Small Straws In A Stiff Wind

There are weeks when the Geek has regretted his lifelong interest in matters of war, diplomacy, and the shadow lands of covert/clandestine affairs.  The past month of so has been one of those periods.  It is not that the world has suddenly been infected by a fulminating virus of peace and love.  Quite the contrary.  Rather the intellectual languor has been promoted by the combination of events having unfolded in a drearily predictable factor and the lack of imagination exhibited by the Deep Thinkers and Bold Actors on all sides of all the many conflicts, armed and otherwise.

A useful example of both predictability and the lack of imagination is presented by the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki.  The energetic dismantlement of the New Mexican borne cleric is both welcome and long overdue.  The fact that he was accompanied on his trip to paradise by the one time resident of North Carolina, Samir Khan, rendered the event all the more pleasurable.

Anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of the UAV campaign in the FATA and the building of a base convenient to Yemen from which Agency operated Predators might make their lethal flights well understood that Awlaki's days were numbered, and that the number was small.  The violent death of the genius of Internet (and personal) radicalization became as certain as sunrise when he was placed on the "kill or capture" list last year.  Despite the inevitable wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth by the ACLU and other advocates of human rights above the dictates of real life, and regardless of the equally certain condemnations of "extrajudicial execution" already resounding around the world, the Obama administration by it's listing of the imam let it be known that the governing considerations were those of war--a war in which Awlaki had voluntarily enlisted and waged with ever growing success.

With the failure a few months ago to capture Awlaki by a force of Yemeni personnel backed by USSOCOM assets, the only option was killing, and the only practical tool was provided by a Predator launched Hellfire.  The only time limits were imposed by the requirements for constructing an operational base and gaining from both Yemeni and national technical means sufficient actionable intelligence.  When fractured open source reports out of Yemen a couple of weeks ago indicated a diminishing of drone traffic over the area of Yemen in which Awlaki's tribe holds sway with a ramping up over territory to the country's north, it became evident that the endgame for the preacher was underway.

The removal of Awlaki and Khan from the board is good.  But, it is drearily predictable that it is not much more than that.  The strike in no way lessens the nature or effectiveness of the threat posed by al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula (AQAP).  Had the reported inclusion of AQAP's chief bombmaker in the body count not been later retracted, the Hellfire would have well and truly hurt the group.  As it is, the most that can be said is the killing has had a marginal beneficial impact by reducing AQAP's capacity to use Internet radicalization with the same effect in the future that it has in the past.

Neither the killings nor the knee trembling on the part of human and civil rights lawyers and groups will change the nature of the ongoing war between advocates of violent political Islam and the civilized states and people of the world.  The bad guys will keep on being bad actors.  The administration and any future one as well will use whatever means are necessary within the broad limits of proportionality to defend the country and its allies against attacks of whatsoever nature.

If there is any alteration in the future, it will be in the direction of placing increased reliance upon UAVs and other means of long range, low signature, low cost of commitment war fighting.  The use of special forces teams and UAVs has been both tested and proven in the harsh laboratory of the FATA as well as the one next door in Pakistan.  Both capabilities can be of great assistance in countering the potential threats resident in AQAP, al-Shabaab and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM.)  Both may be required urgently against the latter threat if AQIM demonstrates greater capability as the result of having tapped into the arms stream flowing from the looted arsenals of Libya.

A greater use of UAVs will provoke an enormous consternation on the part of the usual suspects--the NGOs involved with human and legal rights as well as the apologists for countries which wish ill to the US but cannot match the American technological capacities.  There will be more and more political strange bedfellows both domestic and international as the US leans more heavily upon the impersonal, remotely controlled deliverers of death from above.  There will be demands beyond count for new conventions to bar such devices as Predator.  There will be calls for a moratorium on the use of these infernal machines until the law can catch up with the new technologies.

The only reply to those who believe the Predator and its tribe are inhuman and inhumane is,"Phooey!"  It is far better for a single Awlaki to die downrange than to see real war with its effects, unpredictable in detail but certain to include hundreds if not thousands of dead--most of whom will be civilians.

The Predators will continue to fly over Libya even long after NATO's warplanes have packed up and gone home.  They will be overhead to observe not only the intended targets of weapons being smuggled or saboteurs preparing but also the probable agony of protracted internal war as the joy of liberation turns into the pain of political disagreements of a very fundamental nature.

Libya (and its neighbors, Tunisia and Egypt) is also drearily predictable.  Much of the reason for this observation is found in a remark made by a Salifist Tunisian, 23 years old and holder of a degree in engineering who, when interviewed, opined, "We Salifists are the majority.  Democracy is rule of the majority.  Why should we allow the minority (secular oriented Tunisians as well as their non-Salifist fellow countrymen) dictate how we should live?"

By this question as well as similar content expressions by legions of Egyptians, Libyans, Tunisians, and their supporters in the West, the young man demonstrated just why the "Arab Spring" will turn into a Winter, a most harsh and bitter Winter.  The promoters of democracy show they well understand democracy in and of itself but fail to see the necessary corollary: Democracy is the tyranny of the majority.

Unless properly constrained within the firm dikes of a representational republic and held in check by dams formed by both division of powers and an independent judicial system, democracy is tyranny pure and simple in which the rights of the minorities are either non-existent or tenuous at best.  In the rush to embrace democracy without the time necessary to build the essential dikes and dams, no citizen is secure, no rights and liberties are permanent, nothing is safe from the fads and fantasies of public opinion and the winds generated by demagogues.

Libya, unlike Egypt or Tunisia, but quite like Yemen and Afghanistan or other Islamic states, has the additional burden of tribalism.  This is not to say tribalism is bad.  It isn't.  Tribal identity is predominant in several states to the point that they are not real, integrated nation-states but rather collections of tribes sharing a flag.

The attempt to force tribal based societies and polities to pretend they are Western nation-states is doomed to fail.  Don't believe?  Take a look at Somalia.  It is not a failed state because it never was a real state.  Rather it was an artifact created by Western diplomats who used the only model making sense to them--the nation-state.  The same is true of Afghanistan.  Much of the inherent instability there results from ignoring the tribal nature of the human terrain in order to pretend we can make it into a Western style state.

When looking at Libya or Yemen or, to a lesser extent, Syria, the same dynamic is present--tribes forced to act as if their members owed a higher loyalty to the state.  The example of Iraq is instructive here.  As long as we outsiders insist on democracy and the nation-state as the touchstone of legitimacy, we are helping to doom the targets to a long, harsh Winter.

Even if tribalism of the usual sort is absent as it is in Egypt and Tunisia, there is a functional equivalent at work. That is the existence of differing interpretations of Islam and thus the relation of the faith to the state.  The ground truth is Islam carries the seeds of its own failure as a foundation of state.  This actuality has been shown in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  People may think they want to live in a Shariah based system until they are actually in one.  The proponents of austere Islam have and will find that their vision of life is totally unattractive to most people.  Then, they must (as do the austere Islamists of Iran) rely upon naked force to oppress their way to continued power.

Put together, the two forms of tribalism, traditional and religious, along with unchecked democracy point to a long, bitter Winter of pronounced discontents.  This, in turn, implies a high possibility of protracted or episodic internal war in all its manifold and evil forms.  Such is the result of ill-advised exercises in "nation-building" or regime change or support of the "peoples' will.

Coming full circle, the several downsides of either intervention or unthinking support are circumvented completely by using Predators or even special forces units.  These approaches to defending against hostile intents and acts minimize the probability of unintended consequences.  Predators do not engage in "nation-building," neither do they change regimes.  They kill people in serious need of being killed.

