Blog entries are in chronological order

October 3, 2005:    Retired Gen. William Odom has called the war in Iraq a strategic disaster, which of course it was: http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_3072005  Or read an opinion piece by Gen. Odom: http://www.antiwar.com/orig/odom.php?articleid=7487   He argues that there is nothing wrong with "cutting and running."  And, of course, he is right.  Too many people take the issues of statecraft and foreign policy and try to imbue them with a playground kind of honor system, or an emotional pride game.  The fact is, if a policy is failing and continuing it will harm national security and the national interest, the policy has to go.  And it will -- like Vietnam, it's only a matter of time until reality bites so hard you can't try to deny it.  Odom notes that while tactically the military can win every battle on the ground, the fight is political and strategic, and there we're losing -- and there is no policy or military fix to change that.

Gen. Odom notes how the US policy serves the interests of Iran, Bin Laden, and extremists.  He correctly condemns the absurd position John Kerry (absurd is his word) took in the campaign.  Many Democrats, including Kerry, either are too caught up in the internal discourse about the war that they don't recognize it's true nature, or they are allowing political calculations about their position in the party and public to shape their views.  His piece is clear and too the point, and cuts through the illusions that pro-war apologists have that success is just around the corner, or that somehow things are 'improving.'   His kind of analysis is needed to cut through the illusionary thinking that dominates, it seems, both political parties.

Also, the way in which the US tries to deal with Islam, especially in rhetoric and communication, helps rather than hurts the terrorists: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1581335,00.html 
Bin Laden and the extremists are aided both by the way the Administration engages in the Mideast, and communicates about the issue at home.  We are not weakening terrorism, but strengthening it with our policies, we are creating a more powerful foe.  Central to that may be Iraq, but it's also the way the US acts and communicates our values.  The idea that somehow the motivation of terrorism is a kind of perverse ideology that, like communism, must simply be defeated is not only wrong, but following that kind of line will be counter productive.  It shows an utter lack of understanding by many in the administration of the historical and cultural issues at play, a simplification that could have disastrous consequences for the nation.

Given the economic vulnerability created by, among other things, our high budget deficit, massively increasing debt, and way out of balance current accounts deficit, and given the way our military is overstretched, Americans need to do everything possible to end our involvement in Iraq.  This is not a partisan issue.  The Democrats were accomplices in this war and how it has developed as well.  Both Democrats and Republicans supporting the war were often well intended.  But the cost is too high, and possible gains too abstract, theoretical, and uncertain.   This has to stop.

So let me switch gears and end with something positive about the President.  Back in 2000 I got in an online debate with someone about the importance of the Supreme Court in the campaign between Gore and Bush.  He argued that this issue alone should make people who are liberal vote for Gore, and thus any vote for Nader was irrational -- the Supreme Court was so important that it should trump all other issues.  I argued that you couldn't know what vacancies would occur, and that Presidents don't usually know what kind of justice someone will become, and that in general Presidents make quality choices, and have to listen to the opposition.  This person was livid with me and accused me of stupidity and mocked that I could be a political scientist with such a view (well, my specialty is International Relations and not American politics, but...)

The evidence is overwhelmingly in my favor.  Not only was I right about not knowing what vacancies would occur (there were none during that first Bush term this person was so concerned about), but President Bush has apparently done an excellent job picking quality people for the two vacancies that have since opened up.  While given the Michael Brown FEMA debacle the new choice, Harriet Miers, could elicit charges of more cronyism, she at first glance appears not only to be well qualified, but also brings some diverse experiences to the court.  I'll criticize Bush about a lot of things (the war, for instance, which is going to be the next topic today), but while obviously I don't know much yet about Miers, it appears to me that this was a good choice.

October 5, 2005:  Last night we had a guest speaker at UMF with a powerful and thought provoking message.  Chanda Luker was only 4 when the Khmer Rouge took power in Cambodia, and forced her mother and aunt to leave Phnom Penh with their children.  She spoke for an hour, talking about the fear, the death that was everywhere, the tactics and hatred of the Khmer Rouge soldiers, and the struggle to simply survive.  Not only was it a physical struggle, requiring them to eat insects, small animals and whatever they could, but also a mental and spiritual struggle.  She described mentally the need to not show weakness to the Khmer Rouge, to watch people being brutally killed, and more than once believe their lives were over.  She talked about walking through blood on the road like it was a stream, stepping over dead bodies, the stench of death and decay, and how this seemed to go on without end.

