Consider this an apology for having not written anything in so long.Following the election I have been feeling something like Beckett’s Estragon.However, the recent explosion of violence in the Middle East should serve as a reminder to us all that the task confronting the incoming Obama administration is a daunting one.I realize that this is a rather obvious statement to make, but I point it out because I, like many people, have felt as though I am living in at state of political limbo.Waiting for Obama has trumped my attention as much as the election drama that preceded it.Never mind that I have been kinda busy.
Regardless of all these distractions, I would like to talk a little about the latest confrontation in the Middle East, and about modern warfare in general, and more specifically about civilian deaths.Civilians die in wars – whether or not they asked to be involved.This has been true since the beginning of time, and as long as men have committed themselves to the act of killing.Modern warfare is different though, because of two relatively recent phenomena.The first of these is obvious: the tremendous destructive potential of modern weaponry.The second involves the increasing concentration of populations into cities.
When Napoleon launched his assault on Europe which so horrified men of his age, the principal actions that affected civilians were assaults upon fortress cities and the scavenging of foodstuffs in the areas that the armies marched through.While these effects were tragic, the damage to the populations were surprisingly negligible when one considers the scale of the conflict.Here was a war that engulfed every European empire and raged across the whole of the continent.Armies met one another in massive set piece battles involving hundreds of thousands of men on both sides, and the death rates were catastrophic; death rates of soldiers that is.
Civilian deaths during the Napoleonic War are difficult to estimate, and the data is far more reliable for the soldiers.The best guess seems to be right around a million people killed throughout the continent and in the various overseas colonies.Compare that number to the estimated 2.5 million military dead and you start to understand that in Napoleon’s day, war was fought by soldiers locked in an effort to kill each other for the honor and aims of their leadership.Today the leaders remain, but the targets have changed.
The trend begins its slide in WW1:9.7 million military deaths vs. 6.8 million civilian.It is WWII wherein the density of cities and the military power to attack them finally shows us the beginnings of a new trend: 25 million military casualties vs. 41.7 million civilians.
When we move into the era of brush wars – beginning with US actions in Korea, its seems that the operational decision was that the wars of the future will ultimately be against people, and not their states.This was true on both sides of the conflict, but nothing illustrates this operational change more than the waging of unrestrained aerial warfare against population centers in order to not just undo the industrial base, but to cripple food production, medical services, and potential reinforcements.This was total mechanized warfare waged entirely against civilian centers; the latest way of attacking supply lines.In Korea, this tactic was so effective, that reliable numbers for civilian deaths don’t seem to actually exist, but the number of US deaths was right around 36,500.
These wildly unbalanced statistics only get more extreme as the century plodded onwards.In Vietnam, most research suggest that while 58,000 US troops dies, some 4 million Vietnamese civilians were killed.During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Soviet losses stand at about 14,000 with an estimated 1.1 million Afghan civilians killed.In Iraq, a military force of some 150,000 has lost about 4,200 men and overseen some 95,000 civilian dead – a figure with doesn’t include injuries (which might be worse in some ways).In light of the death ratio, Iraq has been one of the worst wars for an invading army in modern history.
None of this is new information.While war is inefficient and wasteful, it remains an important element of statecraft and a means by which a nation’s leadership pursues its political objectives.However, modern warfare simply doesn’t work.It ultimately amounts to the mass slaughter of civilians, and increasingly disproportionate responses by countries capable of projecting their might.This is turn helps to even further blur line between regular and so-called irregular fighting.
What is needed is a titanic shift in the way that warfare is conducted:A new Blitzkrieg model; a way to leverage military resources without the massive and needless slaughter of civilian populations.It’s a hard road and it requires making some sacrifices – first and foremost the relative ease with those who are capable of deciding to go to war.
Until September 11th, the United States did not believe that irregular fighters were capable of projecting their might to our shores – despite the repeated experiences of countries around the world.We could confidently fight them with ease at home and assume that they wouldn’t come here.We have since learned that this is not the case, and that there is no military solution to this question – at least not one that is acceptable for any civilized person with even the slightest sense of human decency.So when Israel moves a massive retaliatory force against the Gaza strip, no matter how justified its cause may be; the thousands of people, who are simply trying to live their lives, are still dead.Neither they, nor us can win the fight against extremism this way.They will not love you for killing their families and children – nor will they forget as quickly as you the broken houses and ruined playgrounds.Wars will be better when all sides really understand what is at stake.
