09.28.09
Posted in Foreign Affairs, Current Events at 11:50 am by diantus
Afghanistan has returned to the headlines. General McChrystal has come forward and told the president with little ambiguity that without additional resources, our armies will be unable to hold onto that country. Almost immediately analysts on both sides started coming down for either withdrawal, or for a major revision of strategy and tactics - neither of which would involve stabilizing Afghanistan. Of course, missing from these debates are serious considerations of either the future of American foreign policy or the future of the Afghan people. For the sake of all parties, we cannot simply return home. Like it or not, our short attention span and proclivity for war fever have indeed tied our fate to that of unhappy Afghanistan. What is needed in a dramatic shift in our perception of the conflict to one that fits the conditions of the country and our relationship to it.
However, there are a couple of claims that needs to be dealt with to understand why we are misreading the nature of this conflict. The first that deserves some attention is the idea that Afghanistan will somehow turn out just like Vietnam. The Vietnamese, so it goes, also unconquerable, withstood the might of American military force and fought us to a virtual standstill while driving public opinion over the precipice and against any further involvement. Afghanistan, it is popularly believed, has a great deal in common with Vietnam. Of course - Vietnam is not Afghanistan. Vietnam, a country with a long and proud tradition of ethnic and national identity was a nation accustomed to centralized government. They possessed cultural traditions that made easy room for a system of organized rule that could be translated into a nation state.
The problem in Vietnam was never that the “borders were too porous” or “the people to tribal to be ruled.” If that were the case, the communists never would have commanded such broad support. The Vietminh were a nationalist movement attempting to to secure an independent future for their country. The Vietnam War was never a question of how much force, or how best to secure public support; it was a question of how to disassociate ourselves from the legacy of colonialism while fighting an anti-colonial movement; an effectively impossible task. The war was initiated under false pretenses against an enemy that we shouldn’t have been fighting in the first place - we misread the nature of the Vietnamese communist movement. The war in Vietnam turned into a campaign to reassert western dominance in a region trying to break free from such things. We should not have been supporting the French in the first place, and would have done better to foster a more peaceful transition to independence. Hindsight, of course, is 20-20.
Afghanistan is a wholly different sort of war. There is not now, nor has there ever really been, an Afghan state to speak of. The tribal coalitions function in a swirling mass of shifting alignments and temporary unions while different factions fight for control of opium money. The Taliban never really controlled Afghanistan - they lived in Kabul, collected revenue from local farmers, which they kept in a box, and used to buy old soviet weaponry. They ruled only through the approval of local warlords who controlled most of the country, which limited any real power they might have possessed. More like an anarchistic feudalism.
If fact, I have very real doubts as to whether or not the group we are fighting today in Afghanistan can rightly be called the Taliban, or if they are simply a collection of semi-organized, neo-feudal and islamic interests that will go back to killing each other as soon as we leave. Needless to say, pretending that we are working against an enemy with much of a centralized command structure or even a set of rational unifying principals is probably unhelpful (though I will grant that there is increasing evidence that they may be developing both of these as the conflict continues).
Regardelss, lumping all concerned under the name “Taliban” is useful only in newspapers, and doesn’t make it true. Even assuming that they are the same group who once claimed to rule, those who advocate withdrawal or draw down want to suggest that the Taliban has learned its lesson; that they would never allow a group like al Qaeda to re-establish itself in Afghanistan. However, even if the Taliban was able to stabilize the country, and even if they didn’t share al Qaeda’s political and social agenda, would certainly be unable to keep them out or under control. However, we cannot pretend that 8 years of exile to the wild borderlands between Pakistan and Afghanistan have helped the remnants of the Taliban learn to respect the power of the Americans and the importance of good government. Moreover, one cannot simply hand the reigns of leadership over to anyone, and expect everything to be suddenly fine. Afghanistan is better understood as a sea of anarchy with islands of enforced calm.
No, we should be looking at other examples of conquest to understand how best to deal with Afghanistan. I use the word conquest deliberately of course. Nation states are created - typically through conflict or at least in that context. Any monopoly on law, order, and the use of force is earned, not granted by US or UN fiat. Our objective in Afghanistan must be to establish a monopoly on political power so that it can be relinquished to the Afghan people in a timely and orderly fashion. This means co-opting local leaders, eliminating resistance, and setting up the institutions of centralized government. The example to be examined is the one set by the British in India when they successfully established a centralized government over a number of minor kingdoms and unified the territory under a small and lightweight colonial administration.
The catch of course, is that he process will likely take decades, and America will have to be willing to cede power once the Afghans are ready to take it. At least one generation of Afghan children will need to grow up under relative stability before any sort of democratic civil society can be created, and the international community will need to pour in billions of aid and assistance. The US, as the leader of this coalition and de-facto leader of the UN, needs to take charge and stop trying to pass the buck if the Afghans are to have a future.