The audience was silent, though clearly there were people emotional and crying as they listened, thinking of what it must be like for a girl to go through this ages 4 through 9 -- and how she thought the refugee camp in Thailand they barely survived to reach was like a paradise, that things couldn't be better than that.  Most impressively was her attitude toward life.  She was positive, focused upon the miracles that allowed her to end up in Maine, rather than the evil that took away her childhood.  She said at the beginning that her hope is that we understand what happened, and respond by living our lives by showing kindness to others, and doing positive things to make the world a better place.   Her emotions were clearly there at times; residual anger, anxiety about the world today for her family, and the like, but clearly she has not let the tragedy she endured defeat her spirit.   That is a powerful example for our culture which increasingly finds kindness and sympathy to be out of vogue.

As I looked at the students listening -- we expected about 80, we got probably just short of 300 -- I realized that most of us in the US never really confront what is truly important in life.  We are caught up in pursuing material gain, better careers, political causes, or concern about things like personal appearance and other petty matters, that we miss out on really confronting and understanding what makes life truly a miraculous, beautiful, experience.  We skate on the surface, superficially using new stuff, a trip to the mall, a strong drink, or entertainment to pass the time and hide any uncertainties about why we're here.  It's as if our culture's material prosperity is balanced by a kind of spiritual poverty; our emphasis on stuff pushes away concern for values.

There is a lot one can learn from studying a case like Cambodia's.  It could be how interventions like the US in Vietnam can help lead to unintended consequences, or how an ideology like Communism can be used to rationalize brutality of a nature that most people think impossible.   But in hearing Chanda speak it really became clear to me that the real lesson is that we share a common humanity, and we need to understand what others experience, share with others what we experience, communicate and relate to each other at a level that goes beyond the superficial, beyond the daily pleasantries or abstract sports and politics talk, and really embrace and explore what it means to be alive.

October 12, 2005:  A while back I noted that the "Afghanistan II" argument for staying in Iraq was flawed, and that I'd address it soon.  Given that after that President Bush explicitly made that the new rationale for staying in Iraq, I'll address it today.

First, though, we can't let the Administration off the hook.  Iraq was not a terrorist haven before 2003, and the way the policy has played itself out, it is becoming one in 2005.  The Iraq war created instability, gave the terrorists a recruitment bonanza, sapped American military strength, led to large budget deficits in the US, and has caused President Bush to become one of the least popular Presidents in history.  Approval for his handling of the war is near 30%, and almost everybody agrees that even the new constitution won't change the fundamental problems.  It might give the US an exit rationale though, so in that sense it may be a good thing.

However, it could well be that the choice to go to war with Iraq, or to do so in the manner we did, was a horrible decision, but that now the situation is such that we need to stay to prevent Iraq from becoming, as I put it, "Afghanistan II".   The argument is that we're in a "global struggle" against an "extremist ideology" and Iraq is on the front lines. The eerie similarity of that rhetoric to defense of continuing the Vietnam war is interesting, but the argument has a number of inherent flaws.

Unlike Communism, Islamic extremism is not an ideology embraced by powerful governments, nor does it even have mass appeal in the Muslim world.  It is an extremist minority whose power comes less from the persuasiveness of their ideology than from anger that they can generate against the US and the West.  By staying in Iraq, we are aiding them in that cause.  So clearly, leaving Iraq is necessary to undercut their main recruiting tool.  Is it better to leave now, or must we at least assure they aren't a terrorist haven before we go?

If we want to militarily "secure" Iraq and assure it isn't a terrorist meeting point by "cleaning it out," we need a much larger force in Iraq, and we must be ready for years of fighting.   That both isn't going to happen due to political realities at home, and it would potentially not solve the problem.  In fact, this would risk expanding the war to Syria and Iran, potentially creating more instability and more terrorist opportunities. 

Remember: terrorism is not the kind of threat communism was.  We are not looking at nuclear annihilation of the planet or even a country.  We're looking at attacks that are spectacular, but limited in their ability to do significant damage.  The way they win is if they goad us into actions that weaken us, or cause us to act against our own values -- and that's been the case for much of the time since 9-11.   We have to realistically assess the threat, and determine the policy that best addresses our national interest.  Trying to "win" militarily weakens us structurally, benefits terrorists who can cross borders and fight a long term, patient, insurgency, and prevents us from having the resources to address core issues.

So the best policy is leave -- the sooner the better, perhaps after the December election.  There will still be instability, but without the US boogey man there, Islamic extremism will be far less appealing, at least in its virulent anti-western form.  There could well be a civil war (indeed, there is a kind of civil war already), but the Shi'ite-Sunni-Kurd issues can't be solved by the US anyway.  No matter how things shake up, the political victors in Iraq -- whether as one country or divided -- will have strong incentive to establish control and be in no mood to share the country with the minority Islamic extremists.  If the US isn't there in military force, the US could still provide resources, and lean more heavily on international organizations and regional powers to help maintain stability.

