Deck-Chair Realizations

 Posted by Mike  Foreign Policy, Middle East, War in Iraq  2 Responses »
Aug 292005
 

By Mike

The Bush apologists are finally waking up to the fact that the war in Iraq is being mishandled. Last week came the critiques by Nixon’s old NSA Henry Kissinger and prominent Republican Senator Chuck Hagel. This past weekend, I observed a number of hard-core Bush supporters on weekend cable debate shows who were falling back on the position that Rumsfeld’s military tactics were doing a poor job fighting the insurgency, and that Bush’s political team was doing a poor job of selling the war back home. And we cannot leave out the greatest Bush apologist this world has ever seen, New York Times Columnist David Brooks, who said on Sunday that the Iraq war had been mishandled from the start, that there were far too few troops in Iraq, and that we needed to be pursuing an “oil-spot” strategy to fight the guerrilla war rather than using small numbers of highly-trained heavily armed troops. (The oil spot strategy says that the key to winning a guerrilla war is to control and patrol ever-increasing pieces of safe territory, rather than to worry about trying to fight battles with the insurgents. The focus should be on how much land you own rather than how many enemies you kill.)

And they are absolutely correct. We should have been using an oil-spot strategy from the start, with a lot more troops on the ground, and a focus on securing territory. And President Bush has done a very poor job of selling this war to the American people and preparing them for the actual job that lay in front of us, rather than telling us fairy-tales of peace, love, harmony, and democracy. (In fact, I seem to recall Senator Kerry saying many of these things before the last election, and having the same Bush apologists criticize him for flip-flopping; but that’s beside the point.) Even President Bush is catching up to the reality of the situation; realizing how close this new constitution is to falling apart and how disillusioned many of the Sunnis in Iraq are with this entire process. He’s desperately hoping that by passing an effective constitution, he can demonstrate to the Sunnis the benefits of democracy, and therefore quell the insurgency. It’s not a terrible strategy. But sadly, he’s addressing the wrong problem.

The real threats to Iraqi stability right now come not from the Sunnis, despite the insurgency, but from the Shiites and the Kurds. Look at what they are demanding. The Sunnis want greater control of the political process, a secular society, a non-federal, unified state, and a guaranteed share of Iraqi oil revenues. In other words, they want a unified, strong Iraq in which they can prosper and, if possible, which they can control. To be honest, these goals are not so different from American goals. Yes, the Sunnis are responsible for most of the insurgent fighting, which is largely a function of their desire to control the political process, and their understanding that as long as the Americans remain in the country, their control of the political process will be weak. If the Americans leave and the Iraqi government can provide a stable outlet for Sunni political ambitions, however, the insurgency will quickly fall apart.

The other two groups are the dangerous ones. The Shiites, or many of them, want a theocratic, federal state with close ties to Iran. They want strong regional and local governments that can enforce a conservative brand of Islam on the population, and they want oil revenues to be controlled at a regional level. The Kurds want independence, or even secession. They want to determine their own fates, keep their own oil revenues, build their own cities, and support Kurdish independence movements in other countries (most notably, Turkey). Both the Kurds and the Shiites control well-organized, well-armed militias. So far, those groups have been reigned-in out of fear of the Americans and hope for the political process. But as the Iraqi constitution begins to fall apart, and the American public becomes ever-more disillusioned with Iraq, look for them to start flexing their strength. In fact, we’ve already seen a little of that in the inter-Shiite clashes that occurred last week.

And that’s where the real threat to Iraqi stability and prosperity comes from. The Sunni-led insurgency is always going to be a relatively small threat, organized by a relatively small group of people, and centered around Baghdad. What they really want is a revived Baathist party which, to be honest, is not the worst thing that could happen in Iraq. The real problems will come when the Shiites secularists and theocrats begin to openly clash in southern Iraq and when the Kurds attempt to exercise their own regional power in the North. Those well-organized, well-armed militias are being kept around for a purpose, and it is not simply to act as local police departments.

