09.28.06
Posted in Theory, Politics, Current Events at 1:57 pm by diantus
           With the recent compromise arrangement in the house of the rights of terrorism suspects, I felt that it might be wise to review the arrangement a little bit and finally offer up some thoughts on the nature and future of the war on terror. Let’s hope that the senate prevails in sending this bill back for further revision, since congress is full of barbarians that continue to embarrass me in new and fascinating ways.
           The Geneva Conventions are one of those sets of international rules that are part of the collective consciousness of civilization. The Geneva Conventions set forth the basic rules governing conflict between nations including the treatment of prisoners, the specific weapon systems that a nation may not deploy, the treatment of civilians, and other similar laws. They are constantly evolving and are based around a long standing set of ancient precedents governing the conduct of war starting with such eminent figures as Sun Tzu in the sixth century BCE.
           Why so much concern? War is hell and the ultimate prerogative of the state, so how can you pretend to regulate such a thing? The most fundamental answer is the recognition of geographical coincidence and nature of state power – it is arbitrary. Neither states nor their rulers fight wars. The victims are the soldiers and the civilians, and the great game is one to see who buckles first under the pressure of their enemy. Warfare must be regulated since the rulers typically will have neither understanding nor reason to exercise restraint unless threatened by international censure. The objective of war is power, but those who actually suffer the bombs and the bullets will gain nothing. As a result, they must be protected from excesses of brutality precisely because of their expendability. War makes puppets out of all men, and the Geneva Conventions both recognize this and answer a need for morality. By disregarding that need, the United States risks the road of Germany when she shocked the world with the brutality of her assault on Belgium civilians in 1914.
           If we are at war with Islamic terrorists, then the terrorist must be protected under the rights governing warfare right? The assertion of the administration is that terrorists are not strictly enemy soldiers. The resulting problem stems from a misunderstanding of what al Qaeda and associated groups really are.Â
What then is terrorism? For many years, an act of terrorism was viewed as an act of criminality. Now, with al Qaeda announcing that it intends to spearhead a global jihadist movement, the popular view has shifted to the idea that the group is centralized and organized to constitute a threat on the same level as North Korea or Iran. This formerly criminal organization on the fringes of society has been granted sovereignty – maybe they need a seat in the UN. It is perhaps this empowerment of international criminals that I find so upsetting. It should be bothersome to note that many drug cartels are bigger, better organized, and better armed but still remain outside the notice of major military operations (this is generally ok though; as things keep getting worse, all of us will be better of in a drug addled haze and the cartels will quickly become heroes). Regardless, al Qaeda is not the first organization to declare war on a state, though it has a singular episode of success that has tried to shatter the perceptions of terrorism around the world. The question that remains to be answered is this: what is a terrorist?
           Is a terrorist a soldier in a foreign army? As such are we at “war†in a strictly technical sense with them? But they aren’t really. They have no army, no unifying command structure. Instead they possess many of the hallmarks of a revolutionary movement. After all, they are supported by no state, do not possess political parties that have not been outlawed or subject to censure, and are fighting for political change. Al Qaeda is a revolutionary group through and through. While its scope might be international, its methods and means are the same as groups like the Bolsheviks, the Irish Republican Army, or the Black Panthers. Unlike most revolutionary groups, the objectives of Muslim extremism are highly reactionary – much like the fascists in central Europe (the Iron Guard of Romania come to mind) – and ideologically linked to religion – like the Barna Group in the United States.
           Revolutionaries have been around for a long time. They grew up in Europe in response to the changes brought on by industrialization and they are growing again in response to the changes wrought by globalization. It should not be a surprise that we are seeing these movements the world over. As it stands, the Middle East is simply the new revolutionary crucible. The legal questions surrounding these issues should be obvious then. Despite the assertions of the Bush administration, this is an old kind of war and one that has many precedents behind it. Revolutionaries are criminals since they act outside of normal state and international institutions and attempt to intimidate their perceived overlords through targeted terror and rhetorical action.Â
The only real difference I see between al Qaeda and narodnichestvo (look it up) is the international scope – but their methodology is just illegal. These people are international terrorists, and thusly international criminals. They should be prosecuted by the court of global opinion, and not simply swept into secret CIA prisons. They are not protected by the Geneva Conventions in the strictest sense, but are protected by the standards of international law. We do not torture our criminals, we should not torture jihadists. This is not a question of giving “comfort†to the enemy; it is a question of acknowledging what they are and treating them accordingly. As it stands right now, we are assigning an importance to a thing that only empowers it further and makes a mockery of the United States, our people, our laws, and our values.
