31 January 2006
Newsmen Attacks
The IED injuries to ABC’s anchorman, Bob Woodruff, and cameraman, Doug Vogt, in Iraq as well as the kidnapping of the Christian Science Monitor’s stringer, Jill Carroll, illustrate how different the cultures of Iraq and the U.S. are. How can one expect to create a “democracy” there in a few years when reporting on events is granted no exemption from the violence? In Iraq, there is little understanding of or belief in the universal benefit of information.
As Frederick Kempe was said to note in the online Wall Street Journal on 31 January 2006, some countries may not be “ready” for democracy. It may be more accurate to say that it is a form of government not appropriate to the cultures of those countries, e.g. Iraq and Palestine. The “Enlightenment” founders of the American republic in the eighteenth century distrusted democracy for its empowering of unruly majorities. Such a majority seems to have taken the upper hand in the Palestinian elections, and could lead Iraq into civil war.
Clearly, democratic government does not create order and popular commitment to civil liberties. It can only follow.
The IED injuries to ABC’s anchorman, Bob Woodruff, and cameraman, Doug Vogt, in Iraq as well as the kidnapping of the Christian Science Monitor’s stringer, Jill Carroll, illustrate how different the cultures of Iraq and the U.S. are. How can one expect to create a “democracy” there in a few years when reporting on events is granted no exemption from the violence? In Iraq, there is little understanding of or belief in the universal benefit of information.
As Frederick Kempe was said to note in the online Wall Street Journal on 31 January 2006, some countries may not be “ready” for democracy. It may be more accurate to say that it is a form of government not appropriate to the cultures of those countries, e.g. Iraq and Palestine. The “Enlightenment” founders of the American republic in the eighteenth century distrusted democracy for its empowering of unruly majorities. Such a majority seems to have taken the upper hand in the Palestinian elections, and could lead Iraq into civil war.
Clearly, democratic government does not create order and popular commitment to civil liberties. It can only follow.
28 January 2006
Bush Assumes Eavesdropping Conclusion
In defense of the listening in on American telephone conversations by the National Security Agency, President Bush recently stated, “Why tell the enemy what we’re doing if the program is necessary to protect the nation?” Americans’ right not to have privacy violated is based, in part, on the belief that it has not been proven that unsubstantiated eavesdropping has ever been an effective way to prevent crime. Moreover, is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court the enemy?
The only thing that the NSA program is necessary for, in absence of judicial review, is to create a need for more and more sophisticated electronic surveillance techniques and apparatus. (Another consequence of the program is the need for increased spending on personnel to do the eavesdropping.) This generates more revenues for supporters of the Republican regime in Washington, although it is not as lucrative as dropping bombs on Iraq.
In defense of the listening in on American telephone conversations by the National Security Agency, President Bush recently stated, “Why tell the enemy what we’re doing if the program is necessary to protect the nation?” Americans’ right not to have privacy violated is based, in part, on the belief that it has not been proven that unsubstantiated eavesdropping has ever been an effective way to prevent crime. Moreover, is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court the enemy?
The only thing that the NSA program is necessary for, in absence of judicial review, is to create a need for more and more sophisticated electronic surveillance techniques and apparatus. (Another consequence of the program is the need for increased spending on personnel to do the eavesdropping.) This generates more revenues for supporters of the Republican regime in Washington, although it is not as lucrative as dropping bombs on Iraq.
26 January 2006
The Dilemma of the Palestinian Elections
The results of the acknowledged fair Palestinian elections announced on 26 January 2006 demonstrated the vacuity of the international interventionist policy professed by the neo-conservatives. After several revisions, it has been a major claim of the Bush Administration that its objective in Iraq is to establish democracy in the Middle East. Its ideologues have asserted that democracies do not support terrorism, and that imposition of a constitutional electoral process it would be sufficient to eliminate Iraq as a potential breeding ground for radical Islamist threats to American security.
