Fried Egg

The Long Post

2006-12-14T23:31:00.000-05:00

Not sure fencing off the Muslims and taking their guns (as Steve puts it) would be even remotely possible. We're talking about dozens of countries, billions of people, and God knows how many weapons left over from many years of warfare. I don't think you can cut them off from the world - you have to deal with them in some way or other.

I just wonder - if we're going to deal with them, as many prefer, diplomatically and economically rather than militarily, just exactly WHO the hell are we supposed to deal with? You can make peace with one faction, but as soon as you do some other faction starts killing you AND the first faction. Even if Israel and the PA signed a treaty that would give the Palestinians all the water and electricity they wanted, open up all the roads, remove all the checkpoints, tear down the wall, and let the Saudis build some condos, some group or other would be murdering Jews again before the ink was dry. Has this not been the history of Mideast peace efforts since the whole business started? Can you name an instance where a Palestinian group or government said "Wait, let's talk" and the Israelis said "OK," and then the IDF immediately blew up a refugee camp? (That's a serious question, too - I don't know as much about the conflict as Steve an some others, so I really need to know.) Given this apparently endless cycle, I don't think it's unreasonable for people to believe the Palestinians are basically intractable and, by extension, most of their Muslim brethren - who use Israel as the excuse for everything they do.

Fact-based people, tell me if I'm missing something here...

Bugs: I will make an attempt to set out my perspective on the matter.

As far as Israel-Palestine goes, peace has not always been top priority for either side.

As far as the Islamic world is concerned, it's a complication of demographics and collapsed ideologies and superstructure.

Bugs: I will make an attempt to set out my perspective on the matter.

As far as Israel-Palestine goes, peace has not always been top priority for either side.

As far as the Islamic world is concerned, it's a complication of demographics and collapsed ideologies and superstructure.

To take the second part first.

What typically happens when there are large population fluctuations is that it puts strain on the infrastructure. There are two types of infrastructure. There's the infrastructure that involves roads, schools, hospitals, and so on, and there's the infrastructure that involves people's attitudes about
their surroundings.

When you get a large population spurt, the infrastructure gets over-taxed and people become primed for rebellion. Exactly what causes the transition to rebellion is unclear, but there's no question that there were (at least) large population spurts in France prior to their Revolution, in Russia prior to theirs, and Europe in general prior to the World Wars. (America absorbed a lot of the excess Euro population between the end of the Civil War until WW1, but all we got out of it was the IWW and a few terrorist incidents. Probably because we were so huge and largely unpeopled.)

When the physical infrastructure starts to break down, people get pissed. They become, among other things, alienated. They want changes, not just more roads. They stop being passive, they are ripe for all kinds of revolutionary leadership. They start questioning the status quo. This is also what happened in France, Russia, Europe after WW1.

What's happening in the Muslim world is that population growth has over-taxed the existing material infrastrure. It has also over-taxed the social infrastructure. It is well on the way of creating "secular" Islam.

But there are many problems there.

The first problem is that the over-taxed infrastructure means that people are not being adequately taken care of. The second problem is that the population growth is interfering in the social infrastructure. It was common, for example, for farmer or herdsman to marry at a certain age, and have many children. IOW, a young man gets some assets, gets married, has kids, end of story. But there's a tremendous number of what the Russians used to call "superfluous people" who have no real assets, and if they have a job, it's some kind of BS bureaucrat job. Read Dostoevsky or Gogol to get a handle on what I mean. These guys have little hope of acquiring assets, little hope of acquiring social standing, little hope of marrying, and settling down. These people may, or may not be, poor. But their advancement is blocked because their social infrastructure is overloaded and there's no room to move. Most of the 9/11 guys came from this frame of reference.

A third problem is taking people away from their villages, putting them in big cities, and putting them to work in factories. This always happens when there's a big demographic bump. Typically, two things happen here. First, any city has a multitude of frames of reference. There's no "one explanation" for reality anymore. So, people become secular. When they become secular, they start asking questions. Questions like, "Why am I working in this crummy factory/refinery while that guy drives a Mercedes and has six wives?" In short, in the Muslim world, they are asking the kinds of questions we Westerners asked before our revolutions, which also involved the overthrow of nobility. (Remember that much of the power in the Gulf is princely power.)

There are reactions to this process of urbanizing, secularizing, and industrialization. One reaction is fascism. That covers Syria, the former Iraq, and Egypt. The attraction of fascism is that it gives everyone an identity, that is, a national identity, and it tells a single story, so people have something to believe in again. Another reaction is retreat, but a calculated retreat. That is Iran. Iranians are not really religious fanatics, but they go along with the mullahs because it gives them a simple set of rules and interpretation. It's easier than wide-open secularization, which is what we have in the US and Europe today. A third reaction is simple maintenance of the royal status quo, by force. That covers Saudi Arabia, and most of the rest. Of all the Arab countries in the region, Egypt, which is sort of post-fascist, and Jordan, which is sort of post-monarchical, are I think the most stable.

So what's going to happen? It depends on where the demographic pressure is most severe. Off the top of my head, I think, today, the pressure is worst in the Persian Gulf region, comprising Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and the fertile crescent along the Mediterranean, including Israel/Palestine. I think Iran is feeling its oats. I don't think it wants to conquer anyone, but I do think it wants to dominate the region. That is not in our interest, and it's not in Israel's interest. However, it's another question as to whether we (or Israel, if they could) would fight a war over it, because it would threaten to dislocate the global economy, which could create economic problems and the possibility of creating revolutionary situations all over the world.

First thing I should say, is that the likelihood of a western style democracy is not in the cards. The economic reality, and the historical tradition, do not support a democracy emerging for many decades. What you are likely to get is more countries like Egypt and Jordan.

There will probably be civil wars and/or revolutions in many of these states. These will be about jockeying for power. There will probably be many dead. There will also probably be many refugees, giving a strong Muslim flavor to both Europe and America. After 20-30 years, things will calm down.

The $64 question is, what's going to happen to us, to Europe, to Israel.

9/11 proved that we Americans have an interest in the Muslim world. We have to guide, and backstop, them. What is the likelihood of a small terrorist group like Al Qaeda getting a nuke and blowing it in the US? I would say, first, a nuke is a bit of a step up from a box cutter: let's not make these freaks into supermen. IF we work on our intelligence, and we maintain our security, we should be able to nip something like this in the bud. We aren't going to make ourselves safer, however, by bombing various Muslim countries. All that will do is radicalize more people, swell the ranks of Al Qaeda, and create more refugees.

Obviously we can't beat them if we don't even know what they're saying. I heard Ken Adelman say we have SIX Arabic language experts in our defense establishment. That's absurd. We should have six thousand. Spend the money. It's not hard a language, it's no harder than Hebrew.

We have to integrate the Muslims. That's not a problem for the US, we integrate and assimilate very well. It is a problem in Europe -- where most of these plots are hatched -- and in Israel, where integration is officially not done (but of course, unofficially it's common.)

What is the risk of a state actor nuking someone? Well, let's put it this way. I wouldn't trust Ahmadenijad with an electric razor. The guy is seriously nuts. On the other hand, he's not the real power in Iran. I wouldn't be too concerned about him. He frankly should not be in power because he is deliberately inflammatory. Look for him to go in the next year or os.

Will Iran get nukes? Probably. Will the nuke anyone, esp Israel? No. Nuking Israel would end up making all of the Holy Places there, which are sacred to Muslims, radioactive, even a low yield bomb would kill as many Arabs as Jews, incidentally probably make large parts of the country uninhabitable. I doubt if if that would please the Palestinians much.