It won't be a perfect solution, but the cost of trying to wipe out all Iraqi terrorists is too high and the negative side effects too devastating.  Instead, we may have to tolerate the fact that the result of our policies will be some terrorist groups operating in Iraq for some time.  But they are operating in various parts of the world, we can monitor them and recognize that the ability to carry out a terrorist attack does not require "bases" in Iraq.   Also, any groups in Iraq will be engaged in the struggle there -- a struggle they can't win -- and be unable to devote much attention to plots against the US.  The terrorists making those plots would likely be outside Iraq. 

Fear is a horrible guide to policy, it usually leads to errors.  Fear of what "might happen" is the argument behind staying there "as long as it takes," but that fear is leading to policies that make the enemy stronger, and America weaker.  The process of modernization and change in the Mideast will take decades, the more there are wars and violence, the more likely it will hurt us.  The more stable the transition, the better for the planet.  While it's tempting to think a show of US force will sweep away the bad guys and allow the good guys to prevail, that view is an illusion.  That's not the way the world works.  

October 13, 2005:  The political tactic of late has been to attack and smear personally someone for political advantage.  We saw that done to Joe Wilson, Cindy Sheehan, and by the left to Louis Freeh when his book criticized President Clinton.  It is a tactic that reeks of a kind of Goebbelesque approach to politics -- don't worry about a rational argument, just personally smear the other person.  Since everyone has something in their background or public record that either they shouldn't have done/said or which can be interpreted negatively, there is always ammo for the nefarious folk who engage in such tactics.

Well, the right has turned that tactic on one of its' own: Harriet Miers.  I publicly praised the choice, and while I disagree with President Bush making her religious faith a basis for that choice, I think she potentially brings some good real world experience to the Court, and is a solid choice.  Now, however, the far right has decided that she isn't dogmatic enough for them, and they are taking personal shots at her.  The Drudge report has been reveling in any quote or rumor they can provide that could be used against her, talk radio jocks have been vicious, and in essence a good friend of President Bush is experiencing the kind of deluge that has traditionally been heaped on enemies of the administration.   Sometimes a dog will turn on its master, and with Bush's numbers low and no chance for re-election, this may be a sign that the unity of the GOP behind the President is fading quickly.

In this battle, I hope the President sticks with his choice and prevails.  Even if Miers ultimately is the kind of conservative justice that the right is afraid she isn't, she should not be sacrificed due to this kind of political lynching.  This should also demonstrates that the vile form of political discourse that targets people rather than issues is dangerous to the country -- do we really want to subject people to this for their willingness to serve?  It is really disgusting.

On the issue of Iraq: a letter has been found, allegedly written by Ayman al-Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarkawi (the second in command for al qaeda, to the top Islamic extremist in Iraq) telling him to stop beheadings and other brutal acts so as not cause a lack of support for al qaeda's cause.  The goal, Zawahiri claims, is to have Iraq become an Islamic state (extremist pro-al qaeda), leading to a confrontation ultimately with Israel.   This letter was conveniently released by the White House just as the Bush Administration is making it's case for the "Afghanistan II" fear I discussed yesterday.

If Zawahiri really believes he has a chance to make Iraq some kind of base of operations for his brand of Islamic extremism, he's more out of touch than those who thought that the US could quickly and easily establish a western style democracy in the region.  Iran and the Taliban almost went to war back in the late nineties, the majority Shi'ia in Iraq won't allow that kind of state to form, and Iran will certainly see that as a threat.  Iran has considerable influence and power in the region.  Iran wants Iraq to be an Islamic state, but not one that is based on the kind of Islam al-qaeda espouses.   Most Sunnis in Iraq are secular and more concerned about oil and security now.  The appeal of al qaeda's brand of Islamic extremism is low; the only reason they look like they could claim to have a chance is due to the anger at America's involvement in the region.

This letter is apparently meant to lend support to the Bush claim that Iraq is important for fighting terrorism, that if we leave, somehow al qaeda will take over.  That simply isn't going to happen.  The religious fantasies that al qaeda might entertain are completely out of touch with what is possible on the ground.  However, the longer the US stays there, and the longer anger at a foreign invader (which is how many see the US) persists, the greater the probability that stability will not develop in Iraq, and at some point people like Zawahiri might have a chance.  But to achieve his goal he needs a lot of help from the US -- we need to be there in the region, engaged in military operations, helping them make the case that they are patriots to Islam against the US and the West.  If we find a way to end the military occupation and find other ways to influence the region, the kind of emotion that a religious fascist like Zawahiri relies on will start to dissipate.