Hamas were victors in spite of their use of terrorist tactics to destroy Israel. Were their anti-corruption and social services objectives more important to the Palestinian public than their anti-democratic violence? More likely, a majority of the Palestinian public is opposed to the existence of the Israeli state.
What a dilemma for liberal democracies in the West if democratically formed states in the Middle East act as terrorist agents in international affairs!
The results of the acknowledged fair Palestinian elections announced on 26 January 2006 demonstrated the vacuity of the international interventionist policy professed by the neo-conservatives. After several revisions, it has been a major claim of the Bush Administration that its objective in Iraq is to establish democracy in the Middle East. Its ideologues have asserted that democracies do not support terrorism, and that imposition of a constitutional electoral process it would be sufficient to eliminate Iraq as a potential breeding ground for radical Islamist threats to American security.
Hamas were victors in spite of their use of terrorist tactics to destroy Israel. Were their anti-corruption and social services objectives more important to the Palestinian public than their anti-democratic violence? More likely, a majority of the Palestinian public is opposed to the existence of the Israeli state.
What a dilemma for liberal democracies in the West if democratically formed states in the Middle East act as terrorist agents in international affairs!
25 January 2006
Al Qaeda in Iraq
In a recent report on “Frontline,” the correspondent casually referred to Al Qaeda terrorists as a major threat to the security of investigators of an alleged 1980s massacre of Kurdish men by the Saddam regime. This showed the success of the Bush Administration’s attempt to confuse the public regarding the true nature of resistance to the American occupation of Iraq.
Al Qaeda professes to be an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist network. It can be easily confused with a political movement, as religions have commonly been throughout history. This has partly been the fault of religious leaders themselves, who have violated boundaries between their realm of activity and the realm of politics -- maintaining social order. Likewise, political leaders have often pierced the demarcation between their rightful realm of down-to-earth activity and the spiritual, inspirational and ideological realm of metaphysics.
The goal of a radical Islamic fundamentalist organization like Al Qaeda is to undermine those who try to prevent Allah from having his way. Never mind that those who stand in the way of Allah may be ineffective in the end. The selected enemies of impatient defenders of the faith like Al Qaeda include most prominently
A) Oil-rich royalty and oil companies who prevent Muslims from equally benefiting from their natural endowment.
B) Western governments who try to force Muslim states to act in the best interests of Western nations at the expense of Muslim nationals.
Characterizing resistance to the invasion of Iraq as fundamental Islamist, of course, plays into the viewpoint of Al Qaeda by snubbing national political interests. It has already drawn threats from Bin Laden and Al Zawahri to once again descend violently from the metaphysical high ground onto the U.S. political sphere with actions of terror.
In a recent report on “Frontline,” the correspondent casually referred to Al Qaeda terrorists as a major threat to the security of investigators of an alleged 1980s massacre of Kurdish men by the Saddam regime. This showed the success of the Bush Administration’s attempt to confuse the public regarding the true nature of resistance to the American occupation of Iraq.
Al Qaeda professes to be an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist network. It can be easily confused with a political movement, as religions have commonly been throughout history. This has partly been the fault of religious leaders themselves, who have violated boundaries between their realm of activity and the realm of politics -- maintaining social order. Likewise, political leaders have often pierced the demarcation between their rightful realm of down-to-earth activity and the spiritual, inspirational and ideological realm of metaphysics.
The goal of a radical Islamic fundamentalist organization like Al Qaeda is to undermine those who try to prevent Allah from having his way. Never mind that those who stand in the way of Allah may be ineffective in the end. The selected enemies of impatient defenders of the faith like Al Qaeda include most prominently
A) Oil-rich royalty and oil companies who prevent Muslims from equally benefiting from their natural endowment.
B) Western governments who try to force Muslim states to act in the best interests of Western nations at the expense of Muslim nationals.
Characterizing resistance to the invasion of Iraq as fundamental Islamist, of course, plays into the viewpoint of Al Qaeda by snubbing national political interests. It has already drawn threats from Bin Laden and Al Zawahri to once again descend violently from the metaphysical high ground onto the U.S. political sphere with actions of terror.
