When will we get the message? We don't belong there. Many of our soldiers are either Christian zealots, or clueless about the Muslim society in which they're posted. They shouldn't be dying there.
Long ago, in India, there were a bunch of boys, playing a chase game in one of the large markets in Ahmadabad, in Gujarat. Some of the boys were Hindu; others were Muslim. One of the Hindu boys, running through a tiny Muslim bookseller's stall, accidentally knocked a Quran off a shelf; it fell to the ground. That simple mishap started Hindu-Muslim riots that lasted for weeks, and resulted in over a thousand dead.
Muslims in Ahmadabad are urban sophisticates compared to Muslims in Afghanistan. Islam, unfortunately, has never had a Reformation, so its culture is more like the era of the Catholic Inquisition, at the cusp of Europe's modern era, when The Faith was under siege by the Protestant Reformation. In Islam, the besiegers are secular westernizers, and maybe, missionizing Protestants, like American soldiers.
That is the context: the Quran is hallowed by Muslim believers the way the Bible was treated in Medieval Christian Europe, the way the Talmud was viewed in Medieval Judaism. Is it any wonder that Americans are being killed for the intentional burning of many Qurans on a refuse pile outside America's largest, most notorious prison for Afghan terror suspects?
Yes, intentional. Generals and our President have tried to apologize, and have tried to mollify, by claiming the burning was a mistake, but it wasn't a mistake: the burning was intentional. Terror suspects, to communicate with each other, had written notes in the Qurans, according to early accounts. They had also used them to promulgate jihadist messages. In a war like this, the Qurans had to be destroyed.
American soldiers burning the Qurans may or may not have known that they shouldn't broadcast what they were doing, but it's hard to conceal burning sacks of Qurans, when you have Afghans working with you.
Two Americans, working in the inner sanctum of the Interior Ministry, advisors to the Afghan security forces at the highest level, were shot dead by Afghans, probably incensed by the burning Qurans. Other Americans, more exposed, have also been killed. If Americans can be shot behind Interior's layers of security, there is nowhere they can be safe if Afghans are present. So, Americans are confined to their bases. There are riots, protests and killings all over Afghanistan.
So, what does that tell us but: we don't belong there. We never did. The Soviets discovered the same thing in the 1980's, helped, ironically, by our allies, the mujahedeen, who have transmogrified into our enemies: the Taliban.
Afghanistan was the end of the Soviet Empire; it could well be the end of the American Empire, as well. Can we withdraw gracefully, the way the British did after their second try in 1880, or will we be driven out like the Soviets?
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Is the US Over-Regulated
I never understood the problem with US regulations before, until they were described in the British Economist: Democrats want to regulate business, so that laissez-faire capitalism doesn't run so wild that it destroys society--something it almost did in 2007-8. Republicans want to regulate behavior, i.e. criminal behavior of the lower classes and minorities, and "free business from regulation." Interestingly, the center-right Economist, sees Democrats' priorities as favorably as Republicans,' but damns both--for the way Americans write their laws and consequent regulations.
One example is the Dodd-Frank bill, which is intended to regulate the finance industry to prevent a replay of the collapse in 2008 that led to the Great Recession. It attempts to cover every eventuality, and every kind of financial practice in excruciating detail--it's nearly 900 pages--before most of the actual regulations are written to implement the law. That one was a Democratic monstrosity, but Republicans have done the same kind of thing regulating abortions, for example: bills, which become laws, have become interminably long, and complex.
It may be that the complexity of American regulatory law reflects the growing complexity of our society, but it may also be that laws are so incredibly complex, because our legal system has become so--Americans are exceptionally litigious.
But there may be another reason. In this rigidifying society, Americans have to protect their status, especially their professional status. Even back in the Dark Ages of the 1970's, when I was an academic, professional jargon was necessary to prove your professional standing. I was criticized for writing scholarly articles in plain English! I knew the same was true for my colleagues in other Social Sciences, the Sciences and especially the Humanities.
