Connecting The Dots Ain't That Easy

In the never ending and totally predictable political sports of Pointing The Finger and Passing The Blame as well as Cover Your Posterior, the expectable has happened. The President of the United States has moved to exonerate Janet Napolitano and her Heimatsicherheitsamt while shifting the onus to "systemic failure" in general and CIA in particular. His flunkies (unidentified but termed "senior") opined that the dots were all there but no one connected them properly until after Christmas Day.

Yup, the dots were all there. No doubt about it. The Underwear Bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was surrounded by dots. The National Security Council intercepts referred to "the Nigerian" and, famously, Abudulmutallab's father warned the US embassy personnel in Nigeria of his fears regarding his son's "radicalization." All these occurred in a context which gave Yemen pride of place as the new center of Islamist jihadi terrorism.

Lots of dots.

The problem is not that there were too few dots. Rather the difficulty which confronts every intelligence agency analyst (beyond too many layers of "coordination" and "review") is simply that their universe is comprised of nothing but dots. Lots of dots. Oodles and gobs of dots. Often the dots are smudgy, hazy or flatly contradictory. The venue of an intelligence analyst is rather like one of those French pointillist paintings viewed from close up.

Dots on top of dots. Dots of different sizes. Dots of different colors. Nothing but dots. It is enough to drive one dotty on the best of days. And, the best of days are few and very far between.

It is simple, attractive, and a species of cheap shot for some "senior" administration official or other political hack to tie the tail of blame to the cat of intelligence. It is also, in the longer run, not constructive. As the record shows from the Vietnam War period, unjustified criticism like rejecting intelligence appreciations which do not match political or personal expectations leads to a weakening of the intelligence process and a pollution of the intelligence product.

This does not mean that room for improvement does not exist. It always does. New and more effective ways to see significant patterns in the blizzard of dots as well the distribution of product to all consumer agencies are always both necessary and under development. (Not that most of these mean the view from the worm's eye level of the analyst becomes necessarily more prescient, more precise, or more rapid since the production of dots always exceeds the development of new "dot management" techniques.)

There is little, if any, utility in more presidential or congressional reviews or investigations. All these do (if history is the reliable guide it normally is) will be the manufacture of new, redundant, and typically encumbering levels of "review" and "coordination."

In the case of the Underwear Bomber like that of the Shoe Bomber eight years ago, the combination of inept bomb manufacture and passengers possessed of a healthy instinct for self-preservation and quick reflexes made up for deficiencies in "dot management." The realities of life indicate that the same sort of terminal protection will have to suffice in the future as it has in the past.

This gloomy view is not predicated upon any lack of respect for the always developing capacity of the intelligence community or a similar absence of faith in new security technology, but rather in the historically rooted contention that the bad guys, the Islamst jihadist terrorists, have the initiative. Fortunately, the most recent example of al-Qaeda skill shows that while the initiative is there and is powerfully reinforced by the processes of ideological radicalization, the skill level is low--at least in the critical area of explosive detonation. The extent to which this fortunate low ability level is the consequence of the American and other countries' efforts to disrupt and destroy terrorist entities is arguable.

The Underware Bomber is behind us. But the problem of connecting dots is not. This reality is equally present in countering the ongoing threats of terror and formulating a policy regarding Iran and its regime.

The one year deadline set by President Obama is about up. Certainly, the Iranians have made no move toward compliance with the relevant UN Security Council demands. If President Obama is to be taken at his word, push-comes-to-shove time will be upon us long before the first birds of Spring--even here in the Southwest.

Connecting the dots on Iran is even more difficult than identifying the right "Nigerian" and pointing at the correct Christmas Attack chattered about on numerous al-Qaeda oriented websites. It is also (pace those on board NW 253) far more important to the future of the US and the world generally.

Complicating the problem of connecting the massively differing and contradictory dots from within Iran is the twin difficulty of connecting the dots which might indicate the direction which will be taken by both Russia and China without whose cooperation more sanctions will be as much of a waste as their predecessors have proven to be. The questions of just what the Men of the Kremlin and the Gnomes of Beijing are up to equals in importance the questions regarding the stability and desperation of the Mullahs in Tehran.

While a fair amount of public speculation has occurred regarding the relations of sanctions, the opposition, and the mullahocracy, there has been no duplication of that with respect to the latest Russian gambit and the ever more in-your-face attitude of the Chinese government. Yet the stances of both Russia and China are central to connecting the dots on the matter of Iranian political will in the face of domestic opposition which is not fading away and the seemingly resolute rhetoric emanating from the Obama White House.

One factor that cannot be in doubt is the evident belief on the part of both Vladimir Putin and the Chinese leadership alike holding that President Obama is fundamentally weak of both mind and will.

In his effort to hold the pending Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty hostage, Vladimir Putin is betting that the airhead Obama vision of a nuclear weapons free world is so compelling to the president that further concessions can be wrested from the American side. This cynical but far from unrealistic opinion is reinforced by the strong US need for full Russian compliance with any new sanction regime imposed upon Iran. Given the continued asymmetry between American and Russian nuclear capacities, the gambit is well worth the gamble.

If anything the Chinese are playing a stronger hand that the Russians. Their cooperation is utterly essential. Considering that China dictated the course of play in Copenhagen earlier this month and came away victorious and giving proper thought to the amount of US debt held by Beijing, their diplomats play a very strong hand. Further militating against any genuine cooperation with the US on the Iran question is both their investments in the country and their disapproval of internal opposition (to say nothing of external support for such opposition).

Right now, some very unfortunate analysts are trying to connect the dots on the questions of "Probable Russian (Chinese) Courses of Action In Response to An American Course of Action." As neither country is transparent, the dots will be notable in both their density and contradictory nature. In that the success or failure of Obama administration policy regarding Iran hangs on the final pattern discerned (or imposed) by the analysts, this task is more difficult and far more critical than was that of identifying the Underwear Bomber before he boarded the flight to Detroit.

Now, unfortunately, the assorted analytical prognosticators are laboring under the added pressure of investigations and reviews--and damnation from the All Highest. Their efforts and our future would have been far better served if Mr Obama had stuck to improving his golf game rather than attacking those whose efforts are so critical to his policies.

Who Is Janet Napolitano's Dealer?

The Geek has no idea just what sort of mood and mind altering drug the Secretary of Homeland Security is taking. But, it sure must be a pronounced capacity to change perceptions of reality.

The Secretary reportedly averred that the "system worked" in the failed attempt by a Nigerian Muslim to down a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day. Her strange version of actuality was duplicated by White House flack Gibbs. That the official mouthpiece of the administration took that line isn't surprising in this day of The-President-Can-Do-No-Wrong. Heck, lying like that is what Mr Gibbs is paid to do just like his predecessors.

But, the Secretary of Homeland Security is presumed to have a sounder grasp on the reality of threats presenting themselves to the US, its population, and internal interests. To conclude in the face of already compelling evidence of systemic failure that the "system worked" is both delusional and erosive of public trust and confidence.

The only part of the "system" which worked to prevent a horrific incident was the quick and effective reaction on the part of a Dutch film director and others among the passengers. Ms Napolitano alluded to this, "Everybody played an important role here. The passengers and crew of the flight took appropriate action."

Duh!

What about the rest of the "system?" What about all the watchlists, data bases, all the other features of post-9/11 life created by Congress and two administrations? Were they all totally out to lunch? Or, was this sort of attack virtually impossible to predict in detail even with some warnings of an al-Qaeda in Yemen orchestrated event and the finger pointing done a month back by the suspect's father? Was this sort of attack, like that of the "shoe bomber" Richard Reid eight years ago, impossible to interdict even with the high level of security awareness which has existed for years at Amsterdam's international airport?

The most important piece of context surrounding the Detroit affair is simply that the terrorists, the Islamist jihadists, always hold the initiative. The nature of the terror groups, their capacity to use lone actors, to be devilishly inventive in countering security techniques combine to confer a high order of initiative upon them. Without very detailed warning intelligence, it is very nearly impossible to detect and interdict a lone actor executed attack prior to its commencement.

Schiphol Airport the Geek knows from personal experience had excellent security measures in place long before 9/11--and these have in no way degraded subsequently. The reality is that the detection of eighty or so grams of PETN contained in a pouch not more than fifteen centimeters in length in or near the groin is very difficult to detect absent a strip search or a very, very careful pat down of the region in question.

Eight years ago the security measures were not delinquent when Richard Reid got on his target flight with PETN equipped shoe firmly in place. It is doubtful in the extreme that the Dutch were asleep as the bomb endowed Abdulmutallab boarded his target flight.

In both cases, Reid and Abdulmutallab, the failure of the "system" to detect and interdict was equaled by (1) the failure of the detonating devices in shoe and crotch alike and (2) passengers who were possessed of quick reflexes and a powerful desire to keep on living. Accident coupled with fast reactions, not governments and all their apparatus constituted the "system" which worked.