While it hardly needs to be pointed out by me, I am not a fan of the American right wing and find most of their ideas – if not counterproductive, dangerous. Whether is be their insistence on the viability of trickle-down economics, their unbalanced obsession with national security even at the risk of personal and political freedom, or their unwavering commitment to a homogenized society based on the teachings of a 2000 year old millenarian death cult.
In light of the recent economic crisis, many Americans are at least starting to lend credence to the idea that showing limitless compassion to the super wealthy while punishing the poor is not a sure promise of prosperity for all. It has also revealed other weaknesses in the conservative worldview that bear some degree of consideration.Today I am speaking specifically of energy policy.
Conservatives have embraced the notion that in order to secure a stable energy future, drive down fuel prices, and increase domestic economic security is to promote domestic drilling. By opening up more of our own untapped reserves, it is believed that we can significantly offset the demand for foreign oil and dramatically drive prices down. After all, economic theory holds that if you increase the supply of a thing, you can reduce the price of that thing. Of course, this also assumes a large number of suppliers and processors who are all in competition with one another – none of which is really true when talking about the oil industry.It is a highly centralized industry that understands that their success depends on close cooperation with one another.
However, as the economy slides further and further down, we have seen a dramatic drop in the price of oil. In fact, today it is down to $88 a barrel – the lowest price in some time, down about $60 from its most recent peak. In response, gasoline prices also declined.By six cents.Not exactly what one might expect. In fact, the last time oil prices were at $88, gasoline was at $3.20 a gallon. Today – after all the political pressure placed on producers to lower prices, the national average remains at $3.68. You’ll note the absence of a matching curve.
This development highlights exactly what is wrong with this sort of economic thinking.It is assumed that if you cut the cost paid by oil producers and refiners, or for that matter, any sort of producer, they will pass these saving on to their customers either in lower prices, more jobs, or better benefits. In fact, they will pass these benefits onto stockholders in order to increase the value of their own investment and little if any of this newfound profitability will actually trickle down to the general populace.
I think this explains why economic trends of the past 20-30 years have shown incredible macro-economic growth despite a stagnation and general decline of microeconomic prosperity (shrinking wages).Gas is a study of the wider economy in miniature. The corporate and investment based sectors of our economy have done very well while the sections of the economy that have traditionally served the middle class have been comparably sluggish. Nevertheless, these commanding heights can easily impact jobs stability and local banks which is what we are starting to see now.
By making the profitability of our largest industries the numbers that matter and continuing to count of their benevolence towards the larger society, the conservative party has managed to play a critical role in the destabilization of most of Americas citizen body. When we consider what makes for a successful and prosperous society, we should consider whether we are getting benefits to as many as possible or only ensuring the guaranteed prosperity of the few?
The great political debate of the century will not be the great conflict between the classes or the struggle of civilizations, but the conflict between those who favor internationalization or protectionism for the future.I believe that one of the critical responsibilities of the progressive left today is to help shepherd the transition towards a stable and secure form of internationalism that is based on mutual responsibility and progress.This is why I am so fascinated by ongoing projects like the UN.
On item that came to my attention today is the recently announced Mediterranean Union.This primarily political organization has brought together representatives from 43 countries bordering the Mediterranean.Its first meeting already scored on major historical first, as it was the first time that leaders from both Syria and Israel sat down at the same table together (its worth noting that they didn’t actually listen to each other).
Most noteworthy, the Mediterranean Union includes proposals for ecological goals and coordinated energy projects; however I watch developments like this with guarded optimism.After all, there is nothing nobler than bringing together these disparate nations into coalition despite their historical antipathy, but we must worry about the group’s long term viability.
