28 April 2006
United 93
In the April 27, 2006, Wall Street Journal, David Beamer’s heartfelt essay about the heroic end to tragic flight United 93 owing in large part to his son displays the distortion of the causes of this terrorist event that led this country into the further tragedy of a war in Iraq. He uses the words “freedom” (4 times) and “liberty” (3 times) to describe American values that came under attack on September 11 by “an enemy who will stop at nothing to achieve world domination.” He, the general public, and the Wall Street Journal too uncritically accepted this simplistic characterization from a U.S. power structure that apparently, to be generous, found it too complicated to explain what the country was up against.
A real solution to the challenge of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism inconveniently demands new methods that were not in our top drawer on September 11. Iraq was the preferred enemy of Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon because that country had “better targets” than Afghanistan. Similarly, his military machine was not prepared to combat the kind of enemy that struck the U.S. in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. So, for want of an effective response, the American government took the kind of retaliatory action that it could portray as required by a challenge to our liberty, regardless of whether our freedom was actually threatened.
What was threatened was our security, our ability to use our wealth, power and leadership to protect our safety and “pursuit of happiness.” Our enemy did not seek to dominate us, or to dominate anyone else, for that matter. Our enemy is chaos, disorder in a world that that enemy believes we and our liberal democratic allies dominate. It’s easier to bomb a dictator out of power in a place like Iraq than to engage in a long term program of education and investment to build commitment among radical fundamentalists to common values with the West.
In the April 27, 2006, Wall Street Journal, David Beamer’s heartfelt essay about the heroic end to tragic flight United 93 owing in large part to his son displays the distortion of the causes of this terrorist event that led this country into the further tragedy of a war in Iraq. He uses the words “freedom” (4 times) and “liberty” (3 times) to describe American values that came under attack on September 11 by “an enemy who will stop at nothing to achieve world domination.” He, the general public, and the Wall Street Journal too uncritically accepted this simplistic characterization from a U.S. power structure that apparently, to be generous, found it too complicated to explain what the country was up against.
A real solution to the challenge of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism inconveniently demands new methods that were not in our top drawer on September 11. Iraq was the preferred enemy of Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon because that country had “better targets” than Afghanistan. Similarly, his military machine was not prepared to combat the kind of enemy that struck the U.S. in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. So, for want of an effective response, the American government took the kind of retaliatory action that it could portray as required by a challenge to our liberty, regardless of whether our freedom was actually threatened.
What was threatened was our security, our ability to use our wealth, power and leadership to protect our safety and “pursuit of happiness.” Our enemy did not seek to dominate us, or to dominate anyone else, for that matter. Our enemy is chaos, disorder in a world that that enemy believes we and our liberal democratic allies dominate. It’s easier to bomb a dictator out of power in a place like Iraq than to engage in a long term program of education and investment to build commitment among radical fundamentalists to common values with the West.
21 April 2006
Military Competition with China
Reporting in the April 20, 2006 Wall Street Journal on Chinese President Hu Jintao’s visit to the U.S., Neil King Jr. highlighted the military rivalry between the two powers. Do we really want to lure China into a U.S.-Soviet style arms race that ends up crippling one of us? Can’t a proxy competition in another field -- IT, for example, arts, entertainment, or finance -- replace it to the benefit of both sides?
China’s Ambassador in Washington, Zhou Wenzhong, has it right. China has emerged as America’s next menace because the U.S. defense industry “needs more orders.”
The ultimate goal of an arms race is the destruction of the other competitor, and “splendid isolation” from its culture. Won’t collaboration by those competitors result in a better outcome for them both?
Reporting in the April 20, 2006 Wall Street Journal on Chinese President Hu Jintao’s visit to the U.S., Neil King Jr. highlighted the military rivalry between the two powers. Do we really want to lure China into a U.S.-Soviet style arms race that ends up crippling one of us? Can’t a proxy competition in another field -- IT, for example, arts, entertainment, or finance -- replace it to the benefit of both sides?
China’s Ambassador in Washington, Zhou Wenzhong, has it right. China has emerged as America’s next menace because the U.S. defense industry “needs more orders.”
The ultimate goal of an arms race is the destruction of the other competitor, and “splendid isolation” from its culture. Won’t collaboration by those competitors result in a better outcome for them both?