Basing policy on this happy concatenation of bad luck and good reflexes is a very poor notion, but that is all that can be expected much of the time given the advantages which automatically accrue to the terror specialists of the Islamist jihad. The American public if not members of the current administration have had a very cheap "teachable moment" with the event on Christmas Day. We have been reminded in a quite dramatic way that when push comes to shove, we have nothing and nobody to rely upon beyond ourselves--and each other.

In the real world, we and each other, our capacity for self-help and mutual assistance is the "system" which operates where the rubber hits the road of life. With respect to terrorism we are all that we have. Everything else including intelligence, watchlists, data bases, security, armed forces, everything the government disposes from the local cop to the State Department is back up. At best.

If Janet Napolitano would refrain from covering her boss's political hind end for a few minutes, not take her mind altering drug for a bit, perhaps she would realize that ground truth. More, she would both share and celebrate her new found understanding with us--the people (and system) which matters.

A Follow On To Yesterday's Post

Once upon a time the Geek's mother sat him down and said, "Geek don't ever discuss either religion or politics--and above all else don't talk about them together." Mom was right. People tend to see or hear what they want to see or hear and not what is actually said or written.

So it was with yesterday's essay on "Christianism" as the first cousin of "Islamism."

The Geek has been contacted by some good, sincere Christians who took his essay to mean that he was under the impression that all Christians wanted to roll back the calender to pre-Enlightenment times and wanted to install some sort of Christian theocracy.

Of course the Geek wrote nothing of the sort. The fault must, of course, reside with him and not the readers who missed his point, leaping to the erroneous conclusion that the Geekster had turned anti-Christian in his dotage. To make the record clear: The Geek is not against any particular religion or even religion in general.

The Geek is, however, very much in opposition to groups or individuals who attempt to enforce or impose their belief system through either the power of the state or the even more potent force of fear.

Islamism is a subset of Islam in which the goal of the proponents is the eradication of the "House of War" as all non-Muslims are dubbed by the sacred writings of the faith. Similarly "Christianism" is a subset of Christianity in which the political goal of the adherents is the creation of the mythic days of long ago when the Great Chain of Being was the official paradigm for a secure, orderly, harmonious, and just social and political order.

To both the Islamist and the Christianist the accomplishment of the goal reigns supreme. The presumed benefits, it is believed by members of both groups, would be so beneficial to the entire human race that all methods might be used with ethical justification.

The Islamists, particularly those who have embraced jihad have made it abundantly clear that even the most violent and fear producing tactics are acceptable, even laudable, in pursuit of the goal of defeating the "House of War" and those Muslims deemed to be apostates.

Given the nature of the majority of Muslim majority states in which the instruments of democracy are either weak or absent, the rush to violence can be understood even if not applauded. Also quite easy to understand is the frustration and anger bred within the Islamist community by the existence of major disparities in political power, social status, and economic security which exist in so many Muslim majority states. The perceived failure of either society or polity to solve the many problems along with the palpable lack of judicial, economic, and political independence, transparency, and incorruptibility provide a sound basis to advocate a return to the putatively"pure" faith of the early years of Islam as illustrated by the Koran and the life of the Perfect Man, Mohammad, and his Companions.

The motivations of the Christianists in the US are also easy to both see and understand. When the Christianists critique contemporary America, they emphasize their perception of moral decay on a massive scale along with rampant materialism, a degenerate focus on the rights, privileges and worth of the individual, the corruption of business and politics. In these criticisms the Christianists take a position identical to that of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood after his short stay in the US immediately after World War II.

In their criticisms the Christianists are no different from a large number of Christians, Jews, and secular humanists. One need not be a Christianist or even a Christian to view with dismay the end effect of the multitudinous changes which have manifested themselves in the US during the post World War II period.

There is nothing unique, nothing new, nothing noteworthy in the Christianist indictment or its bill of particulars. It has all been said before. Many, many times.

The difference between Christianists and all other Christians--and non-Christians as well--is their view of the necessary solution and the means which might be justified in securing that solution. The Christianist is identified not by religion per se or the nature of the complaints but simply by the nature of the solution and acceptable methods.

This is precisely the same mechanism by which the distinction between Islamist and all other Muslims might be parsed. Or, to err on the side of accuracy, parse themselves.

Now for the hard part. Take a deep breath, we are going to enter some deep historical, anthropological, and psychological water.

The first, most important task for a community of faith to undertake is one of decision. A decision must be made between several options. The community may remain silent, detached from social, economic, and political matters, focusing instead upon the religious development of every member of the community. Or, the community may choose to actively join the political process with a view toward becoming an integral part of the governing elite. Finally, the community may decide to stand back, apart from the political class, and engage in the prophetic activity of criticism and exhortation.

At different times in the history of the US and Europe, the assorted communities of faith have chosen each of these options. The distillation of historical experience demonstrates that a community of faith has the greatest, most positive impact upon the larger society when it uses the third option--the prophetic option.

The avenue of avoidance, of ignoring the problems, turbulence and disorder of the larger society so that maximum efforts can be made on the individual's development in the faith by definition assures a smaller impact on society generally. Still, a close reading of the historical record for both Europe and the US shows clearly that leaders in all fields of endeavor have been guided and motivated by the principals and beliefs of their faith. Sometimes the outcomes have been bad. At other times the result has been good, even very good. On balance, the latter has been more common than the former.

The lure of power is more seductive than any aspect of sex. Indeed it has been observed that power is the greatest aphrodisiac known. Thus it is not at all surprising that communities of faith have joined not only the political process but the governing elite as well. Historically, right on down to the years of the Bush/Cheney administration, this option has been the worst choice.

OK. That is one set of basics. Take another breath. Time for the second round.

In the US a community of faith has three avenues available to it in seeking to address the problems it believes demand solution. These are the same three alternatives available to all groups seeking to solve problems, change the status quo in any manner.

The three avenues are these: persuasion, litigation, coercion.

It must be understood that communities of faith--including those of the Christianists-- deserve access to the Public Square on an equal footing with all comers. Unfortunately, perhaps tragically, communities of faith have been denied their rights to the Public Square increasingly over the past fifty years. This wrong-headed denial of access has been incorrectly predicated upon the requirements of separating church from state.

As a result faith predicated speech in the Public Square has been denatured to the more-or-less formula sort of "God talk" which typifies election campaigns. Far from being a triumph for the secularists amongst us, the suppression of faith derived speech in the Public Square has been a defeat for all of us.

Arguably the blockage of communities of faith from the Public Square has been a major contributor to the sense of alienation and victimization which has characterized much of the rhetoric coming from Christianist groups.

Persuasion is not guaranteed to work. Certainly history demonstrates that efforts to persuade a large and diverse population of the necessity of a given action do not bring quick results. Nor do they bring results which are necessarily satisfactory to the initial proponents.

Everything connected with politics whether local or national is inherently messy, slow, untidy in outcome and the result of necessary compromise. This is guaranteed to dissatisfy many people, particularly those for whom the compromised "cause" constitutes a matter of core belief, basic principle, or, most importantly, personal identity.

It is the slow, messy, and uncertain nature of persuasion in the Public Square which leads groups to seek a quicker, more certain, and more complete solution through litigation. While never predictable in outcome, litigation does have more rules and less ambiguity than the Public Square. It is easier to convince a single judge or a majority of the justices than it is to win an outright victory free of any taint of compromise in the Public Square.

The problem comes with the nature of the final decision. It is imposed from on high, from a remote and unaccountable authority backed by the full weight of the state. Thus the outcome of litigation can (and sometimes does) run counter to the views held by the majority of the public.

In and of itself this is not a fatal difficulty. The courts exist in large measure simply to protect the minority against the power of the majority. Without this factor in play the vox populi could easily become the voice of tyranny.

Over the centuries communities of faith have both initiated litigation or, in the role of defendant, been the cause of major changes in law and social or political attitudes. Resorting to (or even welcoming) litigation is a valid approach for any community of faith including Christianists.

Coercion is the third option. It is a valid approach simply because it works. After all how long could the state exist without the mechanisms of coercion at its disposal? Communities of faith have a long and distinguished record of employing non-violent means of coercion to achieve their goals. The American civil rights movement of the Sixties is an outstanding example of the potency of non-violent yet coercive means to achieve a goal against very significant opposition.

There is no reason that Christianists (or Islamists for that matter) cannot or should not use the methods of non-violent coercion which have been employed often and well by other communities of faith. Used in conjunction with persuasion coercion of this sort has been proven highly effective in altering deeply rooted behaviors in a majority population.

Violent coercion can be justified only on the basis of the pragmatic consideration. It works. The anti-choice movement in the US which is in large measure manned by Christianists has shown the effectiveness of sub-lethal coercion, sub-lethal terror, particularly when punctuated by high profile episodes of lethal coercion, genuine terrorism by anyone's understanding. Violent protests, facility destruction, and the occasional homicide have proven far more effective in preventing women from exercising this particular aspect of reproductive choice than have either litigation or access to the Public Square.