Permalink
09.27.06
Posted in Politics, Governance at 3:29 pm by diantus
           I never understood the concept of “political capital†until George Bush lost all of his. This whole notion of saving face in government, and the importance of appearances never quite formed into a complete picture for me until I realized that I believe nothing that the white house says to me at this point. It has gotten so bad, that the president could be briefing the nation on what he like for breakfast, and I would doubt the veracity of his claims.
           In a stellar reversal of everything that I have come to count on, I now doubt the integrity of the US government when it comes to anything. This is not to say that I’ve ever really trusted government or believed in its ability to enact positive change, but I felt as though I could trust them to be relatively straightforward about their efforts to fuck me. However, I don’t believe that there has been an honest thing said in Washington in nearly 6 years and it is likely to get worse. This means that I have no faith in anything that is said by anyone on capital hill – which makes it hard for me to lend the tacit support required for them to govern. In the case of the Republicans, the situation has gotten so bad that the official line of the party’s overlords is one of “avoid the issues, attack the opposition (link).â€Â At least they can admit when they have a problem. This is the last effort of a group suffering from a complete deficit of truth.
           Nevertheless, someone needs to take up the torch and admit that there is an issue for more than simply political gains. The fact is that our country is sick right now. We are bogged down in an unnecessary war that has only succeeded in making the geopolitical situation worse (link), outlaw regimes are growing increasingly defiant in the face of international pressure, allies are growing jittery, and the domestic situation is worsening with every passing month. What are we going to do about it?
           A changing of the guard has quickly become a requirement of change. As I’ve already pointed out, the right-wing has lost all of its political capital. We can no longer afford to believe them. The GOP is an influence peddling, power grabbing machine. It is no longer designed to govern, but instead is meant only to hang onto authority and all of the riches that come with power.Â
However, the GOP methodology is effective, and the opposition is in complete and total disarray. The Democrats show a keen awareness of the issues, but spend too much time of the defensive to take advantage of the situation. This makes them appear disjointed and unfocused – which they are. They can easily win over the elite of America because anyone who is thinking about the state of nation affairs recognizes that we have no choice but to boot out the GOP, but the common people smell fear and confusion. Republican attack dogs are at least unified in their ridiculous and desperate effort to justify their mistakes of the past 6 years – not so the American left.Â
People who want to be led need leaders that seem capable of leading. The sad truth about any settled civilization is that many of us want to be dominated by an overbearing government. No other reason can adequately explain why else there is any question about the republicans keeping the Senate in November. Given the track record of foreign and domestic failure, corruption and favoritism, these people should be going to jail, not back to office. Nevertheless, here we are. No, the fact is that we are a country of sheep who will blindly accept everything fed to them by people who supposedly “know.â€Â Until we overcome this mentality, the opposition must learn to be strong, act like they know, and drive the people towards independence.  Then we can have a national debate about policy. The Right will ride us all the way to the bank, and keep riding until we’re all used up.
What is political capital? The appearance of competency – especially if undeserved.
Permalink
09.22.06
Posted in Theory, Politics, Governance at 10:27 pm by diantus
If money makes the world go round, then it spins for the pleasure of the Forbes 400 the richest people in the country. The latest findings have demonstrated something interesting though. These 400 individuals are now all billionaires, which is an entirely new precedent in the history of modernism (link). Forbes magazine is quick to declare this a victory for capitalism, saying that such a massive explosion of wealth signals an increase in growth and a general expansion of the system. But Forbes is full of small nervous men who like to kiss the ass of their betters and hope for handouts.
The dizzying increase of wealth at the top of the economic ladder is impressive. Something in it signals that there are highly important developments taking place in today’s economy - especially when you take into account that real wages have been falling for the middle and lower classes steadily for the last thirty years. It should raise your eyebrow at least a little bit. After all, this is the age of globalization, wherein there has been the single fastest acceleration of growth and development across more of the globe than at any other time in the history of civilization. What’s more is that this trend shows little sign of abating.
Nevertheless, the inescapable conclusion that one must reach in the final analysis of recent history is that globalization has overwhelming benefited the few at the expense of the many. Capitalism was then, and remains today, a zero sum game; the pie wouldn’t be worth anything if there wasn’t only so much to go around. Global economic growth is grotesquely imbalanced and as a result the future stability of our trade systems and political systems are being threatened a crisis that is easily on par with that posed by global warming.