Nation building is not a quick and easy processes. The institutions that make for stable government evolve over many years, and cannot simply be imposed. No person is born with an innate love or desire for democracy, but they can learn to have one, once they see the benefits. Democracy must be actively desired. It is not a passive creed. For the Americans, we must decide if our great nation, with all of its power and wealth, can actually make the world a better place, help others to gain the benefits of freedom as we know them, and stand for something other that the simple glorification of our own names. It is up to our leaders to act responsibly and help the public understand that.
Permalink
09.19.09
Posted in Politics, Current Events, Governance at 9:59 am by diantus
As the healthcare debate rages on, it seems more and more evident that the president, the once idealistic and capable darling of the progressive movement, is succumbing to the regressive trends of governing the United States. I have, of course, been following developments in the health-care debate with some interest. The most recent wave-making exchange to make headlines is over the loudmouthed Republican Congressman from South Carolina who yelled “you lie!” during Obama’s speech to the two houses of congress.
The trouble isn’t the heckling. Wilson is probably a racist (after all, he did sponsor a bill to let the confederate flag fly of the the South Carolinian capitol alongside the stars and stripes), but I don’t believe that he was trying to put the “uppity black man back in his place.” Whatever racism he is guilty of just freed him of the restraints that might have helped a non-bigot observe decorum. Moreover, he didn’t even believe that the president was actually lying about the illegal provisions. He later qualified his statement by saying that he felt the provisions in the bill “lack enforcement.” Apparently, its not enough to ban illegals from participating; we need to place a special provision in the bill to euthanize any who happen to show up at hospitals. No, Wilson and Wilsonians like him are driven by corporate graft, are lacking in reason, and in emotional self-control.
Nevertheless, people like Congressman Wilson are the reason why the president is “going soft” on the public option, and it’s tragic. These men in our own government who are willing to take gross liberties with the facts in exchange for a few seconds of fame, or toss out decorum and civility to win the hearts of extremists who already favor their party.
So what is Wilson’s intellectual position? It’s revealed by where he gets his information. Wilson gave an interview in which he claimed that healthcare reform would kill 1.6 million jobs, according to the National Federation for Independent Business - one of the largest business lobbies in the country, and an organization that represents the interests of the healthcare industry. Now we know who will be is underwriting Congressman Wilson’s campaigns in the future. Moreover Congressman Wilson is part of this cabal of American Rightists who seek to stop Obama lest he force their idiot children to get an education that doesn’t involve the rapture as a solution to global warming. So armed with this corporate-taylored statistical wizardry and his some anti-intellectual, evangelical street cred, Wilson is able to lie with a unique combination of false credibility and ignorance of his own falsehoods. Everyone is satisfied with the outcome, and Wilson didn’t actually have to learn anything about government!
The fact is the public option has survived despite its lack of financial support from big business because it is a good idea. All you need though, is a few rednecks, a national media that loves the show, and enough people that don’t have the strength of character to stand up for the future to make something that has genuine public support look undesirable. This unholy alliance between big business and the fundamentalist anti-intellectual movement is ruining the country. I don’t say that to be over the top - I say it because it’s true. Men like congressman Wilson don’t know what socialism is - they’ve never read Marx or Goldman; but they can use this language to comfortably pander to a base that is, frankly, insane. Moreover, they can make a huge fortune in corporate kickbacks (in the name of free speech) and the promise of a think-tank job, writing policy for them when he’s finished in Congress.
Wilson is not alone. He is just one man who is a symptom of a much wider disease. Men and women who refuse to believe that there is any need to fix anything in the US - not because there is nothing to fix, but because they can’t look facts in the face, and would rather scream stories about Obama’s vote gathering SS or make fake Kenyan birth certificates. Including these people in a serious public debate is frankly insane.
So yes, I am angry with the democratic party and with Obama for pandering to these people. Treating them seriously is a mistake. They have nothing constructive to add to the debate. They don’t even understand the need for the debate. They are dangerous because the majority of thoughtful people in the United States are allowing them to distract us from the things that really matter. It’s time to get back on track and fix this country before it collapses under the burden of our own foolishness.
Permalink
07.29.09
Posted in Culture, Governance at 1:34 am by diantus
There is an information deficit in the United States today. I say this not to suggest that somehow we aren’t smart enough, or our vast networks of knowledge distribution are deficient, but simply to suggest that people seem to be increasing incapable of getting the knowledge that they need to make informed and rational decisions.
In this age, where everything you could possibly want to know is literally at your fingertips, the notion that this is even possible sounds crazy. This is especially offensive to those proponents of modern information technology who point to developments like Wikipedia and Twitter as symbols of undeniable progress in realm of human communication. And so they are.