With the possible exception of the use of sub-lethal but still violent coercion there is nothing in the use of methods which distinguishes the Christianist from all other communities of faith or any pressure or special interest group of a purely secular nature for that matter.

So, how come there is any utility to the use of the term, "Christianist" in describing a particular sub-set of Christianity generally? It isn't as if they resemble the Islamists let alone the jihadi.

Well, bucko, the distinction gains its utility from the issue of goals far more than it does methods even if methods employed finally does play a part, even a major one in distinguishing the Christianist from others of the Christian faith.

Whether a single issue entity such as Operation Rescue, a more-or-less moderate group such as the Discovery Institute, or a totalistic (and so far very fringe) bunch such as the Christian Dominionists, all Christianists seek the end to all perceived contemporary problems, turbulence and injustices by turning back the calender to a presumed historical Utopia.

Of the assorted Christianist organizations, Operation Rescue and others of similar nature have the most limited retrogressive goal. They will be satisfied, at least in major part, by going back in time to the years before various court decisions including but not limited to Roe v. Wade provided women with a wider selection of legal mechanisms to control their reproductive destinies.

As the "Wedge Document" as well as various writings make abundantly clear the Discovery Institute as well as other entities in the Creationist camp want to roll the calender back to the centuries preceding the Enlightenment in both its Scottish and French forms. In the estimate of leaders within this segment of the Christianist movement the sins attendant upon the Enlightenment far outweigh its benefits. The campaign against Darwin (to use the incorrectly and grossly oversimplified icon of the totality of evolutionary biology) is intended simply to be the nose of the camel in the post-Enlightenment tent.

The Creationists have used the Public Square in a sort of stealth jihad to gain control of school systems on both the local and state level in order to ban the teaching of evolution unless accompanied with a Creationist or Intelligent Design slant on the comings and development of life on Earth. The expansion beyond Darwin is explicit in such intellectual castrations as eliminating the Big Bang and continental drift from curricula. Even when ultimately rejected by voters or the courts, the effort is to deny the Enlightenment and bring back the supposed halcyon days of stability, harmony, and justice presumed to have existed during the static days of the Great Chain of Being.

The extremists of the Christian Dominion have the most expansive goal. Their intent is to establish a theocracy in the US. In this vision a Godly, harmonious and just society would be brought into existence by the application of the plethora of laws in the Old Testament and complete obedience to the laws of the deity as interpreted and applied by the clergy. (Sound familiar? Thought so, just insert Koran and Shariah in the appropriate spots.)

While there is no realistic probability that the most extreme goals such as those of Christian Dominionism will come to pass, this is no reason to ignore the potency of the Christianists. Nor is it any reason to overlook the similarities in motive and method between the Christianists and the Islamists.

Most importantly the existence of Christianists just like the obvious presence of Islamists in the world today provides the most robust justification for fully understanding not only religious doctrine and belief systems per se, but for appreciating the close, even intimate relationship between religion and politics.

And, this, mom, is why the Geek put your well meant advice aside.

Tis The Season To Be---

Thinking about religion. Not theology or doctrine or liturgy or even the favorite of skeptics, plausibility but rather the ways in which religions become the foundation of political acts.

The Geek has posted often about the nature of Islamism, his shorthand term for politically oriented Islamic groups and individual Muslims. He has also posted frequently on jihadism which is the armed and violent progeny of Islamism.

Overall, in so far as a single goal unites all the Islamist and Islamist jihadist groups it is that portion of the Islamic belief system as expressed not only it Islam's sacred writings but in the vast and ancient corpus of Islamic jurisprudence which calls for constant struggle to both protect the Muslim community of faith and expand that community until it incorporates the entirety of the human race. The "House of War" as non-Muslims are characterized must be confronted and ultimately defeated if the age of perfect peace, harmony and justice for all people everywhere is to be achieved.

The longing for social, economic and political harmony, an absence of turbulence and a presence of community solidarity is deeply rooted in the human mind. It is a longing that is addressed by religions generally--as well as by assorted ideologies which are purely, even militantly secular.

Advocates of a religiously based harmonious and just community, whether it be one which is limited in size or global in nature often point to some allegedly Utopian time and place far in the distant past. The mythic Garden of Eden is such a time and place. So also is the Arabian Peninsula of the Eighth Century for at least a goodly portion of Muslims. And, for some Christians the halcyon time and place was Europe in the centuries between the fall of the Roman Western Empire and the coming of the Enlightenment.

Anti-modernity is the thread which connects Islamists and their Christian counterparts. (Hmm, what to call them? Kierkegaard has already used the term "Christendom" to cover the institutional Church so that one is out. How about "Christianists?" At least that term is equivalent in derivation to the use of the word "Islamist.")

Christianists view the Enlightenment and its aftermath as having destroyed the presumably stable, allegedly communitarian, and putatively harmonious later Middle Ages. In the estimate of Christianists such as those who founded and operate the Discovery Institute and its many ancillaries, the Enlightenment brought in its wake a dissolution of morals, a rampant materialism and a degenerate focus on the individual. In the estimate of these folks and others of like mind the consequences of the Enlightenment regardless of any progress in technological and scientific matters has been destructive overall of both the human community and the human spirit.

It seems that Christianists take as their paradigm for a more perfect society the Medieval Chain of Being. The well-ordered and of necessity harmonious human social, economic and political structures explicit in the Chain of Being with its hierarchical placement of all people, creatures and things from the deity down to the rocks and hills constitutes the ultimate touchstone. In a way which is nearly identical the Islamist sees the life of Mohammad, the Perfect Man, and the society which surrounded him over a millennium ago as being the infallible guide to how life should be lived.

Both the Islamist and the Christianist would agree that individuals and societies which exist in perfect keeping with the divinely appointed strictures would be pleasing to the deity. Each would argue to his listeners that the way to end the unpleasant, discomfiting, disconcerting complexities of life in the present would be by way of invoking the power of the past, the potency resident in either the Great Chain of Being or the life of the Prophet, the Perfect Man and his society.

Both Christianist and Islamist would agree that the evils of the world today have been and are the work of stiff necked people who refuse to submit to the strictures and requirements ordained by the deity. If only these stiff necked and evil doing people would either come to their senses and submit or, in the alternative, be removed, the Utopian past would be restored.

The Geek agrees that life can be very confusing, quite messy, often frustrating, and that it might be nice to call, "Time Out!" every now and then so that changes might be chewed, swallowed, and effectively digested. There is no doubt but that people at all times and places have felt exactly the same.

There is no doubt but that generation after generation, "Those were the good old days." Yep, the Good Old Days when life was simple, orderly; when people were nice to one another, children always polite and respectful; a bygone era when an honest day's work brought an honest day's pay, the customer was always right, the trains (or stagecoach) ran on time; when devout folks met every Sunday at the little church in the valley; a golden hued time when politicians were public servants; an eternal Spring when the ice cream was always made from whole milk and real chocolate. You get the point. The myth of the good old days is as old as the human race.

You also see the corollary, right, bucko? The corollary which reads, "The Good Old Days never were." That one. The one the Christianists and Islamists alike overlook. The corollary upon which their movements will, of necessity, founder.

The Great Chain of Being never really existed. Kings did not bow to Popes--particularly after the nation-state started its long emergence accompanied with such features as armies. Peasants never sweated happily for their "betters" as the numerous pre-Enlightenment revolts demonstrate in all their bloody colors. (Even animals did not walk cheerfully to slaughter back then or now, if the proliferation of wild cows, the escapees from nearby ranches indicates to the Geek whenever he hies himself into the forest seeking firewood.)

Nor is Eighth Century Arabia a halcyon place, a perfect model for life today. In all probability the people of the time periodically bewailed the changes wrought by the Perfect Man--particularly when the inevitable power struggles for succession reared their bloody heads.

A Utiopianized historical period is a pathetic guide for a dynamic life. And, make no mistake about it--human life is dynamic in nature. It must be. The alternative is stultification, decay and ultimately, death.

The underlying dilemma facing all of us is the tension between the need for a dynamic of constant change less we stultify and die and the need for a secure, harmonious social, economic, and political life along with the appearance of security those features provide. With the coming of the myriad events lumped under the names, "Renaissance," "Reformation" and "Enlightenment," the people and states of Europe and North America took one direction--the road sign reading "dynamic." Other peoples, other states, which for whatsoever reason did not partake of the type of events subsumed under these three terms took another direction, the direction of stasis, decay and ultimately a form of national death.

The people at the Discovery Institute who seek to put the genie of the Enlightenment back into the bottle from which it sprang by denying Darwin, denouncing Wallace, pretending contemporary geology and cosmology do not exist are engaging in a labor of Sisyphus. Like that mythic figure, the rock will always roll back upon them. The most extreme Christianists, the men of Christian Dominionism (this merry bunch is Taliban with a Bible, al-Shabaab with a Cross) are doomed to even more ignominious failure.

