April 30 - Conspiracy theory?

No, I don't believe it was, but the way the Reverend Wright scenario is playing itself out for the Obama campaign it almost could be.  Consider: with Hillary Clinton breathing down Obama's neck, and fears that the GOP could be preparing an all out assault on Obama using guilt by association with Rev. Wright, the Obama campaign may have feared that a lot of swing voters would easily be swayed from voting for a black man with a strange name for even a small reason.   Perhaps Obama was reconsidering his 'soft' repudiation of Wright, thinking that it would have been politically safer to reject him completely, given the dynamics of the contest.

But, of course, it was too late.   If he were to suddenly issue a stronger repudiation of Wright it would look weak, like he was pandering, trying to minimize media reaction.  But what if Wright went 'over the top,' and said outlandish things that would even get people like me who defended Wright (blog entry of March 25) to think this guy is way too extreme?  That would give Obama the chance to come out with a strong denunciation of Wright, satisfying almost all but those already against Obama anyway.

One could imagine the phone conversation.  "Man, Barack, I'm really causing you pain, I'd hate to think people taking a few of my comments out of context would prevent the election of the first black President!"

"Hmmmm...how far would you be willing to go to help me overcome the problem and get elected?"
"What do you mean?"
"Well...would you be too angry if I issued a stinging rebuke against you, and distanced myself from you completely?"
"You gotta do what you gotta do, but I think it's too late for that."
"Not necessarily....what if you made a public speech where you strung together your more outlandish statements, made it something that would grab the headlines."
"What do you mean 'outlandish statements?"
"I mean the things  that get people angry, you know, AIDS is caused by the government, all the stuff that riles up the white middle and working class."
"I can rile them up easily, but wouldn't that just make your problems worse?"
"No, if you did that in a way that grabbed headlines, I could use that as a cause to come out and give a deep and complete renunciation of your views.  We then might publicly feud for awhile, and to all the world it would appear we'd parted ways."
"If that helps you, I'll do it.  You just have to promise to rehabilitate our relationship sometime after you're elected."
"Don't worry, this will be short term.  By 2012 it will be old news, so we can publicly patch things up early in my first term."
"OK, let's go for it.  We just can't tell anyone, it has to be between you and me."

For the record, I don't think that happened, it would be almost impossible to keep it secret if it were so overtly staged.  However, for Obama it was in many ways a very good series of events.  It allowed him to grab the headlines denouncing someone with whom his relationship was creating problems, and for all intents and purposes, put this behind him.  The GOP will still try to question why he went to that church in the first place, but placed aside Obama's stinging rebuke of Wright's rhetoric that probably won't hurt him a bit.  Also, those who try to put Obama in with people who argue blacks are superior to whites will have the problem of explaining how that would fit with the fact Obama had a white mother and was raised by his white grandparents.  He is as much white as he is black, after all.  In any event, I doubt Wright was going to be a primary factor in Obama's election or defeat, but in political terms the way this unfolded helps Obama.

April 28 - Maine in the spring

A break from politics, economics and philosophy today as I feel compelled to rave about Maine in the spring.  Most people consider this, accurately 'mud season,' and apologize to visitors who come to Maine in April.  The leaves are not yet out, there is still some lingering snow, most lawns are still matted down after a massive amount of winter snow (here's a photo of our house at the height of winter):

So people say "visit in summer, fall, or maybe Winter if you like winter sports, but not spring, especially not early spring"!  But yesterday I went on a hike in the woods that surround our house for about two hours with the boys.  It was spectacular!  First of all, despite the existence of paths, navigating the woods is very easy this time of year, before the plants grow and make it very difficult to get through areas not specifically a path.  We can go just about anywhere.  Yeah, there is mud, but with good mud boots and knowledge that everything the kids wear can be thrown in the washer, it's no big deal.   Second, the mud means water is all around, little streams of continuing snow melt, some huge puddles, and a couple of times the kids or I sunk a few inches in mud (I had to pull both of them out at a couple places).  The water looks and sounds beautiful as it makes its way towards the stream.