However, the problem is this: the easy availability of this information allows people to live in an echo chamber in which their instincts and ideas are never challenged. Increasingly, no one needs to hear an opinion that might conflict with their own, or challenge long held assumptions. We are protected from knowledge; insulated from learning in a very self-enforced way. No more does the average citizen need to put up with the thoughts of an informed opposition. Wish them away and only look at that which pleases you.
No where is the more evident than in the political debate in America today. Every day elected officials refute factual information, argue about information that is literally decades old, disagree on the nature of events in the larger world that are taken badly out of context, and rely on untried or untrue assumptions. Worse, there is always a pundit or op-ed contributor who is happy to reinforce these ill-formed ideas.
This damages the political debate. It suffers from the disappearance of a usable opposition. On a project like healthcare for example, what is needed is genuinely informed opinion that is capable of making rational decisions. When such opposition is disingenuous, or even completely irrational (as in the case of Martin Feldstein or Senator Jim DiMent. Mr. Feldstien suggests that the rich will voluntarily impoverish themselves if they have to pay and extra $2000 a year in taxes, and Senator DiMint has convinced himself and adherents that any kind of government plan is akin to welcoming the Red Army into Georgia). Both men ignore the very real problems with healthcare in the United States. It IS devouring huge amounts of federal money, yet it does not provide the same level of care as do the systems in countries with a comparable GDP. The need for a debate on the best way forward is very real, but such debate needs to be constructive and useful. Anything else is simply an attention devouring sideshow.
Worse, the American people, largely uninformed and trapped within the narrow bubbles of information that modernity allows are unable to divorce the realities of modern politics from these manufactured visions. Partly this is due to the difficulty in obtaining any real information, but partly it is a very real failure of intellectuals and other manufacturers of opinion to give clear and concise information to people.
Ultimately the artificers of artificiality are winning the debate in America through their ability to simply cast doubt on every possible way forward. Many of the major objections that are presented to the public are inventions and lies that ignore very pressing and important realities. We cannot move forward by simple denial. Like those twisted fools that still deny the moon landings and the holocaust, modern political opposition defines itself simply by its ability to deny the very possibility of progress, not by any claim to a great truth or deeper understanding. There is a certain irony to the fact that the political right now offers the greatest contributions to the deconstructionist movement in our contemporary intellectual culture, since it was they who first launched an attack against such thinking in our universities.
Nevertheless readers, I would like to leave you with this. We must find a way forward. The world will not wait for us, and history has never rewarded the hesitant. Argue if you will, but make sure your reasoning and your logic is sound. We only need the contributions of those committed to the future. The rest of you can stay behind.
Permalink
07.09.09
Posted in Foreign Affairs, Politics at 9:16 pm by diantus
The endless swirl of words and ideas that orbit the issue of North Korea consistently fail to give either policy makers or laymen any sense of how to make progress. We are always told to examine the issue from the perspective of the North Korean leadership. However, what is consistently misrepresented is exactly where the North korean leadership gets that perspective from. Experts don’t know much about North Korea, and they mask that ignorance under a vast store of historical precedents that don’t exactly add to a coherent foreign policy.
North Korea faces a very unique set of problems, and is unlike any regime in history. It is natural to compare it to Stalinist states like East Germany or Romania under Ceausescu. These closed societies, based nominally on the political system invented by Lenin and Stalin, and inspired by the writings of Karl Marx were ostensibly international and the promise of material improvement that Communist ideology was intended to promote. When this improvement failed to manifest and the undeniable wealth of the western world became clear, the systems lost their basic source of legitimacy: the idea that things were getting better. Communism came apart in Europe because it was unable to make good on its promises.
Enter North Korea. Like the states of Eastern Europe, North Korea used the appellation “communist” to describe its political and economic system. To some extent, there is no denying that an effort has been made to communize certain elements of their society. However, given the absence of a national program to collectivize agriculture (a staple of most communist regimes), and the state’s encouragement of private markets in the countryside, the genuineness of the DPRK’s ideological commitment is dubious at best. North Korea is promising something else to its people, and it isn’t economic progress and equality for all.
Instead, we might do better to understand North Korea as a closed nationalist/fascist state dedicated to a unique ideological and racial identity - one that is applicable only to their special circumstances. The North Korean leadership has worked very hard to paint itself as the defenders of pure Korean-ness. South Korea, they would argue has been corrupted by outside influences. Instead theirs is a system that takes it’s cue from a highly volatile history, and a sense of helplessness at the hands of outside forces. The fragility of their self-perception helps to keep them as closed a society as they are. The South isn’t free. They have become corrupted. They yearn to be more Korean. North Korea believes itself to be the last bastion of the real Korean identity.
