William Saffire put the president's inauguration speech in the top ten second term inaugural in history. I haven't read all the second term speeches, but I might've been inclined to give it even more prominence than that on the grounds of the singular statement:
We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
It would seem that the Bush administration has grasped that policy is most successful when idealism and self-interest intersect, or, rather, that they have grasped this with regard to foreign policy. While this rather subtle nuance of politics (frequently lost on academics) seems to have become the core idea of Bush's foreign policy, the president seems to have failed to comprehend that old adage: "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."
Over the past weeks innumerable editorials have been published regarding the budgetary evisceration of social welfare programs, and, clearly, this is in keeping with ideas popular among Republicans since Reagan, but it is in direct opposition to both our ideals and our interests. As we pour money and manpower into the Iraqi reconstruction, even going so far as to daily sacrifice America's sons and daughters on the altar of freedom and global community, the administration would have us believe that our own disconnected areas are somehow fundamentally different from Sadr City, that our freedom and security are connected to slums in Baghdad, but not to slums in Detroit.
Allow me to put this into perspective. If the Bush doctrine, or some revised form of it, is successful, by 2020 there will be a functioning economy, a middle class, and prosperity in the Middle East. Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine will no longer be fruitful recruiting ground for Jihadists. Indigenous populations, focused on building a future, riding steadily forward on a sense of possibility and increased expectations will shun Jihad in favor of moderate forms of Political Islam, geared toward building a better future for the Islamic world. However, as can already be seen in Western Europe, Islamic communities abroad will face discrimination, finding themselves in squalor amid the prosperous. Imagine the Black Panthers emboldened with Jihadist ideology and a lot of Simtex.
The very social programs that are designed to prevent indigenous Americans from sliding into crushing poverty are America's first line of defense against the Jihadists of tomorrow. While most Americans don't realize it, America's Islamic population is surging. In Dearborne, Michigan 30% of the population is of Arab ancestry, more than 60,000 people, most of them living in disconnected and impoverished communities. Already anti-American demonstrations have had a chilling effect.
In the coming years the survival of liberty in our land will depend increasingly on the survival of our commitment to opportunity for all Americans. Social welfare is our first line of defense against the Jihadists of tomorrow. Isn't it in our interests then, to ensure it's survival?
Monday, January 31, 2005
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Rule Set Reset
The first issue of Rule Set Reset: A Journal of News and What's Next will be available free of charge, and, given the wonderful articles by Thomas P. M. Barnett, TM Lutas, Mark Safranski, and yours truly I highly recomend that you all download it.
Monday, January 24, 2005
How Little We Understand Ourselves
- 'Land grab' fears for Jerusalem, BBC World News, Jan. 24, 2005
It has been broadly accepted that the root cause of terrorism is "a sense of diminished expectations," and economist Hernando de Soto, President of the Institute for Liberty and Democracy, has done extensive work connecting that feeling to what he refers to as property "meta-rights," or the right to have property rights. With Ariel Sharon molting his hawk's feathers it seems strange that his new government should be assaulting these rights shown to be most connected to that sense of diminished expectations. That's exactly what they're doing, however, when Palestinians, living in the West Bank who can actually prove their ownership of property in East Jerusalem, are losing property to the government under an absentee landlord law not in active use for fifty years. Sharon's political life has been bet on one hand of poker with the Palestinians. Is he really stupid enough to trade in a pair of jacks in hopes of a flush? For the peace process to succeed the Palestinians have to have hope. This marks two serious strikes against him (the first being the early shut down of communications with the Abbas government). Let's hope that he and his new government can get their act together and comprehend that a mutually beneficial agreement doesn't mean that they get all the land, power, and prosperity alongside the peace.
It has been broadly accepted that the root cause of terrorism is "a sense of diminished expectations," and economist Hernando de Soto, President of the Institute for Liberty and Democracy, has done extensive work connecting that feeling to what he refers to as property "meta-rights," or the right to have property rights. With Ariel Sharon molting his hawk's feathers it seems strange that his new government should be assaulting these rights shown to be most connected to that sense of diminished expectations. That's exactly what they're doing, however, when Palestinians, living in the West Bank who can actually prove their ownership of property in East Jerusalem, are losing property to the government under an absentee landlord law not in active use for fifty years. Sharon's political life has been bet on one hand of poker with the Palestinians. Is he really stupid enough to trade in a pair of jacks in hopes of a flush? For the peace process to succeed the Palestinians have to have hope. This marks two serious strikes against him (the first being the early shut down of communications with the Abbas government). Let's hope that he and his new government can get their act together and comprehend that a mutually beneficial agreement doesn't mean that they get all the land, power, and prosperity alongside the peace.