Ultimately, so also are the Islamists, particularly those of the jihad. As events in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and even Somalia have shown, people may find the back-to-the-past-as-the-future attractive in the abstract but they find it most distasteful in practice. Christians found the limits of theocratic rule centuries ago in Calvin's Geneva experiment or the pale imitation in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

Christianism, Islamism, like Facism and even Marxism-Leninism can exist only if all features of human creativity are well and truly suppressed. Such repression, totally effective repression, can only exist for short periods and then only at the cost of all innovation, all invention, all discovery, all genuine progress. Progress can come in any field only by a dynamic of creativity. And, all creativity in any field comes only with concomitant destruction of the old.

We are divided in our own minds as to which is more important: security or freedom. We are internally torn over whether dynamic change should have priority or should pride of place go to stability, harmony and consequently lowered risk, increased predictability and certainty.

While the chasm may exist in the psyches of each of us, the answers have already been entered on the pages of history. You can read them by comparing the past five hundred years history of Europe and of the Muslim societies.

Any questions?

It Wasn't Santa, But Still It's A Nice Present

Reports from the latest venue of combat between Islamist jihadists and the more-or-less civilized people of the world, Yemen, are of an airstrike on an al-Qaeda conflab in the caves. One of those present may or may not have been the New Mexico born Islamist cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki.

According to the reports al-Awlaki, who is best known for having been the on-the-Internet spiritual advisor of Major Hasan, may or may not have been killed by the Yemeni jets. If al-Awlaki has gone to his reward there is reason to be jolly this Christmas season given that the cleric joyously confirmed on al-Jazzera that the Fort Hood shootist had contacted him to find out if it was legal under Shariah to go ahead and kill his fellow countrymen and service members. Al-Awliki, drawing on his years of profound study of the intricate holdings of Islamic jurisprudence, apparently advised the Major that killing other Americans was just jake with the religion of peace and tolerance.

As al-Awlaki sagely observed to his interlocutor from al-Jazzera, loyalty to Islam by a Muslim trumps any minor consideration such as loyalty to one's fellow nationals or those who wear the same uniform and salute the same flag. Well, as the assorted multi-cultural mavins of the post modern chattering and academic classes have assured one and all for years now, nationalism and its cognates such as loyalty to one's country are both anachronistic and the raw materials for international adventurers such as W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

It is presumed that members of the aforementioned groups will hold memorial services for such a fine exemplar of the post-modernist sensibilities as al-Awliki. While they are at it perhaps they might find a kind word to say for the (perhaps or perhaps not) deceased leaders of al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula who may or may not have been at the troglodyte conference. After all these men were simply pursuing the goal of establishing an international comity of Muslims at the sole expense of national governments such as those in Yemen (which is not legitimate in the estimate of most Yemenis) and Saudi Arabia (which is feudalistic at best and paleolithic at worst.)

For those of us who are not members in good standing with either the chattering or academic classes or other self-defined elite congeries, the news out of Yemen, if confirmed, is all to the good. The last thing the US or the rest of the world needs is yet one more sanctuary for Islamist jihadists. Given the flawed nature of the Yemeni government, the influx of foreign jihadis from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan as well as Yemen's geographic position, the notion of the place becoming the next stronghold for the Bold and Courageous Warriors of the Prophet is not to be tolerated.

Backing the Yemeni regime in its long overdue efforts to squash the Houthi and abate the growing jihadi presence is the least worst course of action available to the US. Providing intelligence, logistic support, and even the occasional sea-launched cruise missile attack is a much lower risk operational concept than waiting for affairs in that particular global armpit reaching such a dangerous pass that direct on-the-ground intervention is required.

Airstrikes alone will not do the entire job of repressing the Houthi insurgency. Nor will airstrikes, cruise missiles, and limited Saudi Arabian ground incursions end the attraction of Yemen for jihadis displaced from earlier venues in the "clash of civilizations." The Yemeni government will have to use both political and military means to continue the campaign.

The government shows no particular political will for either the task of ground combat or the far more important and demanding one of enhancing its perceived legitimacy among a badly disaffiliated population. Frankly, the historical forces in Yemen, whether one cares to use the overthow of the emirate in 1961 or go back further to the foundations of the post-World War I Yemeni and Saudi states, are far more centripetal than centrifugal in nature.

The manufacture of Yemen was as artificial as the making of saccharine. The country has no organic reason to exist. The regime has no existential claim on either the loyalty or the affections of most Yemenis. These foundation conditions are exacerbated by the chronic poverty of the country which has seen its very limited oil and other natural resources exploited for the benefit of foreigners or a handful of the very well connected.

Yemen, like Somalia across the Gulf of Aden, is a creation of foreign diplomats working with the limited input of a very small number of locals who spoke an appropriate language, wore suits, and could make the right noises at the correct time. To call this process "self determination" is to commit a felony against language and common sense alike. To expect these artifacts of foreign manufacture to evolve into stable nation-states is to be terminally out-to-lunch.

In Yemen the interest of the US, as is the case in Somalia, Afghanistan, and a few other places, is limited to precluding its exploitation by Islamist jihadists. We (and other Western states) have no need to engage in the futile exercise of "nation-building" as such is beyond the capacity of mere humans. There is no need to provide Yemenis with a fully functioning, modern, pluralistic, democratic, secular state (as if such would be possible.) The only requirement is to end the appeal of Yemen to jihadis and those such as al-Awlaki who give them comfort and encouragement.

Al-Awlaki's father is quoted as condemning the US and President Obama for having murdered his son. The father holds that if his son had committed some crime he should be brought before the bar of justice. The retort to the father's accusation is simple: If his son is dead, he, according to his own beliefs, has been judged by the Highest Court of Islam.

As to the verdict of that Court (or as to its existence) the Geek offers no assessment.

There Is No "International Community!"

British Prime Minister, the Right Honorable Gordon Brown, is either totally gripless or gripped by a delusion of monumental proportions. Mr Brown is quoted as saying that the debacle in Copenhagen occurred because "some countries" held the proposed treaty "for ransom." He went on to call for either the reformation of the UN or the formation of a new body so that the "international community" could properly deal with "challenges" confronting the "international community."

Here is the fundamental flaw with Mr Brown's tocsin: There is no such thing as the "international community." Period.

There are a lot of independent sovereign states. Indeed, sovereign states have proliferated at a rate compared to which neither rabbits nor cockroaches can be described as rapid breeders. Of course, every sovereign independent state has to be a member of all possible international bodies including but not limited to the UN. This is one of the reasons the UN--and other subsidiary bodies--have become the havens for inefficiency, corruption, and a shakedown-the-West-at-the drop-of-a-hat attitude.

Mr Brown, and a host of others infesting the self-appointed elites of both Europe and the US, including in all probability the current occupant of the Oval, is of the fashionable post-modernist view that the age of the sovereign independent nation-state is over. Mr. Brown (and Mr Obama) shares the necessary twin of that thought: And, the world is better off for the death of the nation-state.

This understanding of international relations is both unrooted in reality and dangerously counterproductive in practice. Mr Brown's comment about climate change being held for ransom and his prescription calling for the creation of yet another international body show this--on steroids.

The real deal as Mr Brown (and Mr Obama) must know down deep somewhere in the back recesses of the mind is that nation-states are alive, flourishing, and showing all their usual characteristics of operating from subjectively defined self-interest. When China torpedoed the rush to a treaty, any treaty at Copenhagen, it did so out of rationally defined national interest. The same was true of the hijack-the-rich oriented states of the G77.

Even the US operated from the basis of national interest when its president demanded that any agreement include verification mechanisms so as to be more than a paper sham. The resulting outrage from China spoke volumes about the power and persistence of nationalism.

This is the reality. It will remain the reality. Whether the subject is esoteric and absurd such as anthropogenic climate change or down, dirty, and in the mud of reality such as the thwarting of Iranian nuclear ambitions, the motivator of states will remain the same. It will be what it always has been in the past, a careful calculation of what course of action best serves the national and strategic interests of the state--or, worse but more common, what will serve the political interests of the present government.

If Gordon Brown were to be afflicted with a severe case of honest self-assessment, he would have to admit that his obsession with global warming is a calculated effort to divert attention within the British electorate with the very real problems at home, problems which call into serious question the future election prospects of the Labor Party. The national interest, the strategic interests of the UK, were not in play at Copenhagen despite the plentiful catastrophe predicting oratory of Mr Brown. All that was at stake was the ability of the Brown Ministry to bamboozle the public well enough to limit the election damage yet to come.

Mr Obama's performance at Copenhagen was similarly inclined less to furthering the interests of the US and more to bolstering his political interests at home during a time of sinking polls and doubt over the great healthcare transformation effort in the Senate. The President had to have some semblance of success, no matter how insubstantial in substance without at the same time being seen to have blatantly sold American jobs and the national economy down the river in order that the plaudits of the European elite might ring louder in his ears.

Now, back in the real world, both Mr Obama and Mr Brown must deal with the power of national interest as the clock runs out on the end of the year deadline for Iranian compliance with the demands of the "international community" or at least the P5+1. National interest alone will dictate the positions taken regarding sanctions on the part of Russia and China. National and strategic interests will determine just how well the German, French, or British government actually enforce sanctions both past and future.