One major problem exists for North Korea. The existence of South Korea. South Korea is bigger, far wealthier, and more militarily sophisticated than the North, and North Korea’s leadership and population knows it. The image of the South’s government as little more than a puppet of the west, and its population as pinned under the imperialist heel of the west is losing traction. The development of North Korea’s “military first” policy is the last gasp of a political system seeking to justify its existence to its own people. This is why North Korea proceeds with its nuclear program regardless of the threats of further isolation from the international community, and invests ever more in the military despite the horrendous cost to her people. Every “victory” no matter how narrow, gives the leadership some small success to help the appearance of legitimacy at home. Apparently this strategy is working, as there is little evidence of serious internal unrest in the North despite the ongoing crisis in the production of food and other essentials.
I don’t think that North Korea expects to win their 60 year struggle with the South. But as more and more of its ideological foundation falls apart,it is likely to become increasingly erratic and unstable. Worse, the nation is now facing a leadership crisis as Kim Jong Il becomes increasingly sickly and unable to head up his government. The system has demonstrated that it is economically unsustainable. How much longer can it maintain itself on increasingly rocky ideological footing? In other words, the DPRK is under incredible internal pressure to deal with its problems. The reactions of western governments thousands of miles away aren’t their most pressing concern. The much harder question for the rest of the world to answer is how best to approach North Korea in order to keep this situation from boiling over into a wider war. So long as we continue to make the mistake that the North is either approaching the world as a Communist state, and that internal pressures are somehow less important than external, there is no way we can understand what is happening.
Permalink
06.27.09
Posted in Current Events, Governance at 1:26 pm by diantus
The United States government finally passed a set of comprehensive environmental laws today. In them, the nation will be forced to lower it’s emissions by 17 percent by the year 2020 and over 80 percent by the year 2050. While I applaud the government for finally taking issue on a problem that scientific minds have been aware of for almost 40 years, I find the timidity of the bill not only appalling, but a sure-fire way to scuttle the effectiveness of this legislation.
Of course, I’m not the only one who views this as a “too little, too late” offering. In the past year, two independent reports - one in the EU, and another in the United States - have suggested tat the damage to the atmosphere is now so great, the the coming decade promises to be something of a reckoning. Worse, they also suggested that even if we were able to magically eliminate all greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, the level of buildup already in the atmosphere is so great that our dangerous downhill slide would be set to continue into the foreseeable future.
None of this should not serve as an excuse for people to do nothing. We have a very serious responsibility to get to work on the creation of alternative energy sources, shifting habits as to reduce emissions and waste, and a duty to our children to ensure that the planet remain livable for a little while. These things can be done, but we must accept that the future isn’t looking too bright just yet. We will have to suffer through a continuing shift in climactic patterns that will continue to affect every facet of our existence, and need to start making allowances for that as well.
So the bill doesn’t go nearly far enough. I can only hope that the effect of the various incentives and punishments within it will serve to accelerate the legislation’s effect. Perhaps, once the initial push has been made, we will find that the process moves faster than the bill requires. After all, the Obama administration recently allowed states to set their own emissions benchmarks if the national requirements were seen as to low for them. If individual states decide to start beating the federal quota, it could be that this becomes the sort of low-pressure magic bullet needed to rebuild America’s dirty and outdated infrastructure.
Unfortunately, what bothers me the most about the recent US bill is not that it is less ambitious that what the world’s climate scientists would like. It is the continuing pattern of willful ignorance on the part of our political establishment to address the problem seriously. Instead of planning for the contingencies that climate change will bring and pushing for deep and meaningful reversal of pollution trends, they have offered up the minimum that could be called action. All of this comes on the coattails of eight years that were completely lost in terms of social, scientific, and environmental public policy. Today the problem is twice as serious as it was in 2000, and we are still far behind the curve when it comes to dealing with it.
Our lawmakers refuse to understand the problem. On both side of the aisle, they are relying on that most devastating of all Reganesque political instincts - their guts. When you rely on your gut instead of your head, you make stupid decisions. Gut decisions are what inform drunk drivers that they did not, in fact, have one too many. Our lawmakers should be basing important judgements on facts - not what they think might be right. The should be reading books and journals - not imitating John Wayne. This hyperreal politics of the intestines is getting us deeper and deeper into trouble. It produced Iran-Contra, the Iraq War, Creationism in classrooms, Vietnam, the collapse of the great North American fisheries, and a veritable legion of major tragedies that could have been easily averted by someone looking at the facts on the ground. Unless we really start demanding Reason from our leaders, we are going to, as Al Gore so elegantly pointed out, boil ourselves in a beaker.
Permalink
« Previous entries