October 14, 2005:  Yesterday the President had a teleconference with 10 soldiers in Iraq, where he asked questions and received upbeat answers.  It turns out, though, that a feed before the conference showed the soldiers practicing their answers -- the whole thing was staged.   I understand that given circumstances the White House wants to control the message, but that is the kind of extreme control that isn't necessary, and it turns what would have been a minor positive bit of news into another embarrassment.   But I'm hopeful that the Sunni split on the constitution signals a "down the line" recognition that the Shi'ites and Sunnis have to find some way to settle their differences if Iraq is going to stabilize  More secular Shi'ites have often more in common with the Sunnis than with more fundamentalist Shi'ites.  I think that despite the emotion of the conflict so far, and the risk of civil war, there is a chance that they could make the constitution work.  Until the US leaves, though, the emotion of a foreign enemy on their soil will keep the fuel of the insurgency burning.  We have to recognize that the task belongs to the Iraqis now, not to us.

There was a speaker on campus talking in favor a proposition to eliminate Maine's gay rights law who got a number of students upset with falsehoods, irrational arguments, and bigotry.  That gets me thinking about the threat poised to our society by those who use 'any means necessary' to try to promote agendas based not on rationale discourse, but prejudice and dogma.  But I'll have to wait until next week to write about that, today I've only time for a short post.

Oh, and doubts grow on the authenticity of the alleged Zawahiri document I discussed yesterday -- I suspect it's a fake.  Juan Cole has an interesting take: http://www.juancole.com (if you try to click this after October 14th, you'll have to scroll back to find his entry from that day).

October 17, 2005:  Today I'll add to my spirit and belief series:

The border between Space/Time and ????

October 19, 2005:  And to finish the thought, I'll add another to my series on spirit and belief.  Thursday I'll get back to 'normal blogging.'

What is God?

So far I've talked about "the god hypothesis" in vague terms, but clearly most religious people have a distinct perception of the God they believe in.  By now it should be clear that while I'm tolerant of religion, I do not subscribe a pre-given dogma or organized faith.  But if I want to use the term God, and not tie it to a particular religious ideal, what does it mean?   I argue that we need to completely change what we think of with the term "god."  We are still stuck in a pre-modern understanding of a concept that cannot mean what most people imagine it to mean.  Moreover, our organized religions are essentially pre-modern mythologies that reflect early human attempts to comprehend the meaning of existence, but which need to be modernized to encompass what we now know about the world.  In short, we need a kind of revolution in thinking about "religious" issues.

First, if there is a God, this god must be outside space-time, and its existence must transcend the barrier between space/time and whatever else exists.  Second, this God must have consciousness, but not necessarily a distinct identity.   Distinct identities require position in space-time; by definition a God would transcend and permeate it at the same time.  The God as a father figure in the heavens with characteristics analogous to human characteristics would not fit.  Perhaps one could imagine that a God could present his or herself in a form that we would understand, but that would be illusion, not reality.

So why a kind of will or intellect?  That seems to me to be the question that divides whether there is simply a process unfolding, whereby somehow space-time was formed, energy emerges, and life evolves, or if there is consciousness behind the process.   Non-space time consciousness could be diffuse, however, and not act with as one individual making choices between options.  Choosing between options as an individual is a linear type of identity which even in our world of space time is too simplistic (where do the options come from, how does one choose, what are the impact of cultural and other factors outside the individual, etc.).  If we're talking about an entity that is not limited by space-time, the kind of knowledge and actions it would be able to take could be beyond our imagination. 

So, either we have: a) a set of unknown processes beginning outside space-time (hence not needing a beginning) and causing our universe and all that is in it to come into being.  These processes are impersonal, undirected by any consciousness, and have no inherent meaning other than that which we create; or b) there is an unknown conscious force or will that exists outside of space-time but has access to space-time (all of it at once, including every quantum probability) and provides some direction to the universe, or some meaning.   This direction need not be deterministic for our lives, perhaps "free will" is simply a "god" allowing humans to actualize via choice different quantum probabilities.  It could be connected to meaning, in this case the meaning of existence (or why a god-consciousness would engage in a world building activity).

I argue that while scientific types often say science leads to atheism because the idea of a god is absurd, I would disagree (at least in terms of the god concept I've described).  Think of it this way.  Let's say that ant I always use as an example knew nothing but the world of ants and insects.  Suddenly an intense light is shining down on the ant hill, burning up his colleagues and destroying his community.  He can't tell what is causing it, his senses are not able to see that a seven year old girl is holding a magnifying glass and pointing it at the hill.  But what if he were able to ask a friend, "Is this being done by some greater force, or is it just nature," the friend might answer, "what force could do this but nature?  You're not going to make some myth about some powerful being having the capacity to direct intense light and heat our way, are you?"