24 January 2006
Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Iraq War
Louis Uchitelle presented in the 15 January 2006 New York Times convincing results of economic analyses done by experts across the political spectrum to show that the Iraq war has not passed their tests for bringing benefits to American society that outweigh its costs. And yet, someone must have done the math that came out with a positive result. Who could that have been? What was the calculation?
The budgetary costs that Professors Stiglitz and Bilmes tallied are the mirror image of the revenue they represent for government suppliers. And you can be sure that all equipment and arms that have been destroyed in executing our war on Iraq will be replaced in order to maintain and improve readiness to fight the next campaign in the war on terror.
What appears as budgetary costs to taxpayers constitutes income for those suppliers. It is those suppliers who fund re-election of the government decision makers who must convince voters that deficit financing is necessary to protect their security. The “truthiness” of that claim defies academic analysis, but forms the basis for selling the public on government policies that generate lucrative business opportunities for the “military industrial complex.” Its specter is still with us and apparently more dominant than ever.
Louis Uchitelle presented in the 15 January 2006 New York Times convincing results of economic analyses done by experts across the political spectrum to show that the Iraq war has not passed their tests for bringing benefits to American society that outweigh its costs. And yet, someone must have done the math that came out with a positive result. Who could that have been? What was the calculation?
The budgetary costs that Professors Stiglitz and Bilmes tallied are the mirror image of the revenue they represent for government suppliers. And you can be sure that all equipment and arms that have been destroyed in executing our war on Iraq will be replaced in order to maintain and improve readiness to fight the next campaign in the war on terror.
What appears as budgetary costs to taxpayers constitutes income for those suppliers. It is those suppliers who fund re-election of the government decision makers who must convince voters that deficit financing is necessary to protect their security. The “truthiness” of that claim defies academic analysis, but forms the basis for selling the public on government policies that generate lucrative business opportunities for the “military industrial complex.” Its specter is still with us and apparently more dominant than ever.
22 January 2006
Predicaments of Iran and Choice
Similar predicaments are produced by making a military strike on Iran and defending “the right to choose” an abortion. The articles in the 22 January 2006 Sunday New York Times by David E. Sanger and William Saletan bring this similarity to the fore.
American opponents of the nuclear-menacing mullahs must wage a long difficult campaign to create among Iranian resisters confidence in their own power to overthrow the regime. Opponents of government suppression of women’s rights must work to relieve women of their being hobbled by the physical consequences of evolution.
We cannot rely on military swagger to achieve regime change in Iran, nor can we count on political sloganeering to resolve the moral dilemma of the destruction of fetuses as a means to protect the civil liberties of their mothers.
Similar predicaments are produced by making a military strike on Iran and defending “the right to choose” an abortion. The articles in the 22 January 2006 Sunday New York Times by David E. Sanger and William Saletan bring this similarity to the fore.
American opponents of the nuclear-menacing mullahs must wage a long difficult campaign to create among Iranian resisters confidence in their own power to overthrow the regime. Opponents of government suppression of women’s rights must work to relieve women of their being hobbled by the physical consequences of evolution.
We cannot rely on military swagger to achieve regime change in Iran, nor can we count on political sloganeering to resolve the moral dilemma of the destruction of fetuses as a means to protect the civil liberties of their mothers.
15 January 2006
American Help to Iran
Farouz Farzami, in her opinion piece in the 12 January 2006 Wall Street Journal, calls for “strong international pressures” on the Islamist regime in Iran in order to foment “the formation of independent and secular political parties.” She apparently believes that economic and diplomatic sanctions alone without military threats or (heaven forbid) strikes can achieve results similar to those she praises in Libya and Afghanistan.
First of all, it is difficult to believe that she and her impatient allies in Iran would be happy under the continued despotic rule of a dictator like Qaddafi. Nor would they be satisfied to be subject to the autonomous and unruly domination of regional Afghan warlords.