Friday, January 21, 2005
A Citizen Of Mosul
A Citizen Of Mosul has decided to give us some perspective on Iraqi history. I rarely blog links to other blogs, but this one's worth it.
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Jazz and Policy
The fundamental difference between be-bop jazz and most forms of music that preceded it is that be-bop leaves room for dissonance and improvisation. In be-bop a trumpet player can go off melody and beat, creating wildly dissonant patterns. I love be-bop... as a form of music. Be-bop, however, is not a bureaucratic or political style that goes over too terribly well. That, according to an article in The Nation, hasn't stopped it from being tried as we struggle to create a future for Iraq.
I'll spare you the particulars of the article. Andrew Ackerman already wrote them, so I'll simply give you the necessary bits. According to Ackerman the Pentagon has awarded a nearly $3M contract for the protection of diplomats in Iraq to Aegis Defence Services, a London-based mercenary firm headed by the notorious Tim Spicer. Spicer is widely known in military circles as one of the most scandalous and disreputable men in a field that is hardly overburdened by ethics. The reason he is "widely known" is that he has, historically, been less than discreet while engaging in very questionable activities. He has previously violated international and British law by trafficking arms into Sierra Leone, accidentally triggered a coup in Paupa New Guinea, and, while commanding a Scots Guard unit in Belfast, allowed men guilty of murder to return to duty.
Five senators, led by Ted Kennedy, have lodged a protest with the Department of Defense to no avail. Protests raised by competitors to the GAO have had similar results. Simply put, Spicer's company meets all the bureaucratic requirements to be awarded the contract, and, frankly, were this a traditional war zone, I would think this a perfectly reasonable situation. War zones, however, are no longer traditional. The United States is, for better or worse, trying to build a free and modern state where once there was a despotism. This task must be taken personally. Every leader involved must share, or at least comprehend, the vision of a free Iraq. For the Department of Defense to outsource security duties to conflict-prone mercenaries is tantamount to the conductor of an orchestra allowing a trumpet player to go off melody during an Aaron Copeland symphony. Be-bop, it turns out, simply doesn't sound good as policy.
I'll spare you the particulars of the article. Andrew Ackerman already wrote them, so I'll simply give you the necessary bits. According to Ackerman the Pentagon has awarded a nearly $3M contract for the protection of diplomats in Iraq to Aegis Defence Services, a London-based mercenary firm headed by the notorious Tim Spicer. Spicer is widely known in military circles as one of the most scandalous and disreputable men in a field that is hardly overburdened by ethics. The reason he is "widely known" is that he has, historically, been less than discreet while engaging in very questionable activities. He has previously violated international and British law by trafficking arms into Sierra Leone, accidentally triggered a coup in Paupa New Guinea, and, while commanding a Scots Guard unit in Belfast, allowed men guilty of murder to return to duty.
Five senators, led by Ted Kennedy, have lodged a protest with the Department of Defense to no avail. Protests raised by competitors to the GAO have had similar results. Simply put, Spicer's company meets all the bureaucratic requirements to be awarded the contract, and, frankly, were this a traditional war zone, I would think this a perfectly reasonable situation. War zones, however, are no longer traditional. The United States is, for better or worse, trying to build a free and modern state where once there was a despotism. This task must be taken personally. Every leader involved must share, or at least comprehend, the vision of a free Iraq. For the Department of Defense to outsource security duties to conflict-prone mercenaries is tantamount to the conductor of an orchestra allowing a trumpet player to go off melody during an Aaron Copeland symphony. Be-bop, it turns out, simply doesn't sound good as policy.
Sunday, January 09, 2005
Sorry for the Absence
My apologies for the long absence. I'd like to blame it on the holidays, and I suppose I can to an extent. I get terribly depressed around this time of year, and (combined with a nasty case of the flu) that kept me down for a couple of weeks. It was all I could manage to finish my article for Rule Set Reset (the monthly journal of the New Rule Sets Project). I'm quite happy about that. I consider having a 1000 word article next to articles by Thomas P.M. Barnett, TM Lutas, and Mark Safranski (Zenpundit) to be an honor. I'm still trying to figure out exactly why Tom asked me to write for them, but, hey, I'll take the exposure without asking too many questions.