Not until I had to deal with things like owning property and putting roads across streams, did I realize that government bureaucracies do the same things. I've glimpsed enough to know that corporate bureaucracies are like this, too. There are special ways of speaking or writing that are required for you to fit in. It's called protecting your ass, and everyone else's: your little fiefdom. This is becoming increasingly important as class mobility declines. People, with fewer prospects of advancement, hunker down and protect what they have.
Lawyers have some of the most arcane jargon and grammatical construction of any of the professions. Yet, it's primarily lawyers-turned-politicians who write our laws, and lawyers-turned-bureaucrats who vet the regulations written by legally trained civil servants.
Is it any wonder that the elaboration of laws, their sheer complexity, their piling on laws upon laws to regulate what one simple ordinance might do, has found its greatest flowering in the US? Judicial or managerial judgement is not to be trusted.
Sharpening class lines, and the brittleness that engenders, became pronounced in Fifth Century Rome: the US seems to be following the same trajectory. Moves to simplify laws and regulations are much needed, but probably won't happen: special interests protect themselves.
One example is the Dodd-Frank bill, which is intended to regulate the finance industry to prevent a replay of the collapse in 2008 that led to the Great Recession. It attempts to cover every eventuality, and every kind of financial practice in excruciating detail--it's nearly 900 pages--before most of the actual regulations are written to implement the law. That one was a Democratic monstrosity, but Republicans have done the same kind of thing regulating abortions, for example: bills, which become laws, have become interminably long, and complex.
It may be that the complexity of American regulatory law reflects the growing complexity of our society, but it may also be that laws are so incredibly complex, because our legal system has become so--Americans are exceptionally litigious.
But there may be another reason. In this rigidifying society, Americans have to protect their status, especially their professional status. Even back in the Dark Ages of the 1970's, when I was an academic, professional jargon was necessary to prove your professional standing. I was criticized for writing scholarly articles in plain English! I knew the same was true for my colleagues in other Social Sciences, the Sciences and especially the Humanities.
Not until I had to deal with things like owning property and putting roads across streams, did I realize that government bureaucracies do the same things. I've glimpsed enough to know that corporate bureaucracies are like this, too. There are special ways of speaking or writing that are required for you to fit in. It's called protecting your ass, and everyone else's: your little fiefdom. This is becoming increasingly important as class mobility declines. People, with fewer prospects of advancement, hunker down and protect what they have.
Lawyers have some of the most arcane jargon and grammatical construction of any of the professions. Yet, it's primarily lawyers-turned-politicians who write our laws, and lawyers-turned-bureaucrats who vet the regulations written by legally trained civil servants.
Is it any wonder that the elaboration of laws, their sheer complexity, their piling on laws upon laws to regulate what one simple ordinance might do, has found its greatest flowering in the US? Judicial or managerial judgement is not to be trusted.
Sharpening class lines, and the brittleness that engenders, became pronounced in Fifth Century Rome: the US seems to be following the same trajectory. Moves to simplify laws and regulations are much needed, but probably won't happen: special interests protect themselves.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Generals Lying?
In the waning days of the Soviet Union, an American was travelling from the Black Sea to Moscow, by car; he was lost. He kept seeing huge billboards proclaiming: "You Are On The RIGHT ROAD, Comrade!" When he asked directions, from a farmer on a tractor, he was told to turn around: he was going the wrong way.
Our war in Afghanistan is like that, and in fact, the Soviet war in Afghanistan was like that, too (the point of the article), and was nearly the last straw, because everybody knew the government lied.
Would American generals lie about the Afghan war? Most Americans would have a hard time believing it: that's why Generals like Petraeus and McChrystal get away with it. They prevaricate to the American people, but also to Congress and the President.
First of all, Petraeus and others, with support from the Secretaries of State and Defense, persuaded President Obama to surge troops to Afghanistan, because they fundamentally mis-represented the reason why violence diminished in Iraq after Iraq's surge. Additional troops were only a small part of it; the bigger part was the Sunni Awakening, a response to the incredible brutality of al Qaeda in Iraq, their sometime ally, against Shias and Sunnis alike. They allied with the US to defeat the worse enemy.