So, while it is nice that the Bush apologists are finally realizing that we need to change our strategy with regards to the Sunnis, ultimately it will be the Shiites and Kurds who determine whether Iraq will work as a country or not. And if the Turks and Iranians get involved, which is a distinct possibility if the situation deteriorates in the wrong ways, then we are all in trouble.

Test Case for Paternalism

 Posted by Doc Opp  Disasters and Tragedies, Issues  7 Responses »
Aug 282005
 

By Doc Opp

As reported by the AP, the city of New Orleans is being evacuated . Its astounding that a city of this size is threatened to the point that evacuation is necessary, and my heart goes out to the people in the path of the hurricane.

Obviously the entire situation is upsetting, but from a policy perspective, what I find disturbing is the fact that “Mandatory evacuations were ordered all along the Mississippi coast” (quoted from the article linked above). For those of you unaware of my libertarian tendencies (and that would be all of you, since I’m a new contributor to the site) the key word here is Mandatory. I don’t like that word.

Now, obviously the people in charge wouldn’t order mandatory evacuations unless there was significant risk to the lives of anybody who remained. But what I don’t understand is why the government gets to set people’s risk tolerance (rather than individuals risk preference). I’m 100% in favor of the government warning people. I think its great that the government help people who want to leave — providing logistical and possibly financial support. But my concern is with the people who don’t want to leave. What right does the government have to make them?

It seems to me that everything we do in life involves risk to our safety. Driving a car to the supermarket contains some element of risk; people die in car accidents every day. But sometimes the cost of foregoing the risk, or the benefits for engaging in the risk make it worthwhile anyway. Whether a behavior is “too risky” depends on a lot of things, not the least of which is the person engaging in the behavior; some people have higher tolerance for risk than others. And one of the hallmarks of freedom is that an individual can act in accordance with his or her own level of risk tolerance. Not the risk preferences imposed by a governing body.

So, if an individual realizes the risk involved in staying in his/her Mississippi coastal house, but wishes to do so anyway, why should the government get involved and prevent that choice from being exercised? This is an example of paternalistic legislation — a concept that I will likely discuss with some frequency in future posts — where the government decides what is good for a citizen and enforces that decision regardless of the citizen’s preferences. I’d like to suggest that paternalism is, in almost all cases, inappropriate government behavior. If I want to take a risk upon my person, I should be allowed to do so — in the end I’m the one who suffers the consequences or reaps the reward. The government can counsel me, or change the incentive structure (in this case by paying for the evacuation so as to lower my costs for engaging in the behavior) but not mandate against my choices if I’m the only one assuming the risk.

It’s Only Words

 Posted by Mike  Foreign Policy, Middle East, War in Iraq  No Responses »
Aug 242005
 

The Iraqi government is moving progressively closer towards a constitution. The compromises between the Kurdish and Shiite groups have allowed them to achieve a constitution that can pass cleanly through the Iraqi legislature. The next step, assuming that they can get the final wording out and have a full vote on the constitution this week, is to have a national referendum on the Constitution. That vote has to pass in at least fourteen of the sixteen regions in order to become Iraqi law. But, before we start counting our chickens, I think we need to put some of these events in perspective.

The nature of the compromise itself is very telling. The framers agreed to a federalist government, although have explicitly denied a provision that would have allowed any state the right to secede. The Kurds had been lobbying hard for that provision, only to drop it at the last minute. Islam, in this new Iraqi state, will be a main source of Iraqi law, but not the only source, although no Iraqi law is allowed to run counter to Islamic law. Oil revenues will be distributed across the states, a nod towards the Sunnis, who did not participate in the ultimate compromise. At first glance, it would seem that everyone got something of what they wanted. But first glances can be deceiving.