Our house is located on slopping hill that heads down to a small stream.  There is nothing between our house and that stream but woods, and the owners of the land (who also built our house) don't mind us exploring it.  That's typical in Maine, people generally let you use their land if you're respectful of it.  So we literally walk out of the front door and onto a path.   These are ATV trails as well, but at this time of spring there aren't really any ATVs out.  Moreover, the water isn't drawing bugs and mosquitoes yet, so it's a pest free hike.  It's also warm, but not hot, so we can hike around without sweating or having to worry about the kids being overheated.  Due to the mud we can follow deer tracks, find what looks like a moose track (moose have been seen here), and the kids can learn to love nature.   We meandered our way to the stream, the kids threw sticks and rocks into the water.  We came back circling around to the other side of the house, stopping in a large meadow owned by another neighbor, where Dana (the two year old) chased birds he thought were singing to him personally, while Ryan (the five year old) wanted to explore farther. 

The kids end up tired (falling asleep quickly at bed time), their clothes are full of mud, and they learn to love nature and the woods more than the TV or their plastic toys.   To be sure, it's tough with a toddler who wants to take his time and explore a blade of grass or a tiny plant, alongside a five year old who is in a hurry to see what's around the next bend -- I spent much of the time keeping each at the edge of my sight line, thankful that nature is a far safer place than civilization.   But after the walk I felt very satisfied; these were two hours very well spent. 

So I won't diss Maine in the spring.  Other seasons are great too.  In summer when everything is green and lush, with wild berries all around, family walks on very dry paths are easy and fun.  In the fall when the foliage is at its peak the smells, sounds and beauty of the area make it seem like a paradise.  But in spring the lack of bugs, the little streams and puddles, and the ability to explore areas soon to be overgrown give it a really special feel.  Because yesterday, as I watched little Dana make his way through tall grass near the stream, while Ryan was running ahead, excited about what was around the corner I realized exactly how the slogan "the way life should be" made sense for the state of Maine.  

April 24 - World in Crisis?

Today oil prices are nearing $120.  Saudi Arabia, however, is delaying or even putting aside plans to expand production capacity, saying it’s not needed.  Russian production appears to have peaked.  And, while there is a risk premium in the futures market due to conditions in Iraq and tensions between the US and Iran, this is not the kind of short term spike seen in 1974, 1979, and 1991.  This is built on real supply and demand concern.  And, though the US is drifting into recession, Asian demand for now is continuing to grow.  Given the high price of oil, new oil deposits are being discovered and exploited – ones which cost too much to seek when the price was low – but these are so far not enough to offset the increasing demand and the fundamentals of the market.  Moreover, they are likely not to make a difference in the near future.

Food prices are also rising, causing riots in many third world states, as famine and starvation threatens.  This hits the urban poor especially hard, but even in agricultural regions the shift to cash crops from sustenance farming means a lot of people are finding their wages don’t meet their growing food costs.  Still, most are able to still grow some food, the urban poor are stuck.

We could be on the edge of a world crisis.  Oil production in Saudi Arabia is slightly down from 2005, and OPEC production is flat.  World oil production is also slightly off its highs.  Given the high cost of oil, one wonders why OPEC countries aren’t trying to produce as much as possible; after all, in the 80s and 90s they routinely broke quotas and over-produced.  If they did that when the price was $15 a barrel, why not do it when the price is nearly eight times that?   Even efforts to stem the energy price increases, such as the development of biofuels, shifts agricultural production from being for food to being for energy.  This is a boon for farmers, but of course makes the food crisis worse. 

Add to that the fragile economic conditions in the US, with inflation almost certain as high oil prices and a dollar now at record lows -- $1.60 for a Euro – combines with the slowing economy to risk real stagflation.  China still mostly pegs its currency to the dollar, meaning our cheapest imports remain relatively cheap, but how long can that last?  Things could go south quickly, and its not clear that an economic slow down will dramatically reduce energy prices.  The economy is taking a double hit as low real-estate prices mean home equity is at an all time low, creating a credit crisis and limiting the possibilities for continued consumer spending.  We’re only starting to feel the effect of this.

If oil production has peaked, we could face dramatic shortages in an amazingly quick period of time, bringing the US economy and the world into uncharted territory.  Just as globalization seems to unite the world and bring us trade and investment patterns which know no borders, the end of cheap energy might snap us back to national and even local economic interactions.  The loss of productive capacity by losing the comparative advantages of current trade patterns would be numbing.  In a worst case scenario it could lead to a deep and painful depression, solved only when a mix of new energy sources and a rebalancing of the economy to reflect the end of the oil era are complete.