Iraq is probably going to descend into civil war, and that may lead to wars between Turkey/Kurds, Syria/Saudi/Sunni vs Shiite/Iran, and so on. But those won't be nuclear wars. If there are great casualties, and large numbers of refugees, the US will probably get blamed for it, because we deposed Saddam, but it won't really be our fault. We would probably end up taking in many hundreds of thousands of refugees, however. We're good at that.

What about Israel and the Palestinians? I think you are right, the Israelis cannot stop being vigilant, because there's always going to be someone ready to start shooting. The problem is that Israeli expansion has occurred in such a way that it is now thoroughly enmeshed around and in the Palestinians.

I think for the first 20 years after 67 the Israelis did not intend to give up the West Bank. I think they were hoping that the Palis would get tired and leave and/or accept Israeli suzerainty. What changed that was the first intifada. It was only after that, I feel, that Israel seriously entertained giving up land for peace. Of course, not all Jews nor all Israelis like that idea. That's why the first Israeli architect of the idea, Yitzhak Rabin, was assassinated.

Of course, the Palestinians haven't been interested in peace, either. Under Jordanian control, the Palestinians were hassled by the Jordanians, and the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from where Israel now stood (some of whom were forcibly expelled, see Rabin's memoirs) were confined to UN administered refugee camps, where they, and their descendants, still live today.

Arafat got his start way back in '65, when he tried to blow up an Israeli water line (yes, even then it was an issue.)

The Palestinians who left where Israel is today, or who were forced to leave, want to go back. It's impractical of course, but, since they're confined to refugee camps, what's the alternative? They really have no place to go, so, they have made the old homes an obsesssion, complete with wearing door keys around their necks. That is why, in any future peace, the Israelis are going to have to bite the bullet and say "I'm sorry" about those expulsions.

Of course the Israelis cannot actually allow the Palestinians to return, because then Israel loses on demographics, etc. etc.

Meanwhile, Israel has its own problems. 20% of their population is non-Jewish, but the whole concept of Israel is based on a country run by Jews for Jews. The non-Jewish minority is growing, in two ways: one, through native birth rates, and two, through the influx of Soviet Jewry (the main source of immigration, or aliyah, to Israel in the past 20 years.) About a million Soviet Jews came to Israel in the last fifteen years, after legislation was passed disallowing Soviet Jews from leaving Russia with Israeli visas and then coming to the US, instead (which is where they usually went, prior to that legislation.) This was engineered by Sharon, Shamir, and others, to beef up the Jewish population vis a vis the non-Jewish population. The problem however is that many of these Soviet Jews come from mixed marriages and their Jewishness is a bit tenuous.

Israel is also suffering from battle fatigue. I mean, Israel/West Bank together is about the size of New Jersey, which is the most densely populated state in the Union, but has 2 million more people, much less rainfall, significant deserts, water shortages, and few natural resources. It has intellectual capital to burn, but there aren't enough ways to employ that, which is why the trend for young Israelis is to wander to more moderate climes, more opportunity, less likelihood of violence (yes, that's a factor), and so on. They are still Israelis, they still love their country, they keep their visas, but ....

Israel needs significant donations. It gets them from governments, like the US, and it gets from private Jewish agencies. To get immigrants, and to keep immigrants, it offers them great real estate deals, in the West Bank (usually), and money to live in Israel. The pull is, "this is a nation for you, a Jew." Problem there is, Jews are just as secular as most Christians nowadays, so the religious pull of Israel is fading. What remains is, "Your fellow Jews need your help, because we are embattled, etc. etc." That still works, at least as far as donations are concerned. However, that appeal won't work, if Israel became a binational state.

Basically, if Israel is at peace, then it will get less support. But if it is threatened, it gets more. If it can continue to portray itself as a Jewish homeland (although only about 1/3 of the World's Jews live there), then it will continue to get support from World Jewry. But if it becomes binational, then it's appeal to Jews will also diminish. So they have a tough problem, not even counting the Palestinians.

The Palestinians are stuck. Realistically, I expect a lot of them will come to the US. I have known some. They are OK. They look very Jewish. ;-)

The key is breaking down the refugee camps, in the West Bank and Gaza.

Then the Israelis have to offer to make serious territorial concessions, behind closed doors, including Arab East Jerusalem.

Then the Israelis have to apologize.

Then the Palestinians have to apologize.

Then the US has to support both states. Shoot, I'd raise my taxes for that. Would you? I'm tired of it.

The Israelis are ripe for territorial concessions. I would almost say, that the Israelis are ripe for a binational socialist state. The Palestinians are not ready yet. They can be helped getting ready by:

a) systematically relieving overpop through emigration to the US,
b) rebuilding infrastructure destroyed since 2000,
c) gradually returning lands, and compensating the Jews who depart,
d) investing capital in Palestinian areas,
e) US financed desalinization plants throughout Israel/Palestine/Gaza,
f) empowering moderate factions in Palestine,
g) talking, yes, even to Hamas,

There are probably other things. The wall actually HELPS, short term, because due to that the Israelis have no reason to destroy Pali infrastructure as they did in, say, 2002. But I see no reason why we Americans can't have a significant portion of our consumer goods made by Palestinians. And that's the kind of infusion that could help them take off.

So, you see, there will probably be fighting, and a large loss of life, in the Muslim world in the next 20-30 years. But it need not go nuclear. What the US has to do is facilitate change while at the same time supporting stability. A difficult balancing act. It will cost more in terms of money, than in terms of blood.

What we as Americans can do is insist on a more involved position in the Muslim world, and that includes the entire Israel/Palestine situation. It will cost us a lot of money. And we should keep our powder dry, by increasing our armed forces accordingly. The threat is always stronger than the execution.

The end state we should be aiming at is social equilibrium throughout the Muslim world, and that includes Israel/Palestine and Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.

In this process, words are very important. Therefore, we should avoid the "A" word (used by Carter), the "R" word, the "A-S" word, and we avoid disrespecting Muslims, like it's a big joke to piss them off.

What we should not be doing is selling the American people a bill of goods about how we can cause these changes to occur magically by Shock 'n' Awe, and Democracy, in a war that will last no more than three months, that will pay for itself, and similar hogwash. The American people have to be leveled with as to the sacrifices we should make. Otherwise, a lot more people will die. And we should stop looking for military solutions, when, as I have tried to show, the problems are economic, structural, infrastructural, demographic, and ideological,
and have to be managed in that manner.

A Response to Jeff Goldstein and His Chorus Blog

2006-12-10T12:40:00.000-05:00

This time, however, the media cannot control the entirety of the narrative. And we feckless keyboard warriors and chickenhawks will never let Americans forget,

You really are a talented writer. The problem is that America will forget, because no one hangs around to read keyboard warriors whose overriding ethos or tone is different from what they already believe. And that seems to be the problem with the blogosphere. Everyone seems content to hang out with people who agree with them, and slander anyone who disagrees, and in this way there is no persuasion, which means the numbers stay the same.

The only entre out of obscurity is a fact-based analysis (e.g., the expose of the fraudulent docs concerning Dubya’s service) and even then it bubbles up via MSM. Expressions of opinion, no matter how finely wrought, or magnanimous (an adjective tha applies almost no blog posts), just aren’t going to bubble up and propagate.

The problem is that the war has not turned out as it was advertised in late ‘02 and early ‘03. That’s just a fact. As a consequence of that fact, the American people are tired of the war, and just want it over. The polls on this have been solid for some time.