First, keep in mind that a constitution is only important if people actually abide by it. Especially when it comes to secession; ultimately whether or not the Kurds secede will depend on whether they think they are better off within the Iraqi state or not. If the provision were inserted, it would have simply decreased the likelihood that the Iraqi state would go to war with them if they tried. By failing to have that provision inserted, and given that the Kurdish section of Iraq is reasonably oil rich, it means that a civil war is very likely should they attempt to secede. That’s not to say that they won’t try it. The Kurds are the best armed and organized group in Iraq, and our own history shows that the simple prospect of war will not necessarily defeat a determined secession movement.

Second, remember that religious law is all in the interpretation. Look at Iran; despite the fact that they are an extremely theocratic country with an extremely conservative governing religious council, laws in Iran have changed dramatically over the last twenty years. Reforms have been implemented allowing women to vote, to hold elected office, to attend universities, and to be employed in most professions. Islam, like any other major religion, can be interpreted to fit the times… or not, as the case may be. In other words, no one knows exactly what it means for Islam to be a main source for Iraqi law, and until the Iraqi secular and religious courts attempt to apply those dicta, they will simply remain words. And, of course, how those laws are interpreted will ultimately have tremendous bearing on the desire of the Kurds to remain in Iraq, and the desire of the Sunnis to participate in the government, rather than attempting to subvert it.

Third, speaking of the Sunnis, keep in mind that they have not lent their voices to the compromise constitution. Quite the contrary, most Sunnis involved with the process have been displeased with the nature of the constitution that was formed. And while the Sunnis are severely under-represented within the Iraqi legislature, thanks to election-day boycotts, they do have enough political power to destroy the constitution during the October referendum, if they mobilize against it. Furthermore, even if the Constitution does outlive October, many Sunnis are likely to remain very skeptical of it unless and until they begin to see a real improvement in Iraqi governance, security, and financial prosperity. If the new constitution does not lead to a dramatic improvement in the daily lives of the Sunnis, and many other Iraqis, its legitimacy will quickly be thrown into question.

Finally, keep an eye on the Americans throughout this whole process. The timetable for this constitution was dictated by the Americans. It was formed during the American occupation, with enthusiastic American support. The American ambassador to Iraq has been actively pushing on both sides to compromise, and given that American forces are the strongest military presence in the country right now, his word will be given tremendous weight. But American forces will not be there forever. By pushing for this constitution, we run two risks. First, we risk pushing people into a compromise situation that they will want out of once American power has been removed from the equation. It is possible that large parts of this agreement were simply put in place to please us, and will therefore have to be renegotiated when we leave. Second, our presence, influence, and support could delegitimize this constitution from the start, whether or not we actually had any real effect on its formation. Our influence could easily taint the agreement in the eyes of many Iraqis, especially as the popularity of American forces continues to fall.

So yes, it is a hopeful sign that the Iraqis were able to agree upon a constitution. But don’t expect an immediately stable and prosperous democratic nation to develop as soon as the constitution is passed. Ultimately, until the vast majority of Iraqis views this new document as both wise and legitimate, this new constitution is just a bunch of words.

The Adventures of Pat and Hugo

 Posted by Mike  Foreign Policy, Latin America, Religion  No Responses »
Aug 232005
 

The Bible is unclear about a lot of things that Pat Robertson will claim divine authority on. The age of the Earth? You have to infer an awful lot from a wide variety of passages to get the 5000 year figure that is thrown around. End-times prophecy? Revelations, Daniel, and the rest, are full of allegory and they fully intersperse long-term and short-term prophecies; even the most astute and careful Biblical scholars can easily come to vastly different conclusions. Leadership roles for women? Given that our modern churches look almost nothing like their ancient forebearers, and that the surrounding cultures are so completely different, applying passages about appropriate roles for women in church leadership is extremely difficult.