No Confidence Vote
Senator Dick Durbin’s call for a vote of no confidence in the tenure of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense is an admitted appeal to use a tool of parliamentary systems of government. It is not part of the American constitutional system that enshrines separation of powers between three equal branches – executive, legislative, and judicial.
The appropriate vehicle for pressuring a member of the Administration to be fired or to resign traditionally is the next scheduled national election. Owing to the IT revolution, it has become easier to mobilize political resistance to the policies of the government, not only in the U.S., but virtually anywhere in the world (viz. Nepal and China).
If Senator Durbin and others in the Congress believe strongly that retention of Secretary Rumsfeld will harm the country, they should make it an issue of their coming election campaigns. They should encourage their confederates and constituents to express displeasure to the President directly and to coalesce their voting strength for achieving a change in party dominance of the next U.S. Congress.
Senator Dick Durbin’s call for a vote of no confidence in the tenure of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense is an admitted appeal to use a tool of parliamentary systems of government. It is not part of the American constitutional system that enshrines separation of powers between three equal branches – executive, legislative, and judicial.
The appropriate vehicle for pressuring a member of the Administration to be fired or to resign traditionally is the next scheduled national election. Owing to the IT revolution, it has become easier to mobilize political resistance to the policies of the government, not only in the U.S., but virtually anywhere in the world (viz. Nepal and China).
If Senator Durbin and others in the Congress believe strongly that retention of Secretary Rumsfeld will harm the country, they should make it an issue of their coming election campaigns. They should encourage their confederates and constituents to express displeasure to the President directly and to coalesce their voting strength for achieving a change in party dominance of the next U.S. Congress.
08 April 2006
The Lesson of Tal Afar
In his April 10, 2006 New Yorker article, George Packer makes it clear that the best person to help George Bush achieve his definition of victory in Iraq is probably Saddam Hussein. Condoleeza Rice’s goal of delivering a foundation for stability in Iraq will probably not be possible with that country’s sectional and sectarian divisions in the absence of Saddam’s genius for brutal oppression.
But let us give the Bush Administration the benefit of the doubt-- let us say that the reason they forced themselves to believe they could establish democracy in Iraq is that they truly think that is the only way to prevent its becoming an Islamic terrorist base. If they are wrong, what other solution could work? Total sequestration of the Islamic world? That would make Western secular society blithely independent of political and social events in the Middle East, but would be costly and technologically premature until alternate sources of energy are developed. Is it even possible on a globe where communications barriers have been nearly eliminated?
A more realistic strategy might be economic development of the Islamic world. This could aim to build commitment to common values with the West among radical fundamentalists. However, that too would be costly, requiring the deferral of returns on investment in trade and energy extraction until the benefits from reduced threats of terrorism are realized. Moreover, it would require the trade of what would amount to amnesty for terrorists in exchange for their collaboration by joining the global economic system.
The instigators of the Iraq invasion will be very stubborn in resisting this sort of exchange, and the disorganized leadership of radical Islamic fundamentalism will be even less likely to make such a deal. And yet the cards seem to be favoring the latter; so we must begin work now if an accommodation is to be achieved. Victory in traditional secular terms will never be achieved.
In his April 10, 2006 New Yorker article, George Packer makes it clear that the best person to help George Bush achieve his definition of victory in Iraq is probably Saddam Hussein. Condoleeza Rice’s goal of delivering a foundation for stability in Iraq will probably not be possible with that country’s sectional and sectarian divisions in the absence of Saddam’s genius for brutal oppression.
But let us give the Bush Administration the benefit of the doubt-- let us say that the reason they forced themselves to believe they could establish democracy in Iraq is that they truly think that is the only way to prevent its becoming an Islamic terrorist base. If they are wrong, what other solution could work? Total sequestration of the Islamic world? That would make Western secular society blithely independent of political and social events in the Middle East, but would be costly and technologically premature until alternate sources of energy are developed. Is it even possible on a globe where communications barriers have been nearly eliminated?
A more realistic strategy might be economic development of the Islamic world. This could aim to build commitment to common values with the West among radical fundamentalists. However, that too would be costly, requiring the deferral of returns on investment in trade and energy extraction until the benefits from reduced threats of terrorism are realized. Moreover, it would require the trade of what would amount to amnesty for terrorists in exchange for their collaboration by joining the global economic system.