I watched the TV commentators (and their guests) today. They seemed to cover the spectrum fairly well. Most everyone is calling for “one last push”—ok, fine. Do it. But everyone agrees that this “one last push” is a final roll of the dice. And that if it doesn’t work, we gotta get out. That’s the broad carapace of common sense / conventional wisdom / received opinion which keyboard warriors would have to pierce.

Of course, failure in Iraq—we appear to be failing so far—is terrible for the United States and brutally cruel to our men and women in the armed forces of the United States, the dead, and the maimed. We could—in the opinion of those who think the whole project was a mistake—“throw good money after bad”, or “stay the course” for those who think there’s a light at the end of the tunnel. But that approach has to contend with the “you told us sumpin different!” attitude that is now widespread across the land.

_I_ think that at this point it’s a failure of political leadership. If we really want to go balls to the wall in Iraq, we have to go balls to the wall in the whole region, we have to have political leadership that points to the militarization of our culture, the notion of necessary shared sacrifice, but all of this with ABSOLUTE GUARANTEES of individual rights (inc. privacy, freedom of speech), and the notion that we cannot afford to allow a billion Muslims to go batshit, not only because of the oil that fuels the global economy on whose stability our country depends, but also because we cannot afford 1/6th of the population of the world to be unstable, to acquire nuclear weapons and destroy cities in accordance with a nihilist ideology.

However, there’s no way we can do these things with the relatively puny number of people we have in our armed forces. In World War Two, at one point or another, 25% of Germans were in uniform. Our armed forces, including recent veterans, probably is at about 1%. We cannot provide security to the world—our world—under those circumstances.

Nature abhors a vacuum and politics abhors a vacuum of power. There are vacuums of power throughout the Arab/Muslim world, and either we, Americans, fill those vacuums or someone else will. We need to orient our society towards armed service, mobilize the country, re-establish the draft, drastically increase our armed forces (especially ground forces), increase taxes to fund our defense establishment, and then pacify Iraq. Then, we act further on the basis of what the neighbors do. We do not act on the basis of our limited forces, we do not act on the basis of “what we think we can get away with.”

SHORT TERM, I think we are losing and will lose. Too many people have an almost superstitious faith in the efficacy of remote weapons systems. Short term, we cannot possibly put enough people on the ground. But LONG TERM (five years) we can do this. We simply need the political leadership to do it, and we aren’t getting it, and it is unlikely we are going to get it via blog posts here or there. If we don’t get the political leadership to do the things I have outlined, then we will in fact lose, regardless of the imprecations and gnashing of teeth.

NOTE: Although I have been calling for radical increases in the size of the armed forces for a long time, people always accuse me of being a defeatist, because, they say, I am only suggesting these alternatives because I “know” they are unattainable. Rubbish. We can do anything we want to do, we simply need the political leadership to spell out to the American people what’s going on and what needs to be done.

On the other hand, if people continue to insist that these problems can be solved by dropping more bigger bombs, or by killing more people and letting God sort them out, or by insisting we can turn the Iraq fiasco into a triumph by “controlling the narrative”, we will continue to fail. This is not something that can be solved by sending 20 K troops into Baghdad and letting them act like the Wehrmacht in Occupied Russia. We need a lot more people involved, and unless we get that, we will lose, lose, lose, and we are not getting the political leadership to get there.

Thoughts on Academia

2006-07-17T01:03:00.000-04:00

I will offer some thoughts on academia, since I was once a part of it.

Some few people gravitate to academia because they are extremely bright and want/need some kind of stipend in order to support their research. The vast majority of people who fit this bill (and they are a tiny minority of academicians), are in the hard sciences. The reason is because there's new data and methods being discovered all the time and therefore there's real, hands on work to do.

Another class of people are in academia where they have a special skill that in turn they pass on to students. Think some applied science disciplines, and esp foreign language study.

In literature and the social sciences another set of circumstances obtain. There are some successful novelists in literature. There are some outstanding historians of literature. And there are a lot of people who just like to read. Ditto sociology, poli sci, history, etc. in this area.

One should ALWAYS remember that the academy is a business. It promises a product: a mind that has been inculcated with the accumulated wealth of our civilization, or, at the very least, a certificate that attests to that. The price can be, say, $150,000. (It can also be a lot cheaper, and even more expensive.)

To sell the product, the academy has to tailor its curriculum to the potential buyers. This brings about a situation that is actually a little unusual. Normally, we advertise to a consumer for something that he or she will actually use. In the case of a college education, we advertise for something one person will (theoretically) use, and another person (the parents) will largely if not entirely pay for.

That means college curricula, extra-curricular activities, campus layout, and all the rest have to appeal not only to the 18 year old Jack and Jill who will be attending college, but also the the 40 something (or 50 something, or whatever) parents who will be paying for it. The kids have to be sold on fun, self-discovery, deep meaning, relevance, and so on. The parents have to be sold on practical utility and ROI.

Thus the packaging of a college education is a little bit like breakfast cereal packaging: the cereal is sweet, and delicious looking, there might even be irresistable trinkets inside. But the sidebar of the box assures the parents that the product is GOOD FOR THE KIDS.

The parents are sold by statistics. X no. of Nobelists, or National Book Award finalists. X millions of dollars in research grants acquired by faculty. X % of graduates tracked to make Y amount. That sort of thing.

The kids are sold on other things. Getting past the most obvious (sex and beer), they are sold on relevance. Virtually every college has a department of middle east studies, because, it's in the news every day. Thirty years ago, there used to be departments of German and/or Soviet Studies everywhere. Where are they now? Gone, replaced by Muslim studies, Gay studies, Chinese Studies, Far East Studies, etc. etc.

Part of this is driven by geopolitical realities (we really should be graduating more Arabic and Persian mavens), but a large part of it is driven by what an 18 year old thinks is relevant. And what an 18 year old thinks is relevant, is, 99% of the time, usually just a reflection of the surrounding popular culture, which, by definition, will be shallow and short-sighted.

The people who work in academia, I mean, the professors, have to service the students in this manner. They have to teach about the things the students want to hear. Not necessarily WHAT they want to hear (in terms of interpretation), but subject matter.

At the same time, for any job security, the academician has to produce a lot of papers, reviews, and generally one or two books, to go into their CV so they can get job security, otherwise known as tenure.

That's not all they have to do. They generally have to teach three courses simultaneously, that involves lecturing perhaps nine hours a week. In addition, they have to allow about four hours a week to listen to students complain about their lives or about how to write their papers. If a professor is conscientious, there will be another four hours a week for group discussions, and LOTS of reading and writing assignments for the students, which in turn have to be read, graded, and evaluated with an eye to the student's improvement.

Also, since the college is essentially a bureaucracy, there will lots of meetings, and any professor, especially a novice, will have to "volunteer" (because tenure tracks this also) for committees that have significant student participation. The Black Students Union, Gay Lesbian Bisexual Tranvestite Congress, Asian Students Union, Traffic Committee, American Indian Union, Halal Breakfast Menu Committee, and, of course, the dreaded American Indian Indian American Revolving Door Committee, not to mention department meetings, faculty meetings, and pep rallies will normally take up another 10-15-20 hours a week, in addition to teaching and prep, and in addition to the research and writing that will generate the paper trail that ensures tenure.

It is NOT an easy life. And it doesn't pay very well either, comparatively.