And, national interest of the most existential sort will determine how long Israel waits before taking solo action to abate the Iranian threat.

The Tehran regime will also have to weigh national interest, including that of an existential variety in determining their posture, including any changes from their so far successful approach of talk and delay, talk and bluster, talk and exploit the differences in national and strategic interest between the members of the P5+1. The Iranians will cloud their picture with the eschatological views of Shia Islam and the personal interpretations of that held by President Ahmadinejad. It will be further clouded by the potential impact of the funeral and memorial rites attendant upon the death of Ayatollah Montezeri.

In any and all these countries the crucial choices will be made by individual governments and not by the mythical "international community." In all these countries the governments, the decision makers, will base their decisions upon the needs, fears, and plans of their own nation's interests and strategic requirements.

So, Mr Brown and the rest of the crowd had best get a grip on the reality of nationalism and abandon the convenient delusion of an "international community." Their future (and ours) depends upon it.

Copenhagen--Theater Of The Absurd Closes

The Monster Rally Against Anthropogenic Climate Change is over. Good. Better yet, the curtain fell on this exercise in the theater of the absurd without too much real having been accomplished.

The Geek has been deeply suspicious of the climate catastrophe crowd because he is a historian, not an atmospheric physicist or one of the other forms of boffin who depends upon complex statistical analysis and assorted easy-to-fudge computer models. Being a simple minded sort of dude who has spent much of his life wading through conflicting views of what happened when, the Geek is comfortable with the simple fact that the past is not easily altered by computers or statistics.

In fact, it was the sudden erasure of the well known, very well documented Medieval Warm Period and its successor, the "Little Ice Age," which lasted from the late 1500s to the middle of the 1800s from the analysis presented in 1999 by Michael Mann, a "climate scientist" at Penn State University which first raised the Geek's eyebrows (and hackles) over the matter of human caused global warming. With a feat of statistical prestidigitation which boggled the mind, Dr Mann removed the centuries during which Greenland really was green and wine producing grapes grew in England. (His mathematical magic also ripped the cold centuries which followed from the historical record.)

The purpose of Dr Mann's exercise in massaging the data was specific--and intentional. He sought to prove that the observed minor warming of the Twentieth Century was solely due to human action. His goal was to stifle any thought that temperatures might rise or fall for reasons other than the malign, short-sighted, self-involved acts of people searching for a higher quality of life through the use of fossil fuels, industrialization, and other criminal behavior.

Since the earlier efforts of "climate scientists" to prove that the world was on the verge of a new, improved, really BIG ice age due to our use of fossil fuels, industrialization, and other criminal behavior had come a cropper, the time was ripe for a new approach. This Dr Mann did--with great success with his 1999 "J" curve analysis.

The Mann "J" curve resembled the (in)famous Laffler "J" curve which served as the justification for "trickle down" economics as practiced openly by the Reagan administration and with less candor by the administration of George W. Bush. The two "J" curves were joined shoulder and hip by the meretricious use of multivariate techniques to prove a dubious hypothesis.

Proponents of the Mann thesis like those who held the banner of Laffler high sought to stifle, suppress, rule out-of-order any opposing views. Or any who questioned the process and its results. The teleological behavior of Mann and others was made manifest by the leaking of the emails from the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University.

Politicians who invested in the Laffler "J" curve assured all who might listen that the "trickle down" notion of economics represented a "consensus" of all economists. So also have those politicians both in the US and elsewhere who have bought into the Mann inspired "J" curve for whatsoever reason.

The assorted motivations for scientists, politicians, and members of the chattering class generally to accept the position of the climate extremists have been examined in previous posts. Suffice it to say that nothing equals the threat of global extinction to provide more and more power to central governments, international organs, and non-governmental organizations alike.

The efforts of the purportedly high minded and disinterested climate catastrophe peddlers in Copenhagen finally foundered on the rock of nationalism. The Chinese behaved as good nationalists pursuing their agenda of Really Great Power status. The assorted shakedown inclined states of Africa and elsewhere behaved as good nationalists pursuing their goals of extortion. Even the bizarre statements of Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the Sudanese representative were those of good nationalists pursuing goals of their own devising.

Surprisingly even Mr Obama shook off the reins of post-modernism to act like a nationalist. His stance was clearly conditioned on a personal appreciation of the impact of national interest upon, if not his mind, the collective minds of the one hundred Senators. The American president did not sell American national interest short. For this he deserves a cautious vote of thanks.

More unrestrained thanks must be given the T. rex in the room. The name of this particular critter is "nationalism." While deprecated and declared dead by many in the chattering, academic and political classes in both Western Europe and the US, it is evident from the goings on in Copenhagen that the potent force of nationalism as expressed by self-defined national interest was not simply alive and well in the Danish capital, but thriving around most of the world.

Due to the ship of climate change having run aground on the reef of nationalism, it is to hoped that the time purchased by this fortunate (even if predictable) event will be used to effectively question and counter the arguments of Dr Mann and his ilk. Any special interest group, whether composed of credentialed "climate" scientists or any other bunch of True Believers which erases vast swaths of our collective past in pursuit of their agenda deserves nothing less than the utmost of scrutiny backed by great suspicion.

Welcome To A (Very) Dismal Future

Psychologists and their ilk have tried to topspin depression with studies showing that depressed people are more realistic in assessing their current and future situations than people who are not depressed. Perhaps this is true. It seems the US intelligence community thinks so.

Reading the Quadrennial Intelligence Community Review (QICR) with its dystopian view of the world and the US in 2025 is guaranteed to bring depression in its wake. This depressed state is enhanced by seeing the predictions as perhaps erring on the optimistic side.

The major take away of the QICR is that while the US will still be a Great Power, it will be far less of a Great Power fifteen years hence than even its diminished state today. The really Great Power will be China. While not stated with this bluntness in the QICR, it exists as a subtext in most of the document's four sets of scenarios.

Certainly the goal of the Gnomes of Beijing is that of presiding over China's emergence as the Really Great Power. That goal was explicit even in the snit thrown the other day in Copenhagen by the Chinese Prime Minister, who was bent out of shape by President Obama's unexceptional call for full transparency and accountability through international monitoring as regards emission controls and their effectiveness.

The Chinese shouted that such a monitoring and verification effort would compromise Chinese sovereignty and limit the country's economic growth. Even if this is not a necessary interpretation of the need for verification, any such international effort would carry the potential of impairing China's trajectory to Really Great Power status.

The QICR does call the nature and character of Great Power status into severe and genuine question in the first of its four sections. Entitled "Politics Is Not Always Local" this portion of the review raises the specter of transnational groups based on identity politics with access to weapons of mass destruction as well as high level capacities in cyberwarfare.

Identity politics has become a massive motivator of human behavior over the past fifty years. It doesn't matter if the basis of identity is racial, ethnic, religious, or ideological, when people derive their core identity from some external aspect, the capacity for True Belief and its implications becomes very high. Identity politics produces extreme actions. Extreme actions produce galloping instability in either a national arena or the global one.

The nation state as currently known will be under attack by identity politics powered groups including sub-national defensive insurgencies such as the Russians have become so familiar with in the Caucasus. China, even a China which is the Really Great Power of the 2020s, will be threatened with the same given the plethora of minorities under the Han yoke.

The nation state and its international system will also be under continued (and probably massively enhanced) pressure from Islamist practitioners of identity politics. The probability of this is, if anything, somewhat understated by the producers of the QICR. With the growing likelihood of Egypt going the way of Iran in the next few years, the number of potential sponsors or facilitators of Islamist jihadism is not going to lessen. It can only increase.

Should Pakistan go down the route pioneered by the mullahs of Iran, the Islamist jihadists would have not one but two potential nuclear suppliers. The use of such weapons by True Believers should never be underestimated. (Nor should Egypt's past and present role as a proliferator be overlooked, particularly with the high probability of the Muslim Brotherhood taking over long before 2025.)

The spooks correctly predict the further decline of the West. In the section "The World Without the West," the planners foresee a global dynamic in which Europe and the US are largely irrelevant, capable of being ignored with impunity by Iran, Russia, China, and India. (And others as well.) This projection seems counter intuitive given the size and economic strength of the European Union, but can be easily justified by the erosion of political will and national self-confidence on the part of its major constituent nations.

The same loss of political will can be envisioned for the US. The aftermath of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the effects of demographic changes in the American population as well as the economic consequences thereof will be profoundly weakening of both political will and material capacity to act independently on the global stage.

In this context it is worth noting that recent opinion polls show that a high percentage of We the People expect that China will surpass the US in all the measures of hard power over the next twenty years. There seems to be no odor of despair over this eventuality. Neither does there appear to be much desire on the part of the US government to take measures which would reduce the disparity between Chinese and American hard power capacities.

In what should be a modestly optimistic section of the QICR, the prognosticators of spookdom see the BRIC as crumbling. The ending of any alliance potential between Brazil, Russia, China and India is a tribute to the continued power of nationalism. While nationalism may be anathema to the elites of the US and Europe, it is and will continue as a major force in other areas of the world. Ironically, the competition for resources and markets between Marxist tinged states such as Russia and China may prove yet that Marx was right about the inherent contradictions of capitalism.

When taken in conjunction with the impact of sub-national and trans-national non-state actors, the competition between Really Great Power China, Sort of Great Power Russia, Wannabe Great Power India and Regional Great Power Brazil will serve to diminish the threats all present to the interests of the US. This area seems to be one which can be explored by future US administrations with profit for the American national and strategic interests.

The neo-neo-mercantilism which will govern the actions of the BRIC nations will be complicated by the emergence of what the spooks term "mega-cities" forming their own policies regarding trade, economic goals, migration, and even "national" security. Mega-cities with their intense concentration of people, skills, markets, money, and (in some cases at least) intellectual property will be a major force in international affairs which has been undervalued before this QICR.

Mega-cities have the capacity even today to profoundly influence national policy. With the probable decline in power held by central governments for the reasons previously adumbrated, the ability of these massive congeries to practice independent operations regardless of central government desires will be a major complication for future American policy makers.

The most important consideration (leaving aside the relative decline of the US) is that the world of 2025 will be chaotically multi-polar. The proliferation of actors ranging from identity politics driven groups to mega-cities and trans-national corporations will combine with the erosion of central governments, the reduction of international restraints, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction to bring wars large and small into existence.

Problems ranging from crime to climate change, from migration control to the militarization of the arctic and cyberspace, from the erosion of ethical standards in biotechnology to the depletion of energy prime mover reserves will not only increase dramatically but threaten to spin beyond the control of people to handle. Overall the picture ain't at all pretty.

We are blessed (or cursed) by living in interesting times. The future appears to be even more interesting.

Are you feeling depressed yet?

Is One Child An Idea Whose Time Has Come?

There is a fine British ezine called Spiked with which the Geek finds himself in general agreement. In terms of politics the site is, in American terms, rather libertarian-socialist, which seems to be but is not a contradiction in terms. In this case the designation "libertarian-socialist" implies a strong trust in the individual, a strong distrust of central governments, and a healthy disregard for capitalism as the sovereign remedy for economic disparities and social injustices.

However, the Geek profoundly dissents from the well argued view presented by editor Brendan O'Neill in opposition to the growing applause by greens and others of the anti-global warming camp for the long standing Chinese policy limiting most urban families to one child. The recent and increasing embrace of the Chinese approach to the problems presented by overpopulation is predicated upon the belief that no child, no human, is "carbon neutral. Mr O'Neill's opposition is based upon the undeniable reality that the one child policy provides, indeed, requires a very potent governmental intrusion on the most intimate of human decisions.

The Geek yields to no one primacy of place in inherent and well founded suspicion of governmental intrusion into the private sphere. As numerous posts have shown, the Geek is unalterably opposed to any, repeat, any expansion of public space, of governmental supervision or regulation of the private space, the sphere bounded by personal, private decision making and behavior.

Given that orientation it would be natural for the Geek to agree with Mr O'Neill's position. In the present matter the weight of fact falls firmly on the side of those who support a global version of the Chinese one child policy. The successes of public health and agricultural technology over the past century have assured the world's population has exploded to a level where it exceeds the carrying capacity of the land or, in a best case, the economic capabilities of a country.

The ground truth is simple. There exists not a single matter of environmental degradation which cannot be reduced to a unitary cause: Too many people.

Whether the problem is one of pollution, resource exhaustion, or global climate change, the root cause remains the same: Too many people.

The converse is also true. Fewer people, regardless of the technological or consumption level, use fewer resources, emit less waste, generate less carbon dioxide and other alleged greenhouse gases.

In the wild and wacky world of the dismal science, economics, the same ground truths apply. Greater population exerts downward pressure on wages. Lesser population exerts a pressure for higher wages. A very fine example of this dynamic is seen in the aftermath of the Black Death epidemics in Europe. An alternative, reinforcing demonstration is seen in the effects of the Thirty Years War on population and income.

Human population growth remained very low during our long centuries as hunter-gatherers. The few remaining enclaves of hunter-gatherer societies available for ethnologists and anthropologists to study further demonstrated that the low population increase was a matter of policy, of individual choice, rather than the consequence of life being according to the paradigm of Hobbs--nasty, brutish, and short.

The hunter-gatherers practiced a wide assortment of approaches to gain the goal of limiting population. These included prolonged lactation, strong taboos, use of abortifacients, and, quite rarely, infanticide.

The development of agriculture took the lid off self-imposed restraint. Children, lots of them, were necessary not only to offset the shorter life expectancy of farmers but to provide labor.

Because of the inherent uncertainties of agriculturally based life, population growth remained low. Importantly, this low growth was imposed by the nature of agrarian life and its corollary, urbanization. The coming of industrialization in the West did nothing to change the trajectory of high birth and high death rates.

Not until the advent of effective public health measures which lowered the death rates from infectious diseases did the population--even the middle class sort so beloved of demographers--move to limit family size as a matter of individual decision making. The phenomenon noted by so many of declining middle class and elite birth rates came as a consequence of lowered infant and childhood mortality during the middle decades of the Twentieth Century. As public health improvements spread from the West to other areas of the globe with the inevitable result of lowered mortality among the young, the emerging middle class of these countries followed the same limiting dynamic previously observed in the West.

The combination of lowered death rates, which ultimately affected all strata of society, and massively asymmetrical birth rates as between the elite and non-elite segments of any country's population assured the explosive overall population growth seen during the past seventy-five or so years. The reckoning predicted by Malthus was forestalled by advances in technology, most notably the "Green Revolution" of the Fifties and Sixties.

A reckoning delayed does not equal a reckoning denied. The human race has been entirely too fruitful and has multiplied too well. While all monotheistic religions decry and deny that there can ever be too many people and advocates in certain ethnic groups may loudly brand any effort at population limitation to be "genocide" inflicted on the minority by the majority, both of these positions are untenable, indefensible, and ultimately destructive of the best interests of all humans and the planet upon which we live alike.

Whether assorted clerics and "spokesmen," pundits and politicians, boosters and demagogues like it or not, population limitation is coming. Probably it is coming sooner rather than later.

Limits on our collective growth can and will be enforced in one or more of three ways. Our population can be reduced in the traditional way--The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Or it can be reduced over time by the Chinese Way--governmental fiat and control. Or, finally, we can do it ourselves by acknowledging that our hunter-gatherer predecessors knew a very deep truth.

They knew to their very depths what most of us alive today recognize with the rational part of our brains. All land, every country, every piece of property has a natural carrying capacity which can be stretched only so far by the products of mind and muscle. The limits to the ultimate carrying capacity of land, whether natural as in the availability of resources or quasi-artificially as in the economic value of effort, labor, and invention, are real. They are imposed by the nature of life and the Earth themselves.

Obviously, the Geek greatly prefers the third option. But, one way or another, by act(s) of nature or the decisions of governments, the limits will be imposed. Far better we do it ourselves by individual choice rather than submit to either the iron will of pestilence, famine, and war or the dictates of government.

May we live in interesting times. Like it or not we are.

Give Us Your Money--Or Else!

After having been treated to diatribes against the developed, capitalistic countries from such astute political and social scientists as Hugo Chavez, Robert Mugabe, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the nations assembled in Copenhagen are now attempting to salvage a done deal on the horrid beast called "Anthropogenic Climate Change." At the root of the deal making is--what else?--money and its partner in crime: power.

Actually there are two money issues in play. The more obvious one is how much filthy capitalistic lucre can be extorted from the developed nations of the so-called "Global North" by the Mob of the "Global South." Closely related to the first issue is the second: Who or what will control the receipt and expenditure of the money meant to address the challenges of meeting climate change and assuring that at least some of the great carbon sump contained in tropical rain forests continues to exist.

The US has reportedly broken the seeming logjam over the amount of money to be "donated" by the North to the (let's be polite and sensitive about national egos) "lesser and least developed" states of the "South." Secretary of State Clinton has opined that one hundred billion bucks over ten years sounds about right.

This figure is lower than the European Union estimate of 150 gigabucks. It is a whale of a lot lower than the 350 billion dollar commitment demanded by some of the more ambitious governments on the make.

While the total dollar amount of the ransom to be paid by the posse of evil doers known as the advanced economies is important, the question of what entity will disburse and account for the payments is equally important. And, in Copenhagen, equally divisive.

Not surprisingly, the motley congeries flying the flag of the G77 want the money to be funneled through the 192 member Conference of Parties. This assembly would (presumably) appoint an executive committee which would oversee the orderly transfer of ransom funds from the extorted to those running the extortion racket.

A primary advocate for this approach is Farrukh Khan of Pakistan who is a representative of the G77 countries. As a Pakistani he is well acquainted with the mechanisms by which both bi-lateral and international organization provided aid can be hijacked for the benefit of members of any nation's elite.