In Afghanistan, as Petraeus et al, must have known, there was no significant al Qaeda group brutalizing the population--it was hiding in Pakistan--and there was nothing comparable.
More important, ultimately, the generals, not just Petraeus, have created an information warfare capability that is not only used against our adversaries, but against American public opinion, and even against members of Congress and the administration. With that system, they have systematically lied about the Afghan war, about how well we're doing (not), and even about weapons complexes they are supposed to be developing (are spending billions to develop).
In the Soviet Union, when the generals said they were winning the Afghan war, Soviet citizens knew the opposite must be true, and it was. When generals in the US say that a weapon system has passed all its tests and is ready to be deployed, the claim needs to be examined, since, in a number of cases we know the tests were rigged. When generals say, year after year, that we're winning the war in Afghanistan, that there will be fewer casualties as the surge troops secure the nation, and then we see that casualties rise with the number of troops, should we believe them about winning the war, or believe the opposite?
The beginning of the end of a political system (democracy or dictatorship) is when the people no longer trust the information that comes from their government, especially their armed forces. Unless something changes, that day is coming soon to the American Empire.
Our war in Afghanistan is like that, and in fact, the Soviet war in Afghanistan was like that, too (the point of the article), and was nearly the last straw, because everybody knew the government lied.
Would American generals lie about the Afghan war? Most Americans would have a hard time believing it: that's why Generals like Petraeus and McChrystal get away with it. They prevaricate to the American people, but also to Congress and the President.
First of all, Petraeus and others, with support from the Secretaries of State and Defense, persuaded President Obama to surge troops to Afghanistan, because they fundamentally mis-represented the reason why violence diminished in Iraq after Iraq's surge. Additional troops were only a small part of it; the bigger part was the Sunni Awakening, a response to the incredible brutality of al Qaeda in Iraq, their sometime ally, against Shias and Sunnis alike. They allied with the US to defeat the worse enemy.
In Afghanistan, as Petraeus et al, must have known, there was no significant al Qaeda group brutalizing the population--it was hiding in Pakistan--and there was nothing comparable.
More important, ultimately, the generals, not just Petraeus, have created an information warfare capability that is not only used against our adversaries, but against American public opinion, and even against members of Congress and the administration. With that system, they have systematically lied about the Afghan war, about how well we're doing (not), and even about weapons complexes they are supposed to be developing (are spending billions to develop).
In the Soviet Union, when the generals said they were winning the Afghan war, Soviet citizens knew the opposite must be true, and it was. When generals in the US say that a weapon system has passed all its tests and is ready to be deployed, the claim needs to be examined, since, in a number of cases we know the tests were rigged. When generals say, year after year, that we're winning the war in Afghanistan, that there will be fewer casualties as the surge troops secure the nation, and then we see that casualties rise with the number of troops, should we believe them about winning the war, or believe the opposite?
The beginning of the end of a political system (democracy or dictatorship) is when the people no longer trust the information that comes from their government, especially their armed forces. Unless something changes, that day is coming soon to the American Empire.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Timorous Democrats
Republicans appear, with the help of Cato, Fox "News" and Limbaugh, to have created a whole new (fictional) world, one in which austerity and government lay offs create jobs, in which governments never create jobs, but "job creators" like Willard Romney do. It's an ideological system dependent on economic theories already proved more effective at amassing deficits, not jobs: the Laffer Curve and supply side fiscal policy. They state that taxes should be cut (even more) on the wealthy, and raised for everyone else, to stimulate the "job creators" already flush with cash, while gutting government services to those in need--to get them back to work!
Why are Democrats so timorous in response? They're terrified of the money (and media) against them, so they try to compromise just enough to get money on their side, to survive. That strategy was best embodied in Bill Clinton's Democratic Leadership Council, a temporarily successful attempt to drive the Democratic Party to the center. It was Bill's genius to recognize that he could use some of the moneyed to gain support for a party that had a broader appeal, but was short on cash. Unfortunately, Wall Street was his main source of funds. Obama, too. That means no populist response, except rhetorically, to the bank and housing collapse and timid attempts to alleviate the worst effects. Obama may actually believe what he's saying, but he knows, or has learned, that nothing can be done, unless those who control the purse allow it.