The instigators of the Iraq invasion will be very stubborn in resisting this sort of exchange, and the disorganized leadership of radical Islamic fundamentalism will be even less likely to make such a deal. And yet the cards seem to be favoring the latter; so we must begin work now if an accommodation is to be achieved. Victory in traditional secular terms will never be achieved.
06 April 2006
Proof of Immigration Legality
The new Immigration bill in Congress establishes three tiers of consequences for illegal immigrants. A procedure must be created for determining into which tier any illegal immigrant belongs. It would be ironic to rely on the word of an illegal for an answer to the question, how long has he or she been in the U.S.? On the other hand, if the illegal is forced to prove (say, with documentation) that he or she has been in the U.S. for a certain minimum length of time then our legal system would have to allow for the assumption of guilt before proving innocence.
In any case, as Mexican President Fox pointed out, this new legislation authorizing guest workers will probably unleash a flood of legal immigrants. Appropriating funds for increased border patrols and enforcement will certainly encourage more foreigners to apply for legal admittance to the U.S. However, where increased funding will be needed is for staffing at the INA to process all the new applications. The highest barrier to legal entry into the U.S. continues to be the lengthy delay that blocks receipt of a green card, or whatever color guest workers will carry.
A prosperous country like the U.S., or any other in the OECD, reaches stages where it must import raw materials, consumer goods, capital, and labor, more or less in that order. What it produces in exchange becomes increasingly ineffable. Ideas, technology, entertainment, style – all of these have value to less prosperous countries and to the way of life in the wealthy countries as well. Obstructing the cross-border flow of people and production means will harm both ends of the global richness spectrum.
The new Immigration bill in Congress establishes three tiers of consequences for illegal immigrants. A procedure must be created for determining into which tier any illegal immigrant belongs. It would be ironic to rely on the word of an illegal for an answer to the question, how long has he or she been in the U.S.? On the other hand, if the illegal is forced to prove (say, with documentation) that he or she has been in the U.S. for a certain minimum length of time then our legal system would have to allow for the assumption of guilt before proving innocence.
In any case, as Mexican President Fox pointed out, this new legislation authorizing guest workers will probably unleash a flood of legal immigrants. Appropriating funds for increased border patrols and enforcement will certainly encourage more foreigners to apply for legal admittance to the U.S. However, where increased funding will be needed is for staffing at the INA to process all the new applications. The highest barrier to legal entry into the U.S. continues to be the lengthy delay that blocks receipt of a green card, or whatever color guest workers will carry.
A prosperous country like the U.S., or any other in the OECD, reaches stages where it must import raw materials, consumer goods, capital, and labor, more or less in that order. What it produces in exchange becomes increasingly ineffable. Ideas, technology, entertainment, style – all of these have value to less prosperous countries and to the way of life in the wealthy countries as well. Obstructing the cross-border flow of people and production means will harm both ends of the global richness spectrum.
05 April 2006
Toadyism on Iraq
The OpEd article in the April 4, 2006 Wall Street Journal by Peter Wehner reminds me of the Justice Samuel Alito’s application to join President Reagan’s Department of Justice. The gratuitous opinion on the constitutionality of abortion that Alito expressed in that document displayed a toadyism that he apparently believed would appeal to the Attorney General, Edwin Meese. It certainly seemed to appeal to President Bush, resulting in his nomination to the Supreme Court last year. And it set a model for Mr. Wehner who may be trying to cement his position in the White House now that Joshua Bolten has taken over responsibilities as Chief of Staff.
Mr. Wehner wants us to believe that imposing democracy is the nervy route to accomplishing the “freedom agenda.” However, the definition of “freedom” that Freedom House, his authority on the subject, uses is clearly distinct from “democracy.” Its 2006 survey called only 89 countries free although 122 were “electoral democracies.” Clearly, having a democracy is not sufficient “for freedom to succeed.”
It is not only wrong to say that Iraq lacks a democratic culture. What it also lacks is a common civic culture with institutions that cut across its factional divisions to support democratic or any other orderly method of participatory government. For it to achieve the Freedom House status of “Free,” it would have to offer its citizens “broad scope for open political competition, a climate of respect for civil liberties, significant independent civic life, and independent media.”