Clearly, she advocates some form of intervention in the internal affairs of her country short of the use of military force. And, if we learn s lesson from Neil MacFarquhar’s report in the 15 January 2006 New York Times, free speech, particularly over the Internet, alone is not enough to overthrow an authoritative regime in the Middle East. But there must be a limit on what a government, even the government of the world’s only superpower, is encouraged to do. The appropriate role for a government is to order its own society and protect the security of its population, not to impose its own form on other nations.
If the leaders of one nation don’t like the way the people of another nation are treated by their leaders, they are not authorized to intervene in that nation’s affairs -- not if they have been elected by democratic procedures; not even if their actions reflect the collective will of their own people. On the other hand, no nation can legitimately reduce its individual members to subjects without independent thought and freedom to act harmlessly – even as a result of democratic decision-making. The only resolution of this dilemma is for individuals in each nation to take matters into their own hands.
Of course, there is a risk to individual interveners – the same risk that their collaborators in the target country run. It is essential, moreover, that members of the target nation willingly assume the risks that overthrowing their government entails. Ms. Farzami cannot rely on America’s help, in the form of “smart sanctions,” to achieve the political order that she and like-minded members of Iranian society wish. They must take the first steps themselves; but to do so effectively they may wish to rely on collaboration with private non-violent interventionists who have provided similar advice and assistance to local movements in Poland, Ukraine, Romania, and elsewhere in Eastern Europe.
Neither the local nor the foreign individual interventionists are protected under international law or by the United Nations – those are arms of national governments whose existence private interventionists threaten. There is indeed a useful role for these arms to play – fighting other private enemies of states, like Al Qaeda. However, resisters of oppressive governments need to act with at least as much courage as fundamentalist opponents of all national order. There are no easy ways left.
Farouz Farzami, in her opinion piece in the 12 January 2006 Wall Street Journal, calls for “strong international pressures” on the Islamist regime in Iran in order to foment “the formation of independent and secular political parties.” She apparently believes that economic and diplomatic sanctions alone without military threats or (heaven forbid) strikes can achieve results similar to those she praises in Libya and Afghanistan.
First of all, it is difficult to believe that she and her impatient allies in Iran would be happy under the continued despotic rule of a dictator like Qaddafi. Nor would they be satisfied to be subject to the autonomous and unruly domination of regional Afghan warlords.
Clearly, she advocates some form of intervention in the internal affairs of her country short of the use of military force. And, if we learn s lesson from Neil MacFarquhar’s report in the 15 January 2006 New York Times, free speech, particularly over the Internet, alone is not enough to overthrow an authoritative regime in the Middle East. But there must be a limit on what a government, even the government of the world’s only superpower, is encouraged to do. The appropriate role for a government is to order its own society and protect the security of its population, not to impose its own form on other nations.
If the leaders of one nation don’t like the way the people of another nation are treated by their leaders, they are not authorized to intervene in that nation’s affairs -- not if they have been elected by democratic procedures; not even if their actions reflect the collective will of their own people. On the other hand, no nation can legitimately reduce its individual members to subjects without independent thought and freedom to act harmlessly – even as a result of democratic decision-making. The only resolution of this dilemma is for individuals in each nation to take matters into their own hands.
Of course, there is a risk to individual interveners – the same risk that their collaborators in the target country run. It is essential, moreover, that members of the target nation willingly assume the risks that overthrowing their government entails. Ms. Farzami cannot rely on America’s help, in the form of “smart sanctions,” to achieve the political order that she and like-minded members of Iranian society wish. They must take the first steps themselves; but to do so effectively they may wish to rely on collaboration with private non-violent interventionists who have provided similar advice and assistance to local movements in Poland, Ukraine, Romania, and elsewhere in Eastern Europe.
