Donovan’s whereIstand Blog

I seldom feel a great need to rant in my posts.  However, given the plethora of public relations pieces masquerading as news, sometimes, one must provide a second opinion.

Take Awalnet.  The worst DSL service I have ever seen, anywhere, bar none.  You’d think Awalnet/Saudi Arabia would have figured out how technology works in the intervening 9 years.  They’ve certainly paid enough money for it.

AwalNet, the Saudi Arabian ISP, has upgraded its infrastructure in collaboration with the Saudi Telecom Company. The new bandwidth of AwalNet’s national network has now been boosted up to 5 Gigabit, thus helping to reduce bottlenecks and crank up browsing and downloading speeds. (Source: AME)

The article is titled "Awalnet gets quicker" - but the fact is, for the last month, Awalnet has gotten much SLOWER - and more unreliable.  Web pages that routinely opened six months ago (e.g., Gmail, and others) now seldom open - or when they open, they lock up.
At the end of the day - the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has paid the most billions of dollars for internet service, then turned around and crippled it.

I know that of which I speak.  I’ve used internet services in sub-Saharan Africa and war-torn Afghanistan - I’ve built internet services in the U.S., including one of the first DSL networks deployed for residential/commercial users in the States, and I’ve deployed VSATs in other regions. 

Given the billions of dollars squandered on telecommunications here - you kind of have to wonder: whose lining their pockets at the expense of the people here?  And how come nobody can say anything?

whereIstand Tags

• [open thread]

MisterE strongly opposes the lack of material support for our troops.  Often, I find myself similarly outraged - it is too easy to fly a flag and make a speech praising our troops when the cameras are on you - then hand money to the nice men in suits who will bankroll your political career when the cameras are gone.

But after listing a fairly long-standinging group of complaints (esp. the lack of armor, whether personal or vehicle), MisterE wrongly concludes

This is conservative republican bull shit for you. Sacrifice people’s lives for money.

Failing to support troops is NOT conservative politics of any kind.

First, some political theory:

• Conservative theory focuses on giving to others what they’ve earned and meeting responsibilities.
• Liberal theory focuses on producing the most that is possible while renewing the community and avoiding harms to any group.  Troops should be given certain provisions, balanced against other national priorities.
• A  libertarian believes that society will spread wealth in the most efficient manner, unless government interferes.  Thus, our troops are already getting everything that they’re entitled to - unless the government stopped them from getting it.

Now, conservatives and liberals would both probably seek to ensure that the troops have the armor they require - but they’d see it differently. 

Conservatives would say, "We must give whatever is required to those who risk their lives for our country!" 

Liberals would say - "Gee, for the price of one nuclear attack submarine, we could provide every troop with body armor AND outfit all the vehicles with some form of hardening…"

And a libertarian?  "Well, we’re already paying for what we ought to pay - unless the government somehow screwed it all up."

Take the two libertarian variants on arguments:

(1) States rights. Libertarians oppose government intervention, and federal government intervention most of all.  Which means - if the people of Idaho want to leave their troops naked and vulnerable, they’re entitled to do so.

It’s necessary for our freedom that Idaho national guard stand out there without armor - because, if the federal government were to give a handout to Idaho, then they would destroy the freedom.

Of course nobody makes this argument this way - they only make it for abortion and other issues.  The joys of logical consistency…

(2)  Free market arguments.  Technically, this is a bad argument. A "national military" is a quintessential "non-free market" solution to security problems: if we really wanted a free market here, we’d privatize the military entirely (aka, mercenaries, or the modern equivalent, "private security consultants.")

Now, since the military can never be a truly "free market" system - we have to figure out "how free" is appropriate.

For it to be a capitalist system, the providers of essential equipment must operate from a profit motive.  Which means, they have to earn profits - at the expense of the troops.

Which shouldn’t be a major problem.  After all, some $400 billion has been spent on Iraq by now - and it’d only cost about $2-3 billion for body armor.  Surely there’s enough profit left over, right?

Which moves the discussion into a slightly different direction - one that a true libertarian can’t comprehend: "how much profit is fair?"

The libertarian can’t even consider this question:  whatever the market gives is "fair" - unless someone interferes with the market and steals.  If someone at Hailburton, et. al., engaged in a crime - then they’ve distorted the market.  Otherwise, all is well.

And there’s the rub: the contractors, being anything but stupid, seldom engage in overt crimes - and yet, the market, despite a massive budget outlay, has failed to provide body armor that the troops need (and failed to equip their vehicles to protect against roadside bombs). 

whereIstand Tags

• MisterE
• Should the U.S. act to stop the genocide in Darfur, Sudan?
• Based on the information available at the time of the invasion of Iraq, was it justified?
• Is a civil war likely in Iraq?
• [open thread]

Is it logical to expect poor people to exercise MUCH better financial judgment than rich people?

The question seems odd.  After all, look at the self-help section in any bookstore, and you’ll find hundreds of titles by rich people about how to get richer.

But the thing is, if one expects poor people to get wealthier by saving their money, then one expects them to exercise a far greater level of financial discipline than one expects from the wealthy.  Ironic, no?

Terp, who works daily with the poor (as I have and continue to do, albeit in a very different capacity), says this in my post on political theory:

i can tell you, most are poor because they and their families made poor financial decisions. consider most of the gang bangers with whom i deal: these kids worry about food and shelter, but have ipods and new bball shoes.

That is the standard wisdom of most conservative thinkers: the poor are poor because they did it to themselves.

Let’s consider some of Terp’s kids.  Say one of her kids is actually working at a fast food joint, and is earning about $10,000 a year after taxes. 

Say that kid "squanders" $500 (just about enough to buy two pairs of BBall shoes and one iPod, more or less). 

This kid has made a decision to squandering" 5% of their income.  We know nothing about the other 95% - which may (or may not) have been wisely spent.

Now consider the guy who makes a profit of $100,000 a year (after taxes), and squanders $20,000 on exactly the same items (100 pairs of BBall shoes and 100 iPods, or so).  We know nothing about the other 80%.

Now, in such a case, the rich person has probably shown much worse judgment than the poor person.  But the rich person comes out ahead?  Why?

Well, two main reasons:

(1) Even when the wealthier person squanders a major quantity of money, that remaining $80,000 is sufficient to build wealth.

(2) The rich person’s ridiculous purchases actually generated sellable assets - maybe he takes a loss, but he can recover somewhat by dumping the extravagance on eBay. 

This is the case more often than you’d think: squander $20k on a vacation in the Maldives - and you’ll find yourself surrounded by wealthy investors who frequent that location - those contacts are gold. (Which goes to say - corporations aren’t as stupid as some people think when they schedule vacations/board meetings in Bermuda).  Same principle works for high fashion items, expensive cars, artworks, and many other "extravagances."

But if a poor person squanders any sum of money, they fall backwards quickly.

For a poor person to become wealthy (or even middle class) - they have to show MUCH better financial judgment than the rich people. 

Maybe it seems reasonable to some to expect a 100% "wise choice" on resource expenditures from poor people, while tolerating an 80% "wise choice" by rich people.  It doesn’t seem reasonable to me - or fair.  I think it’s likely that people make a fairly constant number of poor decisions, regardless of social class.  But - as is often the case - any mistake by the poor has a much larger impact on their possibilities.  Meanwhile, the mistakes of the rich are merely set-backs, which sometimes generate larger profits.

Now - my approach also has the advantage over the "bad character" school of being empirically testable:  just look around the world.  Go to the poorer countries - you’ll often find people saving at a much higher rate than in America, but still falling backwards.  Why? 

It COULD be that these people are not exercising enough fiscal wisdom.

It COULD also be that structural matters have a much greater importance on total wealth than character.

I tend to favor the latter - simply because it makes no sense to expect poor people to be so much smarter than rich people.  People are people, the world round - they do the best they can under the circumstances in which they live - and they make mistakes.  But it just ain’t fair to expect perfection from them as a prerequisite for moving up - particularly when the people who are actually moving up have never shown it, don’t need to show it, and may be better off when they abandon some of the "wise financial planning" ideas.

By the way - I just noticed that this post came under the issue, "Is capitalism the most effective economic system?"  I still think it is - but ONLY if we can clear away our unhelpful, irrational expectations - like that ridiculous expectation that poor people have caused their own poverty by their bad choices.

whereIstand Tags

• Is capitalism the most effective economic system?
• Is the two-party system an effective means of governing?
• Should the U.S. have political party affiliations?
• Will the Left and Right ever find a way to live with each other in a civilized manner?
• [open thread]
• Should the government regulate marriage?
• Do people have a right to affordable healthcare?
• Should homosexuals be allowed to enter the clergy?
• [Open Thread]

In 2002, the CIA (and most of the rest of the intelligence agencies) challenged the Bush Administration behind closed doors regarding their assessment that Saddam-Osama were somehow linked together. (In public, Tenet strongly supported Bush - because that’s his job.)

But Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the Republican core wanted a war - regardless as to whether it was justified.  Tenet, Powell, and others went along with it.  I suspect their reasoning was along the lines of "these guys are insane - I need to stick around so at least there’s some competent people on the ground."

But now they’re all gone.

WASHINGTON – As the Bush administration began assembling its case for war, analysts across the U.S. intelligence community were disturbed by the report of a secret Pentagon team that concluded Iraq had significant ties to al-Qaida.

Analysts from the CIA and other agencies “disagreed with more than 50 percent” of 26 findings the Pentagon team laid out in a controversial paper, according to testimony Friday from Thomas Gimble, the acting inspector general of the Pentagon.

The dueling groups sat down at CIA headquarters in late August 2002 to try to work out their differences. But while the CIA agreed to minor modifications in some of its own reports, Gimble said, the Pentagon unit was utterly unbowed. “They didn’t make the changes that were talked about in that Aug. 20 meeting,” Gimble said, and instead went on to present their deeply flawed findings to senior officials at the White House. (Source: LA Times)

By now, every American ought to know about the Feith "dis-intelligence" unit: that group of amateur intelligence hacks turned public relations officials who wanted to justify a war, and did so.

The Bush Jr. Administration and Osama were always deeper and stronger than the links between Osama-Saddam.  Indeed, Osama pledged to lead the fight against Saddam, and his philosophy was always ardently opposed to all Saddam stood for.

I suppose it’s possible that Osama "thinks" like a Republican (e.g., "the enemy of my enemy is my friend").  But I don’t think so.  For as I can see, OBL is too ideologically set in his ways to embrace the other side like this (hence: OBL set up some operations in Kurdish controlled zones in Iraq - the areas where Saddam had no power).

Now, Washington is proposing that Iranian Shi’as are arming the Iraqi Sunni opposition (which, in turn, is killing Iraqi Shi’as). 

Sure: we have two possibilities:
(1) Iran has abandoned its core ideology, is acting just like the Republicans, is now showing Machiavellian rationality, but has no sense of their friends and enemies, and is handing over money to their avowed enemies who wish to kill them and destroy their influence in Iraq, OR

(2) Bush is covering up for woeful handling of the financial affairs, which may have led to funds being contributed to the Iraqi insurgents now killing Americans

My question: why should anyone believe (1), rather than (2)?

"Ye shall know them by their fruits…"

whereIstand Tags

• Based on the information available at the time of the invasion of Iraq, was it justified?
• Based on the information available now, was the invasion of Iraq justified?

Under the terms of Clinton era anti-terrorism legislation, anyone who funds a terrorist organization has committed a crime.

Under the terms of the Patriot Act, even unknowingly funding such organizations can be a crime.  People who negligently hand over their money can be arrested and prosecuted in America. 

Raising a fascinating question: if Bush mishandled the funds sent to Iraq - could he be prosecuted?

The irony is glaring.  Just as Reagan’s uncontrolled support helped finance OBL’s operations, and thereby helped build AQ - it is possible that Bush Jr. helped fund the insurgents now killing Americans in Iraq (and many more Iraqis).

[The Congressional Report] It noted that though one Iraqi ministry had 8,206 on the payroll, CPA officials could confirm that only 602 of them actually worked there. Today, Waxman raised another, more ominous possibility — that reconstruction funding may have wound up in the hands of insurgents and other militant factions. (Source: MoJo)

How oddly appropriate.  In Reagan’s case, the great error about Osama consisted of believing that "realist" claim that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."  Reagan, a foreign policy dunce whose team helped build the guy who attacked America - can be posthumously forgiven: nobody saw that coming (except many, many Afghans who criticized the funding decision and were called "naive" by smarter Reagan officials who returned to power with Bush Jr.).

Bush Jr., on the other hand, represents a mistake of a catastrophic proportion.

While some conservative Americans have been whining about the possibility that "some of dem durn n!gs in N’Orleans wasted dat Katrina money!" - their President oversaw a war and reconstruction effort which MAY have aided and abetted the people who are now killing American troops.

Now, Bush made a statement in 2001 that all those who "aid and abet" our enemies will be destroyed.

If even $100 dollars of U.S. money landed in insurgent hands - an American can be put away for a lengthy prison term.  Negligence is not an excuse - a mistake of this kind is no protection.

I take it, our President is about ready to fall on his sword?  Any moment now?

By the way, the answer to my rhetorical question is "No" - because (a) the president cannot be prosecuted for this crime while sitting as president, and (b) "criminal incompetence" is not yet recognized as a prosecutable offense.

whereIstand Tags

• [open thread]
• [open thread]

One of my self-appointed duties on WIS is correcting mistaken understandings of political theory.  Having spent many years studying politics, economics, and law, I am not coming to this from one or two on-line articles under the belt.

Thus - to respond to Shaun’s political theory discussion.   Shaun made that classic mistake of jumping from one source (aka, wikipedia) to a conclusion (e.g., "one piece of raw intelligence says that Osama and Saddam are bosom buddies, therefore it must be true - I saw it on the ‘net somewhere…"). 

Liberals - both classical and modern - do it as well, and in the end, all terms cease to mean anything other than "I like it," and "I hate it" - which is to say, objective discourse becomes impossible, and relativism governs (and those who oppose relativism the most become the most guilty of it).

Let’s consider: 

modern liberalism is nothing like its classical conservative counterpart….  To me that sounds like pure conservatism. In reading further, I found that’s exactly what it is.

If "classical liberalism" - dating back to the Greeks (who held liberalism as the second highest virtue) - is just like conservatives, then there’s a lot more Ted Haggards out there in the conservative camp. The Greeks, after all, embraced homosexuality (particularly man-boy relationships).  As did, in fact, quite a fair number of the more modern classical liberals in the Oxford/Cambridge schools (well, not the man-boy part of it, as I understand it).

 I had no idea that conservatives had embraced abortion (in a free market, decisions as to child birth are not made by the government but by market forces). 

I had no idea that conservatives had embraced pornography, gambling, prostitution, and the like (also, in a free market, these moral decisions are not manipulated by governmental actors).

Either Shaun misunderstands what he’s talking about, or he’s not a conservative, or all the conservatives have had a miraculous conversion that occurred without anyone’s noticing.

Shaun’s article refers sweepingly to

Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill,

I highly recommend reading all of them yourself.

Adam Smith (who coined the term, "invisible hand") was not a laissez faire proponent at all.  He was an opponent of mercantilism, asserting that capitalism offered far better efficiency for a variety of reasons.  (Shaun, on the contrary, is afraid of the international legal order that makes capitalism possible - and prefers mercantilism, as he would prefer to maintain American control over American trade - rather than trust the markets which depend on mutually shared rules, e.g., the WTO.)

J.S. Mill in particular forms the link between "classical" and "modern" liberalism. Mill, developing Benthamite theories of utilitarianism, posited a mechanism for judging performance based on the maximum amount of happiness produced, while avoiding as much pain as possible.

Mill’s theories form the fundamental basis of modern liberalism.  What Shaun sees as liberal theories to "shrink the pie to more evenly distribute it" - Mill saw as "maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain." 

Then again - the classical liberals (the real ones, not the ones cited in some inept article) - had very distinctive notions of what it meant for the government not to interfere with the markets than what most laissez-faire theorists postulate.

Next - Shaun refers to Alexis de Tocqueville -

In a country where the majority is ill-clothed, ill-housed, ill-fed, who thinks of giving clean clothes, healthy food, comfortable quarters to the poor?

Two responses.  First: I’m glad Shaun is willing to refer to a French political theorist to understand America. 

Second - de Tocqueville, it turns out, was totally wrong on this point - a matter demonstrated by social science that wasn’t available in his time.  Never having spent much time in poor countries (indeed, America in that time was the first poor country he observed) - de Tocqueville’s proposition is empirically incorrect.

In most of the poorest countries, the "less poor" people give a larger portion of their income to the the "poorest" poor people than the rich (in general) do in the rich countries.  This isn’t entirely out of benevolence: it helps prevent a revolution, and other nastiness.

Modern liberalism is willing to decrease the total pie in an attempt to give everyone an equal slice. Classical liberalism had the idea that even though the pie may not be evenly sliced, everyone would have a bigger piece in the end.

Utterly, incontrovertibly wrong (and also an illustration of the convenient conservative evasion of reality: although the stock market tends to rise during conservative governments, the total pie in America tends to shrink AND the poorest get poorer).

Classical liberals thought that government might be an appropriate mechanism for constraining a problem known as "the tragedy of the commons" (or, a useful tool for building "public goods" and constraining "public bads").  Particularly as industrialization took off - they realized that completely unconstrained markets would pose massive problems - the biggest of which involved pollution (e.g., Victorian England coal-blacked smog).

More modern liberals thought that government might be an appropriate mechanism for preventing disequilibrium.  See, the periods of "laissez faire" economics produced a cycle of massive booms and massive busts.  One of those busts, known as "the Great Depression," suggested to many observers that government ought to get involved in fixing some of the worst problems - because if it didn’t, those problems could get even worse than just a bunch of unemployed, starving people (e.g., they might overthrow the government and create a Soviet regime).

I believe it is not government’s job to slice the pie.

Fortunately - so do the liberals (both classical and modern).  Communists thought otherwise.  Liberals thought that the best way to ensure the pie keeps growing is to spread the benefits of it as broadly as possible (without unfairly taking from any one group).

Now, that particular theory formed the basis for the American settlement of the West (note: Native Americans were conspicuously left out of the "spread the benefits" equation back then).  The idea was, if you let a few rich families take over all the land, it won’t get used.  If you let the poorer people benefit by owning the land, they’ll use it better - more stuff gets grown - more investment - more prosperity for the country as a whole.

It sort of worked. ("Sort of" because farming, the best example of a ‘perfect market’ - is also the most unpredictable, unstable profession.)

Because of the relationship between socialism and communism, many liberals shy away from this description. Unfortunately, it is all too accurate.

Shaun is talking out of his butt here.  Consider:

if "the qualified acceptance of government intervention in the economy = socialism"…

…then the internet is a socialist ploy. (I hadn’t realized that the Pentagon was controlled by socialists.)  It’s a perfect example of "qualified government intervention" - the government invested, the government created, the government regulated, the government subsidized the placement of the backbones - all government. 

By the way - all the freeways (whether digital or physical) would also be "socialist" (even state turnpikes, which typically involve state/municipal bonds).

So would space flight.  Hadn’t thought NASA was a commie agency.  (And all those mobile companies that later benefited from technology derived from space?  Bunch a Commies!)

Now here’s an interesting observation:

So, according to this [highly distorted representation of classical liberal] philosophy, healthcare, social security, education, property, etc. should be managed by a free-market system, not by the federal government. None of these things is a right.

Indeed.  Why not privatize crime control as well?  And the military - we could eradicate the Pentagon and have an all mercenary force.  Why not?

My comment actually invokes a dispute as to what ought to qualify as a "public good" - most people think "national security" is a public good that is better served by having a military that can build tanks, jets, and aircraft carriers than by having a host of private security guards roaming around.

The politics of "health care" involve how to increase the total size of the pie - it’s not that people have a "right" to health care, it’s that if we treat health the same way we treat military security (and freeway building, and space flight, and certain technological developmetns) - then we might achieve more than if we each acted independently.

Note the bolded word "might."  We can’t know for sure if this will happen, and if we do attain benefits, some groups will also pay something to acquire them.  Will those costs outweigh the benefits?  Hard to say.  That’s why there’s a debate underway.

What Shaun is doing, though, in misrepresenting the opposed position, is erecting straw men ("You’re all a bunch of communists!") so that he never has to read any of those philosophers he cites - and can lazily denounce the other for taking a position they never adopted, which he never understood (but knows is "bad").

The link between "classical liberalism and libertarianism"

Shaun concludes that "classical liberals" are "very similar" to modern libertarians.

Well - most libertarians would say that it’s not a matter of "similarity" - so much as identity.  Modern libertarians are much more like classical liberals than conservatives (unless conservatives have embraced homosexuality, abortion, removing the effects of religion on society, the exclusive use of prisons to "reform" rather than to punish and the elimination of most other criminal laws, the legalization of marijuana and other drugs, and a host of other policies).

Now, as indicated, there are some distinctive points of departure between modern and classical liberals. 

Classical liberals, for the most part, opposed the landed aristocracy, and were most concerned about how to enhance the general welfare of the community by weakening this landed, government-linked nobility.

As the landed nobles became increasingly irrelevant to economic affairs - the problem of "how best to increase efficiency" became the principle consideration of economics.  They realized a fairly obvious thing:

If the laissez-faire of the Roaring 20s led to the Great Depression - who could call this an efficient system?  Yeah, efficient for a few years, but come on!  (Maybe Shaun likes depressions?)

To conclude with Shaun’s conclusion

What does this tell me about liberals? It’s not just their philosophies that are deceptive, it’s their name, too.

Well, as I say, if you’re prepared to embrace abortion, homosexuality, legalizing drugs, prostitution, and porn - well, then you are prepared to be a "classical liberal."

I suspect though that either Shaun has a problem with those items - and with classical liberalism itself - or he’s performed the most tragic sort of deception of all - self-delusion.

whereIstand Tags

• Is capitalism the most effective economic system?
• Is the two-party system an effective means of governing?
• Should the U.S. have political party affiliations?
• Will the Left and Right ever find a way to live with each other in a civilized manner?
• [open thread]
• Should the government regulate marriage?
• Do people have a right to affordable healthcare?
• Should homosexuals be allowed to enter the clergy?
• [Open Thread]

The following story ought to surprise no one:

A special unit run by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s top policy aide inappropriately produced "alternative" prewar intelligence reports on Iraq that wrongly concluded Saddam Hussein’s regime had cooperated with Al Qaeda, a Pentagon investigation has determined.

The Department of Defense Inspector General’s Office found that former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith and his staff had done nothing illegal. (Source: Chicago Tribune)

Not illegal?  Of course not: there is nothing illegal in this country about advocating war.  One is free to speak one’s mind at any time.

But I do find it odd that a man who led at least 3000 Americans to their deaths based on a mistake feels "exonerated."

It’s not that Feith "lied" - it’s that his error of judgment has cost lives, destroyed families, squandered our budget. 

Our country has very little to fear from terrorists - they can sneak up and launch a punch to the groin - but they can never destroy our country unless we let them do so.

But the Doug Feith’s of our policy establishment CAN do damage that terrorists can never do.

I hope he feels exonerated, having achieved more harm for the country than the terrorists.

As for me: while I don’t favor the traditional Japanese solution when one has erred catastrophically, I’d at least respect a man who admitted his errors, rather than counting on the cooperation of a propaganda machine to convert errors into wisdom.

whereIstand Tags

• Based on the information available at the time of the invasion of Iraq, was it justified?
• Based on the information available now, was the invasion of Iraq justified?
• [open thread]
• [open thread]

In China, and in many countries in the Middle East (and elsewhere), insulting the government is considered a criminal offense.  Government officials monitor such posts and blogs, looking to apprehend undesirables.

And American security contractors, for the most part, teach these governments how to do it.  After all, while the governments might get a few activists, they might also get a terrorist every now and then.  Maybe. (That’s assuming that terrorists are stupid - which is exactly the sort of thinking that enabled the 9-11 folks to work their malice.)

Consider this piece of news, lost in the November electioneering -

Rami Siyam, who blogs under the name of Ayyoub, was detained along with three friends after leaving the house of a fellow blogger late at night. (Source: BBC, 20 Nov 2006)

It continues this week - while some twiddle about abuses in America, the usual customers are attempting to rally someone -

Amnesty International today called for the immediate and unconditional release of Karim Amer, the first Egyptian blogger to be tried for writing blogs criticizing Egypt’s al-Azhar religious authorities, President Husni Mubarak and Islam. (Source: IndyMedia, 1 Feb 2007)

As a blogger in the Middle East (and as a lawyer with more than a passing interest in human rights) - I know the scoop.

What boggles my mind is that here are people putting their lives on the line in the cause of freedom and justice - while folks who should be cheering for them in America, are busily demeaning and denouncing them. 

And empowering the governments that want to apprehend them.

And calling for them to rise up - push for reforms - then walking away from them.

In this, Bush Jr. has shown precisely the same mettle as his father after the first Iraq War - calling for people to rise up against oppressors, then backing down.

Thing is, these are the few, stalwart, courageous voices that reject both the status quo AND the Islamist new guard.

Oddly enough, Israel also cracked down on the moderates - paving the way for their own unhappy scenario. 

Those moderates, over time, withdraw - immigrate, flee, find jobs and shut up - leaving the only viable opposition in the hands of the Islamists.

And our response?  Hand over a couple million dollars to U.S. contractors who will advise local governments on aid and reform - and wash our hands.  Meanwhile - condemn Muslims for their backwardness (even when they do precisely what so many in America say we ought to do) - and start prophesying a massive war….

To borrow Kurt Vonnegut’s expression - so it goes.   God, I wish I knew how to stop this - there’s nothing I can do for/to the Arab world - no counsel, no advice that will be received - but sometimes, I wish I could convince my own country to stop adding fuel to the fire…or at least, to hold itself accountable for so doing.

whereIstand Tags

• [Open Thread]
• open thread
• [open thread]

Say the word "treaty" and people will suddenly get all cock-eyed.  "You mean trust them durn fur’ners? You mean let them have control over us?!  You traitor!"

Funny.  Such folks pretend to be capitalists - but don’t understand that the basis of capitalism is contracts - which is all a treaty is. 

Such pseudo-capitalists are akin to one who claimed to be a Christian, but vehemently rejected Jesus, the Bible, God, and all that rot - and was only a Christian because, like, that’s where the cool parties happen (and all those other guys are evil).

Why should U.S. military action strive - whenever possible, and to the maximum extent possible - to conform with treaties? 

Simple answer:

(1) It makes the military more effective.
(2) It prevents the military from being abused by others (and by ourselves).

Now, the second item can be hard to believe.  After all, "them fur’ners are evil!"  Well, perhaps so.  But consider: most people also think the Nazis were evil, and for some pretty convincing reasons.  But the Nazis never broke conventions on the use of chemical weapons in war that were signed by Germany after World War I. 

So: the problem isn’t that evil people will always break treaties, the problem is whether good people ought to abide by them.

And here, we come back to the first point: treaties make our military more effective.  How’s that?

Well, there’s several effects of treaties.  First, they organize and regulate a large alliance - and generally, such alliances are a key element in winning a victory at a reasonable cost.

Second, they clarify roles and responsibilities for our soldiers.  Discipline being the cornerstone of a modern military - the treaty rules (which our military takes more seriously than our president) guide them in how to apply discipline and maintain it.

Third, they affect the conduct of enemies that wish to present themselves as legitimate.  (Bad guys, terrorists, and pirates - who care nothing for how they are perceived - don’t abide by treaties - but states are more powerful than any of those actors, and they generally do).

Fourth, they regulate the structure of the economic links that make a military possible.

Dump the treaties - and try running our tanks without petroleum.

Dump the treaties - and see if our missile systems can reach their targets from 8000 miles away (since they can’t fly over any other countries without getting shot down).

Of course, there is an alternative to treaties: the U.S. could directly conquer the world, and destroy every other government, replacing them with our own, and firmly establish a global empire.

That’s not an option I’d care to take seriously.  After all, we have enough trouble just keeping control over the 15 square miles of Baghdad - let alone the globe.

whereIstand Tags

• Should US military action be governed by international treaties?

Somehow, this story doesn’t surprise me…

RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA — A Saudi Arabian judge sentenced 20 foreigners to receive lashes and spend several months in prison after convicting them of attending a party where alcohol was served and at which men and women danced, a newspaper reported Sunday. (Source: AP, via Houston Chronicle)

When Saudi Arabia instituted partial municipal elections, the Islamist parties won in considerable numbers. Since they lack much power in the municipalities (or rather, much budget), their agenda has been little more than promoting morality as forcefully as they possibly can - banning dogs and cats, and encouraging the police to crack down on foreigners.

You’d think the municipalities might pay more attention to fixing their water, roads, and other infrastructure - but that might involve cracking down on Saudis.  Given budget constraints (yes, even with the oil boom, they have severe budget constraints) - it’s much easier (and more popular) to blame foreigners for all the problems.

Blaming foreigners and discouraging them from coming, the Islamist factions are building their bloc of support for the next round of elections - showing that they’ve helped protect Saudi jobs (of course, the Saudis also frequent these parties, dance with girls, and drink, but they’ve more pull in evading enforcement and keeping it all hush-hush). 

Lastly - if they can ensure that foreign investment is blocked - they can weaken their rivals in the non-Islamist camps (er, more accurately, the few individuals who will not take a "more Muslim than thou" posture - since there is no non-Muslim camp at all, for the most part).

As usual - the morality of politics and the politics of morality are routinely in play, for those who know what to look for.

In this, Saudis are quite similar to American xenophobes.  Islam, like numerous sects of Christianity, prohibits alcohol and dancing, and Muslims, like Americans of 80 years ago, will arrest folks for such parties.

My big complaint?  I didn’t even get an invitation… (course, it was 800 miles away from me…)

whereIstand Tags

• [open thread]
• [open thread]
• [open thread]
• [Open Thread]
• [Open Thread]