Citizens United made the moneyed even more powerful, those I call Roman Senators here; they can now use their capital to buy the kind of government they want, which is why there will be piles of corporate money on both sides of the aisle.
In order to counter the money, only the largest and best-managed mass organizations could possibly have an impact. But the only ones on the progressive side not beholden to moneyed interests are labor unions. Before Reagan, they were powerful, although often crippled by graft and sclerosis. Since Reagan, they've been increasingly emasculated. The Scott Walkers in the states have been trying to destroy the only part of American unions that still had much clout: the public employee unions.
Paradoxically, such political abuse may have sparked popular outrage: the protests and recall election drives in Wisconsin, the repeal of Kasich's anti-union law, and finally, the Occupy movement.
The Occupiers may have had some effect on Obama's rhetoric, and may tip some Congressional races. In my district (Senator Gillibrand's former district), a dedicated progressive/Occupy sympathizer, Joel Tyner, is energetically campaigning to run against our Tea Party Congressman. He has enthusiasm, but neither money, nor organization (Gillibrand had both). Joel's problems illustrate how difficult it is to overcome elites bent on imperial overreach.
Move to Amend would repeal Citizens United; that would be only a first step to getting money out of politics.
Why are Democrats so timorous in response? They're terrified of the money (and media) against them, so they try to compromise just enough to get money on their side, to survive. That strategy was best embodied in Bill Clinton's Democratic Leadership Council, a temporarily successful attempt to drive the Democratic Party to the center. It was Bill's genius to recognize that he could use some of the moneyed to gain support for a party that had a broader appeal, but was short on cash. Unfortunately, Wall Street was his main source of funds. Obama, too. That means no populist response, except rhetorically, to the bank and housing collapse and timid attempts to alleviate the worst effects. Obama may actually believe what he's saying, but he knows, or has learned, that nothing can be done, unless those who control the purse allow it.
Citizens United made the moneyed even more powerful, those I call Roman Senators here; they can now use their capital to buy the kind of government they want, which is why there will be piles of corporate money on both sides of the aisle.
In order to counter the money, only the largest and best-managed mass organizations could possibly have an impact. But the only ones on the progressive side not beholden to moneyed interests are labor unions. Before Reagan, they were powerful, although often crippled by graft and sclerosis. Since Reagan, they've been increasingly emasculated. The Scott Walkers in the states have been trying to destroy the only part of American unions that still had much clout: the public employee unions.
Paradoxically, such political abuse may have sparked popular outrage: the protests and recall election drives in Wisconsin, the repeal of Kasich's anti-union law, and finally, the Occupy movement.
The Occupiers may have had some effect on Obama's rhetoric, and may tip some Congressional races. In my district (Senator Gillibrand's former district), a dedicated progressive/Occupy sympathizer, Joel Tyner, is energetically campaigning to run against our Tea Party Congressman. He has enthusiasm, but neither money, nor organization (Gillibrand had both). Joel's problems illustrate how difficult it is to overcome elites bent on imperial overreach.
Move to Amend would repeal Citizens United; that would be only a first step to getting money out of politics.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Attack Syria, Instead of Iran!
Gee, let's see: Syria is smaller than Iraq, which is smaller than Iran, so maybe we should attack Syria, instead of Iran. The US has to attack somebody, doesn't it? Can't you see Republicans thinking this? After all, Romney and all the other monkeys, except Ron Paul, are calling for a much larger Defense budget, and a neat little war would help that along nicely. Further, if we took control of Syria, Iran would have to cave on nukes, wouldn't it? Besides, if we could take over Syria, Israel would be deliriously happy. Republicans do sense that anything they can offer that is more Israel-centric than Obama's strained dialog with Netanyahu, might win them votes among Jews, in places like Florida, and even New York. And campaign funds.