All too often, groups like this fail because of the absence of genuine integration by members.These projects do better when there are tangible incentives to the potential loss of sovereignty when a nation subjects itself to international regulation.One of the troubles faced by the UN is that the only player who really and genuinely has the ability to enforce its edicts is the US, and the US has no interest in having to abide by those edicts itself.This can handily undo everything that the UN stands to try and do.The EU has succeeded because it is a genuinely integrative project where every member is expected to give something if they want to get something out of it.It’s about shared responsibility instead of the ultimate threat of force – which must be enforced by someone willing to use it.The more successful examples are one which use economic levers to promote change.
NAFTA in North America is a good example of a project that could have been implemented better, but remains a much needed initiative – a real chance for the United States to start taking baby steps into a wider world of integrative politics.Trade between the US, Canada, and Mexico constitutes some of the highest volumes in the world.While it is tempting to blame cheap Mexican labor for troubles in America’s domestic industrial center, in truth most of the jobs have gone on to places like China where unskilled labor is even cheaper.In the meantime, the growing service sector in the US has been doing bumper business with both Mexico and Canada, and the economic links between the three are only getting stronger.Macro-economically it has been a success.
What makes NAFTA fail is that, while it helps to promote integration and foster growth, nothing is done to help the losers; those people who work in industries sensitive to economic dislocation.This is the role that must be played by government and must be managed by careful international coordination.In truth, we need organizations like NAFTA, the EU, and the Mediterranean Union to be models for the future, but they have to be designed to maximize opportunities for people – not just corporations and businesses.By arranging things in the spirit of cooperation and an understanding that nobody “wins” life, we can try and manage the massive forces that the globalizing economy has unleashed.Because they can be used to make life better for all of us – but that doesn’t mean that we won’t have to learn how to change.
By now, the idea that the New World Order of George Bush senior is effectively a project in American Empire, has gained considerable traction among thinkers around the world.While any freedom-loving soul cannot help but see the basic contradiction between imperialism and liberty, western thinkers have struggled to try and choose a side.Having been raised under the shadow of our own culture of dominance, can we (to loosely paraphrase Franz Fanon) really contribute anything meaningful to liberation, or are we doomed to forever be the servants of exploitation?
This is a question that plagues me considerably.After all, I see much that is useful and admirable in furthering the project global integration.I have always felt that by combining the cultural and intellectual resources of mankind we can gain so much, and that our history of marked division must be put behind us as counterproductive and pointless.However, the project has gone horribly awry – having been annexed in the name of capital at any cost.The destitution of the poor has continued, and the only way to escape the desolation of poverty is to sell one’s dignity and traditions to the multinational.We have seen again and again that the lie of efficiency that underscores privation is contributing to incredible human suffering, and has succeeded only in shifting the burden of development of to the shoulders of those who can’t speak out in their own defense.This has led to a discordant opposition movement in many parts of the world.
The craving for liberation is lost on most Americans.We simply cannot imagine the world that supports the superstructure of our comforts.We simply cannot imagine the idea that people in the Sudan are compounding their considerable suffering with digestive problems that come from eat dirt mixed with flour because there is literally nothing else.Our assumption is just that the world has always been this way.We feel somehow that these impoverished regions are just unfortunate or populated by people that are somehow less capable than ourselves.After all, for our whole lifetime – our media saturated eyes have never seen anything but this endless cycle of suffering.With the world on our doorstep, how can we not wonder why it has seemingly always been this way?
What happened to Africa?Was the country always this barren and were these people just too stupid to move away?What were they doing there is the first place?Well, the truth is that a century ago, it wasn’t an unusable desert.It became that way owing to the efforts of locals and outsiders to over-develop a sensitive climatic region with the incompetence of governments who saw private enterprise as more important than people.The story repeats itself across many of the world’s most impoverished regions.
We can’t imagine the pressures that lie on these parts of the world.We get some sense from the plight of our own farmers who complain that they are being forced to by used equipment, and that government regulations concerning land use is hurting the bottom line.In Africa, there were no regulations, and now the Sahara is the fastest growing desert in the world – swiftly overtaking some of the best agricultural land in the world.No one is going to stop these escalating wars and boiling instabilities because the countries simply aren’t geopolitically important to the US.