Neither the local nor the foreign individual interventionists are protected under international law or by the United Nations – those are arms of national governments whose existence private interventionists threaten. There is indeed a useful role for these arms to play – fighting other private enemies of states, like Al Qaeda. However, resisters of oppressive governments need to act with at least as much courage as fundamentalist opponents of all national order. There are no easy ways left.
14 January 2006
New Orleans Revival
I agree with James K. Glassman, in his 12 January 2006 Wall Street Journal opinion piece, that central planning will not be the key to New Orleans’ revival. However, if free market solutions are to be found, they must recognize that no great city runs without a government and civil services. Moreover, they have to take into account that the economic driver of the city – in New Orleans’ case tourism – depends not only on hotel, restaurant, convention, and entertainment entrepreneurs; it also depends on the service workers and creative artists that their industries offer visitors.
Unfortunately, it was precisely the residences of those workers and artists that suffered the brunt of Hurricane Katrina’s destruction. New Orleans may be able to downsize and eliminate the most vulnerable of its residential quarters. However, if the tourist industry in that city wants to recover its former vitality, it will not easily dispense with the support of its previous population.
A leader to reincarnate the city must inspire its entrepreneurs to realize that they will have to invest in providing secure housing and community services for the employees on whom their revived business will depend. They will have to raise the capital necessary for reconstruction, on free markets. They will have to convince those markets that New Orleans’ economy will generate revenue sufficient to make their investments secure and rewarding; and that the tourist industry and cultural icon that is New Orleans has the administrative capacity to manage its recovery. That’s a big ticket for anyone. I hope that Mr. Glassman has a good candidate.
I agree with James K. Glassman, in his 12 January 2006 Wall Street Journal opinion piece, that central planning will not be the key to New Orleans’ revival. However, if free market solutions are to be found, they must recognize that no great city runs without a government and civil services. Moreover, they have to take into account that the economic driver of the city – in New Orleans’ case tourism – depends not only on hotel, restaurant, convention, and entertainment entrepreneurs; it also depends on the service workers and creative artists that their industries offer visitors.
Unfortunately, it was precisely the residences of those workers and artists that suffered the brunt of Hurricane Katrina’s destruction. New Orleans may be able to downsize and eliminate the most vulnerable of its residential quarters. However, if the tourist industry in that city wants to recover its former vitality, it will not easily dispense with the support of its previous population.
A leader to reincarnate the city must inspire its entrepreneurs to realize that they will have to invest in providing secure housing and community services for the employees on whom their revived business will depend. They will have to raise the capital necessary for reconstruction, on free markets. They will have to convince those markets that New Orleans’ economy will generate revenue sufficient to make their investments secure and rewarding; and that the tourist industry and cultural icon that is New Orleans has the administrative capacity to manage its recovery. That’s a big ticket for anyone. I hope that Mr. Glassman has a good candidate.
03 January 2006
U.N. vs. NGOs
The U.N. Human Rights Commission has been subject to much controversy lately owing to the selection of certain oppressive governments as members. However, this is a logical result of the fact that the U.N. is a tool of its member states.
Several Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) monitor human rights conditions around the world, too. They are funded by wealthy governments with a political agenda, as well as by private contributors with similar global objectives.
It is natural that the U.N. would view the operations of these NGOs as a threat to the freedom of the majority of its member states to act as they prefer without interference. Perhaps the U.N. has outlived its usefulness, at least for those of us who believe that individual freedoms are more important than the freedom of governments to suppress their populations.
The U.N. Human Rights Commission has been subject to much controversy lately owing to the selection of certain oppressive governments as members. However, this is a logical result of the fact that the U.N. is a tool of its member states.
Several Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) monitor human rights conditions around the world, too. They are funded by wealthy governments with a political agenda, as well as by private contributors with similar global objectives.
It is natural that the U.N. would view the operations of these NGOs as a threat to the freedom of the majority of its member states to act as they prefer without interference. Perhaps the U.N. has outlived its usefulness, at least for those of us who believe that individual freedoms are more important than the freedom of governments to suppress their populations.