Tom and Critt, thanks for asking me to be involved. Bob Jacobson, thanks for the outstanding coaching and editing. I'm proud to have worked with you.
If it's quite all right with the NRSP kids I'll post the article here when the Feb. issue of RSR comes out. Assuming that I keep getting a soap box in RSR, I'll try to publish the articles here as the following issues come out.
Esther Dyson and Jeff Jarvis on NPR
I hope at least some of you managed to listen to Esther Dyson and Jeff Jarvis on NPR this morning. There was some really serious insight into how the Internet (and blogs in particular) are changing everything from disaster relief to the media. It was all the guff that bloggers already know, but it demonstrated that NPR has really begun to get globalization. I also particularly like that a major media outlet is giving play to serious blogs, and that Wonkette's flirtation with a certain Capitol Hill hussy will no longer be the way that outsiders remember blogs.
The New Year
The calender insists that this is a new year, but I view time as a series of events rather than just a series of dates. So, by my reckoning it's New Year's Eve. About three hours ago the Palestinians started voting. Since I count the Tsunami (and the initial flow of aid) as the final event of 2004, I'm counting the Palestinian elections, or rather their completion, as the first major event of 2005. When the votes are in and a successor to Yassir Arafat has been declared, I'll call it '05. Get ready for a high bit rate for the next few weeks. The Tsunami pulled the vast majority of media and policy attention for a couple of weeks, but this election and the begining of this session of Congress are going to start a massive flow of pent up political energy. I'll save my immediate predictions as they're all fairly obvious, but I suppose I'll make a few big ones for '05.
1) Sharon's shaky government will collapse and the Palestinian peace process will require the intervention of an outside negotiator. Sharon will survive politically, but he probably won't be the PM. This will all happen after the settlement pullouts are largely complete, and the trigger will be budgetary in nature.
2) The attention that the Tsunami has brought to the Tamil Tigers will draw a third party negotiator to help bring about an end to that conflict. The Tigers will gain enough legitimacy in international eyes to become more of a political party and less of an insurgency.
3) Costal areas hit by the Tsunami will rebuild rapidly. By 2006 they will contribute at least double their previous percentages of their respective GDPs on average. These regions will attract massive investment due to the restructuring of local property laws and the creation of new physical infrastructure.
4) Iraq will be headed for trifurcation, though it will remain Iraq. The national government will exist, but it will serve as little more than a political battleground for the three regions to argue over oil rights. While the Shiites continue to stabilize and prosper the Sunnis will wage an undeclared civil war. We will, in response, train a largely Shiite military which will further alienate the Sunnis. The end result will be a bloody conflict management which will not improve until the peacekeeping force is made significantly more multi-lateral. The violent conflict in Iraq will only improve when continental Europe gets off its high horse and helps. That in turn will only happen when the Bush and Blair administrations ask politely. We might be waiting until 2007 for that. Another possibility is that the Islamic world, led by Turkey and Iran, will stage a serious effort to bring about peace in Iraq, but that sort of help will be linked (indirectly) to Turkey's EU ambitions and Iran's bomb.
5) The European Union will deal with more homegrown Islamic terrorism than ever before, prompting leaders to involve Europe more deeply in the Global War on Terror. This could prompt reconcilliation between the US and Europe over Iraq if Bush plays his cards right. As Europe will find itself the new home of massive terror networks, the epicenter of this reconcilliation will likely be interagency cooperation between US and European intel agencies. This one's an outside bet, but I'll still throw some cash on it.
6) This will be a weak year for national domestic policy due to massive partisan debate in Congress. The Hill will be full of sound and fury signifying nothing, but state governments will use the chance to seize the limelight, starting a decentralization of power. The rising stars of both parties will come from state governments, dashing the hopes of more than a few members of the House for political advancement.
That's all I'll predict for'05. This is going to be a tedious year in a lot of ways. Very little will come to fruition, but we'll see the emergence of quite a few patterns. Oh, one last one, North Korea will implode with less fanfare than expected. China will deal with that handily enough that the US barely gets involved until after the dice for the future of the country are already thrown.