One thing that the Bible is crystal clear on, however, is that Christians ought to approach real-life problems from a different perspective than the world. Non-Christians are very concerned about justice and revenge. Non-Christians are perfectly understanding of violence being done in the name of justice or security; it’s a dog-eat-dog world, and therefore it’s ok to be aggressive. Christians, on the other hand, are supposed to approach the world safe in the knowledge of God’s protection. We’re supposed to do the right thing and to treat even our most hateful enemies with love and kindness. That we should not be eager to seek revenge on behalf of ourselves, but instead to forgive those who have done even great wrongs to us, and to pray for them. Furthermore, the Bible is very clear that God appoints the rulers of all nations, and that it is not right for a Christian to participate in revolutionary or anti-regime behavior.

On yesterday’s 700 Club, Rev. Robertson’s Christian news and talk show, he made it plainly clear that he thought that the United States ought to assassinate Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela. If you watch the broadcast, the show starts with a ten minute investigative piece on Hugo Chavez, which accuses him of communist sympathies and of cultivating close ties with Arab terrorists, Colombian guerrillas, and most importantly, Fidel Castro. It describes how Chavez is gathering power to himself personally, at the expense of Venezuelan democracy. It talks at length about how Chavez is preparing for war with the United States, and how Chavez believes that the United States is trying to assassinate him. And he says that if the US does kill him, that Venezuela’s oil will stop flowing to America. After the report, Rev. Robertson says that if he thinks the United States wants to kill him, then that’s exactly what the United States ought to do. And he attacks the State Department for not intervening against President Chavez during the brief coup a couple of years ago that came very close to toppling him. (President Bush, of course, is a good Christian President, and is Pat Robertson’s kind of guy, so he is therefore spared any responsibility for the decision not to topple a foreign leader. It was the evil State Department that wants to ally with terrorists that is to blame.)

Rev. Robertson’s comments are completely unChristian. They run counter to everything that Jesus taught us about loving and praying for your enemies, and not seeking to do violence to them. When the Pentagon or CIA reacts to an anti-American foreign ruler, I expect them to at least consider assassination. But if we want to take ourselves seriously as a Christian nation, and if Pat Robertson is serious about wanting the United States to be a Christian nation, then to promote assassination is simply wrong. Of course, as Justice Sunday (both I and II) have taught us, Rev. Robertson and his cohort have no problem using non-Christian means to achieve their own, supposedly Christian, ends, and so none of this is terribly surprising.

Of course, from a broader perspective, the whole mess in Venezuela is highly illustrative. First of all, remember that President Chavez is democratically elected, and very popular. Anti-American, anti-capitalist sentiment plays really well in many poor, industrializing countries. Especially countries that are rich in exportable resources, like Venezuela or, say, I don’t know, Iraq. In other words, democratic elections are no guarantee of a strong ally. Second, just because a leader is democratically elected, does not mean that his successor will be. Democracies are pretty unstable creatures. Chavez is effectively gathering power to himself and dismantling truly democratic institutions, all in the name of security. It’s a time-honored process, used in many Latin American, African, and Asian countries over the years. And, it’s one that could very well be repeated in Iraq, even if this new Constitution does actually take effect. People may say that they want democracy, but they will give it up in a heartbeat for the promise of security and prosperity.

Finally, I’d like to remind Rev. Robertson that coups and assassinations go wrong more often than they go right. The closest example to President Chavez is Salvador Allende, former President of Chile. He was like Chavez in many ways. He was a socialist, with closer ties to Cuba and other Communist regimes than we would have liked. He was reasonably popular, especially among the poor. He used a lot of anti-American, socialist rhetoric. And he was overthrown in a military coup. Unlike Chavez, however, the US became involved in that coup, and the subsequent assassination of the democratically elected Allende. And certainly his replacement was much friendlier towards the United States. His name, in fact, was Augusto Pinochet, one of the most notorious and brutal dictators in Latin American history.

There are many other examples of American-sponsored coups and assassinations leading to sub-optimal outcomes that I could give; South Vietnam and Cambodia spring immediately to mind. Also, one of the lessons of the Baathist party’s support of the insurgency in Iraq right now is that they are capable of functioning quite effectively without Saddam; if we had just assassinated him, as many were suggesting, it is likely we would have replaced one Baathist dictator with another. The best answer is usual to leave these people alone; give them what incentives you can in order to prod them into behaving like responsible rulers of responsible states. But don’t try to dabble in another state’s internal political matters, because it almost always makes matters worse. And, as Rev. Robertson should know, that is also the Christian answer.