To this end, the killing of Awlaki is one important small straw in the very stiff winds of the coming Arab Winter.

A Dangerous Fetish

The MSM of the world have been filled with praise for the "Arab Spring," the purported new wave of "democracy" crashing the old shores of the Mideast regimes with the force of a tsunami.  Hosannas beyond count have been sung for the assorted heroes of democracy whose protests and deaths have caused the collapse of authoritarian regimes in Tunisia and Egypt and threaten the stability of still others from Syria to Yemen.  The loudest praise of all has gone to the ill-organized rebels of Libya whose lives now are dependent upon the will and ability of a few NATO countries to keep their planes over the heads of government supporters.

Americans more than most in the West have a charming almost childlike faith in the magic contained in the word "democracy."  We--and our government--act as though the word itself constituted a sort of reality.  We believe, or at least pretend to believe, that democracy constitutes as sort of universal anodyne.

Is your country ill?

Does it suffer the constipation of chronic repression?

Is the economy somewhere deep in the tank?

Are your idealistic, overly educated urban youth unable to get a meaningful, remunerative, and not very demanding government job

If you answered yes to any of these questions, bucko, then try democracy!  Democracy will cure all these ills and many, many more.  Just ask us, the Americans, we know.  All of what we are and will be is based on taking democracy regularly.

Democracy, the universal, never fails panacea, just get out there and vote!  All will be right as soon as the votes are counted.  And, if for some reason they aren't, well, vote again next time.  You can't lose them all.

If only it were so simple.  So easy.  So guaranteed to work.  If only democracy could be the universal solvent in which all the problems confronting human polities, societies, and economies could be painlessly and swiftly melted away to nothingness.

Of course, in the real world, the authentic nitty-gritty place where hopes and fears, aspirations and anxieties coexist, democracy is not in and of itself a certain path to a better future.  In the real world, in contrast to the imaginings of academics, journalists, and politicians, democracy is nothing but a process, a process beset by unending opportunities for failure, limitless ways in which the hoped for better tomorrow can transmogrify into a dystopian today.

If Americans were not so abysmally ignorant of their own history, they would be the first to point out to Tunisians, Egyptians, and all the others hoping that they can vote themselves a better tomorrow that the reality is much less brilliant.  We the People have been trying in a rather consistent way to get the process of democracy right.  We have made some great strides.  No longer is the franchise unduly limited on the basis of race or gender for example.  At the same time no one would argue seriously that we do not have a great distance to go on the rocky road to democratic perfection.

We Americans are, for example, only a half century removed from the last presidential election in which criminal vote fraud in at least two states altered the final result.  And, we are not yet a decade from a presidential election called into widespread disrepute by an unjustified Supreme Court intervention.

Would any American contend with a straight face that the most important factor in any and all elections is money?  Any and all elections require truckloads of dead presidents to purchase services, and, above all else, TV airtime.  While the capacity to expend bucks by the tanker load is not a guarantee of election, having oodles of boodle is no handicap.  Is it any wonder that those who provide the requisite mounds of money have had, continue to have, and will persist in having a seat at every policy table?

We the People know all the flaws in our version of democracy and chaff under the strictures this reality imposes.  Showing a degree of doublethink which would do Winston Smith proud, we are simultaneously cynical about the process but extol its virtues to all foreigners who will lend us their ears.  We roll our eyes at every campaign promise made by every candidate but will urge the Egyptians, the Tunisians, and all others to emulate our example--get out there and vote!

We the People would be well advised to take a moment and consider some non-American exercises in democracy.  We might, for example, urge consideration of the several elections held in Germany in the early Thirties.  If that is too far in the fog of the past, folks might have their attention directed to Iran, the final stages of the Iranian revolution.  That's right, bucko, an election.  The Iranians voted themselves a quasi-dictatorship with all the customary features of such a regime--abetted by theocracy.

Don't like the past?  All that dead history is irrelevant, right?  Let's try some forward thinking.  Let's consider the linking of religion and politics.  No, not the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, that's been done.  Anyway it is too simple, the MB and akin religiously predicated outfits have the organization necessary to profit handsomely from the short time between now and the scheduled parliamentary and presidential elections.  The only unknowable unknown right now is how austere their version of state imposed Islam will be.

Now, let's consider Israel.  A recent demographic study predicts that the very religiously motivated Haredi will be the largest political bloc in Israel by 2030.  The implications of this development are extensive ranging from economics to politics to international affairs.

The ultra-orthodox Haredi will be able to dictate the politics of Israel.  This could--more properly, would--alter the internal dynamics of Israel in a number of ways.  The international relations of the state would be more hardline than is currently the case.  Internally Israel would change as well particularly as regards immigration, domestic law, entertainment, economic development.  In the worst realistic case Israel would lose its secular aspects completely becoming a Jewish version of Iran's theocracy.

In all probability the more secular Israelis would emigrate giving the Haredi even more political clout.  All of this would mean quite simply that elections would move Israel ever further to the religious/political "right."  Over time Israel would become more and more "foreign" to the US and the rest of the West.  This would not promote US interests in the region.

Since all the developments implied in the demographic changes would express themselves via elections, the US would have no alternative but to accept them regardless of their impact on bilateral relations.  Elections are, in our view, an unquestionable expression of sovereignty.

The same would be true in Egypt.  Or Syria.  Or Libya.  Elections are the unquestionable expression of popular sovereignty.  Given the nature of the political cultures which exist throughout the Arab Mideast, it is highly probable that the elections would have compromising features.  Yet, provided they have sufficient appearance of honesty, the US would be policy bound to accept them as we have other far less than open, honest, and fair votes.

If the people of Egypt or any other country vote themselves an austere government which imposes Islamic law in all its barbaric fullness, we would have to accept it.  If the folks in Egypt or elsewhere vote into power a government which espouses violent political Islam we would have no alternative but accepting the results as legitimate albeit unfortunate.  Unless and until such a regime launched an attack on the US or harbored and facilitated a non-state actor which did such, there would be nothing the US could do to address the situation.

It should be patently obvious now that democracy in and of itself is no panacea, no sovereign remedy for all that ails a nation or a state.  It should be equally apparent that democracy by itself does not necessarily mean a coincidence of interests between the US and the new "democratic" polity.  Nor can there be any certainty for the people of any given country that the trappings of democracy will address the problems within.  By itself democracy creates no new jobs, assures no international peace, provides no new measure of domestic tranquility or internal harmony.  Indeed, the historical record shows that the all too often uncritically celebrated fetish of democracy is more likely to bring in its wake both internal discord and international conflict.

There is an old cliche which has relevance for all those flacking democracy as the salvation of the Arab world: Be careful what you wish for--you just might get it.

What Kind Of World Can We Live In---And Will It Exist?

For much of the last century--ever since Theodore Roosevelt dragged us, kicking and screaming, onto the world stage--the US has been a major player in global affairs.  With the exception of the periods of disillusionment and loss of confidence in ourselves and our institutions, the dull and dismal years when the Isolationists reigned supreme in the Twenties and Thirties or the hand-wringing decade of thinking small which followed our defeat in Vietnam, the US has been a major player, at times the major player in world affairs.

When we have been engaged with the world, our focus has been the preservation of democracy.  When we have retreated from the global stage, the loser has always been democracy.