Well, we'll just put that on to simmer for a year, and we'll see how well my crystal ball works later. Time for me to crawl back into my bottle of NyQuil. See you all after the votes are counted in Palestine.
Tom and Critt, thanks for asking me to be involved. Bob Jacobson, thanks for the outstanding coaching and editing. I'm proud to have worked with you.
If it's quite all right with the NRSP kids I'll post the article here when the Feb. issue of RSR comes out. Assuming that I keep getting a soap box in RSR, I'll try to publish the articles here as the following issues come out.
Esther Dyson and Jeff Jarvis on NPR
I hope at least some of you managed to listen to Esther Dyson and Jeff Jarvis on NPR this morning. There was some really serious insight into how the Internet (and blogs in particular) are changing everything from disaster relief to the media. It was all the guff that bloggers already know, but it demonstrated that NPR has really begun to get globalization. I also particularly like that a major media outlet is giving play to serious blogs, and that Wonkette's flirtation with a certain Capitol Hill hussy will no longer be the way that outsiders remember blogs.
The New Year
The calender insists that this is a new year, but I view time as a series of events rather than just a series of dates. So, by my reckoning it's New Year's Eve. About three hours ago the Palestinians started voting. Since I count the Tsunami (and the initial flow of aid) as the final event of 2004, I'm counting the Palestinian elections, or rather their completion, as the first major event of 2005. When the votes are in and a successor to Yassir Arafat has been declared, I'll call it '05. Get ready for a high bit rate for the next few weeks. The Tsunami pulled the vast majority of media and policy attention for a couple of weeks, but this election and the begining of this session of Congress are going to start a massive flow of pent up political energy. I'll save my immediate predictions as they're all fairly obvious, but I suppose I'll make a few big ones for '05.
1) Sharon's shaky government will collapse and the Palestinian peace process will require the intervention of an outside negotiator. Sharon will survive politically, but he probably won't be the PM. This will all happen after the settlement pullouts are largely complete, and the trigger will be budgetary in nature.
2) The attention that the Tsunami has brought to the Tamil Tigers will draw a third party negotiator to help bring about an end to that conflict. The Tigers will gain enough legitimacy in international eyes to become more of a political party and less of an insurgency.
3) Costal areas hit by the Tsunami will rebuild rapidly. By 2006 they will contribute at least double their previous percentages of their respective GDPs on average. These regions will attract massive investment due to the restructuring of local property laws and the creation of new physical infrastructure.
4) Iraq will be headed for trifurcation, though it will remain Iraq. The national government will exist, but it will serve as little more than a political battleground for the three regions to argue over oil rights. While the Shiites continue to stabilize and prosper the Sunnis will wage an undeclared civil war. We will, in response, train a largely Shiite military which will further alienate the Sunnis. The end result will be a bloody conflict management which will not improve until the peacekeeping force is made significantly more multi-lateral. The violent conflict in Iraq will only improve when continental Europe gets off its high horse and helps. That in turn will only happen when the Bush and Blair administrations ask politely. We might be waiting until 2007 for that. Another possibility is that the Islamic world, led by Turkey and Iran, will stage a serious effort to bring about peace in Iraq, but that sort of help will be linked (indirectly) to Turkey's EU ambitions and Iran's bomb.
5) The European Union will deal with more homegrown Islamic terrorism than ever before, prompting leaders to involve Europe more deeply in the Global War on Terror. This could prompt reconcilliation between the US and Europe over Iraq if Bush plays his cards right. As Europe will find itself the new home of massive terror networks, the epicenter of this reconcilliation will likely be interagency cooperation between US and European intel agencies. This one's an outside bet, but I'll still throw some cash on it.
6) This will be a weak year for national domestic policy due to massive partisan debate in Congress. The Hill will be full of sound and fury signifying nothing, but state governments will use the chance to seize the limelight, starting a decentralization of power. The rising stars of both parties will come from state governments, dashing the hopes of more than a few members of the House for political advancement.
That's all I'll predict for'05. This is going to be a tedious year in a lot of ways. Very little will come to fruition, but we'll see the emergence of quite a few patterns. Oh, one last one, North Korea will implode with less fanfare than expected. China will deal with that handily enough that the US barely gets involved until after the dice for the future of the country are already thrown.
Well, we'll just put that on to simmer for a year, and we'll see how well my crystal ball works later. Time for me to crawl back into my bottle of NyQuil. See you all after the votes are counted in Palestine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)