Actually, Syria is closely aligned with Iran, but more importantly, with Russia, and that relationship goes back a long way. So, we attack Syria and Russia might send in materiel, at least, to make Americans bleed.
It's a lot better for the Arabs to lead on this, and for the US to stay the hell out of the way. America's big feet would just mess up the neighborhood even more. The only thing the US should do, is either look for a negotiated peace, or supply the opposition with our best defensive weaponry (if there is such a thing). Or the best of our weaponry that the Free Syrian Army, or whatever they'll call themselves tomorrow, can use given their needs and their skills.
It is true, I think, that the opposition represents a variety of democratic impulses, while Assad's regime represents brutal autocratic rule. Americans should favor democracy, but American business often prefers to dicker with an autocrat--only one or a few to buy off, instead of hundreds in a parliament. American businesses, however, will find it hard to cooperate with an internationally condemned butcher of his own people. And we could have some influence on that, by organizing collective protests, or threatening boycotts.
This is life at the center of a declining empire. The US simply doesn't have the boots to land on the ground to sustain anything meaningful against Assad, especially given the difficulties of the neighborhood. Remember, we helped destroy Russia's Soviet empire by supporting the mujahedeen in Afghanistan. Putin might feel that turnabout is fair play. Russia is a Syrian ally, and Putin has been running against western influence since the first time he ran for President. It would probably be popular--as was Reagan's support for the mujahedeen.
I really hope Syria doesn't enter the electoral shouting match, it could initiate the dying gasp of the American Empire and it wouldn't be pretty, sort of like Adrianople, when Fritigern killed the Roman Emperor Valens in 378.
Actually, Syria is closely aligned with Iran, but more importantly, with Russia, and that relationship goes back a long way. So, we attack Syria and Russia might send in materiel, at least, to make Americans bleed.
It's a lot better for the Arabs to lead on this, and for the US to stay the hell out of the way. America's big feet would just mess up the neighborhood even more. The only thing the US should do, is either look for a negotiated peace, or supply the opposition with our best defensive weaponry (if there is such a thing). Or the best of our weaponry that the Free Syrian Army, or whatever they'll call themselves tomorrow, can use given their needs and their skills.
It is true, I think, that the opposition represents a variety of democratic impulses, while Assad's regime represents brutal autocratic rule. Americans should favor democracy, but American business often prefers to dicker with an autocrat--only one or a few to buy off, instead of hundreds in a parliament. American businesses, however, will find it hard to cooperate with an internationally condemned butcher of his own people. And we could have some influence on that, by organizing collective protests, or threatening boycotts.
This is life at the center of a declining empire. The US simply doesn't have the boots to land on the ground to sustain anything meaningful against Assad, especially given the difficulties of the neighborhood. Remember, we helped destroy Russia's Soviet empire by supporting the mujahedeen in Afghanistan. Putin might feel that turnabout is fair play. Russia is a Syrian ally, and Putin has been running against western influence since the first time he ran for President. It would probably be popular--as was Reagan's support for the mujahedeen.
I really hope Syria doesn't enter the electoral shouting match, it could initiate the dying gasp of the American Empire and it wouldn't be pretty, sort of like Adrianople, when Fritigern killed the Roman Emperor Valens in 378.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Romney, Again?
I thought someone disconnected his batteries, but surprisingly no one has. Because he has so much money, even a robot can run for President.
Has anyone noticed, besides a small sliver of the well-informed, that we had a coup d'etat back in 2000? Everything since is just elaboration--and global expansion. The wrong man was made President, so that the damage done by Clinton could be reversed, so we'd continue on the road Reagan seduced the nation to follow: lower taxes for the wealthy, fewer regulations world-wide, cutting services to everyone else, enabling corporate interests to prevail.
If I were a conspiracy nut, I'd think 9-11 was just too convenient; perhaps it was. What's important is not whether it was, but how it was used--to enslave us and steal us blind.