One of the most compelling lessons of Twentieth Century history is that provided by the results of our twenty year love affair with isolationism.  The roots of this disastrous lurch were readily apparent then and now.  The outcome of World War I was not, as we had been promised by the highly idealistic President Wilson, an end to war and a world safe for democracy.  This unfortunate split between promise and consequence made it very easy to surrender to the appealing message of George Washington's Farewell Address and recoil from not only "entangling alliances" but any non-commercial relationship with any country beyond our borders.

The seductive nature of "minding our own business" was enhanced by a strong strain of nativism which ran through American society as reflected by the increasingly restrictive immigration laws of the post-World War I period.  Keeping to ourselves seemed to assure maintaining our purity.  The notion of foreigners and foreign ideas polluting us was reflected as well by the resolute policy of non-recognition regarding those evil commies of the new Soviet Union.

The consequences of our willful retreat from the world were not only drearily predictable, they were highly and immediately visible.  The iron jaws of authoritarian rule clamped hard and fast on Italy and, a few years later, Germany.  These ideologically propelled regimes formed two thirds of a new anti-democratic steel triangle.  The final component was the military dominated government of Japan.

All three anti-democratic, authoritarian regimes were expansionist.  In each case the expansionism was predicated largely upon artifacts of mythology which rivaled religion in their attractiveness and pervasiveness.  In these features the ideological/mythological bases of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Shinto/Imperial Japan were rivaled by the Marxist-Leninist faith of the Soviet Union.

The democracies of Western Europe never went "officially" isolationist, but, led by Great Britain and France, all had lost belief in the power of their own polities and societies in the mud and blood of the World War I trenches.  The self-confidence, the belief in national values, the assurance that one's way of life deserved protection even at the cost of millions killed had all perished in the vast slaughters of what was called, "the Great War."

Had the US not embraced the false security of retreat behind its own borders, it is arguable that not only would Hitler and his counterparts in Rome and Tokyo have had to take account of the US in pursuing ambitions, but the political will of the European democracies would have been reinforced as well.  The absence of the US, the almost literal rejection of the world by Americans, made certain that the wobbly democracies of Europe would wobble all the more--and the ambitions of ideological frenzy stoked.

When the US was finally given no choice--bombs on Pearl Harbor being an invitation that could not be declined--it entered the war with one paramount goal.  The goal was that of making the world safe for us by making it decidedly unsafe for dictators.

Stripped of cant and other rhetorical trappings, the goal of the US during the long, frustrating, and occasionally down right terrifying years of the Cold War was the same--self defense by preserving democracy against the threat of expansionist, ideologically committed authoritarian regimes.  While the monolithic global communist menace never existed in realty, and the Soviet Union often quite conservative, cautious in pursuing its goals, the fact remained that democracy--and its adjunct, state regulated capitalism--were under real, ongoing threat from the Kremlin, from the Forbidden City, from numerous other regimes which embraced Marxist-Leninist ideology.

Looking back at the half century of the Cold War it is evident that the single greatest category of errors committed by the US was that of counting as allies countries which were not democratic but merely "anti-communist."  By confusing means with ends we often were our own worse enemy.  Democracy cannot be preserved, let alone expanded, by authoritarian governments.

In hindsight the errors of relying on totalitarian regimes in the defense of democracy are in high relief.  No one can miss them-or their harmful effects.

There is a cliche which relates to this reality quite well: To be forewarned is to be forearmed.  The same cliche applies to the latest threat confronting democracy  both here and abroad.  We have been forewarned about both the threat posed by violent political Islam and the danger of reposing defense of democracy in regimes which are not democratic.

The US is at a tipping point.  The elections of 2010 and 2012 will go a long way in determining how--or even if--the US will seek to preserve and defend democracy against its latest adversary.

It doesn't matter that the most recent incarnation of anti-democratic, expansionist authoritarianism comes in the guise of religion or, at the least, religiously based ideology.  Quoting sacred literature, waving copies of a sacred book, invoking religious sensibilities does not make violent (or non-violent) political Islam any less of a threat to our democratic center than were those presented by secular ideologies.  As any number of contemporary Muslim clerics, scholars of jurisprudence, and governmental figures have made abundantly clear, there is no compromise possible between political Islam and democracy.

The threat is real.  It is here and now.  It will continue.  If successful, political Islam will result in a world in which the US is less secure, less influential, less comfortable.  If successful, political Islam will result in a world order in which the US is more isolated, more confined, more ill at ease.

The argument for confronting political Islam, by armed force if necessary, is identical in all respects to the one adduced to justify our opposition to the totalitarian regimes and their ideologies of the past century.  Stripped down to the essentials, it is defending the US by defending democracy throughout the world.  Their defense, the preservation of democracy over there is to defend ourselves, to preserve our core values.

The question confronting We the People is not so much "should we" as it is "who will?"  That means who, what group, which party, will have the best ideas, the greatest political will, the orientation necessary to adequately and effectively preserve democracy both here and abroad?

It has become painfully obvious that the current president not only has no clear vision of the nature of the enemy, he has no real commitment to the idea that the US deserves to be preserved even in the most basic feature of democracy.  Despite his recurrent mention of democracy in his speech to the UN General Assembly, one listens or reads Mr Obama's remarks with the uneasy feeling that he sees the US as being in some ineffable way inferior to the rest of the world.

In this Mr Obama is representing the strain of belief which permeated the American academy in the post-Vietnam, post-Watergate period.  This period was the second outbreak of isolationism in the US.  Unlike the first go-around during which Americans disengaged on the principle that the rest of the world was irredeemably inferior to the US, the second period, the one which was so influential on Mr Obama's world view as it has been the world views of so many others of the American hoi oligoi, grew from the warped notion that the US was inferior to the rest of the world.

It is the impact of the "blame America first" school of belief which is responsible not only for Mr Obama's hesitancy in defending American interests or even acknowledging that our interests and values are under attack by foreign exponents of political Islam but the identical attitude on the part of so many in the American political, media, and academic "elites."  These individuals sincerely believe that the US is so impeached by its past and present record of discrimination, exploitation, racism, environmental destruction that it is exceptional only in the evil which it has wrought on the "less fortunate" in the world.

This is not to imply that the neo-isolationists reside only in the big tent of the Democratic Party.  The advocates of disengagement are to be found in the ranks of the Republicans--and the Tea Party--as well.  In these contexts, the proponents of "mind our own business" are not throwbacks to the first generation of isolationists.  They, even the Ron and Rand Paul sort, are not atavistic in their arguments or conclusions.

Nor are they simple minded folk who equate our foreign involvements with the motives and goals of jihadists. They do not blame the US and the policies of administrations over the past sixty years for the attacks upon us by al-Qaeda and all the deadly others.

Their arguments and conclusions are based on the budgetary constraints operating on the US today.  Correctly, they contend these constraints will not evaporate in the near future.  As a result they are of the view that the US cannot afford either an ambitious foreign policy or the military forces which may (will?) be essential if we are going to preserve democracy.  They contend the US must cut its foreign and national security policies to fit the financial cloth available.

This is not an irrational position.  Nor is it irrational to view the American defense establishment and its collaborator, the foreign policy community, as vast money sumps in which dollars almost literally beyond counting can disappear without visible--or at least, useful--result.  Every detached observer of the Pentagon, including the current Secretary of Defense, agrees this is and has been the case all too often.

Wars are expensive.  But the wars we are currently fighting are on the cheap side of expensive costing less than either the Korean or Vietnam wars when expressed as a percentage of the GDP.  Using the same method--percentage of GDP--our current defense expenditures including those of the foreign policy and intelligence communities are half of what they were in the days of Ike. (Back then they ran about ten percent and today a little under five.)

Too much of a reduction, arguably, any reduction in our defense and foreign policies would be a false economy of the worst sort.  A retreat to our own borders might seem attractive not only for reasons of costs but also because our efforts seem so purposeless.  (Take a dekko at Pakistan for complete justification of the latter contention.)

We have traveled that road before.  Twice.  In the first case, the retreat ultimately cost us much more not only in dollars, but, infinitely more importantly, in lives.  In the second, the consequences were not so great, but that was due to an intelligent decision by We the People which aborted the second flirtation with withdrawal before the results became inordinately costly.

Given the state of play today with nuclear weapons available in Pakistan and soon to be such in Iran, the existence and growth of powerfully motivated groups adhering to violent political Islam, the existence of groups such as the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Arab League, and states willing to support these entities in pursuit of national interest, it takes very little time for the costs to reach the unacceptable level.  This means we do not have the luxury of time.  If We the People do not decide quickly that our best means of preserving our democracy and all that arises from that is through an effective and robust foreign policy backed by a highly competent armed force so that democracy can be preserved wherever it exists, the consequences will be both irrevocable and unpleasant.

It's real simple, bucko.  Democracy is worth preserving because we are worth preserving.  To paraphrase a famed American admiral during the Civil War, David Porter, "Damn the expense!  Full speed ahead!"

ADMIN NOTE: The Geek invites, welcomes and will post all on topic comments.  Due to spam comment attacks defensive measures have been employed.  The Geek apologizes for any frustration or inconvenience these may occasion.

Back To Business--Iraq And Democracy

When the neocons of the Bush-Cheney justified the Great Adventure in Regime Change, two points which were made almost to the point of occasioning projectile vomiting--at least on the part of the Geek. No, not the WMD allegations. No, not the contention that Saddam was a thoroughly icky-poo person given to brutal dictatorship and bouts of aggression.

These are the two points.

Iraq deserved democracy of the more-or-less American sort complete with an independent judiciary, a federal system, pluralism, separation of faith and state, an unfettered media and, last but most certainly not least, robust free enterprise--of a properly regulated sort.

The war effort would not cost the taxpayers a doggone red cent. In fact, the US would make a profit since our companies would have an inside track on the post-war contracts including those for developing new oil fields.

Well, golly, gee, didn't that sound just grand?

Sure. If one was ignorant of such trivia as Iraqi history; the effects of prolonged internal war; the nature of Iraqi political, social, and ethnic dynamics; and the role of nationalism in the Iraqi concepts of self. Or, to put it simply and in translation: The more things change, the more they stay the same.

As if the displacement of Saddam Hussein's regime never occurred, the Iraqi government and military are favoring France in the award of contracts covering infrastructure repair and expansion as well as military procurement. In turning away from American companies and embracing French, the government of Nuri al-Malaki is not only rolling the clock back to the Seventies when France was the number one source of weapons, it is deliberately sticking its thumb in the eye of Uncle Sam.

The favoring of French companies is not so much a triumph of Nicholas Sarkozy's personal diplomacy as it is akin to declaring "great victory" as the American troops withdrew from Iraqi cities the other day. It is an expression of nationalism, of sovereignty. It is a carefully calculated gesture of ingratitude meant to solidify Maliki's credentials as a genuine Iraqi nationalist.

Maliki has ambitions. Further, he has made no attempt to hide this reality.

Chief among these is his stated desire to rid Iraq of the "consensus democracy" which was a product of the years of transition under the heavy-handed procounsulship of Paul Bremer. The current Iraqi prime minister admits that the consensus approach might have been necessary at the beginning of the post-Saddam, post-Baath period, but it has outlived its usefulness.

Maliki is now calling for an end to the special "set-asides" built into the constitution so as to "protect" the interests of the Kurds and Sunnis. In his view these prerogatives now endanger both "true democracy" in the country and the capacity of the central government to provide essential and basic services to the totality of the population.

Each of the three major ethnic or religious communities has been guaranteed a specific senior position in the central government with the result that the tripartite head must agree if anything major is to be done. It is a clone of the old system of allocation of offices employed in Lebanon before the comfortable arrangement was blown away in the several internal wars.

The same potential is resident within the current Iraqi situation as Maliki sees affairs. He is probably, almost certainly correct in this. While the "consensus" or office and power allocation scheme was necessary to get any organic instrument approved, it carries the germs of its own destruction within it.

Maliki proposes an accurate census be followed by a redrafting of the constitution along the lines of one person, one vote without any sort of "set asides" on the national level. The result of this would be to place the center of political power with the Shia majority. In principle this may be justified.

But, it is harder to do so in practice. The rub comes in the question of protecting the rights and, to be blunt, the community ego of the minority Sunnis and Kurds. The US has elaborate structures including the Supreme Court which carry the brief of protecting minorities against the tyranny of the majority. Even so the will of the majority often tramples both the sensitivities and the rights of the minority under foot.

Iraq does not have and will not develop in the near- to mid-term any similar institutions. There are no inherent mechanisms to assure that Sunnis and Kurds will not be ground into the dust as have been the small Christian communities in Iraq during recent months and years.

The Sunnis, who long enjoyed the exercise of power under the British and then after the Baathist overthrow of the monarchy in 1958, have no reason to believe that the Shia will treat them any more gently or with any more consideration than they treated the Shia during the long years of Sunni ascendancy. The Kurds are both very well aware of and proud of their ethnic and linguistic difference from the Arabs.

More, many Kurds are fully wedded to the idea of an independent Kurdistan as the governments of Turkey, Iran, and Iraq can attest. Under any sort of "one-person-one-vote" formula, the Kurds would have more reason than ever to seek merger with their compatriots (term used intentionally and advisedly) in Turkey and Iran.

This would, of course, send the balloon straight up, pronto.

The same would occur if the minority Sunnis appealed to their coreligionists in Saudi Arabia.

Nothing in al-Maliki's stated aspirations addresses either the Kurd or Sunni difficulty other than in terms of glittering generalities of no substance. His current over emphasis on nationalism and finger-flipping Independence from the US must be intended to counter the deep fissures which underlie the Iraqi national identity.

The validity of this approach is questionable. Both Sunnis and Kurds have demonstrated the continued will and ability to counter objectionable Shia driven central governmental acts by both the threat and use of violence.

The current capacity of the purportedly non-sectarian, non-ethnic security forces and army to be either a "school for citizenship" or an effective suppressant is open to question. So also is al-Maliki's ability to refrain from using these organs of state security as an instrument of Shia (and al-Maliki personally) domination.

An argument can be made for the desirability, even the necessity, of a strongman based central government with a few democratic trappings. This mode of autocracy wearing a skinny fig leaf of democratic respectability is commonplace throughout the Mideast and North Africa. Egypt, Syria, Algeria, Libya among others have relied on this approach for political and social stability. All have succeeded to a great extent.

In so far as Iraq has a political culture and history it is in the same mold. With the bloody overthrow of the British installed monarchy fifty years ago, Iraq became a one-party state in which dissent was poorly tolerated to say the least. The result was--until Saddam miscalculated disastrously with his launching of the Iraq-Iran War and, later, the invasion of Kuwait--a level of prosperity and stability enviable in the region.

The sanguinary effusion which followed the US invasion may have made the majority of Iraqis so war weary that the acceptance, even the eager embrace of another one-party state replete with the instruments of effective repression and some pretence of democracy is not out of the question. Al-Maliki may be counting on war weariness to bring his vision of the non-consensual democracy into existence.

His own very rapid rise from obscurity to power may have emboldened al-Maliki to believe that he has what it takes to be the strongman of Baghdad. He may be right. Or, he may not.

In any event there is no doubt that he intends to see his successful semi-coalition expand in the elections scheduled for next year. He may even be somewhat honest when he states that his "National Alliance For the State Of Law" is not a Shia instrument but rather a genuine aggregation of all Iraqis who seek a rule of law, not men nor clerics, nor outside influences.

His National Alliance has not yet provided either transparency, or a government and judicial system free of corruption, or any real coming together of the three major communities, and it may never do so. But, the National Alliance has and is creating an atmosphere of nationalism, national pride, and the appearance of national Independence even as American boots still churn the sands of Iraq.

This implies that al Maliki may have the capacity to carry off what he proposes. He may create a one-party state with both repression and aspects of democracy which will be stable or at least orderly. It is the best, realistic outcome the US government can hope for.

In the alternative, the nightmare one, Iraq dissolves under the lash of Kurdish independence, Sunni demanded intervention from Saudi Arabia and, finally, Iranian entrance to "protect" the Shia from "foreign" persecution.

Ain't democracy wonderful?

Forever Enemies--Islam and Democracy

It's a harsh statement. And an even harsher reality. It's one we all have to get a grip on.

Islam requires an absolute unity between faith and state. There is and cannot be any meaningful separation between Power Temporal and Power Spiritual. Without this feature there is no meaning for the Islamic concept of community. Islam may allow some sort of subordinate role for some features of temporal government but puts severe limits upon its scope and authority.

Western history shows that Europe went through a long, painful and very bloody process of enervating the claim to temporal authority claimed by the Bishop of Rome. Secular rulers and the people under and behind them wrested both national sovereignty and political power from a religious institution most reluctant to give them up.

It took the Reformation, the exsanguinations of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, the forces let loose by the American and French Revolutions, and the Unification of Italy to pry the palsied hands of religion from the levers of power.

It also took untold numbers of people burned at the stake, cast into dungeons, tongues pierced and ears cropped in the pillory to put paid to the idea of religious domination of the political processes.

Not until the Twentieth Century was half over did the golem of religion finally leave the Western political arena.

Five hundred years and more to settle for once (and, hopefully for all) the question of separation of faith and state. A long time. A very long time.

Only one state with a Muslim majority population has even tried to trace the route taken by Europe and the United States--Turkey. In that country there are heart breaking signs that the brilliance of Ataturk is being discarded under the new blandishments of resurgent Islam.

Without a complete separation of the institutions of faith and state in the operation of the affairs of state there can be no true, meaningful democracy. Unless, of course, each and every person within that democracy is an equally fervent adherent of one religion.

That is more unlikely than whales flying over mountain tops.

Democracy requires more than simply the separation of the institutions of faith and state.

It requires the acceptance of compromise solutions. The kind of solutions that make few, if any, happy with the solution. Democracy requires settling for second best, accepting a half loaf. It requires trading interests. It requires, in short, a cultural tradition of negotiation for the least-worst outcome.

Islam does not allow for negotiation. It rejects compromise. It demands a whole loaf. The pragmatic compromiser is wide open to the charge of apostasy.

Democracy insists upon the majority fully respecting the rights and immunities of the minority. This is a very difficult task as American history down to today shows unmistakeably. The American people and their government have shown remarkable unwillingness to grant a minority--any minority--full respect and full rights.

The history of Islam demonstrates a total disregard for the rights, even the most basic human sort, of any and all non-Muslim minorities. Even the protection racket sanctioned by sharia, the treaty of protected people of the book, is honored more in the breech than the full observance. The "protection" was not only hemmed in with restrictions and humiliations but was dependent upon a cash payment. (Hmm, maybe the Mafia should declare itself a religion. No more pesky Federal prosecutions for running a racket.)

To be fully effective in protecting the rights and privileges of all citizens, a democracy needs a legal system which is insulated sufficiently from the winds of public opinion, fad and fancy to operate above the fray. Further, the court system must command the respect of not only the other branches of government but the minds of the citizenry to assure that its rulings will be heeded.

It took the US a mort of years and an infinitude of horrible Supreme Court decisions to find a balance that assured the least among us would not be deprived of rights and that the decisions would be abided, even if grudgingly, by the citizen and state alike.

Islam requires that the courts apply only the sharia to any and all cases. This semi-fossilized body of sacred literature is not designed to protect, let alone advance, the rights and privileges of the least among us.

Dissent, disagreement and passionate argument are inherent to democracy. American politics used to be a full-contact sport, and, even today, has its rough and cutting edges.

Not just electoral politics either. The politics of all important issues can be measured in dissent, disagreement and passionate demonstration of views. Whether war or abortion, capital punishment or state aid to religious schools, people express their positions with a vigor even an incivility that citizens of other countries find extreme.

(The Geek can't help but point out to interlocutors from France, Germany and Japan that dissent in those countries, democracies all, has been and is robust to the max.)

Islam does not allow any dissent and provides for disagreement among religious scholars only regarding the fine points of interpretation of various sacred or semi-sacred documents. That is hardly the sort that does a genuine democracy any service.

Democracy demands much of its practitioners. It is not easy to accept diverse views vigorously argued. It is not easy to see the law require an apparent injustice such as releasing a criminal because the police didn't dot every Constitutional "i." It is not at all emotionally pleasing to see the "wrong" side win an election and the "right" side hand over power.

Islam is a lot easier. All that is necessary beyond observing the Five Pillars of Faith is to keep one's mouth shut if one disagrees, restrict one's opinions to those which are clerically approved, kick a dhimmi every now and then if he doesn't get off the sidewalk quickly enough and, before prayers, stone a woman to death.

Democracy of a true sort and Islam of the genuine Quran based variety have never and can never coexist in the same state for long. As Turkey, a tragedy in the making, demonstrates.

The Democracy Fetish Takes One More Hit

This time in Zimbabwe. The Geek always expected one of two outcomes for the practice of democracy in the former British colony of South Rhodesia. One would be the death of any challenger to the one man rule of the post-colonial regime, Robert Mugabe. The other would be the prudent withdrawal of the challenger before the bullet hit the back of his neck.

Events went the second way as Morgan Tsvangirai showed discretion is better than heroism.

More importantly, the course of the past two months in Zimbabwe demonstrated once again that democracy is more, much more than the mere casting of ballots. To be real, a democratic country must be under a regime that is willing to accept the peaceful transition of power from the incumbent to the opposition.

As in other nations, African included, the obscene behavior of Robert Mugabe shows that the country he has driven to bankruptcy, starvation, mass emigration and episodic violence is not one which meets the single, basic criterion for democracy. Mugabe states that "God" placed him in power and only the deity can remove him.

Kind of a strange perversion of the ancient Latin cliche, "Vox populi. Vox dei."

The collapse of even the thin charade of democracy in Zimbabwe under the boots of Mugabe's Patriotic League of Thugs and Terrorists raises another question. One that is of supreme import for the countries bordering Zimbabwe. All of which at least pretend to be democratic republics.

What are they going to do about the dictator in their midst?

Admittedly, Mugabe has long enjoyed a high level of prestige among the sub-Saharan African population for his leadership of the long insurgency against the White minority regime of Rhodesia following Ian Smith's 1965 Unilateral Declaration of Independence. The resulting war was very long, very nasty and ultimately won by the insurgents through the progressive reduction of the White population and government's political will and material capacity to continue the war.

Importantly, the Black majority forces did not win because of any particular political or military brilliance on the part of Mugabe. He was a factor in the Black success, but only one among many. Other factors including the economic sanctions imposed by the Commonwealth, European and North American nations were more important. Also more important than Mugabe was the constant and ready support offered by surrounding states.

Mugabe was a hero by convention only. His personal contribution to the toppling of the White minority government was (and is) greatly magnified.

Mugabe's actions of recent years have been minimalised by the very same people and governments which have boosted his reputation as the Hero of the Liberation. Starting with the politically popular but economically and nationally self-destructive act of "redistributing" land owned and operated to the national advantage by White farmers, and continuing through the years of systematic repression of any emergent opposition or even criticism, Mugabe seemed to have been bent upon two interlocking goals: maintaining his personal power and status, destroying Zimbabwe.

He has succeeded in both as of today. He is in power. He is the paramount chief. And, Zimbabwe is a complete wreck. A collapsing state filled with corpses, starvation and hopelessness.

Some hero.

When are the other folks in the neighborhood going to notice? When will the governments of South Africa, Mozambique, Zambia, Botswana individually or collectively say, "Enough is enough!"

Zambia had "free and fair" elections two years ago. Or so says the CIA which the Geek has found generally reliable on such matters. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/za.html

South Africa, which has borne much of the violence and economic meltdown refugee flood, is widely hailed as a pillar of democracy. It's chief of state, Thabo Mbeki, has been heavily and ineffectually involved in trying to broker an end to the chaos in Zimbabwe. Is it not time for South Africa to take the gloves off and let the aged autocrat next door know that the time for graceful retirement is now?

Mozambique underwent what CIA terms "a delicate transition" in December 2004 which allowed the country to continue sound economic policies and keep on rebuilding a nation shattered by decades of insurgency. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mz.html President Guebuza should think long and hard about the impact of a continuation of the refugee flow from Zimbabwe as well as his country's diplomatic leverage.

As much as South Africa and much more than Zambia, Mozambique has the leverage necessary to put a convincing argument before Mugabe that he should step down. Move out of the way before the turbulence in Zimbabwe endangers the neighbors even more than it has already.

It would be naive in the extreme to expect the African Union to exercise a constructive role in the Zimbabwe chaos considering that organisation's record to date with failing states across the continent. The African Union, not unlike its nomenclatural predecessor the Organisation of African States, is long on slogans, demands against the West and glitzy top-dollar diplomatic extravaganzas.

The AU, like the OAS, is very short on positive results for all its rhetoric, demands and heads-of-state meeting in upscale conflabs.

What about the United Nations? Secretary of State Rice has stated the US intends to put the implosion of Zimbabwe on the UN Security Council Agenda next week. Her demarche has already been overtaken by events. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7601194

United States, which is this month's president of the Security Council, has accused Mugabe of turning Zimbabwe into a failed state that threatens its residents and the stability of southern Africa.
When asked whether she thought the United Nations was prepared to go beyond passing a resolution on Zimbabwe, Rice said, "We believe that unless the Security Council acts, it stands to lose credibility."

Mugabe has already spent weeks (well, years actually) blaming all of his country's problems on the "colonial" powers in which he (no surprise here) includes the United States along with the United Kingdom. It's no stretch to add France to the list of offenders.

It must be remembered that both Russia and China tend to oppose the Security Council mixing itself up in what might be seen as the domestic political problems of any member state. The reasons are obvious. Russia and China face violent internal political unrest.

South Africa also opposes the Security Council move. Rightly. The neighbors, members of the SADC, have been complicit in the collapse of Zimbabwe. The same neighbors have the duty--and the self-interest involvement--to end the chaos and restore at least a semblance of democratic order.

Starvation is a part of life for millions of people in Zimbabwe. Mugabe has made that fact come into existence. Starving people are desperate people.

You don't need a PhD to figure that one out.

The borders of the neighborhood are porous. At best. In order to protect themselves, their less than robust governments, economies, societies, neighboring countries--South Africa and Mozambique in particular--have to intervene with diplomacy, aid and, if all else fails, force.

Mugabe has said that only God will remove him from power. He might consider that God can have many faces and take many forms.

How Much Is Enough?

How much government is enough?

The question was raised a few days ago by a comment in one of the early Reuters articles covering the defeat in Ireland of the proposed amendments to the European Union's organic document. It was the most insightful comment encountered as the Geek has tried to keep up with the flood following the triumph of the "No's."

The forty-six year old woman said, (as far as the Geek can remember--he keeps berating himself for not having saved the link and now can't find it) "We have government enough as it is. Why would we want another layer?"

The quick answer is this. "Because the several interlocking elites of politics, business, academia, and journalism think it would be good for you."

Usually the Geek is sceptical of quick or easy answers to hard questions, but in this case he is more than willing to make an exception. His exception is based on the reactions given by the chattering classes of Europe and elsewhere to the voice of the Irish public.

The UK is home to a very interesting newsletter called Spiked. In American terms its editorial line might best be characterised as "left wing libertarian." If one wants to be spared the task of clicking though innumerable British, Irish and European sites, take a quick run over to Spiked for this week. Frank Furedi's piece is an excellent summary of the state of rhetorical play since the referendum. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/earticle/5347/

Giving an additional emphasis to the fear and loathing of ordinary people felt so deeply by members of the several elites subsumed under the "chattering class" rubric is a fine view by an expat Irishman. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/earticle/5348/.

Underscoring the utter contempt for the "no" voting Irish citizens is a third story. This one is by a teacher of political science and government living in London with the suspiciously Irish name of Kevin Rooney. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/earticle/5349/.

It is telling that Ireland alone out of the twenty-seven countries comprising the EU put the matter to the decision of the public rather than leaving it in the far more manageable hands of the local parliament. More telling is the total refusal of governments to stop and give due regard to what might undergird the Irish rejection.

The governments, the leaders including those of France, the UK and Germany as well as the business, media and academic establishments from the edge of the Irish Sea eastward have excoriated the Irish as a collection of brain dead, xenophobic, reactionary, provincial cretins who are not only short-sighted and fear-ridden but also ungrateful. The name-callers are all, in principle at least, committed to the notion of democracy. They--leaders, governments, pundits, professors and business wallahs--profess to believe fully that the will of the people is supreme.

Yeah. Right. Sure they do.

Of course for the Eurocrats and other High Minded Internationalists, the Irish defeat is a replay on a much smaller scale of what happened in 2005. Back then it was the uneducated, xenophobic, reactionary, fearmongering, provincial populations of France and the Netherlands who voted "no" to the EU's new constitution.

The Eurocrats and other High Minded Internationalists went back to work and regenerated the defeated constitution as a series of amendments. The Geek has read a (small) portion of the nearly three hundred pages of nearly opaque bureaucratise (OK, the Geekmo admits that he is a masochist--but a limited one.) The damn thing made no sense at all.

Except in one major area.

That area?

Simple. With the amendments the European Union would look, act and in most salient respects become a supra-national government.

That was what made the Irish woman's comment so trenchant. The amended constitution would impose another level of government on the heads and shoulders of the already (arguably) over-governed population.

The strongest defense offered on behalf of the amendments and the new structures they would call into existence is taken straight from Jeremy Bentham. The EU would be better able to provide "the greatest good for the greatest number."

Wow! Sounds wonderful. "The greatest good for the greatest number."

Who could be against that?

No one. At least in principle.

Until the critical question is posed.

Who decides? That's the key question. That's the weak point of Utilitarianism. That's the frail center of the argument advanced by the Eurocrats in favor of the new constitution.

Who decides?

That question also lets everyone know why the several interlocking elites of politics, business, academia and media so strongly support not only the centralising of power in the EU but do so everywhere.

Elites of whatsoever nature are in the power game. Every elite regardless of its specific type--monetary, intellectual, religious--is a political entity, seeking the maintenance and aggregation of power over those people who are non-elite.

Elites pursue power by asserting that they have the key to achieving the "greatest good for the greatest number." Often, even nearly always, the key seems to be one of limiting the indivdual's right to decide, to choose, to risk, to be autonomous. To be free.

To put it simply the elites--those who have their meaty fists around the levers of power and influence--do not trust, do not like and frankly often resent the presence of the hoi polloi. (Unless, of course, the common herd merely hears and obeys the desires of the Older and Wiser, the Best and the Brightest.)

And why shouldn't we listen and heed? After all, the elite is richer than the rest of us. It's better educated than the rest of us. Has access to airwaves and print that the rest of us lack. It's even been democratically elected by the rest of us.

Why shouldn't we hear and obey? The movers, shakers, power brokers and opinion molders have our best interests at heart. They know what is the greatest good. They know who is the greatest number.

Why shouldn't we dumbly submit to our betters?

The Irish woman knew why. Her statement--and her question is one we should all ponder. Wherever we live.

What Great Democratic Buddies We Have!

The neocon ninnies stage managed our invasion of Iraq in order to promote and foster democracy throughout the Mideast. That's a given. At least the majority of rightwingers agree that our adventure in regime change was a well intended move to oust an obnoxious dictator and install liberal, pluralistic democracy in his place.

There is no denying that the Mideast is a place long on violence and violent rhetoric but very short on either democracy or human rights.

The same can be said of many Muslim inhabited countries regardless of the region. A recent study tempts the reader to conclude that Islam and democracy or human rights are incompatible, even mutually exclusive.

The same study shows that most of our "key" Islamic "allies" in the Global War on Terrorism are not only undemocratic, but less democratic than our current bete noir, Iran.

Take a good, long look at http://www.meforum.org/article/1921. The authors, like the publisher, have no evident political agenda. They give every methodological and analytical appearance of seeking a reasonable approximation of an accurate description.

The study examines forty-eight members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) for which adequate, uniform data were available covering the years 2006-2007. Comparisons of per capita GDP/GNP with military expenditures and the several factors comprising the Status of Democracy Index (SDI) were made. This exercise allowed the grouping of countries into one of several categories such as "high GDP-high military expenditure," "high GDP-low military expenditure."

In addition the study ranked the forty-eight countries in terms of their ratings according to the SDI. Now to cut to the chase--get a grip on it.

Coming in at number forty-eight, dead last, was our good ally and drinking (coffee only, remember they're Muslims) buddy--Saudi Arabia.

That's right, the feudal autocracy of the sands quite unshockingly brought up the rear. Equally unsurprising was its inclusion in the group of "high GDP-high military expenditures" states.

Saudi Arabia achieved a percentile score on the SDI of 13.8. Coming in next to The Kingdom of the Two Mosques in a tie for forty-sixth were Chad and (drum roll, please) Pakistan, both with an index rating of 19.4 percent.

Chad is a desolate expanse of desert undergoing significant civil strife. Pakistan is our most critical "ally" in the efforts against both al-Qaeda and Taliban. Although Pakistan's rating would be improved by the recent parliamentary elections, it still would rank near the bottom among the OIC Forty-eight.

In comparison consider Iran. The Tehran mullahocracy is rated in the study to occupy slot number forty-two with an Index percentage of twenty-five. That stinks on an absolute scale, but looks good next to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

(Kind of makes one wonder.)

Overall in the Mideast and North Africa only four countries rank above fifty percent on the SDI and one of those, Lebanon, meets more the appearance than the reality of democracy given the rapidity and effectiveness by which an armed band, Hezbollah, could control the processes of government.

Like Lebanon, both Algeria and Egypt rank above the half way point. And, again like Lebanon, the appearance is more than the substance.

Among other key US "allies" in the region the portrait of democracy is not much more encouraging than that given by Saudi Arabia. The United Arab Emirates ranks at thirty-seven. Bahrain comes in at number thirty-three. Oman and Qatar are tied at the thirty slot. Only Kuwait comes in near the midpoint. That country, which owes its existence as an independent state to the US, is ranked at number twenty-five with a SDI of 44.4%.

All of these oligarchies spend a good chunk of their not insubstantial GDP's on their military forces. This leads to another unshocking conclusion: non-democratic states regardless of GDP spend money preferentially on weapons and those who use them.

The same may be said for countries which are not members of the OIC, but the fact remains that few nations within the OIC ambit exhibit any meaningful, real aspect of democracy with its inherent respect for human rights such as speech, religion, and the vote.

From this, it is tempting to speculate that the ideology contained within Islam is incompatible with democracy, an open society or the panoply of human rights.

The Geek, given to keeping in mind the history of Islamic societies and polities, has a damn tough time not giving in to that temptation.

When Democracy Goes Sour

Former paratrooper Hugo Chavez promised his fellow Venezuelans a new and better deal through his program of "Socialism For the 21st Century." Enough folks believed him.

He was elected president. He survived a recall move.

Hugo Chavez was a big believer in democracy. He flew the flag of vox populi, vox dei high and proud.

Until the people said no to Hugo's proposed reform (read evisceration) of the constitution a couple of months back

Subsequently the Chavez regime dropped its false flag of democracy and raised the skull and crossbones of authoritarianism. Close down the television and radio stations that refuse to parrot the party line. Bash the heads of those who disagree with the regime's view of life.

Now Chavez has taken the next logical step. By an executive decree formulated in secret and sprung on the nation. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/world/americas/03venez.html?th&emc=th) The new measure is not the sort which warms the hearts of pro-democracy types anywhere.

It must however make some of Hugo's nearest and dearest friends such as the Castro brothers very happy. It might even bring smiles to Hugo's new buddies, the Tehran mullahocracy.

What is the decree?

It "reorganises" the country's intelligence services. Nothing wrong with that. The US did it as well in the wake of 9/11.

There is such a thing as carrying reorganisation too far. Not that Hugo would admit that he could possibly do such a thing.

You tell me: Are the following features indicative of an over the top approach or not?

The decree requires full cooperation between members of the judiciary and the two new intelligence services, one of which focuses exclusively upon domestic threats to the government. Those judges who do not share fully with the domestic spooks (and accept their guidance) face mandatory imprisonment.

The decree requires all Venezuelans to cooperate fully not only with the secret police but even those "citizens" organisations loyal to Chavez under penalty of imprisonment for up to six years in the case of non cooperative government employees. That's as good a deal as KGB and its predecessors ever got in the old Soviet Union.

Of course the use of "citizens'" groups to assist the secret police in ferreting out and squashing dissent is taken right from the Cuban model of socialism. In Cuba the local neighborhood watch groups called Committees for the Defense of the Revolution have a long, dreary record of assuring that the Fidelistas can keep a tight lid on dissent of any sort.

Socialism For The 21st Century closely resembles the Police States Of The 20th Century.

Democracy anyone?

Initially the new fiat was justified by Interior Minister Ramón Rodríguez Chacín as being necessary to combat "interference by the United States" by assuring that the secret police held a tight “ideological commitment.” Later, faced by a completely unexpected torrent of opposition he retreated slightly, “We are talking about the responsibility all Venezuelans have with the security of the state and the resolution of any crime."

The regime didn't intend any restriction of free expression or repression of political institutions. So averred the head of the secret police.

Right. And gasoline costs under a buck a gallon anywhere in the US.

Not all Venezuelans rolled over and licked the Chavez boot. Take for example the statement by a senior member of the national judiciary.

“We are before a set of measures that are a threat to all of us,” said Blanca Rosa Mármol de León, a justice on Venezuela’s top court, in a rare public judicial dissent. “I have an obligation to say this, as a citizen and a judge. This is a step toward the creation of a society of informers.”

A damn big step!

Chavez slashed back at critics like the justice by alleging that they were supporters of the imperialism of George W. Bush. He added that his new diktat would protect Venezuela against "imperialist attacks" and assure the country's "national security."

How many sins have been committed in the name of "national security" not only overseas but here in the United States?

At least here we have a periodic opportunity to endorse or reject the actions taken on behalf of our national security. At least here--unlike Cuba, Iran or, now, Venezuela we have a strong measure of protection against zealous snoops seeking to limit our right of dissent and opposition to those in power.

(The Geek maintains that position despite the numerous attempts by the current administration and the wallahs in Congress to infringe on our individual and collective rights of debate, dissent and disagreement. Yes, much of the PATRIOT act is objectionable and the FBI as well as other agencies have abused their authority in electronic interceptions and surveillance, but not nearly so egregiously as was the case forty or fifty years ago. We survived those abuses and will survive the more recent ones.)

Those who live under the sway of Hugo Chavez's delusions of adequacy will probably not have the chance to effectively oppose the new decree. Venezuela itself may survive but only after repression is resisted, blood flows and a new (hopefully) more humane order emerges.

Chavez may last as long as Castro, but unlike the Cubans who exchanged a brutal, corrupt dictatorship for a less corrupt but equally repressive and inefficient one, Venezuela has experienced genuine democracy and an open society for most of the past several decades. They are not used to grovelling before the authority of the state.

It's going to take more than a secret police force and a legion of snitches, more than Russian weapons and Iranian banking agreements, more than a high price for oil to keep Chavez in power long.

Hugo should have thought it through before he hauled up the jolly roger of dictatorship. In the end pirates are hung.

So, What's So Great About Democracy In Action?

The Geek enjoys irony. He thinks that one cannot be a historian without a well developed appreciation of the ironic in human affairs--particularly the political parts of life. There is something sublimely ironic about the current US administration fretting publicly about the lack of democratic progress in Russia. The current administration and some wallahs in congress seem particularly upset by the fact that Vladimir Putin has been slowly and certainly with a patience unseen in Russia since the early days of Joe Stalin, aggregating power into his own hands.

The New York Times gave vent to the latest distress in the current administration and congress only yesterday. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/world/europe/15diplo.html?em&ex=1192593600&en=51d9d6f4b8978a4a&ei=5087%0A. It's worth a look (and a chuckle).

Admittedly, the current US president thinks he is the greatest practitioner of personal diplomacy in the past few centuries. He is entitled to his misapprehensions, his delusions of adequacy, but not at the expense of realistically assessing American national interests.

Russia under Putin has been seeking to (re)establish its status as a Great Power in sharp opposition to the current administration's desire to decree that since the end of the First Cold War the world is strictly unipolar. To do this, Putin has garnered power into his own hands--with the seemingly willing collaboration of others in the Russian government and its supporting infrastructure.

The current US administration would be well advised to recall that Russia has little real experience with democracy. Beyond that, the current administration and the wallahs in congress would do well to consider whether democracy is a system which recommends itself to Russia--or many other countries.

We Americans have made a fetish out of democracy without really examining what the word might mean outside of the theoretical pages of a political science or civics textbook. Before shaking our heads with either frustration or outrage over the practices of Vladimir Putin, we might take a good, hard, critical look at democracy in action here in the good old United States of America.

Consider the words of SecState Rice during her Moscow visit. “If you don’t have countervailing institutions, then the power of any one president is problematic for democratic development.” She was criticising the lack of an independent judicial system or legislature in Russia.

Has she looked around Washington lately?

Has Dr Rice noticed, for example, how Vice-President Cheney has beavered away to gather power to the Executive Branch at the expense of the other two branches? Did she even notice back when she was National Security Advisor that she and then SecState Powell were kept out of the loop regarding the invasion of Iraq?

Did she notice the perversion of intelligence? Did she notice the manipulation of Congress?

If she did, then where is the accuracy of her anti-Putin comment?

If she didn't, then is she aware enough of time and place to be this nation's top diplomat?

Others who have criticised Putin might look around the acres inside the Beltway and wonder about the real meaning of democracy given a few realities. The chance of changing members of congress in recent elections (except by death or resignation) is lower than in England during the first quarter of the Nineteenth Century--the era of rotten and pocket boroughs. The wallahs in congress resemble a school of fish, changing direction in a flash in response to opinion polls or, more likely, the dictates of large campaign contributions.

The inside-the-Beltway-critics of Putin might modulate their tongue wagging if they considered who is represented in congress, voters or donors. We all know the answer to that.

They might be a little less eager to complain about the slow down in democratic reform in Russia when they consider the relative stupidity of American foreign policy as practiced by the current administration or the complications introduced by ideologically blinded members of the Surrender Now! crowd in congress. The critics of Russia under Putin might bite down on their carping if they took a good look at the realism by which Russia defines its foreign and domestic interests in comparison with the US.

None of the foregoing considers other historical and systemic flaws in the American brand of democracy. It doesn't take into account the long evolution of an expanded franchise. Neither does it examine the questionable impacts of this expansion. There is no mention of big city machines, let alone a detailed account of the negative impact on democratic processes by either big money contributors, focus groups, negative campaigning, or the primacy of political operatives and strategists such as James Carvelle or Karl Rove.

Then there are the questions regarding the American version of an independent judiciary. Where's the independence in a system which allows regulators to be legislature, executive, and judiciary? Where is the authentic independence in a Federal judiciary which allows, no, demands ideological litmus tests for appointments and confirmations? Or in state systems depending upon the election of judges?

The US political system including its more-or-less democratic aspects was designed to be inefficient. The practical politicians who served as architects of our system understood that only conflict between central and state governments as well as within the central government would assure sufficient inefficiency to protect the rights and liberties of the citizens. Their intentions were good. Their knowledge base was appropriate.

But they could not foresee the future. They could not see the rise of the administrative state and regulatory law. They could not forecast that the day would come when the three branches of the central government would combine forces to subjugate the states, almost achieving the Hamiltonian goal of reducing states to mere administrative entities.

Certainly the drafters of our system could not guess that the day would come when the combination of population size and technological developments in communications would require that politicians engage in an endless race for the money. A race that assured that the larger the contribution, the louder the voice.

The Geek is no fan of authoritarian systems. Quite the contrary. He is too much of an anarchist at heart to accept the dictates of authority.

He regrets that Russia is not a flourishing democracy. Someday it might become one. Even more the Geek regrets that the US is not living up to the democratic ideals it so righteously proclaims to others. He hopes that some day we might live up to the standards of our rhetoric.

Until that Utopian day, the Geek would be pleased mightily if our government wallahs could cool the hypocrisy.