What is needed is for governments to begin taking an active role in more equitably promoting the spread of the gains made by globalization. I am absolutely a globalist. I firmly believe that by opening borders to trade and cultural communication, we will find it easier to avoid war and needless cultural misunderstanding. Also by spreading the technologies and furthering the spread of capitalism, not only does a greater percentage of the world’s population get access, but the stage is set for social, economic, and political evolution. After all, when capitalism reaches its growth limits, the system fails and we all have to start the process of making a better life for ourselves. In the absence of real redistribution, this process become all the more painful
Of course, any attempt to lessen the natural inequities in the systems of global economics is fraught with difficulty. Money and political access are (as I have already discussed) synonymous. What this means is that in democratic societies especially, any sort of systematic change has to come with the blessing of those with the resources to purchase and hold on to power. While there is a growing culture of philanthropy among today’s hyper-rich, this is a movement that is completely free from public oversight more so even than government.
While you cannot turn back the clock on economic integration, nor should you wish too, you can through taxation and trade policy make positive changes that favor individual producers (over corporate entities) and develop progressive taxation systems that stiffly favor the middle and lower classes. By doing so, you ensure that the rich can still be rich, but enable some degree of leveling in order to give the common man a fair shake at a better future. As it stands right now, not one of us can look forward to living as well as the generations preceding us. After all, if the top knows no limit, neither does the bottom.
Permalink
09.19.06
Posted in Politics, Current Events at 4:45 pm by diantus
Orwellian Doublespeak is one of my favorite concepts. What made 1984 brilliant was how well it captured the developing political climate of the West. He understood that governments were becoming bigger and increasing remote from their subject/citizens. I have a number of favorite terms and concepts at this point to emerge from our own Oceania – the “Patriot Act,†“Enhanced Interrogation Techniques,†and of course, “Extraordinary Rendition.â€Â This last one has been getting a lot of attention lately, and with good reason. In case you missed it, extraordinary rendition is the process whereby the government kidnaps someone off of the street and sends them to another country wherein they can be subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques for months, if not years without all the fussiness of American Law, public oversight, or international standards of humane treatment. If this sort of thing was going on in China, we would all be up in arms.
           As it stands though, we can say with some assurance that not every dirty terrorist who gets shipped off to Romania for a holiday of brutalization disappears forever. At least one Canadian citizen made it back to tell us all what happens to someone when the CIA “conforms to international norms.â€Â He was sent to Syria! For ten months! And tortured! He has recently returned home to Canada where he wasted no time in suing the Canadian government, filing criminal charges against the Canadian authorities who fingered him to the CIA, and having the US declare that they were immune to any legal action citing “States’ Secrets Privilege.â€Â (Awesome).
           What makes this especially great was the weak-kneed defense of the embarrassed Canadian government. When learning what had happened, they responded by claiming that the police involved in identifying this would be terrorist vastly underestimated the response of Americans so soon after September 11th. That bothers me. The official release says “Americans.â€Â Not “the American CIA,†or “the American government,†but simply “Americans.†(Link)
           Of course, being an American is hard right now. Our public seems to have nothing but the deepest admiration for violence, and the fact that this guy was a Canadian probably warms the heart of the very people that I am seeking to fight. Nevertheless, as I watch the poll numbers slowly moving up for our president and his party, I realize that I am part of a losing battle. The right wing noise machine is winning, and it will bring the republic to its very knees before it is done.Â
But I’ve made that point before. What if I’m wrong though? What I’m really afraid of is that our Canadian neighbors might be right. The problem isn’t the American government or the CIA, the problem really is Americans. We have absolutely no respect for any life save our own, and then only in the most superficial ways. It seems that we will go to any ends in order to make sure that our fat, lazy population can keep wheezing its corpulent way into McDonalds and fattening itself on cheeseburgers (but make the Coke diet… we’re trying to lose weight). Fuck freedom – it’s a liability that our way of life can no longer afford. And fuck you if you think you’re going to keep us from doing anything to anyone in defense of our way of life.
My natural optimism hopes that the preceding is an unfair evaluation. And it has locked me out of a career in politics.
           Where is the outrage? Where are the marchers in the streets?