Obama was able to win, possibly because he was dependent on Wall Street money. If he'd really run only on the masses of small donations he acclaimed, he might have lost. Wall Street money made his lead large enough that it was difficult to prevent his victory: that amount of fraud would have been too visible. Besides, it was clear, when he signed on to TARP; he knew who held the whip.
But the amount of money in 2008 was miniscule compared to what we'll see this year, because, through Citizens United, the Supremes empowered the moneyed to take control through unlimited funds.
Iowa and Florida were decided by super-pac money, not by campaigners, nor by the issues, Nevada by organization. South Carolina may be the exception. Super-pacs destroyed Gingrich in Iowa, and in Florida, but it's important to remember: Gingrich represents the 1%, Romney speaks for the 0.1%; they have more money to "invest." Gingrich's debate skills won him South Carolina, but ten Adelson millions won't be enough to stem Romney's money avalanche.
The Republican primaries illustrate what happens when money is the most important constituency. Romney's perceived inevitability derives from it. Since the main source of political information is TV, campaign ads costing billions will saturate us during elections.
Media corporations love this windfall; they'll do anything to safeguard it. To billionaires and Wall Street, it's pocket change, and they expect ROI's of ten times or more.
On the other hand, to voters this flood of money and ads proves confusing, mind-numbing, a turn-off: high-flown empty rhetoric from candidates, followed by scummy attacks against the other guy. Democrats, independents and marginal voters are less likely to vote.
Then the coup might be complete: the wealthy in charge. How many billionaires would Mitt name to his cabinet? His election would be the final takeover by Roman Senators, the selfish class.
Obama would likely try to ameliorate inequality, at least; Romney would debate inequality only in "quiet rooms," while excoriating "the politics of envy." With Romney, we'd look even more like late Imperial Rome; we'd be sinking fast.
Has anyone noticed, besides a small sliver of the well-informed, that we had a coup d'etat back in 2000? Everything since is just elaboration--and global expansion. The wrong man was made President, so that the damage done by Clinton could be reversed, so we'd continue on the road Reagan seduced the nation to follow: lower taxes for the wealthy, fewer regulations world-wide, cutting services to everyone else, enabling corporate interests to prevail.
If I were a conspiracy nut, I'd think 9-11 was just too convenient; perhaps it was. What's important is not whether it was, but how it was used--to enslave us and steal us blind.
Obama was able to win, possibly because he was dependent on Wall Street money. If he'd really run only on the masses of small donations he acclaimed, he might have lost. Wall Street money made his lead large enough that it was difficult to prevent his victory: that amount of fraud would have been too visible. Besides, it was clear, when he signed on to TARP; he knew who held the whip.
But the amount of money in 2008 was miniscule compared to what we'll see this year, because, through Citizens United, the Supremes empowered the moneyed to take control through unlimited funds.
Iowa and Florida were decided by super-pac money, not by campaigners, nor by the issues, Nevada by organization. South Carolina may be the exception. Super-pacs destroyed Gingrich in Iowa, and in Florida, but it's important to remember: Gingrich represents the 1%, Romney speaks for the 0.1%; they have more money to "invest." Gingrich's debate skills won him South Carolina, but ten Adelson millions won't be enough to stem Romney's money avalanche.
The Republican primaries illustrate what happens when money is the most important constituency. Romney's perceived inevitability derives from it. Since the main source of political information is TV, campaign ads costing billions will saturate us during elections.
Media corporations love this windfall; they'll do anything to safeguard it. To billionaires and Wall Street, it's pocket change, and they expect ROI's of ten times or more.
On the other hand, to voters this flood of money and ads proves confusing, mind-numbing, a turn-off: high-flown empty rhetoric from candidates, followed by scummy attacks against the other guy. Democrats, independents and marginal voters are less likely to vote.
Then the coup might be complete: the wealthy in charge. How many billionaires would Mitt name to his cabinet? His election would be the final takeover by Roman Senators, the selfish class.
Obama would likely try to ameliorate inequality, at least; Romney would debate inequality only in "quiet rooms," while excoriating "the politics of envy." With Romney, we'd look even more like late Imperial Rome; we'd be sinking fast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)