Role Reversals

 Posted by Mike  U.S. Politics  No Responses »
Aug 222005
 

From the 1930s until the 1980s, the Democrats were basically the majority party. Periodically, of course, they would lose control of either the House, the Senate, or the Presidency. But except for two years during the early part of the Eisenhower Presidency, they did not lose control of all three at the same time. And for most of that period, they controlled at least two of them. For example, from 1932-1980, they controlled the White House for thirty-two of the forty-eight years. And the House of Representatives was Democrat controlled for an astonishing thirty-eight consecutive years, beginning in 1956. The Democrats were firmly ensconced in power, while the Republicans were effectively an opposition party. Then, during the 1980s and early 1990s, there was a period of transition. President Reagan was able to effectively use his office to promote Republican candidates and policies, a trend which President Clinton was unable to reverse. And, in fact, since 1994, the tables have turned completely; for the last decade, we have effectively had a Republican majority ruling with a Democrat opposition.

It seems to me, however, that neither party has fully caught up with its new role, and that this has led to some terrible consequences for the country as a whole. A ruling party needs to worry about governing. An effective ruling party knows that they will be judged primarily by the success of their policies and not by the marketing of their policies. Effective rule is about compromise and flexibility to be able to make changes incrementally towards a goal that you know is best for the country. The leaders who get the most done, and are ultimately the most successful and longest lasting, are not the great ideologues. Instead, they are great manipulators, bargainers, and compromisers. In other words, parties effectively rule for long periods of time by emulating FDR and Henry Clay.

Opposition parties, on the other hand, rally around men like William Jennings Bryan or Newt Gingrich. They need to focus on The Message; on pounding the same campaign notes over and over again until the American public truly believes it. Opposition parties tend to mock the compromises made in the name of governance, and to instead drive towards the purity of their great ideas. In other words, because they lack the ability to actually change policy directly, they need to make it abundantly clear what they stand-for, and how they actually differ from the ruling party.

The Democrats are still trying to act like a ruling party, even though they have nothing to lose. They’ve run technocrats and policy-wonks in each of the last two Presidential campaigns. These are men who understand the ins-and-outs of Washington, and who know how to rule. But they are both terrible when it comes to rallying the opposition around that Great Idea. Because the Democrats right now don’t have a Great Idea; they have a lot of good ideas, but spend most of their time defending the status quo rather than staking out a coherent set of political beliefs. As a ruling party that’s great; you define the status quo, and therefore defending it is the same as staking out a position. As an opposition party, it just leaves people a little confused and befuddled.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are still acting like an opposition party. They have the doctrine (or, in some cases, the dogma), they have the Great Vision. And they’ve been implementing that vision, incrementally, for the last decade, with very little compromise to either Liberals or to reality. And now, ten years later, it is all crashing down on top of their heads. Deficits are huge, they’ve cut back virtually every social program that the American people will let them, the military remains too small for the things they want to do with it, we are rapidly losing the Iraq war, while the economy is finally starting to improve but is immediately threatened by crises in health care, energy, and the housing market. In other words, reality was a lot more complicated than their reasoning as the opposition led them to believe. And since they’re in charge, it is up to them to fix these problems; but they have no idea how.

And so, we’re left with our current mess. One party knows how to rule but can’t convince anyone to let them. The other party knows how to sell itself and mobilize for elections, and yet it can only do so by forcing through even more disastrous policies. (Republican presidential contenders are already trying to position themselves as having strong tax-cut credentials. As if we could afford the tax cuts they’ve already given us.) But sadly, until the Republicans figure out how to compromise and address reality, or the Democrats figure out how to sell themselves, this status quo is likely to remain.

 Older Entries
© 2012 leftfielder.org Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha