or-less pro-Iranian ilk are far from the only Shiites who harbor the sneaking fear that given sufficient time the Americans can and will reduce the Shite majority to their former powerlessness.
More cynically, it is payback time from a Shiite perspective. The American shadow might fall across the bright goal of Sunni squashing.
Whether one takes the cynical view or not, the end result is the same. The Shiite majority sees itself repressed and stripped of its freedom of action by any long term US presence.
Freedom of Shiite action is encoded in the constant refrain of "protect our sovereignty."
Freedom of Shiite action is behind the willingness of the Kurds to keep the Americans around. Of course the Kurds would be better off if the US left. They have the political coherence and military capacity to carve out and defend an economically viable Kurdistan. But, a rational appraisal of risks suggests to many, if not all, Kurd leaders that taking a pro-US stance at the moment is the better option.
So, where are the Sunnis in all this?
It would seem to be in the better interests of the Sunnis to keep the Americans around. They are quite aware that payback is a medivac and the inhibitory effects of the US forces would lessen the risks of a possible Shiite Night of Very Long Knives.
Many Sunni politicos and (more importantly) tribal leaders are quietly in favor of a continued US presence perhaps without time limits. But, even with self-interest involved, Sunnis remember the Imperial Policing Scheme. They were primary targets of the lumbering biplane bombers of the day. The idea of occupation rests heavily on their minds, no less than it does on the Shiites.
Perhaps the time has come to take the Iraqis at their word. Iraq is their country. The Iraqis, whether in government or not, must decide if they want a unitary state even if it is populated by three not completely compatible "nations."
The Iraqi political/religious leaders must know that they have two alternatives. One is a unitary state complete with messy compromises of power and revenue sharing. The other is fragmentation complete with proxy war as Iran sides with Shiites and Sunni Arab states move to "protect" their Sunni Arab Iraqi comrades.
The second option would not fit well with the grandiose goals of nation-building so often and loudly proclaimed by the current administration, but would it impair core US national or strategic interests?
No. Probably not. Unless one wishes to posit that the price of oil is a or the core US interest. We have accomplished the minimum necessary strategic goal. We have assured that the opposition can't declare a military victory over us. We cannot "not-lose" in Iraq.
Perhaps we should accept that standing down our military efforts on the expiration of the current UN mandate is an acceptable option. We could use the next few weeks to do two things: Wait for the Iraqis to re-evaluate their stance on our presence and start packing for an orderly exit.
An exit and redeployment to Afghanistan. Afghanistan, a place where we can still loose.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Poverty, Foreign Aid--and Slavery
Last Friday marked the UN decreed international day for the eradication of poverty. How did you commemorate the great event?
The Geek marked the moment by reading. He read on both the history of US foreign aid and the internal economic and social impact of the international slave trade on Africa.
He was struck by the similarities.
The international traffic in human beings conducted by Europeans and Americans as well as by Arabs had the effect of severely distorting the long standing organic African economic and social/political institutions. The distortions came as the direct and predictable introduction of foreign products ranging from horses to alcohol, guns to cheap textiles.
The ready market created in Africa assured a profitable "dumping" ground for goods that were unwanted in domestic markets due to their obsolescence, shoddiness or general undesirability. At the same time the ending of the slave trade required Africans to develop alternative means of purchase.
As a result indigenous agricultural practices were bent to the task of producing commodities desired by the outsiders. This, in turn, demanded an increase in domestic slavery to provide the labor necessary to meet the new requirements of export oriented production.
Agricultural products were joined by the output of extractive industries such as gold, diamonds, wild rubber and forest products. Colonial regimes encouraged and protected the already extant coercive labor practices instituted by the native elites.
The economic, political and social effects of these distortions last until the present day.
Even the most cursory appreciation of the overall effects of foreign aid as granted by the US and other countries in the post-World War II period leads to the conclusion that this well-intentioned(?) aid had the same impact on the recipients as slavery did upon Africa.
Foreign aid in a large measure ties the recipient country to the economy of the donor. The vast majority of grants require the recipient to purchase the output of the donor country. Loans require repayment. Repayment requires foreign exchange. Foreign exchange requires the production of something that is marketable.
Lets see. I give (or loan) you money. You have to spend all or most of the money on things I make. Then, to repay loans you have to produce something that I want to buy. At prices I want to pay.
That sounds good to me. Even if it doesn't to you.
Globalization has exacerbated the problem for recipient nations. The World Bank, the IMF and other multi-lateral "lenders" have demanded ever greater control over the economic and political decision making of recipient nations. Sometimes that control crosses the border into a flat-out dictatorial regime conducted by and for outsiders.
The creating of demand within a society is a deadly weapon. Market demands which do not arise organically but rather are created artificially from outside a society have the historically demonstrated capacity to transmogrify that society, its economy and its polity.
The binding of a society to the "global" economy for whatsoever reason, even the High Minded one of "eradicating poverty," is inherently dangerous.
Yes, the binding may work. It may improve the well-being of people beyond the elite of a particular nation. It may allow for more people to buy more seeming essentials, the 21st century equivalents of the cheap textiles, shoddy ironmongery and weapons of the African experience in the 16th to 19th centuries.
Whether that sort of increased purchasing power is a good thing for people is an open and arguable question. But, it does constitute the least-worst outcome of both globalization and foreign aid.
The historical record as well as contemporary developments demonstrate that the roster of outcomes can get far worse. The bondage of a society to either the interests of a generous donor country or a multi-lateral institution such as the World Bank and IMF can result in the political, cultural and environmental impoverishment of the majority of the society's members no matter how much the elite may benefit. This, in turn, has the strong, (the Geek is tempted to write "inevitable") potential of leading to armed political dissent.
Then there is the question of just what constitutes "poverty?"
The Geek is congniscent of the purchasing power parity metric which is commonly employed to define poverty. He is also well aware of standard pap of equating a daily expenditure level of so many US dollars per day and the accompanying allegation that too few bucks per day spent by the average inhabitant of Lower Slobovia or Eastern Fartistan constitutes "poverty."
The Geek has personally witnessed severe deprivation by more valid standards than those thrown about by advocates of the Millenium Development Goals beloved by the UN and its legion of High Minded supporters. He has seen misery far more basic than any which can be expressed by purchasing power parity artifacts.
He has seen some of the worst of the wretchedness and life threatening deprivation in countries spread from Africa to Latin America which have been the "beneficiaries" of foreign aid largess and globalization oriented investment programs.
The Geek has seen the effects of misplaced faith in the elevating potential of foreign aid and foreign investment. He has seen them in the disruption of communities, value and ways of living that have successfully withstood generations, centuries of the normal stresses, common uncertainties and accustomed viscisitudes of life.
The more one acquaints himself with the effects of the slave trade and its aftermath on Africa the more one sees the similarities--the identies--with the impact of foreign aid and globalization.
What this suggests is simple.
It is wrong headed to the maximum for the US or any wealthy nation to be stampeded into signing on to ambitious High Minded efforts to eradicate poverty thoughout the world. The road to hell is not so much paved by good intentions as it is mandated by the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Get a firm grip on history. What happened centuries ago in Africa; what has been happening in much of the world including Africa over the past half century shows what will happen--on steroids--in the future under the impetus of the Global Poverty Act currently pending before the US Senate and similar proposals of expanded financial redistribution.
The Geek marked the moment by reading. He read on both the history of US foreign aid and the internal economic and social impact of the international slave trade on Africa.
He was struck by the similarities.
The international traffic in human beings conducted by Europeans and Americans as well as by Arabs had the effect of severely distorting the long standing organic African economic and social/political institutions. The distortions came as the direct and predictable introduction of foreign products ranging from horses to alcohol, guns to cheap textiles.
The ready market created in Africa assured a profitable "dumping" ground for goods that were unwanted in domestic markets due to their obsolescence, shoddiness or general undesirability. At the same time the ending of the slave trade required Africans to develop alternative means of purchase.
As a result indigenous agricultural practices were bent to the task of producing commodities desired by the outsiders. This, in turn, demanded an increase in domestic slavery to provide the labor necessary to meet the new requirements of export oriented production.
Agricultural products were joined by the output of extractive industries such as gold, diamonds, wild rubber and forest products. Colonial regimes encouraged and protected the already extant coercive labor practices instituted by the native elites.
The economic, political and social effects of these distortions last until the present day.
Even the most cursory appreciation of the overall effects of foreign aid as granted by the US and other countries in the post-World War II period leads to the conclusion that this well-intentioned(?) aid had the same impact on the recipients as slavery did upon Africa.
Foreign aid in a large measure ties the recipient country to the economy of the donor. The vast majority of grants require the recipient to purchase the output of the donor country. Loans require repayment. Repayment requires foreign exchange. Foreign exchange requires the production of something that is marketable.
Lets see. I give (or loan) you money. You have to spend all or most of the money on things I make. Then, to repay loans you have to produce something that I want to buy. At prices I want to pay.
That sounds good to me. Even if it doesn't to you.
Globalization has exacerbated the problem for recipient nations. The World Bank, the IMF and other multi-lateral "lenders" have demanded ever greater control over the economic and political decision making of recipient nations. Sometimes that control crosses the border into a flat-out dictatorial regime conducted by and for outsiders.
The creating of demand within a society is a deadly weapon. Market demands which do not arise organically but rather are created artificially from outside a society have the historically demonstrated capacity to transmogrify that society, its economy and its polity.
The binding of a society to the "global" economy for whatsoever reason, even the High Minded one of "eradicating poverty," is inherently dangerous.
Yes, the binding may work. It may improve the well-being of people beyond the elite of a particular nation. It may allow for more people to buy more seeming essentials, the 21st century equivalents of the cheap textiles, shoddy ironmongery and weapons of the African experience in the 16th to 19th centuries.
Whether that sort of increased purchasing power is a good thing for people is an open and arguable question. But, it does constitute the least-worst outcome of both globalization and foreign aid.
The historical record as well as contemporary developments demonstrate that the roster of outcomes can get far worse. The bondage of a society to either the interests of a generous donor country or a multi-lateral institution such as the World Bank and IMF can result in the political, cultural and environmental impoverishment of the majority of the society's members no matter how much the elite may benefit. This, in turn, has the strong, (the Geek is tempted to write "inevitable") potential of leading to armed political dissent.
Then there is the question of just what constitutes "poverty?"
The Geek is congniscent of the purchasing power parity metric which is commonly employed to define poverty. He is also well aware of standard pap of equating a daily expenditure level of so many US dollars per day and the accompanying allegation that too few bucks per day spent by the average inhabitant of Lower Slobovia or Eastern Fartistan constitutes "poverty."
The Geek has personally witnessed severe deprivation by more valid standards than those thrown about by advocates of the Millenium Development Goals beloved by the UN and its legion of High Minded supporters. He has seen misery far more basic than any which can be expressed by purchasing power parity artifacts.
He has seen some of the worst of the wretchedness and life threatening deprivation in countries spread from Africa to Latin America which have been the "beneficiaries" of foreign aid largess and globalization oriented investment programs.
The Geek has seen the effects of misplaced faith in the elevating potential of foreign aid and foreign investment. He has seen them in the disruption of communities, value and ways of living that have successfully withstood generations, centuries of the normal stresses, common uncertainties and accustomed viscisitudes of life.
The more one acquaints himself with the effects of the slave trade and its aftermath on Africa the more one sees the similarities--the identies--with the impact of foreign aid and globalization.
What this suggests is simple.
It is wrong headed to the maximum for the US or any wealthy nation to be stampeded into signing on to ambitious High Minded efforts to eradicate poverty thoughout the world. The road to hell is not so much paved by good intentions as it is mandated by the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Get a firm grip on history. What happened centuries ago in Africa; what has been happening in much of the world including Africa over the past half century shows what will happen--on steroids--in the future under the impetus of the Global Poverty Act currently pending before the US Senate and similar proposals of expanded financial redistribution.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Sometimes The British Are So Annoying
Dame Stella Remington the former head of the Security Service (MI 5 for those who like spooky numbers instead of bureaucratic names) has gone on record lambasting the US for "overreacting" to the attacks of 9/11. In her considered opinion we should have sent a bobby or two to arrest the miscreants rather than announce a "War on Terrorism."
In her interview with the Guardian she took the position that the mass killings of 11 September 01 were just one more terrorist act, not unlike the many, many to which the British public had been exposed to during the long years of tumult and violence emanating from Northern Ireland;
Our "huge overreaction" and consequent treatment of the event as an act of war rather than one more boringly familiar challenge for law enforcement "wrong footed" the entire effort to counter the acts of terror. Her stance was echoed by Sir Ken MacDonald, the country's top prosecutor.
The Geek is no fan of the current administration's Great Global War on Terror for many reasons all of which have been adduced in previous posts. He does agree with the decision by the denizens of the Oval and adjacent regions to consider the attack by manned (and involuntarily crewed) cruise missiles on targets in two American cities to have constituted an act of war committed by foreign actors with a foreign base.
When foreigners mount an armed attack resulting in thousands of American deaths, it does not matter if the attackers are called the Imperial Japanese Navy or al-Qaeda. It does not matter if their home base is the Empire of Japan or Afghanistan.
It would have been no more proper to send J. Edgar Hoover and a posse of Feebs to arrest Admiral Yamamoto and the Japanese Emperor in December 1941 than to dispatch the cops to arrest Osama and Omar nearly sixty years later.
Get a grip on the real world, Dame Stella: Armed attacks by foreign actors constitute an act of war under international law as well as in the pages of history.
When terror attacks have been executed by individuals resident in or native to the US the Federal law enforcement and judicial authorities have a good record. Just in case you were preoccupied by such matters as dealing with the Provos or planning the beginnings of the most surveiled society outside of Singapore, Dame Stella, allow the Geek to remind you of the aftermath of the first attack on the World Trade Center or what happened following the truck bombing of the Federal Center in Oklahoma City.
Dame Stella, Sir Ken, please note that in those cases and many of similar nature the requirements of due process were followed closely and carefully. Police and prosecutors acted with utter professionalism and propriety. No rights were violated. No shortcuts in appeals were taken.
The Geek agrees that the current administration erred and erred badly with secret detentions, intensive interrogation authorization, the construction of the micro-Gulag at Gitmo and the repugnant Military Commission approach to dispensing justice. He is also of the view that the British surveillance society is violative of basic rights--most importantly the right to privacy, which means the right to be left alone.
The Geek also recalls that the British security forces both civilian and military were less than jealous protectors of rights, due process and psychic equanimity when dealing with the far less lethal even if more pervasive terrorist acts in Northern Ireland. It sticks in the Geek's memory that there was little to choose between today's Gitmo and HM Maze Prison twenty-five or so years ago. He also is reminded that many of the intensive interrogation methods were employed in North Ireland by HM security and military personnel including sleep deprivation, stress positions and extreme environmental stressors.
Let's cut to the chase, Dame Stella, Sir Ken. If the US had not committed the Mother of All Blunders of invading Iraq so that the Afghanistan operation could have been conducted as a quick and relatively clean punitive expedition, you would not be casting stones today.
Casting stones while forgetting that your country's recent history demonstrates that you both live in a glass house.
In her interview with the Guardian she took the position that the mass killings of 11 September 01 were just one more terrorist act, not unlike the many, many to which the British public had been exposed to during the long years of tumult and violence emanating from Northern Ireland;
Our "huge overreaction" and consequent treatment of the event as an act of war rather than one more boringly familiar challenge for law enforcement "wrong footed" the entire effort to counter the acts of terror. Her stance was echoed by Sir Ken MacDonald, the country's top prosecutor.
The Geek is no fan of the current administration's Great Global War on Terror for many reasons all of which have been adduced in previous posts. He does agree with the decision by the denizens of the Oval and adjacent regions to consider the attack by manned (and involuntarily crewed) cruise missiles on targets in two American cities to have constituted an act of war committed by foreign actors with a foreign base.
When foreigners mount an armed attack resulting in thousands of American deaths, it does not matter if the attackers are called the Imperial Japanese Navy or al-Qaeda. It does not matter if their home base is the Empire of Japan or Afghanistan.
It would have been no more proper to send J. Edgar Hoover and a posse of Feebs to arrest Admiral Yamamoto and the Japanese Emperor in December 1941 than to dispatch the cops to arrest Osama and Omar nearly sixty years later.
Get a grip on the real world, Dame Stella: Armed attacks by foreign actors constitute an act of war under international law as well as in the pages of history.
When terror attacks have been executed by individuals resident in or native to the US the Federal law enforcement and judicial authorities have a good record. Just in case you were preoccupied by such matters as dealing with the Provos or planning the beginnings of the most surveiled society outside of Singapore, Dame Stella, allow the Geek to remind you of the aftermath of the first attack on the World Trade Center or what happened following the truck bombing of the Federal Center in Oklahoma City.
Dame Stella, Sir Ken, please note that in those cases and many of similar nature the requirements of due process were followed closely and carefully. Police and prosecutors acted with utter professionalism and propriety. No rights were violated. No shortcuts in appeals were taken.
The Geek agrees that the current administration erred and erred badly with secret detentions, intensive interrogation authorization, the construction of the micro-Gulag at Gitmo and the repugnant Military Commission approach to dispensing justice. He is also of the view that the British surveillance society is violative of basic rights--most importantly the right to privacy, which means the right to be left alone.
The Geek also recalls that the British security forces both civilian and military were less than jealous protectors of rights, due process and psychic equanimity when dealing with the far less lethal even if more pervasive terrorist acts in Northern Ireland. It sticks in the Geek's memory that there was little to choose between today's Gitmo and HM Maze Prison twenty-five or so years ago. He also is reminded that many of the intensive interrogation methods were employed in North Ireland by HM security and military personnel including sleep deprivation, stress positions and extreme environmental stressors.
Let's cut to the chase, Dame Stella, Sir Ken. If the US had not committed the Mother of All Blunders of invading Iraq so that the Afghanistan operation could have been conducted as a quick and relatively clean punitive expedition, you would not be casting stones today.
Casting stones while forgetting that your country's recent history demonstrates that you both live in a glass house.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Big Shock! NATO "Wavers" In Afghanistan
Gen John Craddock, the commander of US European Command and the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, laid it on the line in a speech at the Royal United Services Institute in the UK. Bluntly, accurately and quite undiplomatically, the General took the position that the political leadership of many (unnamed) NATO members lacked the political will to carry through the effort in Afghanistan.
He particularly took after those countries whose politicos will not allow their forces to serve in the southern, danger-rich portion of the country. He pointedly observed that only a few countries joined with the US in actively taking the war to Taliban and al Qaeda trigger pullers. He specifically mentioned the British, Dutch and Canadian formations.
General Craddock didn't note that Taliban was quite capable of carrying the war and its attendant risks to the troops up north in the "safe" part of Afghanistan. As news out of the Land of Rocks, Mountains and Suicide Bombers showed today, even the danger averse German contingent could be placed in mortal peril. (Two Deutscher truppen KIA.)
There is no surprise in the risk reluctance of many NATO governments. In the whoop and holler days immediately following 9/11 none of the politicians who rushed to the support of the US really expected that the war would last the best part of a decade with no end in sight. Neither did, the Geek is certain, any of the senior military commanders of any of the NATO states including the US.
On paper the operation looked to be a quick, clean, low body count punitive operation. Perhaps some politicians and even a few commanders thought about the days after the victory celebration, but the conventional Western wisdom would not have been far afield of that shown in the US by the Cheney-Bush administration.
The Afghan population liberated from the Taliban oppressors were supposed to rise up from the rubble of "shock and awe" eager to embrace secular, liberal, pluralistic democracy and its handmaiden, a regulated, honest, free market economy.
Now that the truth of the Afghan historical and cultural context as well as complications such as opium and Pakistani border sanctuaries have sunk in, whatever political will which may have existed in various European capitals and politically articulate elites has long left. Long gone with the realisation that the government of Karzai is both corrupt and inefficient, the Taliban is far more integrated with and sensitive to the population and, bluntly, the Afghan population loves democracy and secularism about as well as Dracula loves holy water.
In terms of building a modern nation replete with Western European or American style institutions Afghanistan is and always has been a lost cause. In terms of defeating Taliban and its ilk militarily, the question is still open but the answer continues to tilt in favor of the black turbans.
As has been posted repeatedly here the contest between insurgent and counterinsurgent is one finally of political will. The side that is willing to spend time and accept casualties will prevail over the side that seeks to save time and lives. In Afghanistan the insurgents have always been ahead in that critical category.
Western nations, including the US, have a rather poor record in counterinsurgency over the past century or so. True both the British and the Americans have won a few, but the other NATO members either have a losing record (think France for example) or have not played the game.
Western political elites by and large lack the stomach for counterinsurgency. They cannot accept as justifiable in either policy or moral terms the waste of time, resources and lives. They cannot accept the inevitable cost of lives in the civilian population living in the area of operations.
The military leaders of the relevant NATO nations must now follow up on the honesty of General Craddock. They must tell their political masters in no uncertain terms that more boots must be placed on the ground in harm's way and more bodies in bags must be accepted in order that the minimum strategic goal of "not-losing" might be achieved.
Why?
Simple. Any odor of military defeat to the purportedly strongest military coalition on earth would serve to embolden those hostile entities which hope to displace Europe and the US from their global leadership position. Beyond that the failure to accomplish the minimum strategic goal would undercut the credibility and thus the existence of NATO as a military and diplomatic entity.
To put it simply, a military loss in Afghanistan would serve to so completely discredit NATO as a credible instrument of power that its members would be effectively emasculated in the games of global power.
He particularly took after those countries whose politicos will not allow their forces to serve in the southern, danger-rich portion of the country. He pointedly observed that only a few countries joined with the US in actively taking the war to Taliban and al Qaeda trigger pullers. He specifically mentioned the British, Dutch and Canadian formations.
General Craddock didn't note that Taliban was quite capable of carrying the war and its attendant risks to the troops up north in the "safe" part of Afghanistan. As news out of the Land of Rocks, Mountains and Suicide Bombers showed today, even the danger averse German contingent could be placed in mortal peril. (Two Deutscher truppen KIA.)
There is no surprise in the risk reluctance of many NATO governments. In the whoop and holler days immediately following 9/11 none of the politicians who rushed to the support of the US really expected that the war would last the best part of a decade with no end in sight. Neither did, the Geek is certain, any of the senior military commanders of any of the NATO states including the US.
On paper the operation looked to be a quick, clean, low body count punitive operation. Perhaps some politicians and even a few commanders thought about the days after the victory celebration, but the conventional Western wisdom would not have been far afield of that shown in the US by the Cheney-Bush administration.
The Afghan population liberated from the Taliban oppressors were supposed to rise up from the rubble of "shock and awe" eager to embrace secular, liberal, pluralistic democracy and its handmaiden, a regulated, honest, free market economy.
Now that the truth of the Afghan historical and cultural context as well as complications such as opium and Pakistani border sanctuaries have sunk in, whatever political will which may have existed in various European capitals and politically articulate elites has long left. Long gone with the realisation that the government of Karzai is both corrupt and inefficient, the Taliban is far more integrated with and sensitive to the population and, bluntly, the Afghan population loves democracy and secularism about as well as Dracula loves holy water.
In terms of building a modern nation replete with Western European or American style institutions Afghanistan is and always has been a lost cause. In terms of defeating Taliban and its ilk militarily, the question is still open but the answer continues to tilt in favor of the black turbans.
As has been posted repeatedly here the contest between insurgent and counterinsurgent is one finally of political will. The side that is willing to spend time and accept casualties will prevail over the side that seeks to save time and lives. In Afghanistan the insurgents have always been ahead in that critical category.
Western nations, including the US, have a rather poor record in counterinsurgency over the past century or so. True both the British and the Americans have won a few, but the other NATO members either have a losing record (think France for example) or have not played the game.
Western political elites by and large lack the stomach for counterinsurgency. They cannot accept as justifiable in either policy or moral terms the waste of time, resources and lives. They cannot accept the inevitable cost of lives in the civilian population living in the area of operations.
The military leaders of the relevant NATO nations must now follow up on the honesty of General Craddock. They must tell their political masters in no uncertain terms that more boots must be placed on the ground in harm's way and more bodies in bags must be accepted in order that the minimum strategic goal of "not-losing" might be achieved.
Why?
Simple. Any odor of military defeat to the purportedly strongest military coalition on earth would serve to embolden those hostile entities which hope to displace Europe and the US from their global leadership position. Beyond that the failure to accomplish the minimum strategic goal would undercut the credibility and thus the existence of NATO as a military and diplomatic entity.
To put it simply, a military loss in Afghanistan would serve to so completely discredit NATO as a credible instrument of power that its members would be effectively emasculated in the games of global power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)