But it gets worse.  Despite the ‘war on terror,’ radical movements continue to grow, and it appears clear that traditional military action is not going to counter this.  The failures in Iraq demonstrate that if things get violent, there is no easy or quick fix even with our awesome military power.  We are a 20^th century super power in a very different 21^st century.  And, while Islamic extremism may be seen as the main threat now, what will happen if there are global famines and world recession?  Combine that with WMD proliferation and the inability of conventional militaries to counter these problems, and our superpower status may be of little help.

We’ve been spoiled by 60 years of prosperity and stability in the industrialized West, pushing aside ‘third world’ problems as unimportant, whether it’s near 50% chronic malnourishment in the continent of Africa, genocides in places like Rwanda and Sudan, or endemic long lasting war in Congo, Uganda, and elsewhere.  We’ve enjoyed a century of hyper-cheap energy, shaping our culture, our entertainment, and giving us unprecedented prosperity in the industrialized West.  We think history has ended, the dramas, disasters and crises of the past are behind us, or at the very least, on some other part of the planet.

For any society to think they are immune to crises that could pose an even existential threat to its foundation is an illusion.  I don’t think things are doomed to fall apart, but I do think we have to start now in thinking about what could happen, and how to prepare for it.  

April 18 - A Major Debacle

The National Defense University, a Pentagon institute, has released a report calling the Iraq war a "major debacle" with the outcome "in doubt."  In all the spin surrounding the war, it's time that even those who supported going to Iraq, and who think it would be dangerous to leave now, admit that this has not gone at all as expected.  When the National Defense University looks at the human and resources costs compared to the benefits and calls it a "debacle," that can't be dismissed as some kind of leftist anti-war rhetoric.  These are our strategic experts, people whose lives are spent thinking about the US national interest and studying strategies to achieve it.   This should give even those most supportive of the war pause.

But it probably won't.  In our hyper-politicized world, many people who support the war don't really this as an issue of legitimate discussion; rather, it is a political issue where admitting being wrong would be to give a victory to their opponents.  And, when the atmosphere is so politicized, opponents are almost always caricatured, seen as intellectually flawed or possessed by some kind of personality disorder.  Giving them a victory is not acceptable.  So many, even if they hold doubts, will avoid embracing the conclusion of this Pentagon institute.  For instance, when Francis Fukuyama, who remains intellectually similar to the neo-conservatives he now criticizes, made public his critique of the war and in particular a speech by Charles Krauthammer, he was savaged by his former friends and allies.  This isn't about an open discussion of the policy, this is political battle!

The anti-war crowd has been, of course, similarly ineffective.  Too much bashing of the personalities like Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld (while he was there), and not enough consideration of the rationale for the war, and the issues that drive policy.   Legitimate questions, such as whether or not leaving too fast might make things worse rather than better, tend to get pushed aside, or simply put into some kind of rhetorical dismissal.  So we end up with a political debate divorced from the reality, focused not on the destruction being suffered by Iraqis, but at the cost to America's military or status in the world.

The National Defense University is calling for us to learn lessons.  Yeah, it was a bad choice to go to war.  And of course the outcome is in severe doubt, despite optimism about the surge, which has been fading, recently Shi'ite on Shi'ite violence further raises doubts about the real impact of the surge, especially as Iraqi politics seems as divided as ever.   To learn lessons, however, there has to be a willingness of all sides to take a sober, clear look at the confusing issues that are raised by the problems in this war.  Both sides have to listen to each other, and be willing to question their assumptions and past positions, and think creatively about new approaches.  War supporters have to accept that this can very easily be viewed as a debacle or less strongly, at least a failure.  War opponents have to recognize that absent a time machine, simple opposition means little now, we have to not only figure out how best to deal with the current reality, but also analyze this for lessons that go beyond slogans critical of the President or Vice President.

One hopes that the National Defense Industry study can start that kind of a dialogue.   The report concludes by quoting Winston Churchill: "Let us learn our lessons. Never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. ... Always remember, however sure you are that you can easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man did not think that he also had a chance."  Alas, in an election year, I suspect we'll have a lot of rhetoric, and little discussion and honest reflection.

April 16 - Faith and Politics

Pope Benedict XVI is in Washington today, meeting with President Bush.  The Pope, like his predecessor, is a strong opponent of the war in Iraq.  John Paul II tried to prevent the war by speaking out against it in 2002, only to see the United States, and many Catholics around the world ignore his pleas.  Indeed, there seems to be something surreal about the church talking about love, peace, turning the other cheek, loving ones' enemies as oneself, being kind to those who would do you harm and forgiveness.  In this world where power is prized and kindness is seen as naive, talk of love, forgiveness and peace is dismissed as idealistic claptrap.  Yet those who do the dismissing often profess to believe in the faith that preaches that which they dismiss.  They may rationalize their apparent hypocrisy by saying "this is necessary" or "these teachings have to be taken in the context of the modern world."  More likely, they won't even recognize the dilemma, so engrained is a materialist, rationalist view.  Religion and religious thought is other worldly, something more a Sunday ritual than a way to live.

On the other side of the world, Muhammad's Koran, a book arguing for social reform, more rights for women, better treatment of the poor, no compulsion in religion, and no fighting against a foe who does not want to fight, is ignored by extremists so they can 'fight the infidels.'  One forgets Muhammad's friendship and partnership with Christians, Jews, Hanifs and others.  Extremists forget that Muhammad demanded respect for people of other faiths, and that Jihad was much like just war theory, arguing war is only allowed to defend Islam, and only when innocents are protected, and care is made to avoid unnecessary bloodshed.   Because Muhammad was not a pacifist (unlike Jesus, who apparently was a pacifist), it's been easier for extremists to twist his words.  When fighting against the Qu'arysh, the tribe that controlled Mecca and who wanted to wipe out Muhammad and his followers, he said "kill the polytheists" in one passage preparing the community for war.  Now that gets misquoted by extremists as saying killing any polytheist is demanded (and Christians, worshipping the father, son and holy ghost, are in Muslim eyes polytheists).  Moreover, the Hadiths, put together after Muhammad's deaths, often contradicted practices and teachings in the Koran.  Ultimately, though, you can't be a terrorist or target civilians if you are true to the teachings of Islam.

It's ironic that the great religions share a belief that war is bad, should be avoided, and that you should treat others with respect.  Muhammad focuses more on social reform and overcoming traditional and often barbaric Arab customs, while Jesus is more an other-worldly pacifist.  But Muhammad considered Jesus a great prophet -- Isa, who ironically will return at the end of the world to convert the masses to Islam -- and embraced his teachings, arguing only that it was wrong to see him as the son of God.

There seems to be in our collective psyches a sense of justice and morality that tries to limit the barbarism in our political behavior.  We know war is wrong, that it is a kind of organized mass murder, betraying our fundamental ideals.  We know especially that invading and trying to take over other societies is wrong, we know it's wrong to mistreat others, ridicule others, hurt others, and refuse to forgive.  Yet we find it really hard to live by what we know to be true in our daily lives.   Whether it's the Sermon on the Mount, the Koran, the Ten Commandments, or the teachings of the Buddha, humans have gravitated to and even worshipped those who can speak clearly moral truths, sensing a profound wisdom in such teachings.  Yet, since they cannot be proven and often seem to contradict the material world of wealth and power, they get overcome by the worldly, or worse, subverted and used to rationalize the kind of behavior they condemn.  A Hindu extremist kills Gandhi.  Muslim extremists bring down the World Trade Center.  Westerners, mostly Christian, invade Iraq to spread democracy in a kind of modern crusade.

Yet as we see the victims -- families, children, and civilians -- whose lives have been torn apart by the violence unleashed by political fractions on all sides and from countries as diverse as Iran and the United States, we sense that there is something profoundly wrong and immoral about war.  We're not sure how to get out of it.  We're not sure if and when it's needed.  We're not sure how to balance the material and the spiritual, and many doubt that the spiritual is more than some kind of mythology, that all is material.  Yet somehow, we know that what's happening is wrong.   Maybe that's why in a secular world, where the Pope has been stripped of most of his authority, and whose teachings are often ignored even by Catholics, people pay attention.  Protestants, Agnostics, even Atheists pay attention.   We yearn for some kind of spiritual or moral guidance, but aren't sure who to trust or how to get it.

April 15 -  More Offensivity

(Note: April 13, 2007 was entitled 'Offensivity' responding to the Imus incident, almost exactly a year ago!)

Recently on campus there was a hubbub over signs put in some of the buildings asking people to use stairs rather than the elevator to stay in shape and be healthy.  Off the top of my head, I can't think of any reason why that would cause anyone to get upset.  However, apparently at least one student found these signs extremely offensive, and tore them down.   Some even wanted the university to ban such signs, essentially censoring student speech.  The reason?  People who are disabled might be offended by signs asking people to use the stairs to remain healthy.

At one level, this is absolutely and patently absurd.  If people are so disabled as to be unable to use stairs, a sign like that is pretty minor compared to every other aspect of society, from advertising to daily conversation.  I also was told in class that the student who was upset (I don't know who it is) is able bodied, appeared angry that the signs were up, and saw himself or herself looking out for the rights of the disabled.  Yet I'm not sure what "right" could have been violated.  The right not be offended?  Moreover, should anyone really feel offended by messages aimed at the vast majority of society which can use stairs, a message that is both valid and accurate?

I'm sure the student in question was well intentioned and motivated by high ideals.  And I know for a fact that most students did not find this offensive.   Still, I think this demonstrates a problem in our culture: people are too easily offended, and respond to being offended by trying to silence others.   People seem to think that "offending someone" is something very bad, and therefore not only should people think about what they say to avoiding offending others, but that the powers that be -- whether a university administration or a government -- should act to limit offensive talk.  You see this even in the political world, where a politician using the word "bitter" to describe people's response to the economic down turn is raked over the coals for a supposedly "offensive" remark.

As a university I think we owe it to students to help impart a couple of values.   First, freedom of expression is a fundamental value, which should be respected throughout society, but nowhere more than in our academic institutions.  The idea that some students should be asking the university to censor student speech should strike us as appalling and dangerous.   Second, the only way freedom of expression can play the role it is supposed to play -- to promote critical thought and true debate/discussion -- is to recognize that almost every controversial stand can be viewed as offensive by someone (let alone apparently uncontroversial ones, like saying it's healthier to use the stairs).  

This second point is important.   Ultimately in society we don't want and almost certainly are not going to get a "speech police" that will make sure that no offensive words are uttered, no names are called, or no ignorant statements made.  There are ignorant and mean spirited people in the world who will take delight at trying to offend.   Rather than trying to ban offensivity, the goal must be to help people deal with offensive situations with confidence, recognizing that the ignorance of another should not have any emotional power over oneself.  In other words, being offended by something can be a kind of emotional weakness.  Smart, articulate, self-confident people can deal with points of view they think very wrong, or even offensive, without needing to try to silence them.  They can respond, make a counter argument, state that a person's comment is misguided or insulting, but the goal should be to engage, not to censor.   People who suffer disabilities especially need to learn to take it in stride, if they are going to demand that nothing in society remind them that they do not have the capacities others have, they'll see themselves as victims rather than doing what they can in their circumstances to empower themselves.

The desire to censor is anti-democratic, it is an appeal to authority to try to assure only proper 'politically correct' views are stated, stifling debate and discussion.  And, while that may seem OK to people when the authorities share their perspective, it will be intolerable when the authorities have a very different point of view.  The only democratic and open way is to avoid censorship, and let discussion and debate be the proper response to potentially offensive statements.  There are limits to this of course -- threats, speech acts that could jeopardize the safety of others, and the like.  But the limits should be rare.

As a university we need to model and teach that kind of behavior.  The administration at UMF has come out strongly against censorship, in favor of our academic values.  In the classroom, I hope professors and other students will work to promote not only norms against censorship, but the idea that one need not react to comments they find offensive with anger or a desire to silence, but to engage and discuss.  That's when learning happens, after all.  Sometimes that which once seemed offensive, may ultimately be seen as enlightening.

April 14 - China's Rise

In the public relations driven mindset of the West, the protests against China over tibet are a disaster for the Chinese.  They threaten to mar China's big splash onto the world scene with the 2008 Olympics, and western leaders are falling over themselves to boycott the games.  Yet, perhaps surprising to some, China does not appear on the defensive, nor does it seem to be retreating from its harsh measures to put down protests.  Instead, it criticizes western protests and warns of a backlash.  Within China, there is considerable support for the government, and very little for the Tibetan protesters.  China seems not to care a wit that the western media has declared this a danger for China's "symbolic" hosting of the Olympics.

From the Chinese perspective, they have nothing to protest for.  The Tibetan protesters are, by their own admission, using the Olympics to try to create unrest and cause notice in the international community.  How can a state not respond to violent or disruptive protests?   Indeed, they believe that letting these protests continue would simply embolden more protesters to join, creating a real disaster at a time much closer to the Olympics.  Better to nip it in the bud now.  Most importantly, the Olympics aren't as important to China as many in the West believe they are, or maybe even as many in China thought they would be a decade ago.

In the last ten years China has seen its world position skyrocket.  Not only has their economy continued to boom, but the American trade deficit has grown by five times, as Americans buy more and more Chinese goods.   This deficit is financed in large part by China's investment in American markets, helping China build a large current account surplus, as well as a large saving rate.  All of this suggests that despite the pressures of poverty and population, China's economy is far from spent; in fact, it is reaching a position where it could allow its currency to appreciate, shift from foreign markets to its internal market, and balance export led growth with domestic economic improvement.   The US, with a large current accounts deficit (though declining a bit thanks to the dollar's recent weakness), would be further pressured by less Chinese investment in the US economy, perhaps sparking inflation along with recessionary pressures (i.e., stagflation -- made even more likely with high oil prices).  Even now the Asian economies appear to keep booming even as the US drifts into a crisis of unknown proportions.

Geopolitically, China's position is as good as ever.  American errors in Iraq have not only bogged the US down, but have increased anti-Americanism world wide.   This has broadened China's appeal in the EU, as well as wtih Russia and Iran.  Russia and China have always been rivals, but they both have interests in the stability of Central Asia, minimizing American power in the Mideast, and building a strategic partnership with Iran.  In Asia, China is the dominant economy, and its influence is even working to improve relations with Taiwan, and the two economies are increasingly linked (suggesting a 'unification' may not be out of the question down the line -- but one of choice, not force).  China's political leaders now have a strong argument against the military concern for the US: the US experience in Iraq shows the limited usefulness of military power in the 21st century, and the US is so over-stretched that it is in no position to challenge China in Asia or really anywhere.  China can undercut US policy directed to Iran without worry over any American retaliation -- both politically and militarily, the US cannot afford to confront China.

To be sure, China faces hurdles.  Some are external: China needs oil, wood and other raw materials.  This has lead to a proliferation of agreements between China and various African states, as well as aggressive Chinese deals in the Mideast.  As oil prices rise, however, it will stress and even threaten all fossil fuel based economies.  China, also harmed by alarming rates of pollution growth, is starting to look at alternate sources of energy (and has for awhile) but they rely on the outside world for raw materials.    Others are internal: hundreds of millions Chinese are still living in poverty, and this could threaten stability.  One reason democracy is unlikely to work in China is that these millions could skew elections de-stabilizing results.  But as the middle class grows in wealth and number, they will demand a say on political matters.  The Chinese Communist Party will have to manage political reform as adeptly as economic reform to assure that the 21st century will be the "Century of China."  Also, if the economic growth continues to poison the earth and water in China (as well as contributing to things like global warming), they could find themselves with ecological disasters that undercut the progress they make.  Finally, they need to balance their own love of sovereignty with the globalized political economy they benefit so greatly from.   Still, with all this, one can understand that China may not be as bothered by 'bad publicity' over the olympic games as some in the West believe they should.

April 11 - Big Money vs. Big Government

One of the frustrating aspects of modern political debate is the way in which those justifiably worried about the anti-democratic and potentially dangerous power of big money -- huge transnational corporations and banks -- see big government as the only way to keep them in check.  Similarly, those justifiably worried about the power of big government to deny freedoms and engage in atrocities seem to have no problem with big money.  And, while the two sides complain about the particular evil they are concerned about, big money and big government snuggle up in bed together.

The only way to break out of this weird and dysfunctional political debate is to recast the debate as concern about concentrations of power, and its use in ways not transparent or accountable, and to destroy some myths.

Myth 1, held by those in fear of big government, is the belief that markets are able to adequately regulate economic life without external intervention.  That simply is not verified by history or observation.  No matter how fancy one can make a theory that markets should work, those theories are based on vast simplifications and people holding the myth end up talking about 11th century Iceland or something.  Centralized power gives wealth corporate powers the capacity to circumvent what pure markets might otherwise bring.  Because people like perfect information, due to lag times and difficulties in reacting to changing conditions, markets will always have flaws, and these flaws can be manipulated by powerful actors.  Left unchecked, pure markets can give way to defacto monopolies and oligopies, or organized criminal control of an economy.

Myth 2, held by those in fear of big money, is the belief that governments can be trusted to regulate markets and act as a force benefiting the average person.  As with markets, this isn't verified by history and observations.  Governments deny freedoms, go to war, and tend towards corruption.  While one can create theories of accountability and rule of law, people in government can find ways around those.  Moreover, governments tend to expand their scope and power over time.  Even in the US, where democracy arguably works reasonably well, one needs to raise a lot of money and have a lot of inside connections before one has any real power.  The Clintons earned over $100 million in the few years after Bill was President.

Humans lead governments, humans lead powerful transnational corporate actors.  Some humans are very moral and good, others are bad, and many are just self-interested and going along with the flow.  Since 1985 globalization has made the most powerful corporations wealthier and more powerful than most governments on the planet.  Moreover, the decline of importance of military power vis-à-vis economic influence has tilted the playing field towards corporations.  Governments, not wanting to lose power, have found it usually most beneficial to simply side with the corporations, leaving it to populist activists to try to fight against these connections.

But if big government and big money are both problems, what is the alternative?  How can one regulate big money without empowering big government?  The answer, I think, requires to re-conceptualize what a government is, and what the state is.  This is already being done globally, one could argue that the traditional state is vanishing, the US one of the few remaining.  I think the focus will have to be to use the tools of the information revolution to give more local power and control to people, devolving away from powerful central governments to smaller local bodies.  However, these local units will be connected to the larger polity(ies) electronically, sharing information, and coordinating action when appropriate.  Rather than a bureaucratic behemoth, the state could be a web of small local authorities, sharing some ground rules, and acting relatively independently, even while sharing information and ideas, and learning from each other.  These units will be jealous of surrending power to the larger entity, and can even make connections across old borders, and make agreements and share information globally.  Because right now big corporations are doing real damage to the third world and increasing dramatically the gap between rich and power.  Big governments do little to stop them, but continue to raise taxes and exercise undue control over average folk.  The Westphalian state system is obsolete, but it will be very difficult to localize governance and increase both accountability and rule of law.

April 10 - Children and War

Today Dr. Mellisa Clawson and I have a talk on the subject "Children and war" to a rather large group, but together by the Rehabilitation club "awareness day," with the topic this year being war.  Next fall Mellisa and I will again teach our honors course on children and war.

She really did the lion's share of the work on the presentation today, putting together a very moving, yet disturbing, presentation of images from children who have suffered in a war zone.  Many photos were from Iraq, but there were images from all over the world.  As the students and community members watched this, and we went into discussion mode, it occurs to me just how sanitized war has become for Americans.  The real cost -- one image showed a small child with his father, the father in detention wearing a hood, or one girl in tears, drenched with blood after American soldiers killed her parents at a checkpoint (mistaking them for possible insurgents) -- is something we don't confront.  For us it's about politics, money being wasted, or American military deaths.  In fact, most Americans would forgive the soldiers for making that child an orphan because "they couldn't be sure" about the parents.  Our deaths matter more than theirs.

Still, if people saw these images, and realized just how much destruction our plan to "liberate" Iraq has caused -- how much suffering, how many shattered lives -- then they'd maybe think less in abstract terms and ask real difficult questions.  Maybe if people really confronted those images honestly, not hiding behind a veil of detachment, they'd understand why anti-Americanism is so high in Iraq, why people in the Arab world consider us heartless oil greedy conquerors with no real concern for human life.  Because that is what a majority do think about us, and images from our wars (and war is essentially organized mass murder) are seen in that part of the world -- sometimes it's not an image by the scene they confront on the street.

And, of course, these children grow up.  They are much more susceptible to long term problems forming relationships, maintaining mental health, and learning how to deal with others.  Growing up in  a war zone, hearing bombs every day, experiencing loss, and often being injured themselves creates tremendous stress.  Mellisa had images of children who were being killed from within due to depleted uranium munitions. 

These images don't make it to our media.  The government says they would be too distressing to children who might watch, and media know that if they carried these images they would be branded as unpatriotic, undercutting the war effort by showing the truth.  It would destroy the myth we build that we're actually just there to help, and show that the choice made to go to war was a choice to engage in mass violence with tremendous destruction. 