Mr Khan justifies the use of the Conference of Parties mechanism in lieu of established international bodies such as the World Bank by saying the aid needed in the next few years is not simply business as usual assistance but rather a means of "basically compensating the poor so vulnerable and exposed to the effects of climate change." Oy veh! The chutzpah of this argument is utterly mind blowing!

The US and other "doner" nations favors the World Bank for the obvious reasons of honesty, transparency, accountability, and, compared to either the UN or some new outfit run by the recipient nations, lacking in corruption. Quite correctly, representatives of these nations in Copenhagen have stated with a slightly categorical edge that the money for climate adjustment purposes must be appropriated by national legislatures and these bodies (to say nothing of the taxpayers who are ultimately being mulcted) will insist upon rigid standards of both practice and transparency.

Like all the games nations (and politicians) play the real deal here is power. The international extortion effort is an exercise in wealth transfer of prodigious proportions. Whatever body runs it will become a very major player on the global scene.

It is not surprising at all that representatives of countries ranging from the large (such as Brazil, South Africa and India) to the truly piss-ant (not named for reasons of political correctness) wish most fervently for the Conference of Parties to have the ultimate say over the flow of cash. It is equally void of drama that the Great Powers (as well as the Nearly Great) want to see control and thus power reside in trustworthy hands--their own.

As the Geek has posted before, the realities of climate change and its cause do not matter. Neither does the view of at least half of all Americans. The political class of both advanced and poor nations as well as the UN and status conscious scientists hold the position that global warming is both real and man made. As a consequence, life and the world as we have known it will change dramatically in the next few years and decades.

The goal of the US government must be that of assuring the changes will have a minimal negative impact upon the citizens of this country. That is called defense of national self-interest and any government which ignores this imperative does so at great peril to its continuation in power.

So far, the Obama administration (or at least the Secretary of State) has taken a firmer line in Copenhagen than many feared (or hoped.) It must continue to do so regardless of the mighty moans and fierce threats coming from the general direction of the G77 dacoits in diplomatic dress. After all, the only real concern for an American government should be, must be, the well-being of the American people.

How Much Evidence Is Enough?

Two years ago the American intelligence community released a National Intelligence Estimate. In a nearly unprecedented move the NIE was made public with only (relatively) light redactions. The conclusions of the community were optimistic, but plausible.

The two most important facets were that the Iranians had ceased active research and development on atomic weapons in 2003 and, with "moderate confidence" that these efforts had not restarted by mid- to late-2007.

The London Times has called the second conclusion in the controversial NIE into serious question. If the document obtained by the Times is both genuine and accurately dated, the Iranians were beavering away on developing the neutron initiator for an implosion bomb in 2007. The neutron initiator is the very guts of an implosion bomb--or the "pit" to use the terminology employed by the Manhattan Project lads.

The Iranian document admits that the country lacked the in-country capacity necessary to fabricate and effectively test the initiator, but laid out the steps necessary to do so over a four year period. The production of a prototype and its testing are both very complex. A trenchant analysis of the document by the Institute for Science and International Security makes that clear.

However, the Pakistanis mastered the technology and executed a "cold test" of its initiator some twenty-one years ago. Indeed, a schematic of the initiator appears on the dust jacket of A.Q. Khan's book. (Similar schematics have appeared in numerous fora over the past half century or more.)

There is a vast gulf between the theory of initiators and the practice of detonating implosion weapons. The timing of detonation as well as the geometry and chemistry of the explosive lenses surrounding the uranium (or plutonium) is both critical and vital to the success of the project. Along with the compression of the hollow ball of highly enriched uranium, the timing of the neutron pulse from the (in Iran's case) uranium deuteride core must be timed with exquisite precision.

An absolute fundamental which must be acquired from testing is correct measurement of both the magnitude and duration of the neutron pulse from the UD3. Even gaining these data represents a challenge that Iran admitted it could not meet two years ago.

With evident justification the Iranian regime boasts of the country's growing capacity for self-sufficiency in weapons research, development, and production. While not a subject for boasting, the ability of the regime to evade and avoid the many sanctions barring the sale of dual use technology is equally if not even more impressive.

Some observers may take comfort in the apparent failure of the North Koreans to master the detonation technology as indicated by the fizzle yields of its "hot"tests to date, the same does not of necessity apply to Iran. The Iranian intellectual and industrial infrastructures, like those of Pakistan twenty years ago, are immeasurably superior to those available to the Hermit Kingdom of the North. So also are Iran's financial resources.

It deserves mention that while the problems of timing, explosive geometry and chemistry as well as the source of neutron initiation posed mighty problems to the Manhattan Project physicists and engineers, developments in electronic technology over the past few decades have solved the difficulties of timing at the nanosecond level. Similarly, improvements in the chemistry and physics of explosives have solved most if not quite all of the features which stumped the Manhattan Project folks for many, many months while causing the canyons around Los Alamos to echo with both the sounds of explosions and curses when yet another failure was recorded.

The give-peace-a-chance crowd will seek to deprecate the import of the Times article and the supporting documentation by questioning the veracity of the leaked piece of paper and assuming its lack of authenticity to be a very poor basis for policy planning. The Iranian government is already playing to this constituency by branding the report an aggressive move, a part of the "psychological war" being waged against Iran's defense of its "nuclear rights."

So far Israel's response to the new revelations regarding Iran's "peaceful" nuclear program has been restrained. Government figures have limited themselves to calling for "tougher new sanctions." Defense minister Barak opined that there was still time for diplomacy to work but refused to eschew the use of military force.

The Obama administration has not been notably more robust in its treatment of the new information. Secretary of State Clinton allowed as how "our outreach has produced very little in terms of any kind of positive response from the Iranians."

Duh!

More realistically the outstretched hand method of Obama diplomacy has resulted in nothing but kicks in the crotch in return. Tehran correctly sees the American president and his administration as too weak, too loving of peace at any price, to represent a credible threat to either the regime or its activities. The Iranian government has also properly assessed the global weakness of the US currently as well well as how that weakness links to the self-interest of both China and Russia.

In short, there is little, if any, apprehension in Tehran as to further sanctions. Nor is there any appeal in the pursuit of diplomacy beyond that provided by the desirability of buying even more time as the centrifuges spin and the researchers research.

In blunt and unpleasant fact, the US (and such as its allies who might care) has precisely two choices. The first alternative, which appears to be the default, is to accept a nuclear capable Iran and the concomitant realignment of what the Soviets termed "the correlation of forces" in the Mideast, Persian Gulf, and Northwest Asia. The second is to employ whatever level of force is necessary to destroy the Iranian nuclear complex as well as associated weapons systems, command and control sites, and the government itself.

The second option will be nasty, brutish, and far from short. It would bring in its train any number of very bad and quite long lasting consequences. It is an alternative which is only marginally less undesirable than the first--if that.

What gives the second option any attraction whatsoever is the eschatological leanings of so many in both the Iranian clerical elite and the government of Ahmadinejad. This end times orientation calls into serious question the calculus of rationality employed by the ultimate decision makers in Iran. It calls into doubt the efficacy of containment and mutually assured destruction which served the US so well during the long years of the Cold War.

Containment and deterrence through MAD worked for fifty years only because both the US and the Soviet Union shared the ultimate imperative of national and governmental survival. It is not at all certain that the top echelons of the Iranian regime see life in similar terms.

One cannot help but wonder whether or not Mr Obama regrets having left that nice cushy seat in the Senate. At least there he was not responsible for the end of Western Civilization as we have known it or, less dramatically, the decline and fall of the US as a Great Power.

Eschatology And The Hidden Imam--And The US

The Geek is not a big fan of the Fox network's approach to news. Not that he has much brief with all the other television "news" sources either. However, this time kudos can go quite deservedly to the Mighty Murdoch Outlet.

Last Monday Fox news--and only Fox among American MSM--covered an important story from al Arabiya. In a characteristically rambling interview Iran's President and Orator-in-Chief, Ahmadinejad, stated he had "documentary evidence" proving the US was acting to prevent the return of the Hidden Imam, the Mahdi.

The importance of this small story lies not in its inherent absurdity but rather in the insight it provides regarding the world view of Ahmadinejad--and many others involved in the governing of Iran. Put quite simply the world view is eschatological in nature. That means it is focused not on the world and time as such currently exist but on the time after time, the world after the present world ends.

Eschatological world views are not the sole province of Shia believers. Nor is it the possession of Muslims alone. There exists a large number of Christians who share this "end times" view of life both present and future.

However, Christian Evangelicals do not possess nuclear weapons. Neither are they seeking to acquire this end-of-the-world capacity.

Yes, there is a strain of Jewish thought that might be characterized as end times oriented. There are Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox members of that faith who await the coming of the Messiah. Within this group there are a few who see the Messiah coming only as the world collapses in blood and destruction. It is, however, quite doubtful that this sort of mentality controls Israel's version of the Big Button, the mythical push-to-kill feature which would launch the Samson Option.