           I wrote my senator a while ago and asked him a few questions about why we condoned the Israeli response in Lebanon, and a very nice intern wrote me back to inform me that Ken Salazar was “concerned.â€Â He went on to let me know in quite uncertain terms that he generally agreed with everything I had to say, and that he fighting to make sure that Colorado was fairly and justly represented in the Senate. There is no opposition because the opposition is still too worried about winning elections to save democracy. We are losing this battle, and the place we are going to wake up in is not going to be one we want to live in. If you don’t think I’m right, ask my friend who charmingly pointed out (following a recent visit to Washington DC) that FDR sounds like a real “pussy†by today’s standards. He stood for all kinds of wishy-washy liberal crap and through his humane and decent convictions has inspired Americans ever since. Politics is business now – not action.
Permalink
09.12.06
Posted in Uncategorized at 3:56 pm by diantus
 Five years ago, I was working on my undergraduate degree, playing lots of video games, and happily unemployed. September 11th fell on a beautiful Tuesday that year (sunny and cool – my favorite kind of weather), which I remember because was taking a class on ancient China at the time. Needless to say though, we did not talk too much about the Zhao dynasty.  Instead we wound up focusing on the ramifications of the acts of that morning. My second class that day was even less successful. My next professor decided to storm into the room several minutes late and declare, “I was going to talk about Trotsky today, but some damn fool decided to ran two planes into New York and make that impossible. Go home.â€
           He wasn’t wrong. The campus was eerily quiet that day. No one really seemed to know what to make of it. I know I didn’t, but I was afraid. I wasn’t afraid of more terrorist attacks mind you – a display like September 11th is not easily repeated. I was worried about the future. Prior to that moment, things were going pretty well for us. Sure, the economy was a little slow, but so was the president. I was in college with my whole life to look forward to, and these things were going to pass. But then, some “damn fool†decided to crash those planes into New York, and the whole country went mad over the next five years. I couldn’t have known at the time, but I was distinctly uncomfortable by the lack of understanding that morning.
           Of course I realize that this is supposed to be a time of national mourning; that with all the trouble in the world, we should look back at that terrible day with heavy hearts. There are those who use the anniversary to look grimly forward to a future where America will strike down her enemies, punishing them for their transgressions and emerging (someday) as the greatest nation on earth to be loved by all. Most of us didn’t have those kinds of ideas at the time and understood September 11th the same way I did (though I’m not to proud to admit it) and promptly collapsed on my couch for nearly five days of heavy news consumption, only occasionally wandering off for the odd class or meal.
           Looking back, I realize that my interest in political science and associated studies really came from the information overload that I subjected myself to during that period immediately following September 11th. I watched as our understanding morphed and changed over time. I watched the relentless bombing of Afghanistan and the uncomfortable smiles and sympathies of the Saudi crown prince (from whose country Osama came). I watched George Bush turn from the idiot king he was into the idiot king that people were looking to for leadership. I still didn’t understand.
           Then I realized what was happening. No one had the faintest idea what was going on. America was lashing out like a schoolboy that had just been punched in the nose and couldn’t see straight. It was stupid. It was destructive. It was pointless. It was counterproductive. I can’t blame the “liberal†media either. After all, they were reassuring me and trying to tell me that I was being looked after (that and I watched mostly Fox News at the time). It didn’t take me too long to realize that I didn’t really want these sorts of people looking after me. These were people that would lash out recklessly at anything they could. These were people so built up on hubris and patriotism that they couldn’t see past them end of their nose. To make it worse, they decided to declare an unlimited, unending war on an enemy that was every bit as arrogant and morally isolated. They were my countrymen.
           September 11th was an opportunity to create a bold new vision of the world. We could have done so much with the rubble of those buildings. Instead we launched two unsuccessful wars, brilliantly squandered the respect of our allies and would-be friends and destroyed millions of lives. People are still struggling to understand what happened on September 11th and how anyone could do such a thing, but none of them have been paying attention to our blustering polity and its bloody nose. This September 11th, I’d like to take a moment for the victims that have yet to be created. The children of Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, the United States, England, Israel, and whoever else happens to get caught up in the unending cycle of retribution that has gone on and on and on for the uncountable millennia. This is what September 11th taught me. War is easy. Peace is for the strong. And you and I will never be free.
Someday, on a dusty highway somewhere, a soldier or insurgent, rebel or freedom fighter, will sit down and really wonder why he is fighting and not sitting in a café somewhere and enjoying the quiet company of a few close friends – like I did, five years ago on September the 11th.
Permalink
« Previous entries