17 March 2005
The Devastating Effects of Unpreparedness
Lack of preparation has been the symbol of the wrong-headedness of the U.S. administration’s Iraq invasion. It was first recognized by opponents of the policy when it became clear that the resistance of the “insurgents” to the subsequent occupation had not been anticipated.
The devastating demand that the invasion had made on unprepared reserve and National Guard soldiers is a second result of this myopia. Not only has the invasion required longer and personally more disruptive interruptions in the lives of financially struggling “volunteers.” It has placed unprofessional militiamen in positions of power and exploitation over Iraqi captives and bystanders.
Lack of preparation has been the symbol of the wrong-headedness of the U.S. administration’s Iraq invasion. It was first recognized by opponents of the policy when it became clear that the resistance of the “insurgents” to the subsequent occupation had not been anticipated.
The devastating demand that the invasion had made on unprepared reserve and National Guard soldiers is a second result of this myopia. Not only has the invasion required longer and personally more disruptive interruptions in the lives of financially struggling “volunteers.” It has placed unprofessional militiamen in positions of power and exploitation over Iraqi captives and bystanders.
Wolfowitz Nomination
President Bush’s nomination of Paul Wolfowitz as President of the World Bank is either thoughtless or willfully malignant. One may analogize his candidacy to the tenure of Robert McNamara following the latter’s tenure as Defense Secretary during the war in Vietnam. There was an element of atonement by the U.S. for a universally reviled American policy in the devotion of McNamara’s widely recognized management skills to improving the effectiveness of contributions by wealthy nations’ to the welfare of “less developed countries.”
Mr. Wolfowitz does not have the experience and accomplishments under his belt that McNamara had at Ford Motor Co. (Nor does he have the admirable financial background of the most recent World Bank president, James Wolfensohn.) His commitment to freedom in “emerging markets” is purely a political conviction. It is not based on practical knowledge of private commerce. Mr. Wolfowitz has not engaged in creating wealth, a skill needed in the poorer regions of the world. He has ultimately most famously been involved in attempting to control the international consequences of economic activity.
The World Bank’s biggest challenge is to help increase the prospects of individuals in emerging markets without appearing to limit their self-determination. The appointment of Wolfowitz would achieve the opposite result.
President Bush’s nomination of Paul Wolfowitz as President of the World Bank is either thoughtless or willfully malignant. One may analogize his candidacy to the tenure of Robert McNamara following the latter’s tenure as Defense Secretary during the war in Vietnam. There was an element of atonement by the U.S. for a universally reviled American policy in the devotion of McNamara’s widely recognized management skills to improving the effectiveness of contributions by wealthy nations’ to the welfare of “less developed countries.”
Mr. Wolfowitz does not have the experience and accomplishments under his belt that McNamara had at Ford Motor Co. (Nor does he have the admirable financial background of the most recent World Bank president, James Wolfensohn.) His commitment to freedom in “emerging markets” is purely a political conviction. It is not based on practical knowledge of private commerce. Mr. Wolfowitz has not engaged in creating wealth, a skill needed in the poorer regions of the world. He has ultimately most famously been involved in attempting to control the international consequences of economic activity.
The World Bank’s biggest challenge is to help increase the prospects of individuals in emerging markets without appearing to limit their self-determination. The appointment of Wolfowitz would achieve the opposite result.
09 March 2005
President Bush’s Freedom Speech
President Bush gave a provocative speech at the National Defense University yesterday. The missionaries of democracy around him are pretty smart to take credit for the natural consequences of the unstoppable spread of information technology in one of the most repressed regions of the world. Even Islamic regimentation of those societies has not been able to prevent the opening of minds to the satisfactions of material progress.
Poverty imposes the same repression on societies in Central Asia and Africa, where "democracy" is still not catching on. President Bush did not propose a resolution of this problem in his speech.
A second issue that he did not address is how to cope with the disorder that is caused by the release of individual freedoms in heretofore repressed societies. We really don't have a choice but to prepare for these political consequences of the information revolution. They are inevitable. Perhaps the neo-cons should be applauded for delivering the kick in the pants that unleashed political change in the Middle East. Nevertheless, we must plan for and commit to helping those societies maintain order, and to helping any others where repression is removed as a result of IT-inspired revolution. A strategy must be found to soften the landing of societies that suddenly adopt participatory government. Without it, liberal democracies will continue to suffer from terrorist reaction to the changes that they make on the social order in the rest of the world.
President Bush gave a provocative speech at the National Defense University yesterday. The missionaries of democracy around him are pretty smart to take credit for the natural consequences of the unstoppable spread of information technology in one of the most repressed regions of the world. Even Islamic regimentation of those societies has not been able to prevent the opening of minds to the satisfactions of material progress.
Poverty imposes the same repression on societies in Central Asia and Africa, where "democracy" is still not catching on. President Bush did not propose a resolution of this problem in his speech.
A second issue that he did not address is how to cope with the disorder that is caused by the release of individual freedoms in heretofore repressed societies. We really don't have a choice but to prepare for these political consequences of the information revolution. They are inevitable. Perhaps the neo-cons should be applauded for delivering the kick in the pants that unleashed political change in the Middle East. Nevertheless, we must plan for and commit to helping those societies maintain order, and to helping any others where repression is removed as a result of IT-inspired revolution. A strategy must be found to soften the landing of societies that suddenly adopt participatory government. Without it, liberal democracies will continue to suffer from terrorist reaction to the changes that they make on the social order in the rest of the world.
06 March 2005
Depoliticizing the Judiciary
The climate in Washington has become very partisan; it is time to depoliticize the judicial branch. Ironically, this would best be accomplished by determining appointments to the bench through popular elections.
Judgeships in many parts of the country are filled through partisan or non-partisan elections. It is only natural for federal judges to be selected by popular vote, isolating that decision from the rivalries of Congressmen and Presidents who seek to preserve their jobs in office. This should percolate to as high as Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court, to which selection of Justices seems to cause the most bitter disputes on Capitol Hill.
Of course, the voting public needs help in studying the qualifications and wisdom of potential judicial appointees. Perhaps a review board of legal authorities, academic and practicing, can be established in the face of resentment towards trial lawyers and others in the legal profession. The League of Women Voters might be a model to be emulated. In any case, the result will be no worse than the wrangling that now belabors our judicial nomination process.
The climate in Washington has become very partisan; it is time to depoliticize the judicial branch. Ironically, this would best be accomplished by determining appointments to the bench through popular elections.
Judgeships in many parts of the country are filled through partisan or non-partisan elections. It is only natural for federal judges to be selected by popular vote, isolating that decision from the rivalries of Congressmen and Presidents who seek to preserve their jobs in office. This should percolate to as high as Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court, to which selection of Justices seems to cause the most bitter disputes on Capitol Hill.
Of course, the voting public needs help in studying the qualifications and wisdom of potential judicial appointees. Perhaps a review board of legal authorities, academic and practicing, can be established in the face of resentment towards trial lawyers and others in the legal profession. The League of Women Voters might be a model to be emulated. In any case, the result will be no worse than the wrangling that now belabors our judicial nomination process.