Things are quite different at the top levels of the Iranian semi-theocracy. Both Ahmadinejad and his mentor, Ayatollah Mezbah Yazdi, (who is also a member of the very important Assembly of Experts), believe strongly in the coming of the Mahdi. More, they believe to the depths of their souls that human action can hasten the returning of the Hidden Imam.

Basically, the human actions which must be taken to hurry along the coming of the Mahdi fall in two categories. One of these is consolidating and expanding the theocratic hold on all Iranians. This implies the necessity of suppressing all internal dissent not simply because it is a threat to the political structure of the state but because it is inherently evil, the product of Satan.

The second task ordained by their "divine mission" comes under the rubric of "international." The Iranian president and his ilk use this precise term in ways which are not customary elsewhere in the world.

The "international tasks" imposed by the "divine mission" are oriented toward bringing about the Shia version of Apocalypse. The most common understanding of the return of the Hidden Imam focuses upon the necessity for widespread death and destruction. Death and destruction which centers on the Mideast.

To this end President Ahmadinejad and his fellow True Believers have provided assistance to terrorist groups in countries ranging from Lebanon to Yemen. They have fostered religiously based political violence in a host of states across the Arab and Muslim world. Lastly, but far from least important, they have pursued the acquisition of nuclear weapons with a singleness of purpose which would be laudable were it not so potentially dangerous.

Three years back the defense and intelligence communities warned the Bush/Cheney administration of the eschatological nature of the Iranian regime as well as the implications of this orientation for US policy. It is evident that these warning were not taken seriously by the Deep Thinkers and Great Strategists of the time.

It is equally evident that the current administration is equally unconcerned about the relationship between eschatological True Belief and our efforts to dissuade Tehran from seeking their own personal end-the-world-as-we-know-it capacity. A blunt ground truth is that mere diplomatic isolation, sanctions, and the rest of the panoply of coercion short of war will be quite counterproductive. The power of nations is nothing compared to the potency of a divine mission.

The more pressure is placed on Iran, the more intransigent the country's leadership will be. If Russia and China were to join the Western countries in a new round of sanctions, the results will be a further stiffening of Iranian resistance. In the eschatological world view, the opposition is not to be treated as a warning, a cautionary note, but rather as the plain indication that divine will is being tested.

Not even the threat of an Israeli attack will exercise a deterrent effect. If the coming of the Mahdi depends upon the Apocalypse, then an Israeli attack and its aftermath serves as well as one launched by the Great Satan. To the eschatologists of Iran the Apocalypse is not to be avoided but welcomed, not retarded but hastened.

To many in the US, the West generally, the power of True Belief, particularly a True Belief rooted in both the necessity and desirability of the world as we know it coming to a bloody end, is difficult to fathom. Almost impossible to accept. Our view of life, of international relations, of the way the world should operate, is predicated upon the supremacy of rationality.

That fervent faith in the power of reason is our legacy from the Reformation and the generations which followed it. Our faith in the power of reason seems to have been recurrently justified by the accomplishments of Western science, technology, even politics and economics. We are all that we are today--wealthy, free, advanced in our toys and necessities alike--because reason has triumphed.

Yet there are other forms of reason. The rationality of the eschatological True Believer is not one which is warped. Neither is it the product of delusion. The desire for the Mahdi, the "divine mission" of seeking the early return of the Hidden Imam, is not divorced from reason.

Rather, the foundation truth with which we must deal is that the rationality of Ahmadinejad and others like him come from predicates different from ours. They grow rationality from a set of axioms not found widely in the West these past several centuries, but that does not make them any less powerful, any less real, any less of a threat.

If anything the different axioms make for a result far more risky for the world.

The Climate, National Identity, And Extortion

At first, the "mixed messages" sent by President Nicholas Sarkozy to the Muslim population of France and the ongoing rhubarb at the Monster Rally Against Global Warming seem to have little in common. A bit of reflection, however, shows a deep and necessary connection.

Mr Sarkozy stated that discrimination against Muslims was unacceptable to French law and French historical traditions. He went on to say in no uncertain terms that Muslims who came to France as well as those born in the country had to accept the realities of French and European history, which included the centrality of such non-Islamic features as equality before the law, transparent democracy, and--most un-Muslim of all--the powerful impact of the Christian religion on all facets of life.

President Sarkozy bored directly to a vital question not only in France or Europe but throughout the world. That question revolves around both the nature of national identity and the cruciality of national identity to matters of international relations.

The Sarkozy position on national identity and its necessary twin, nationalism, runs counter to the myth making of the chattering, academic, and (some of the) political classes in both Western Europe and the US. The French president spoke reality. He spoke truth.

The truth of his position has been underscored rather dramatically in the brouhaha which has emerged since one of the discussion drafts prepared by the host government, Denmark, was leaked to the Guardian in the UK. This so-called "Danish Text" ignited a firestorm of protest by representatives of the G77 states as well as their advocates among the NGO crowd such as Oxfam.

The important features of the draft discussion text include the apparent scuttling of the Kyoto Accord, the removal of the UN from the role of largess distributor, measures which would limit the economic destruction of the world's advanced economies, and the replacement of hard and fast decrements of carbon emissions by hazier goals. None of these features are exceptional given the current status of the questionable science undergirding the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis, the fragile state of the recovery from the Great Recession, the past record of the UN when administering wealth transfer programs, or the technological realities of carbon reduction.

Nor are any of the features exceptional when considered in terms of national identity, or, to be more blunt, national interest.

The reaction of countries at the bottom end of the international economic spectrum show just how powerful and real national interest, nationalism, is right now in Copenhagen. Lumumba Stanislaus Dia Ping, the Sudanese ambassador to the G77, called the draft document another manifestation of imperialism. In words which would have done any Marxist-Leninist revolutionary proud, he said, "The Empire has always relentlessly and ruthlessly grabbed natural resources."

Presumably the "natural resources" being "grabbed" this time by the "Empire" (whatever that might mean) are the atmosphere and climate of the world. This, of course, overlooks the minor fact that the "Empire" shares both air and weather with even the Sudanese.

A more salient exhibition of the power of national identity and nationalism is resident in the threat by the "poor" countries to walk out of the climate conflab unless their demands for money are adequately met. Again, it was Mr Dia Ping who set the tone by decrying the ten billion dollars to be committed by the "rich" nations (presumably the "Empire") as a "wholly inadequate bribe" which put the "climate crisis" on a lower priority than the Great Recession.

If ten billion dollars per year for the period 2010-2012 is an inappropriately small "bribe," what would Mr Dia Ping consider to be an acceptable figure? Twenty billion? Fifty billion? No limit?

Apparently, the small, poor nations can't agree on the number, but they have achieved a consensus on the notion that "compensation" is necessary. Without the iron clad guarantee of proper wealth transfer from the industrialized nations to the assorted "have nots," there is a threat that the latter group will simply walk out of the Monster Rally.

This dramatic gesture would simply be a means of attention grabbing as well as an instrument of extortion. Most of all, it would be a strong, even strident example of nationalism at work. It might be a very good idea if the G77 states would stage a walk out. Such an action would force the political and perhaps even the chattering class to reevaluate their prize notion that nationalism is a dead or dying force in the politics of international relations.

Both the "Danish Text" and the G77 response show the power of nationalism--cloaked in the garments of national interest--has the compelling power ascribed to it by President Sarkozy's remarks on the relation of French history and culture with that of Islam. The lens of national interest bends whatever light passes through it. It must distort.

But, that distortion is not one of evil intent. It is one of the unique history of a people, of a nation which produces as an inevitable consequence a particular view of the world and what the nation must seek or accept in the dynamics of international relations.

Governments as a result must look out for their own interests, their own survival first and foremost. Democratic, pluralistic countries produce governments which serve their own interests by effectively (appearing to be) serving the best interests of their citizens. Other, less democratic, less pluralistic, less open governments skip the charade of serving the interests of the nation and focus on the personal fortunes and futures of those in government or most tightly connected to it.

The government of Sudan--and many of the G77 states fall in the latter category. These worthies have little if any concern for the well being of those unfortunate to live under their sway. They do, however have a great concern for personal well-being, personal survival, personal finances.

Not surprisingly, the representatives of these governments look to the US and the other industrialized, advanced economies as cash cows to be milked at length. It is for this reason as well, these governments would love to see the UN in charge of wealth redistribution programs as the chances for graft and corruption would be magnified thereby. (For proof of this unflattering contention simply review the Oil-For-Food Program as administered for a decade by the UN.)

Nationalism and its underpinning, national identity, are alive and well every moment of every day. They motivate as well as conceal the efforts by governments great and small to do the work of both running a state and playing the Great Game of Nations in all its many forms. It is this ground truth which links head, shoulder, and hip the cautionary statements of Mr Sarkozy and the gavotte in progress at the Monster Rally in Copenhagen.

More examples of the interesting times in which we live.