In other words, to say the world is a reflection of consciousness in action is just as rational/possible as saying that the world we experience is a result of pure random action following 'natural' scientific laws.   Both are imaginable/possible, neither can disprove the other.  So, now that we've clarified what the god in the god hypothesis would be like, what next?

October 20, 2005:  I've been distracted from politics to the big questions about existence the last two days, but what is life if we don't try to figure out why we're here and what the world is all about?  Still, the world of politics remains busy.  There are likely indictments coming down against administration officials in the Valerie Plame case, with a rumor even that Dick Cheney may resign to make room for Condi Rice.  I do not consider that likely!  Meanwhile, Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff has claimed that US foreign policy was hijacked by a "cabal" led by Cheney and Rumsfeld.  The Miers nomination remains controversial, and Tom Delay, leader of the House GOP, is being booked today on his indictment of conspiracy and money laundering, while there is an investigation into Senate GOP Leader Frist's alleged insider trading.  All of that and in Iraq there are accusations of vote fraud due to unexpectedly high "yes" votes in some areas, and, of course, no end to the violence in site.

Whew.  Quantum mechanics is less complicated than life must before people in the Bush White House these days.  More tomorrow, today's entry is short as I have just too much grading to do!

October 21, 2005:  The Neo-Conservatives: Are they conservative or liberal?

The charge by a Republican, Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson, that a cabal led by Cheney and Rumsfeld hijacked American foreign policy raised eyebrows because for the most part the GOP has stayed loyal to Bush on Iraq, at least publicly.  However, WIlkerson represents a view common in Republican foreign policy establishment that the approach of the Bush administration is contrary to what conservatives traditionally stand for in foreign policy.  Pat Buchanan has even accused the neo-conservatives of being liberals, not conservatives.  Most liberals, however, are skeptical of the war.  So..what's going on?

The neo-cons are interesting, in that they are really representing a view that was popular in the Democratic party back in the early 60's.  They reject the realism of a Kissinger or Powell, and instead embrace a vision of America using its power to reshape the political world to fit American liberal (defined in terms of ideology, not American political jargon) ideals -- free trade, democracy, and human rights.  It is a kind of idealism mixed with a belief that the people of the world want and are ready for
"our" kind of system, but simply are kept from it due to dictatorial regimes.

That kind of "aggressive idealism" is part of what drew the US into Vietnam.  The failure there pushed the Democratic party away from its militarism, and towards an anti-inteventionist approach.  The GOP was defined by realism, though Ronald Reagan did have a bit of idealistic liberalism (and again, I'm using the term how its used in political ideology not American political jargon), balanced by a generally realist foreign policy staff.  The remnants of the Kennedy style approach to foreign policy were left on the outside, something they attributed to the Vietnam syndrome.  They never came to grips with the fact Vietnam was a horrendous mistake, they wanted to think it was simply tactical errors which caused that disaster.

They made appeals to Clinton, whose foreign policy in Iraq, Bosnia and Kosovo suggested the Democratic leader was moving back towards a more assertive policy.  They even tried to convince Clinton to invade Iraq and re-make the Mideast, offering him support in the midst of his scandal. Clinton, of course, wasn't foolish enough to try it. Bush originally seems to have been veering to a path that Reagan had -- some idealism but mostly a realist policy -- but he brought the neo-cons into the Administration where they pushed for a more assertive approach.  9-11 gave the neo-cons their chance; they used the emotion and drama of that event -- an event that really did not weaken the US in real terms -- to convince Bush that he could be the President that brings peace to the Mideast, and starts the move of democracy and liberty around the world.  For the first time since the early sixties, US policy was shifting to aggression to promote democracy and freedom.  The Vietnam syndrome was dead.

Some will argue that this wasn't really about democracy and freedom, but power and economic interests involving oil and corporate interests.  The "militarist liberalism" the neo-cons represent links the two; they define democracy and freedom as being served by the same means that serve economic/corporate interests.  One can speculate as to whether or not they really believe this, or just use expansion of democracy as a rhetorical device to put a good face on things, but I tend to think they actually believe this -- they are perhaps motivated to believe this due to their views on national and even personal interests.

History has a way of repeating lessons not learned.  Iraq is shaping up to be even worse than Vietnam, public support has eroded, and the belief that the US could parlay success in Iraq to pressure on other states has vanished -- indeed, the opposite has occurred.  So are they conservative or liberal?  I don't think they are either; perhaps they take the worst of both worlds.  But I do think that, while Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson's claim that a Cheney led cabal hijacked foreign policy may seem harsh, one has to remember that Powell represents the traditional realist conservatism of the GOP.

October 24, 2005:  Criticism of the Bush Administration's handling of the war in Iraq keeps coming from Republicans and other conservatives who believe that the war either was a serious mistake, or at the very least has been dealt with very poorly.  The latest is in an article in The New Yorker by Jeffrey Goldberg about Brent Scowcroft, who served as National Security Advisor for the first President Bush.  In this interview about that article, he talks about the "Republican rift" over Iraq:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/articles/051031on_onlineonly01

I think the key player to watch in all of this is Condoleezza Rice.  She's a close friend of President Bush, but Scowcroft was something of a mentor to her.  She is an academic who identifies with the realist school of international relations, as was Henry Kissinger who helped devise a way out of the last mistaken war the US got involved in.  If the Bush Administration is going to find a way out of Iraq without having to simply stay the course until the next administration takes power, she'll most likely be the architect.   She is a consummate diplomat, and of course will publicly support the White House line regardless of where she wants policy to go.  Moreover, with Bush so weakened, traditional GOP realists may have more say than at any time since 9-11.  It still isn't politically feasible to simply withdraw now, but after December's elections there may be an opportunity to declare victory and leave.

This is an extremely difficult time for the Bush White House.  Every thing seems to be going wrong.   The Miers nomination to the Supreme Court looks in greater risk than ever (again, I think most of the criticism of her from the left and right is unfair, but I'm in a small minority with that view, it seems), and rumors are buzzing about possible indictments and resignations of people like Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and even Dick Cheney.  The biggest casualty for Bush is, frankly, his second term.  Nothing is getting done.  He hoped to make major changes on the tax code, social security, and a variety of issues, believing after the election he had 'political capital' to spend.  He still has over three years, so he could recover, but at this point his administration is in trouble; they need to rethink major policy and personnel issues.

In Germany, on the other hand, it looks like the CDU/CSU and SPD are moving closer and closer to a Grand Coalition under Angela Merkel, with the SPD having the Vice Chancellor's position with eight cabinet seats (including foreign minister), while the CDU/CSU will have six cabinet seats (to compensate for having the Chancellory).  Their challenges are huge as well: overcoming structural economic problems in Germany and in fact the EU.  Will a Grand Coalition be best able to address this as the major parties won't be blocking each other or attacking each other's plans, or will the implementation of potentially painful measures push more people to the smaller parties, making coalition building even harder in the future?   Gotta run to class...more probably on Wednesday.

October 26, 2005:  Tonight I am giving a public lecture on Machiavelli.  I was wondering how to conclude it last night and then watched the new show (one of the few shows I watch other than Jon Stewart) Commander In Chief starring Gina Davis.  That show last night gave me my conclusion.   I like to begin or end with something "light," but related to the topic (for my book on German foreign policy I used Christo's wrapping of the Reichstag).    I'll post a link to my lecture notes soon, probably tomorrow.  But, thinking of Machiavelli -- his life, and the power of his (often misunderstood) ideas, I'll jump back to political philosophy today with an addition to my "Power and Governance" series:

Consent: 

a) Liberty = Freedom and Justice

The issue of rights and the relation of the individual to society already has confronted the problem of social structures: relationships which constrain and empower individuals, thus creating unequal opportunity.  That issue often leads some (usually on the left) to justify government or even extra-governmental action to right the imbalances caused by structure.

However, if what I wrote about human rights is accurate, there is a problem: the action to correct structural imbalances almost always will entail some kind of claim on the liberty or property of someone else.  However, if what I wrote about structure is accurate, hidden claims on the liberty and property of others takes place in the normal activities of humans, often invisible as the 'hidden claim' or 'exploitation' is seen as a natural part of the social process.  While often people will veer to one side or another (socialists emphasize fighting against exploitation and those hidden claims; libertarians emphasize fighting against the explicit governmental claims on others), the reality has to include both, and that's not easy.  The concept of consent is key here.

What does it mean to consent to something?  For instance, if I am an unemployed father of five, with my family hungry, and a local factory is willing to hire me for a dirt low wage, where the work I do will yield tremendous profits for the owner, and a small wage for me, have I truly consented to that relationship by taking the job?  A negative definition of consent -- you consent if you choose to do it -- is inadequate.  By that logic almost anything is consensual -- if I point a gun at you and demand your money and you choose to comply, you have consented.

But wait a minute, in the case of the worker there is direct threat of force involved.  Surely that makes it different than robbery!  Not necessarily.  If the structure of the situation gives one person the power to benefit from the work or property of someone else, even absent a direct threat of force, the consent is just as coerced.  The former is easy to recognize in most cases, the latter is subject to interpretation.  Yet it is just as real, and just as much a limitation of freedom as direct force. 

The only solution is to conceptualize consent as something other than overt permission.  Consent is granted not just by consciously saying, "sure, I'll go along with that." Instead, participation in structural relationships implies consent for actions that correct for violations of individual liberty or cases of theft/exploitation (which are two sides of the same coin).  If ones' participation in a structural relationship grants one advantages through the exploitation of others, then their involvement and profit from that relationship implies that they must consent to justifiable corrections to undo the impact of that exploitation.  Those who benefit from their position in society, but reject the implications of their having enjoyed such benefits, are no better than common thieves, even if their actions seem only to be saying, "leave me and my money alone."

So far, this isn't anything that controversial.  If people didn't believe that, they wouldn't accept taxation, regulations, and other aspects of modern political systems designed to connect notions of freedom with those of justice.   Just like (let me allude to my other series) light is both a particle and wave, freedom and justice are both attributes of liberty.  Deny justice by allowing exploitation and you are denying liberty and freedom.  But denial of freedom by intrusive government or powerful actors is a denial of justice. 

Yet there is something troubling about implied consent.  Is it really consent, or just a word-game being played to try to define away the problem inherent saying people might have consented to something they claim they do not consent to.  Can consent be divorced from a conscious choice, can it really be implied?  That's for next time.

October 28, 2005:  Given that military efforts to fight Islamic extremism not only don't work, but as Iraq shows, are prone to simply help create more emotion and support for extremists amongst a population that otherwise had not drifted that direction, I think it is imperative that the international community rethink its approach to diplomacy.

Iran is a classic example.  Our actions in Iraq helped inspire anti-Americanism to overtake the previously reform minded Iranian youth, and yielded a hardliner President for the first time really since the revolution.  The actions in Iraq have also helped the most extreme groups in Palestine in their efforts to radicalize the fight against Israel.  The result is that the situation in the Mideast has become more dangerous than ever, Islamic extremism is stronger than at any point in recent history.  It is a very different world than the one that existed in 2001.

Now, clearly this opens the door wide open for extreme criticism of the Bush Administration on the war, and I've done that.  That's not the point today.  Rather, these changes mean that there can't be diplomacy as usual.  If we are to counter these developments, and if using military force can't do it -- or would in fact play into the hands of the extremists, then there has to be ways to use diplomacy and concerted international action to undercut such currents.

Take the statement by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Israel should be wiped off the map.  (I analyzed how US policy helped him win in Iran in my blog last June if you're interested -- click June 2005 above, go to June 24 and on).   World reaction is rather vocal in its condemnation of Ahmadinejad, but it is just rhetorical.  No one seems to be taken seriously calls to kick Iran out of the UN, or use this to impose some major sanctions.  But that is the kind of thing we should be doing.   We have to engage more forcefully such challenges to the international system with a united approach.  If a United Nations member state's Head of State claims another member state should be wiped off the map, and that is affirmed as official policy, then that state should not be in the UN.  Period. 

To do this effectively the US has to help lead and join a new 'coalition of the willing,' but one that emphasizes concerted political and diplomatic action, and eschews the idea of military force in cases where it is not absolutely required.   We should not be afraid to sanction or refuse to work with states who violate some basic norms of the international system, or who support and promote terrorism.  That might mean tough questions regarding Saudi Arabia and others.  It also means that although I remain very critical of Israeli policy, a clear message needs to be sent that while the Palestinians deserve a state consisting of most of the territory taken in the 1967 war, Israel's right to exist must not be questioned, and the international community will defend that.

The bottom line is this: the disaster in Iraq has created a much more dangerous world, and the lesson from Iraq is that this is a danger which cannot be met by the use of military force.  The nature of the threat is such that military action is counter productive.  Therefore, we have to ratchet up the ability of the international community to cooperate on all levels.  Ultimately I don't think this will be possible until the US at least starts a major withdrawal from Iraq, which is another reason to use the December election as a rationale to exit; staying longer will do more harm than good  -- both to Iraq, and the interests of the US.   The world has to come together and deal with these threats in a way that goes beyond business as usual.