So: Outside of the geniuses and the savants in academia (comparatively few), who really makes a career in this? People who are gregarious, who like directing the lives of young people to a better place, IOW, the same qualities that make good elementary school teachers, except usually better read, but not necessarily more intelligent. Because they are in continual symbiosis with the darlings whose parents are paying for a piece of paper, the faculty tends to adopt the youthful idealism and values of the generally non-adult student body. To be sure, one can avoid this, and be independent. Then one likely will face ostracism from one's faculty peers, and even from the students (poor course evals, no one signs on for your lectures, etc.)

Is it any wonder that the academy is overrun by people with immature world views and opinions? Those who are not, esp those who have to face the reality of raising children or just earning a decent living, generally do not stick around.

There are some exceptions. But we are making a HUGE MISTAKE if we choose to denigrate the life of the mind, that is distributed in and out of the academy. There are significant things being done in many fields, inside and outside the academy. Broad brush dismissals of the sciences, philosophy, or even the humanities, because of the academy's dependence on selling their sheepskin product, are quite unfair. While the percentage of ACADEMICS who are making, or who make, substantial contributions to our continuing knowledge may be smaller than one might think, that doesn't mean that they make no contribution, and, furthermore, in addition to all of their other duties they are, faute de mieux, the CUSTODIANS of our intellectual tradition, going back thousands of years. However silly their political opinions might be, EVERY academic understands their duty in that respect. If they don't know the books, the lineage, the background, then no one will. They know this, they study it, but it's not the type of thing the ordinary person asks, nor is the kind of thing that ever gets quoted on the Internet.

In sum: The people in academia are the way they are because they are engaged in selling a product. They are not necessarily fonts of wisdom (though sometimes they are.) They are the repository of accumulated knowledge, and they have to work hard. Yes, they tend to write and speak about the world we live in in stupid and silly ways. But they usually do have an expert knowledge that no one cares about. Meanwhile, they work very hard, and are not paid very well, for the work they do. It is true they tend to arrogate to themselves the voice of wisdom and irreproachable authority: well, anyone who falls for that has only himself to blame.

My Crystal Ball on Israel

2006-07-13T20:35:00.000-04:00

Daily Kos has a post on "Imagine a World Without Israel." The posting at Kos is absurd.

However, I have to say that I think Israel in say a generation is going to be a lot different than it has been. I would say the same about Europe, and the United States as well.

Certain things run common in history. One of these is that wealthy countries act as magnets to poorer countries, that wealth is redistributed by revolution (violent or peaceful) when the demographics warrant, and that whenever a country tries to nativize itself against teeming hordes of Others, they have already lost.

I know people like to give the example of the Native Americans. Couple things there. First, there was a lot of intermarriage (my ancestors, among them; South Carolina Cherokee.) Second, there weren't that many, WRT to the territory: density was not an issue.

Another example has to do with genocides or ethnic cleansings. Well, the Armenians are back in Armenia and Germans have been floating back to lands outside of Germany for awhile now, and, thanks to the extension of the EU, will be able to buy the old family farms in another 15-20 years.

Demographically, the US is going to become more Hispanic (heavily Amerind south of the border already, BTW), Europe is going to become more Muslim, and greater Israel (Jordan to Med) will probably have a Pali majority in a few years.

All these people are going to want to be treated as equals by the dominant cultures. They will get it, eventually. That's just the way it goes. In Israel's case, they will never be able to "lock out" the West Bank, or Gaza, or their own Arabs. Although today the Palis are proportionally much poorer and less powerful than their Jewish Israeli counterparts, that will change. It just will.

Meanwhile, Israel is becoming more secular. More Israelis are thinking about living elsewhere; even today probably less than half of world Jewry actually live in Israel, I know several nominal Israelis who live in the Northeast who frankly prefer it here, for various reasons.

Meanwhile, the meme that Israel is unwise to Jews because it concentrates too many in one space, or the meme that Israel causes anti-semitism, are both frequently made by Jewish commentators (Tony Judt, et al.)

So I expect that Israel is going to end up as a binational state, or even a blended state of Jews and Arabs. It will be much stronger for it, too. That's my guess.

No One Pays Any Attention to Me: Fine!

2006-07-13T16:11:00.000-04:00

Self-originating posts are not my thing right now. I do, however, react to other people's blogs, and I will post them here, as an immortal record of stuff I would have said at random over the telephone or with my mouth half full of food over lunch.

Of course, it's no secret that a lot of internet comm is inter-active based, I mean, people say stuff to get noticed, and to get stroked (or stoked.) That bothers me less and less since, compared to my too hectic family life, it really doesn't matter what people think of what I write. But at least this way I keep in practice.

So, a couple things .....

*****************

I have noticed that the news cycles have been going very rapidly in recent weeks. Can it be that it was just 10 days ago that everyone was freaked out N. Korea's missiles? That got Iraq off the pages. Then Iraq came back, no, wait, trouble in Gaza, no, wait, problems on the Lebanese border.

In some vague way the crises are always the same, the outrage is always the same, the call for bold destruction always the same, and then someone changes the channel .....

I would not want to say that we are collectively being played. I would say that most people have an astoundingly short attention span, as well as a willingness to be led hither and thither by whatever news is passed on to them. Is life really worth living when it is so much at the mercy of some reportage of events over which, in fact, we have no control?

*****************

I don't disagree that multicult is often used to put a minority POV that is attempting to become dominant on an essentially spurious (because undeserved) equal level with a majority POV. If that's what you are saying. In that case, we might call multiculturalism affirmative action for ideas.

OTOH,as a devotee of individualism, individual rights, and social libertarianism (even privacy rights) as a bulwark against the capabilities of modern governments to control and interfere with the lives of their people, I must say that any shrink-down of executive power is not going to be greeted with unhappiness in this corner.

Geneva Extended to the Bad Guys

2006-07-11T20:22:00.000-04:00

In general, I think it’s good, and also good PR, for the US to abide by Article 3. I really see no reason not to. I doubt that treating these people badly has yielded much good intelligence. And, I have heard anecdotally, and know from my own time in service (part of which was in helping run a ship’s brig), that unless there are bright lines there will be abuses.

As I understand it, quite a few of these guys we are holding are suspicious characters who may be dangerous to us. Fine. Hold them for the duration, or, re-write the laws to get it past SCOTUS so they can have a day in court. That will settle it once and for all.

On the other hand, I’m sure a good number of these dudes are hostile sadistic killers. Frankly, treating them under Article 3 will only treat them as well as our sizable national Death Rows which are inhabited by thousands of hostile and sadistic killers, whose deeds are well documented.

People are angry and I understand that. I just don’t see the justification for abuses or interrogation techniques bordering on torture.

I realize the WOT is very frustrating but we won’t get to where we want to be by thumping or offing people. Mainly because that’s not the purpose of the WOT. The aim is to get the people in the Middle East to change their minds and change their ways. That’s a supra-military task. It will take a long time. But, quoting Pope, “A man convinced against his will remains unconvinced still.”

An Odd Silence Amid Bloody Fantasies of Revenge

2006-07-11T13:11:00.000-04:00

I have noticed since the release of the latest videotape, showing the desecrated and mutilated remains of the 2 American GI's in Mahmoudiya, that the right wing has been rather quiet on related matters, and unwilling to say anything explicit about the charges against 5 Americans for the rape, murder and desecration (by burning) of an Iraqi family. Granted, the jihadists may be attempting an ex post facto justification. But why not at least mention the terrible accusation against our own soldiers? Perhaps they are afraid of being accused of moral equivalence.