None of these ambitions is possible in the current climate of unrest, unleashed by the U.S. invasion. Nor will they result from militarily administered elections. Threatening Iraq’s elected leaders that the U.S. will withdraw unless they adopt democratic solutions to their civic problems won’t speed things up either. It will take years to create a civil society out of the Iraqi artifact of early 20th Century imperialism. We entered this whirlwind blindly and will have to live with its costly consequences for a long time.
The OpEd article in the April 4, 2006 Wall Street Journal by Peter Wehner reminds me of the Justice Samuel Alito’s application to join President Reagan’s Department of Justice. The gratuitous opinion on the constitutionality of abortion that Alito expressed in that document displayed a toadyism that he apparently believed would appeal to the Attorney General, Edwin Meese. It certainly seemed to appeal to President Bush, resulting in his nomination to the Supreme Court last year. And it set a model for Mr. Wehner who may be trying to cement his position in the White House now that Joshua Bolten has taken over responsibilities as Chief of Staff.
Mr. Wehner wants us to believe that imposing democracy is the nervy route to accomplishing the “freedom agenda.” However, the definition of “freedom” that Freedom House, his authority on the subject, uses is clearly distinct from “democracy.” Its 2006 survey called only 89 countries free although 122 were “electoral democracies.” Clearly, having a democracy is not sufficient “for freedom to succeed.”
It is not only wrong to say that Iraq lacks a democratic culture. What it also lacks is a common civic culture with institutions that cut across its factional divisions to support democratic or any other orderly method of participatory government. For it to achieve the Freedom House status of “Free,” it would have to offer its citizens “broad scope for open political competition, a climate of respect for civil liberties, significant independent civic life, and independent media.”
None of these ambitions is possible in the current climate of unrest, unleashed by the U.S. invasion. Nor will they result from militarily administered elections. Threatening Iraq’s elected leaders that the U.S. will withdraw unless they adopt democratic solutions to their civic problems won’t speed things up either. It will take years to create a civil society out of the Iraqi artifact of early 20th Century imperialism. We entered this whirlwind blindly and will have to live with its costly consequences for a long time.
04 April 2006
Uchitelle and Layoffs
In his new book, The Disposable American, Louis Uchitelle, the New York Times economics reporter, proves himself again to be an interventionist. Back in 2003, he argued for government policies that strengthened domestic manufacturing, saying that American “power” is tied to its ability to produce physical goods for its own consumption and export. Now he makes the argument that it is the government’s responsibility to prevent manufacturing jobs from moving overseas in order to preserve social harmony in the country.
It is these kinds of “statist” principles that have led to civil conflicts and have restricted the pace of change over the course of history. Smug confidence in the superiority of one’s culture, as in France, is valuable to all humanity in small quantities – mainly because it serves as a control and retains certain universal treasures (good wine, good food, ineffable style); but its rigidity can reach limits, as we have recently seen in all French cities.
Free markets are a better solution to the advancement of human welfare than intervention by mankind’s instruments of government. It is not essentially different to call for sovereign “corrections” of macroeconomic trends than to insist that medical research conform to religious doctrines.
In his new book, The Disposable American, Louis Uchitelle, the New York Times economics reporter, proves himself again to be an interventionist. Back in 2003, he argued for government policies that strengthened domestic manufacturing, saying that American “power” is tied to its ability to produce physical goods for its own consumption and export. Now he makes the argument that it is the government’s responsibility to prevent manufacturing jobs from moving overseas in order to preserve social harmony in the country.
It is these kinds of “statist” principles that have led to civil conflicts and have restricted the pace of change over the course of history. Smug confidence in the superiority of one’s culture, as in France, is valuable to all humanity in small quantities – mainly because it serves as a control and retains certain universal treasures (good wine, good food, ineffable style); but its rigidity can reach limits, as we have recently seen in all French cities.
Free markets are a better solution to the advancement of human welfare than intervention by mankind’s instruments of government. It is not essentially different to call for sovereign “corrections” of macroeconomic trends than to insist that medical research conform to religious doctrines.