The shame is not that we Americans have led a project of economic and cultural integration that is unprecedented in history.The shame is that through our thoughtless efforts to create a world order that is open and friendly to our interests we have created, against the better judgment of our founders, a global economic empire, where we export our developmental model in order to provide markets and resources for our corporations. This model has stripped away our own riches, impoverished our own culture because of the vast resources mobilized to protect it, and worse, disenfranchised millions more around the world.
What’s worse is that we are the only people who seem to be in a position to fix it and lessen the suffering that we have wrought, and that we can’t change anything.Our strength to make a difference is dependent on our intrinsically exploitive position.Moreover we are addicted to that power – its economic heroin.How can we conceivably let go of that?The best hope for us and those we have sought to rule is to fundamentally change the way that we engage the world and each other; a recasting of the American ideal and image.
Regrettably, the truth is that class still rules.Like the rural Indian displaced by the privatization of their traditional farmlands, the average American is not the beneficiary of the machinery of our global economic empire any more than the Sudanese coffee farmer, and because of that, Americans can start to break the cycle. We are cogs in this great machine as surely as anyone else, though our bondage might be punctuated by more visits to Starbucks.The sooner we recognize that we are being used as foot soldiers in an ongoing tale of colonization and exploitation that is still being for the benefit of people far removed from the realities of our lives, the sooner we can start to reclaim our liberties and potential.
After a decade of alleged democracy promotion; after a decade of the sort of media manipulation and calculated doublespeak that would make Kim Jong-Il blush; after millions of destroyed lives in the name of “freedom,” the leadership of the United States has finally meandered casually off a cliff of sanity that should deeply shame every single citizen of this country.
Pakistan’s recent election of the Pakistan Peoples’ Party and the party of Nawaz Sharif, granting a near complete shut-out to General Musharraf should have sent a clear message to the administration. Not for the first time, the democratic process in a client state has attempted to take power back from a US allied dictator, and not for the first time has the US failed to stand with the will of the people.
Instead of helping to usher General Musharraf out of the Pakistani public spotlight and allowing the democratic process to guide Pakistan into the next stumbling steps to its freedom, our government has forcefully come out in favor of keeping Musharraf as a major player in the future government. The people of Pakistan are understandably outraged by this turn of events. Their election represents a complete rejection of our man in Pakistan, and while I recognize that years of unwavering military and political support might be hard to look past, we must quickly rearrange our priorities lest we find another country in the Near East that is ready to reject us as thoroughly as Iran after our meddling there.
This blind and outrageous slap to the face of America’s stated principles only serves to underscore the fundamental hypocrisy of the nation’s current course. So desperately do we need a genuine change in policy, so completely hollow is our every claim to the ethical high ground, that we have lost every right to global leadership. The Pakistani election is more than just a simple referendum on the government of Mr. Musharraf, it is an attack on the failed policy of our government as well. Remember that Mr. Musharraf couldn’t have held power without the support of the US. The presidency of George Bush has laid bare everything that is wrong with the machinery of American government. It has highlighted our moral, intellectual, and cultural failings. It has shown that, as a nation, we have lost that creative energy that allowed us to take our place at the head of the international table. Whether we can reclaim it is in the hands of our leaders and their willingness to make difficult changes.
Good foreign policy involves a great deal more than simply bullying the leaders of all nations great and small. In this increasingly interconnected world, with its increasingly multipolar sources of economic, intellectual, and political power, the United States simply must stop playing like our relations are solely the domain of diplomats behind closed doors. The whole world watches what we do, and if we sincerely believe that we can continue to act and use our power with out regarding the feelings of others, then our leaders are right: the world will become more dangerous every day.
No, we must seriously step up our efforts to integrate with the rest of the world and actually keep to our principles in a consistent manner. If we really wish to hold ourselves out as the opponents of tyranny, we should make a priority of doing so without crippling the people we would claim to be protecting. The notion of a war for liberation should seem morally inconsistent. After all, freedom is useless if you’re dead, and the more than two million Iraqis who have been so far killed or displaced by this war have lost everything from our misguided efforts to liberate them.