There are some that think any "diplomacy" is weak, and only military force is a strong way to handle a situation.  Not only is a such a view wrong and lacking of creative thought, but it is downright idiotic and dangerous.   True international collective diplomacy is the only thing that can deal with these threats without making the problem worse.  And while one can imagine that there will be scenarios where military force is necessary, it will only work if the international community is behind it, and only in very limited circumstances.   Such is the nature of the world today, and the dangers we face. 

Oh, and here is a link to the Machiavelli lecture I was telling you about.

October 31, 2005:  When I worked in Washington DC, even as a lowly Senate aide, one thing I noticed was a mix of arrogance and amorality in the approach taken to politics.  Since then, I think it's actually gotten worse, more mean-spirited.  This kind of amorality has a number of consequences.  First, expediency over principle means that it is very easy to criticize others for doing what you yourself (or your party) in the past did.  When a scandal emerges the reactions are usually predictable along party lines; the goal is to either 'get the other guy' or 'control the damage,' NOT to find out and confront the truth.  (I'll give George Shultz and a few others credit below for rising above that).  Second, arrogance means that the same mistakes are made over and over.  In the marble buildings of DC it becomes easy to believe that those with power are above the law, or at the very least able to manipulate the scene enough to keep things under control.  Often they succeed, but when they fail, the results can be dramatic.

In 1972 a "third rate burglary" at the Watergate complex would lead the Nixon administration to engage in a sophisticated cover-up which, as it started to unravel, allowed people to see the inner workings of a paranoid administration which had abused power and believed itself invincible.  The bigger they are, the harder they fall, and Nixon was ultimately forced to resign in August 1974, with numerous people doing jail time.  The GOP ultimately turned on Nixon, but only after the facts became so strong the culpability of the administration was undeniable.

In 1986 the White House itself announced they had discovered shady goings on in the National Security Advisor's office, though the announcement came just as others were preparing to break the story, and it gave time for significant document shredding.  Ultimately it became clear that staffers in the National Security Advisor's office had been long involved in an illegal and ineffective policy designed to trade arms for hostages with Iran, and to use the profits from that trade to fund the contras in Nicaragua.  The Iran-Contra affair severely weakened the Reagan administration, and last minute pardons by President Bush later on would limit our ability to find out the true story, at least of who at the top knew what, and when they knew it.  George Shultz, Reagan's Secretary of State, and others in the GOP were harshly critical of the Reagan administration and the whole affair, but that kind of principle in general seems rare in politics.

In 1998 President Clinton has his famous scandal involving Monica Lewinsky.  Clinton's lies got him impeached.  And, though he wasn't kicked out of office since most Senators believed the crime not serious enough, his reputation was tarnished.  His arrogance in lying and trying to cover up what should have been just an embarrassing personal issue made him an easy target. 

In 2005 now I. Lewis Libby has been indicted on perjury and obstruction of justice, with a court fight likely involving the Vice President's testimony.  Most people think that the VP knew and actively participated not only in an effort to destroy the credibility of Joseph Wilson (a war critic who accused the administration of lying about Iraq's WMD), but also in abusing or perhaps manufacturing intelligence to try to justify a war they wanted in the first place.   The case involving Wilson was relatively minor (like Watergate's 'third rate break in'), but the results if this continues to unravel (and most scandals keep unraveling) could be devastating to the Bush Presidency. 

The problem isn't Clinton's sex, Cheney's dark side, Nixon's paranoia, or Reagan's memory lapses.  The problem is inherent in a political system that centralizes so much power in Washington, and which exercises a kind of neo-imperialism world wide through its awesome economic and military power.    This creates conditions that, especially when the same people are there for a long time (all of these scandals were second term events), make the temptation to abuse power immense.  The splendor and pomp around Washington DC and the top levels of government create an atmosphere where arrogance is not only easy, but can be second nature. 

The only solution is to demand the facts.  To get information to the public, and to somehow create an incentive for politicians to believe that giving the public the truth will be respected.  Instead, fearful of the other side simply spinning things for gain, it becomes a propaganda game on both sides.  The public and the country lose out.  Democracies are great things; they are potentially self-correcting, as politicians need to respond to problems and present new ideas to get votes.  But democracy becomes less effective when too much power is centralized in one place, or if the country is involved in world wide interventionism.  

I remember walking down the streets in DC, seeing the capitol on one side the supreme court building on the other, the moon bright in the sky, flags flying, and security guards on patrol.  The white marble, the monuments, and the sense of power and grandeur create what is often called an 'inside the beltway' mentality, that this city is the center of importance, and if you are an insider, you are special.  After two years I'd had enough of that, it was too much a game, too unreal for me to devote my life to politics.  But when I scandal like this breaks out, I think back to my time there, and understand just why these things are more common that one would wish.