Meanwhile, the right wing is seething, and insists that we wreak a terrible vengeance on any and all Iraqis who may have had a hand in this outrage against our troops. I will leave it to your imagination as to how they would react if, say, their neighbor's family was raped, murdered, and desecrated .....

Latest Video of Mutilated American Soldiers

2006-07-11T10:59:00.000-04:00

Many years ago, when I was a kid in the '60's, I read a book called "The Curtain Rises" by Quentin Reynolds. I remember when I picked it up I thought it was going to be about plays, or something. Actually, it was a book of Reynolds' reportage during WW2, and in this volume, mostly about the US arrival in North Africa.

One thing that struck me was the casual mention of a torture that local Arabs had inflicted on wayward GI's who had been dumb enough to have sex with an Arab woman. Their genitalia were cut off, and placed in their mouths, and then their throats were cut. I don't know if this is true, but it definitely turned me off to Arab chicks.

I do recall that Reynolds mentioned this, and that the Americans talked about it, there was no discussion about retributively killing all Arabs if or when something like this happened. It was just a cautionary tale.

Anyway, in a possible attempt to cash in on a recent case in which Americans are accused of rape and multiple murders, Iraqi terrorists have released a video of 2 Americans who were tortured, killed, and mutilated. I wrote the following somewhere:

*****

I don't know if I would call our guys "dupes", but there's definitely something about this case that looks like retribution to me.

The rape murder happened in March. The ringleader gets a discharge in April. The 2 guys get kidnapped and mutilated in June.

One can say that no one had a clue about the March incident, but, frankly, I think that's naive.

I don't think it's just a coincidence that the guy who was the main accused perp in the rape murder was discharged soon after. Nor do I think it's a coincidence that our 2 guys were killed and mutilated when they were in the time line. Outside of those 4 contractors in Fallujah -- and that was 3 years ago -- I can't think of a single time US troops were ambushed, then slaughtered, then mutilated. Given that -- going back to the US in North Africa in WW2 -- it is well known that Muslims will kill and mutilate in retaliation for sex crimes, I'm sorry, but I think that's what this is.

*****

I will say a bit more. The discharge of this guy is suspicious to me. It looks like there was a deliberate intent to get rid of him. Normally, once you are discharged, you are not going to be charged for any crimes you committed in uniform. That's why most of the people at My Lai were never charged: they were long gone out of the service. Charging this guy was extraordinary. Which suggests that, if not for the blowback, retaliations, and confessions, this dude might have gotten away with this scot free (assuming he did it, of course.) That's a spooky thought.

On the other hand, if the Army had any suspicions about this incident, the very last thing they would do, for PR purposes, is broadcast it. Yes, a case like this might be a discrete act of madness by a handful of Americans, etc. etc., but every ONE case like this defames all of us, and, yes, endangers the people we have there as well as all of us at home. Committing crimes of passion against Iraqis, or any Muslims, in these days, is to give major agitprop victories to the other side. That's just the way it is. We have to be clean, not only because it's right, but because otherwise, we lose.

Deb Frisch and Jeff Goldstein

2006-07-08T19:25:00.000-04:00

I don't have a lot of time for blogging. It's not that I don't think my views are important, but I am bit more fact-oriented than that, and, when doing I have the time I tend to focus on other things.

Pretty much each day, I read selected sites. I read Drudge, for breaking news. WaPo, NYT, WSJ; NRO, Andrew Sullivan, like that. I also read Michelle Malkin, not because I think so highly of her stuff but because the far right interests me.

Anyway, today, Michelle had a post about a guy named Jeff Goldstein who had a denial of service attack in conjunction with some gal making pornographic comments about his child. So, I followed up on that.

Obviously, this woman should not have said these things. Just in general people should not make death threats or child porn threats. Of course, it can actually be dangerous. But I've seen it before; it's usually people who for one reason or another have lost control of themselves. In other words, it's not dangerous but it's still disgusting and legitimate source of shame.

But I also think I would leave it there. Apparently, this woman has already lost her job as a result of this; what more is useful? Money? Please. Jail. Double please. I hope she gets help, I think she needs it. I wouldn't go after it.

On the other hand, I don't know what Jeff Goldstein is going to do. As a father, I can recall when my kids were little how I would have reacted as he did: by, apparently, making a federal case of it. However, now that the perp and her circumstances should be pretty obvious to any observer who isn't blind; I'd let it go. There's no point in being impolite to a woman who insists she has balls.

The other thing I can't help but note is that too many people in the blogosphere take themselves way, way, too seriously.

Peace out.

Post Zarqawi

2006-06-13T21:35:00.000-04:00

I am glad that Zarqawi is dead. Truth be told, he was already irrelevant because his taste for sadistic violence had marginalized him, but it's good he won't be doing any more killing.

On the heels of his death Bush has now gone to Iraq, and once again I have to ask, what exactly are we doing there? We recall that the invasion was justified on the grounds of toppling Saddam, and getting the WMD's. All that was done in three weeks. Not only that, but by the end of the year, Saddam was in prison and his sons were dead, so there was no chance for a succession crisis.

Why are we there now? Basically, we are there to hold the "new Iraq" together. That could take a long, long time. Furthermore, that's not how the war was sold. Indeed, the war, as a war, is long over. If we are going to stay in Iraq as long as there is sectarian violence, then the odds are not only that we will be there for a long time, but we are allowing the violent Iraqis to control the time of our departure. Indeed, if I were an anti-American operative in the Arab (or Shi'ite) world, I would make sure that there was just enough violence to keep the US tied down -- forever. And I don't think it would take a lot of effort, either.

We no longer have the initiative, which, in battle, is fatal. In a counter-insurgency, where our motives for remaining are entirely about politics and saving face, the lack of initiative is perhaps not fatal but there is such a thing as death by a thousand cuts.

Response to a Haditha Response

2006-06-13T21:33:00.000-04:00

Thanks for your comments. I just don't have a whole lot of time for this blog stuff.

On the subject of "Four Hours in My Lai", no question that was a massacre. What I found most unforgiveable there, however, was that the Army was intentionally carrying thuggers, muggers and rapists and putting them in fire teams and/or squads to just do their thing. Disgraceful.

The latest on Haditha is that the E-6 in charge of this op has admitted, through his lawyer, to all of the killings, but in addition he has claimed that he used proper rules of engagement.

Two things here. First, these could not have been official rules of engagement (ROE), that makes our armed forces look trigger happy and clueless. So, they could have been unofficial ROE, which is why three officers in the chain of command were relieved of duty.

But even if "shoot first, identify targets later" was the unofficial ROE, it is clear in this case that the squad leader, and his troops, if they did not act out of revenge and rage (as was originally maintained)then, put plainly, they still over-reacted, perhaps out of fear.

I mean, I can accept the idea that, after an IED goes off, you might finger a house and decide to storm it, especially if you (think) you are taking fire from that house. And I can understand, barely, if the unofficial ROE entitles you to toss grenades and shoot anything moving in a house if you think you are in mortal danger.

But how do you go about shooting up the second house, after shooting up the first one, and knowing that you just killed a bunch of civilians? That makes no sense.

To compound the matter of wasting two households, and then sitting on the roof for several hours and shooting anyone who looks suspicious. The whole thing is atrocious and an embarrassment. All these people should be kicked out of the Corps. However, no hard time. These guys did not create the situation they were put in.

Now, if the ROE were "changed" at battalion level, then there probably was a cover-up and not a "miscommunication" as stated. You cannot have that either. Those officers involved should also be made to resign their commissions.

Actually I have less sympathy for the killings now, than I did when I thought it was a hot massacre. Those things do happen in war. If, however, the ROE's were changed such that basically every guy had a license to kill any Iraqi at any time, that is wanton violence, inexcusable in any war, and especially in a counter-insurgency, when you need hearts and minds.

We'll see how this plays out.

Initial Thoughts About the Alleged Haditha Murders

2006-06-01T20:16:00.000-04:00

I think a pretty good take on the situation. It looks like -- from what we know -- that a squad leader blew his cool and at least one fire team went overboard. As a Vietnam Era Marine, I can't avoid the feelings of our guys. I also don't think the 19 year olds are anywhere near as responsible as the E-6 apparently in charge of the op, and the officers who (clearly) did not exercise enough command and control in their group.

I think it has to be said that fighting men work as a group and have to feel empowered. When they do not feel empowered -- as for example, when they are getting picked off by booby traps -- their combat effectiveness suffers. Atrocities like this -- if that's what it was -- is really a way for the group to re-establish its morale; as horrifying as that may sound.

Nevertheless, that's the reason WHY these kinds of incidents occur in most guerilla wars, or counter-insurgencies. I have to condemn the naivete of the pro-warriors for not knowing that this kind of thing would happen.

For all that, the incident was probably all over in 15 minutes. I do not condone murder charges or life sentences for these guys. They are just combat instruments that broke under the strain. Nevertheless, there should be accountability. The officers -- including any involved in a coverup (it does not take six months to get to the bottom of something like this, and the USMC does not need TIME magazine to do its work) -- should be forced to resign their commissions. The enlisteds actually involved should all be discharged. They just cannot stay in the Corps.

I feel sorry for the Iraqis apparently murdered but I feel just as sorry for the innocent Iraqis killed by our various arty, close air support, cruise missiles, and smart bombs. There really isn't much difference.

I also feel sorry for the young Marines who will have to leave the Corps and will have to spend the rest of their lives re-living the day they shot a bunch of women and kids. I'm sure they didn't plan it. But they're the ones who will bear the guilt for the rest of their lives.

A Letter to My Sister About the Film United 93

2006-04-29T20:44:00.000-04:00

As for the film: I dreaded seeing it, thinking it would be too hard to handle. However, it was OK. Almost the entire movie takes place in real time, from the moment the first plane hits the World Trade Center at 8:45 until Flight 93 goes down at 10:03.

However, thankfully, you aren't left in United all the time. Otherwise it would be unbearably claustrophobic. And you are never given any details about any of the passengers such that you will really identify, or cry, for them. I mean, you will care, but there's no real character development.

Much of the movie cuts back and forth from Flight 93, to various FAA command posts as people get data trickling in and try to understand it. In that sense it is what I would call a Disclosure Film of a Comprehension Film in which there is a kind of mystery that doesn't become clear until the very end (or close to the end). I guess "Citizen Kane" is the kind of film I am thinking about, with "Rosebud." In this case of course it is the mystery of hijackings, why they are happening, what's happening to these planes, who are these people taking over our plane, what do they want, is that bomb real, etc. etc.

And of course this kind of modeling is typical of 19th Century novels, especially mystery novels ("The Moonstone" comes to mind), and many symphonies or tone poems from that era (think Brahms Symphony #1 as a fair example.)

I like disclosure/understanding part of this film very much, because that's the way I remember that morning happening. And, as a document, I think it was a necessary one. After all, for good or ill, we use films to teach history, and this one is very accurate as to how 9/11 unfolded.

There is some violence but it is mercifully brief and not gory. The mutiny or prisoners' revolt by the passengers as well as the charge to the front and breach of the cockpit was, although based on guesses, I think completely accurate and valid. It is cathartic in the sense that, at the very end of the movie, you have people who died that day who are not just passive victims but active agents, and, that, to my mind, mitigates their deaths a great deal. Grandpa would have appreciated the Masonic implications: as would Goethe - "Die Tat is alles, nicht der Ruhm!", or even TR with his famous "Arena" comment. Life is about being, doing. These guys lived to the end.

On the other hand, there is ZERO political exploitation of this. This wasn't about "saving Washington" or the Capitol, it wasn't about "standing up" to terrorism, or being "heroes", it was just about some people on a plane that was hijacked who gradually realized -- along with everyone else in the movie -- what exactly was happening that day, and chose to fight it out because they didn't want to die without trying to live. They gave it their best shot, and, in retrospect, their action was inspiring and the best of life.

There is also little sentimentality. Which helps.

A lot of the disclosure takes place on the ground with various FAA and military people doing their radar trackings and such -- many of these people are played by the actual people they portray -- so all of this has a lot of authority and verisimilitude as well.

I would recommend going to see it on a matinee because then you will have several hours of daylight and real life to distract you to do the kinds of things the 9/11 people would be doing, if they had lived. That was my thought anyway. It definitely helped.

My son didn't consider it a "great" movie, because his aesthetics are heavily influenced by highly stylized film compositions, like Lawrence of Arabia, etc. etc. That's true. It's a docudrama that is very sensitively done. I would see it to bear witness, to relive and understand the day, and because it's a great disclosure/understanding type of movie. But I'd go with your kids, or something. Not alone.

The Right Way With Iran

2006-04-17T23:19:00.000-04:00

Recently there has been a lot of talk about bombing Iran, in particular, a column by Mark Steyn which calls for the area bombing of the country, with no occupation (which essentially also means no ground forces.) Steyn's argument is bloodthirsty claptrap, but the discussion on Iran is now fairly well advanced so it's time for people to decide where they are on this.

After 9/11 I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, for obvious reasons. In fact, I supported some kind of intervention earlier, when they started blowing up the Buddhas. I opposed the invasion of Iraq, as indeed I had opposed the march to Baghdad in 1991: there were a number of obvious problems that would result. In fact, shortly before the invasion in 2003 I enumerated all the problems with the proposed invasion with a fellow veteran friend of mine, and indeed they have all come to pass. It's not as thought it was hard to see. In addition, I had been skeptical of this WMD talk since the mid-'90's, when it first became a major foreign policy issue. I was right about that, too. It gives me no pleasure. Over two thousand of our young men and women are dead, thousands maimed for life, and, not incidentally, a lot of Iraqis, too, and for what? For chasing a will o' the wisp of fear.

I see this same will o' the wisp with Iran. But in the case of Iran, I do think we should do something. However, I don't think bombing will do the trick. First, Steyn's indiscriminate bombing is deserving of no consideration. Second, it won't work, either, since we can't bomb the entire country for long without precipitating an international crisis. All bombing will do will kill some people and perhaps destroy some facet of Iran's nuclear program, but even here we cannot be sure of redundancies that are almost certainly in the program. Bombing would buy us a little time, no more.

My concern is not just whether Iran gets a bomb. My concern is that they intend to dominate the Gulf and the oil. As an American, I cannot tolerate this. My country needs to dominate the oil. Otherwise, my country will suffer. Therefore, I would propose that we need to think seriously about a hot war with Iran, as well as invoking nuclear deterrence against both China and Russia.

To do this right the first thing we need to do is re-institute the draft. We have to increase the defense budget, increase the size of the armed forces, increase our potential pool of reserves. The counter-arguments are well known, about the need for training and expertise. They are irrelevant. The signs point to a future in which the United States will have to use its military might to control the Gulf Region. We do not have enough people to do that. We have to start preparing for that inevitability.

Critics will say that we cannot do that because the political climate is not primed. They want to believe that politics is like a video game, where, if we just drop enough of the right kind of bombs, we will win. In the case of Iran, that will not be so. We have to foresee a lengthy, difficult, campaign, that will probably cause many deaths, for the sake of preventing a nuclear armed hegemon from controlling the oil on which the rest of the world depends. This is not going to be achieved by pinpoint bombing (although we can try that, I suppose) nor by the callous brutality of area bombing, which will only inflame our opponents. We have to be prepared to invade, take over the country, and stay there. (One reason being, that an invasion of Iran will certainly destabilize Southern Iraq.)

In addition, America will not only have to get used to a draft but oil shortages, rationing of various goods, and all the other paraphernalia of a nation that takes war seriously. Anything less -- such as the current War on Terror -- communicates to the terrorists and jihadists that we are not in fact serious, and we think we can control serious threats by remote control, risking neither our lives nor even a rip to our trousers. We have to dispel that notion as well.

Need I add that we need a coalition as well. We should not be expected to go into this proposed conflict alone. Russia and China can be expected to oppose us. For that, we can make numerous tradeoffs and mutually assured threats.

I am not calling for an instant invasion of Iran. In the last analysis, it may not be necessary. But we should start getting ready, just in case. After all, we started the draft in World War Two almost a year before Pearl Harbor. We should prepare, and we should indicate that we are willing to fight, die, and sacrifice to defend our way of life. Prating about dropping superbombs on Iran indicates only that we are looking for quick fix to a serious geopolitical dilemma.

My call for mobilizing to a war footing has been mocked as unserious by some. I think it is inevitable. What we need is political and intellectual leadership to explain to the American people why preparation for such a war may be vital to our interest and our way of life.

If we continue bloviating about this or that bombing alternative we will accomplish nothing except to assure our enemies that we are weak ditherers who want an easy solution that doesn't muss our hair. If we actually simply carry out a limited (or even indiscriminate) bombing campaign to take out some aspect of Iran's nuclear technology, we run a fairly high risk of failure, and we will simply earn additional rage from our enemies, as well as cascading rage from the world's Muslim population. And, yes, the metrosexual fantasy of defeating Muslim fascism without breaking a carefully manicured fingernail is just that: a fantasy.

In the end, bombs here, bombs there: it's the way out of the cowardly, the lazy, and the ADD nation. If we really want a war, and win a war, let's get ready, and get serious. Our leadership is there to lead. They must lead. There are no quick fixes for problems of this magnitude. I am not looking forward to a war with Iran. I am not even sure we need to do it. But we should be getting ready, just in case.

Critical Thinking and Historically Based Action

2006-04-15T23:26:00.000-04:00

I agree that critical thinking is important to teach, but it's only half of what you need. In addition, one needs to be able to express oneself orally and in writing clearly and persuasively. In fact, the demands of the latter frequently helps with the former.

The need for critical thinking is less necessary in the sciences, because, well, there are rules. True, many people get by in the maths and sciences by rote memorization, but you don't stick around if you don't learn to master the material, make it your own, and analyze it. This the way most people develop critical skills in the first place.

Not to single anyone out, but, from what I have seen of the blogosphere, most of it consists of reactions to political events, and recourse to past political events (history) to put the current events in some kind of context, and from that context to infer the future.

The problem is that, with history, there is no "right" answer; The reason being that historical events are a congeries of events, and there is simply no way to "prove" with regard to a past event or series of a events that one single cause was more important than another, or many others. Furthermore, precisely because past events are past there is no way to test if a tweaking of a proposed cause would engender a radically different outcome. For this reason, I think it is clear that we have to accept that most interpretations of history and most interpretations of current events based on history are "non falsifiable", they can be neither proved nor disproved. Of course that doesn't mean we have to roll over and die, it just means we have to be modest in our arguments.

Most of the arguments that arise due to the use of historical materials (say, 20th C history), are due to saying, current event A is like past event B. And the argument can be made. But on the other hand someone else can come up and say, no, current event A is not like B, for such and such reasons, it is more like C, and so on. There really is no end to this dialectic (I mean this in the classical sense), until one side manages to create a cogent and persuasive edifice of logic that manages to set the tone until it is also eventually supplanted.

I don't say these things to be jaded or cynical. If you really study the history of historiography, as well as the political uses of history as historiography, I don't see how one can come to a different conclusion; as it says in one of my favorite religious books, "There is nothing new under the sun", and human history is not new. BTW, what I note about the tendency to extract facts about cause and effect in history also pertains to moral judgments derived from history: just because s.o. may be certain of his or her POV today, don't think that others at different times were equally sure of their POV's in the past, and I do think there is a bit of hubris in assuming that we, today, got it right (as opposed to all those dummies in the past.)

As for "And, after all, why else learn history, if not to help us act in the present and the future?" Well. I think the reason I have studied history most of my life is because it gives me insight into the human condition, to find out how people just like us coped with the various challenges of existence and attempted to solve them. It is a deepening experience, because, it allows you to live a thousand times.
I have to demur on the idea that an interpretation of the past can be a reliable guide to current or future politics because that interpretation rests on the assumption that the past bears a single interpretation of cause. It just does not.

I think I understand the background, if not exactly here, then at least the background Dr Sanity references. I would guess that it is about the WOT, and most currently Iran. Sanity writes "The pervasive denial of the reality of 9/11" -- which, whatever he or anyone else chooses to say about must be a matter of interpretation, and therefore non-falsifiable, and disputable, reveals the underlying agenda. The argument that is latent right now is that there is a clearcut historical narrative that explains what Iran now is (Nazi Germany) and there is therefore a clearcut path of action (something like, immediately bombing the hell out of it). It is being suggested (not necessarily by Neo) that those who do not accept this line of argument are trolls, or in denial, or incapable of critical thinking. If you step back from this, you can see that the line of argument is essentially setting up an argument that goes something like this: I believe that A is B, because, clearly, A is B, and anyone who doesn't see that A is B is either insincere, mentally ill, stupid, has a hidden agenda, or is a bad person. Nothing new here, either. Happens all the time: it is an attempt to take a non-falsifiable interpretation and turn it into an orthodox ideology.

I think a better approach to this whole matter is to recognize that no one is going to get everyone to agree all the time. It isn't possible; and sincere disagreement is one of those ugly realities of life, like tooth decay and death. To the point of attempting to influence politics, insofar as anyone in the blogosphere does that, one simply wants to make a clearcut argument for action based on logic and reasonable historical inferences. Then make the argument, and see what happens.

I do see in the post-9/11 mentality a tremendous increase in fear and anxiety; because most of the arguments I have seen for forceful, even brutal, action are based on fear: get them, before they get us. Well, hold on a minute. First, if we are driven by our fears, are we in control? Second, what can our enemies (however defined) actually do? Third, what were they able to do before 9/11, and how would we have successfully interdicted them at that time? Fourth, what will be the consequences of our actions, and are we willing -- as a nation -- to make the appropriate commitments? I don't know.

Going After Rumsfeld

2006-04-15T02:31:00.000-04:00

Over the past couple weeks several former Generals have called for Sec Def Rumsfeld's resignation. The main problem seems to have been mismanagement of the Iraq War in the post-war phase, which as we all know, has put the US in a kind of tar baby relationship with nation of Iraq.

I think the criticisms are justified, but I also think they miss the point. The war itself was brilliant, but it ended almost three years ago. The post-war has not (yet) been successful, because of a lack of manpower, a lack of planning, and so on. But how can that be blamed on Rumsfeld?

Rumsfeld did not deal with any complicated postwar scenarios because all of that would have called for pre-invasion allocations of funds, exploding the notion that the war would pay for itself. He ignored calls for complicated contingency plans for the political aftermath, because that would have made it clear that the bulk of US forces would not be leaving in three months and that an easy transfer of power to Chalabi and company was just wishful thinking. Nor could Rumsfeld have demanded a half a million troops -- in line with General Shinseki's estimates -- because that would have forestalled the invasion even further, and, moreover, I must confess that I am not sure that the Armed Forces of the United States even has the ability to deploy that many people, whether long term (in terms of tripartite rotations) or even in the short term.

Bottom line, Rumsfeld played the hand he was dealt by leadership above his pay grade. Even if he had been more prescient and less "stuff happens" in his approach, it wouldn't have made any difference. True, given the situation in Iraq and Rumsfeld's responsibility for that, the idea of him heading some kind of military action against Iran does not inspire confidence, to put it mildly. But ultimately his firing now would only be punitive, and he would probably just be replaced by someone else who would be only too eager to play with another hand dealt to him from the Oval Office.

I have to say I think Rumsfeld is being scapegoated here. And yet, people have to find a locus for their deep dissatisfaction and disillusionment with the way OIF has played out. Since Bush and Cheney seem immune, and, let's face it, they were re-elected, Rumsfeld is the guy, faute de mieux.

Pesach, Freedom, Easter, Dostoevsky: from Neo-Neocon

2006-04-14T16:42:00.000-04:00

My favorite host on the blogosphere is Neo-neocon. Various reasons. But in the month and a half I have been posting in this medium, 99% of my posts have gone there. So I will start posting them here, until I decide to post something really original.

Thanks for another rich post.

I am not a practicing religious person but I have had a lot of exposure to Christian and Jewish rituals and have affection for them. Even so I think the historical bases for both is probably more mythical than anything else. (ducks)

The notion of freedom is by necessity rather vague and thus hard to nail down, or view outside of some context.

In the case of Pesach, what is being celebrated is the deliverance of the Jewish people from bondage by the Almighty, thus is it above a celebration of that supreme being, and the special bond the Jewish people have with him by being loyal to their covenant. Yes, it is about freedom in a certain sense, but, of course it is not about freedom in the libertarian sense.

If Passover emphasizes the unity of the Jewish people by their promise to the Almighty, Easter emphasizes the unity of the believers with the risen Christ.

So the one holiday collapses time, and the other, space, for the faithful.

We in the West for a century or more have become accustomed to what might be called pluralistic ideologies, I mean, the notion that a plurality of intepretations of the world, a plurality of codes of conduct, and a plurality of individual life choices can co-exist without rancor. As a result we tend to look down our noses at societies that are "closed" (in Popper's sense), perhaps forgetting that most societies for most of human history have been run by unitary ideologies that do not tolerate dissent: and, BTW, that includes much of Jewish and Christian history, as well.

Anyway, the problem with our Muslim friends is that they are at that moment now. They have long lived under the single ideology of Allah, and now that it being threatened by their exposure to the West. So the are retreating into a kind of reactionary ideology, where fear and force are in play. And, yes, Nazism and Communism were very similar to these. And they are very different from us and therefore very scary in that way. I have that fear, and I also fear that we might become more like them, because of the challenge and threat they represent to us.

However, it's important to recognize that they are dealing from a position of weakness, despite their bluster and their (possible) WMD's, and their evident brutality (Moussaioui). They are attempting to impose an ideological straight jacket that will not hold. Unfortunately, the future of the Muslim world is going to be somewhat like the history of Europe from the French Revolution through the fall of Communism, not very pleasant, and possibly very dangerous, but, what we can do is try to manage it. We will not be able to control it.

Dostoevsky was a revolutionary in his youth: a believer that organized religion (read: organized unitary ideologies) were all mere engines of social control preventing sacred individuals from fulfilling their destiny. But when he got older he returned to faith, and thus he represents more Alyosha than Ivan by the time he wrote Karamazov.

The story really isn't that ambiguous because everyone who doesn't share a faith regards it as a phony edifice of control. Thus, everyone is Ivan. On the other hand, everyone also recognizes, when we listen to our better nature, that we need some kind of structure of values, including ethical values or spiritual values, in order to survive, and in order to love each other.

The key element is how one views the Deity: IOW, is there a overarching purpose to our lives, and, if there is, how should that guide us? Or is life just something into which we have been radically thrown, and if we live just for our own fulfillment, how long before the material comforts become dust and ashes?

I am rather sure that FD would have considered Ivan's position as one that ultimately led to solipsistic despair, and even the embrace of a newfangled unitary ideology like "totalitarianism." He would have said, instead, that the notion of finding purpose, and meaning, to life, as well as immortality, through active love, was the solution, and, mythic or no, that is what Jesus Christ is supposed to represent.

As a conservative, I am much more responsive to the old ideologies of the past, including, but not limited to Christianity and Judaism, which recognize that perfection is not possible, that human beings are weak and base, that life is, on an individual basis, a single breath in endless time, and that ego is the most pernicious of concepts.

For this reason, while I am not a believer, I think the old beliefs are a better guide to meaning than the newfangled Enlightenment ones. Freedom in that sense means, first, knowing that freedom is not about being enslaved by your ego desires, but by knowing your duty, based on what you are and your abilities, before the Most High. This is a spiritual insight, found in all the great religions and even in some great poetry.

Happy Holidays to you too.

My Response to an Iranian Lady

2006-04-14T11:19:00.000-04:00

I think what's driving most of the pro-war crowd is fear. That is understandable. 9/11 was a terrible event and I will just say for the sake of keeping myself out of it that it touched me more directly than I will say here.But 9/11 did externalize fears about a terrorist nuclear weapon that many esp in New York have had for a long time: at least since 1993. That has to be kept in mind.

It would of course be frightening to have a superpower like the USA determine its foreign policy on the basis of fear. That is why I don't think it will happen. But it could. The governments of Nazi Germany and particularly Stalinist Russia -- and the politics of the USA during the Red Scare, both in the teens and fifties -- were also dominated by fear.

The problem is that it is difficult to allay these fears. Nuclear weapons exist. The prospect of seeing yourself, your family, or some city in the US being incinerated in a tenth of a second is real, even if it is very remote.That is what really fueled the support for the invasion of Iraq and that clearly is what is fueling the support for the bombing of Iran, and basically, the entire Muslim world.

The problem is that we have to live with this fear. If we start trying to take out EVERYONE who might hurt us with a nuke or whatever, we will never stop. And mass hysteria, governed by fear, has a bad track record of going after its own after all the obvious external threats are neutralized. Another turn on the phrase, "revolution devouring its own children."I think we, as a nation, have a bit of a mass sickness here, a mass sickness facilitated by the nature of internet communication, which, for many serves as a sink for all of our deep down impulses, some of which are quite base and destructive.

Having said that, I would prefer no more nuclear proliferation. But I cannot endorse the promiscuous use of force. The 20th Century is about that: and if we really want to learn any lessons from history, we have to learn that.

I also have to tell you, Nargess, that, being an American, I have to rate my country higher than anyone else's. That is wrong, before God, but it is the weakness of nationalism. My country will take steps to protect itself and it will take steps to preserve our way of life and our way of consumption. Naturally, I would PREFER that this be done with a minimum of violence, and with an awareness that all life deserves its right to dignity, to flourish, and to have its day in the sun.

My best to you.

Ground Zero

2006-03-02T22:00:00.000-05:00

Well, I discovered this blog universe recently so I thought I might give it a shot. We'll see how it goes.