And, of course, it's not just us.  Children are caught up in wars from the Mideast to Africa to Asia.  Landmines kill and handicap children often decades after they are laid.   It's important, I think, to really confront these issues head on.  As I noted on the 8th "targeting the media," we need ot find a way as a society to confront the truth.  Not the abstract rationalizations or the talking heads arguing politics.  But the truth, the experiences of every day people, including children, due to the policies undertaken.  I'm convinced that no one can see images like that and really confront the truth without being profoundly affected.  Yet most people don a bubble of detachment and are protected from such images by a media afraid of being criticized.  It's important to break through those barriers.

April 9 - Iraq surreality

The hearings in Iraq yesterday bordered on the surreal.  Even as Gen. Petraeus clearly noted there is no 'light at the end of the tunnel,' and any gains there have been 'fragile,' the supporters of the war seem to want to live in spin city.  Some even claim that al Sadr, not Maliki was weakened in last week's Basra violence (Petraeus didn't go that route, he called the Iraqi government action 'disappointing'), or simply want to mouth rhetoric that things are 'improving.'  Sen. McCain makes the rather bizarre claim that al qaeda could win in Iraq if the US left, even Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker dismissed that, noting al qaeda was more of a danger in Afghanistan.

The Democrats, however, are caught up in their own bit of surreality.  They oppose the war and promise to get out, but don't really have a plan on how to do it.  They fear actually being blamed for "losing" Iraq, and thus are vague in how they would disengage.  In short, they are caught up in the superpower syndrome: how can a major power go headlong into a conflict with a third world country, and then leave without victory, and with potential violence continuing, blamed on that superpower?

Both parties need to actually take stock of reality.  The reality is that the Pentagon is adamant that the US military is dangerously close to being unprepared for unexpected violence or conflicts that might directly challenge US security.  The surge has always been unsustainable for longer than a year; perhaps they can push major withdrawal of troops off a few months, but the Iraqi engagement is increasingly becoming itself a threat to US security.  We are spending so much time and military effort not on winning a war, but trying to re-shape a culture, that we've weakened ourselves on every other front.  There is no rationality to that situation, the US cannot and should not sustain the Iraq effort, the issue now is simple: this "war" is hurting us economically, militarily, and on the world stage.   We need to find a way out, in an orderly, but speedy manner.

So why doesn't this reality get addressed?  The answer is Iran.  There is a fear in the Administration that the end result of all these efforts in Iraq will simply be a stronger Iran, with a close ally in Iraq.  That is unacceptable, embarrassing and, they believe, dangerous.  The only way to stymie Iranian progress is to somehow create a truly independent Iraq, not susceptible to Iranian pressure. 

Enter reality.  Iran is very close to the Dawa party of Prime Minister Maliki, arms the Badr militia which Maliki relied on in Basra and which has been made part of the Iraqi military (though retaining its own structures).  Iran is playing all sides of this game, and has more influence on Iraqi domestic policy than the US has.   There is no way for the US to marginalize Iran in Iraq.  The end result of the choice to depose Saddam will be a stronger Iran.  I predicted as much even before the 2003 invasion, and George H.W. Bush gave that fear as one reason not to depose Saddam in 1991.   Especially as US forces are set to decrease and no real political reconciliation has taken place, the US ability to shape events will dissipate.  So as embarrassing or unacceptable as it may be, the US has to accept that Iran is the "winner" in this conflict.  But that victory will be challenged once we leave by the Iraqis who won't want to be controlled by the Persians.  So it's really not as bad as some make it out to be, we should let the politics of the region unfold on its own terms.

Some believe there will be a blood bath if we leave.  Hello!  There was a bloodbath in 2006 while we were there.  Our presence doesn't protect Iraqis from each other, we don't even try to do that.  Chances are if we leave it will in fact increase the interest of the Saudis and Iranians to help stabilize Iraq to avoid a regional sectarian war.   We can even bring them in for talks as we plan our departure.

Finally, some stick to abstract mythology or slogans "we have to finish what we start" or "we need victory to show the troops or the country that the war was not in vain."  Those are ridiculous reasons for continuing a policy that not only leads to death and destruction, but weakens our country in real terms.  Pride goes before destruction, sometimes we have to recognize that no country is perfect, no country wins every conflict it gets involved in, and it is a source of strength to recognize mistakes and deal with reality, rather than being driven to dig the hole deeper because of pride.

The US has failed in Iraq.  In the process, we've learned some valuable lessons, especially on the limits of military power to effect political outcomes.  We need a smarter policy, focused more on diplomacy and economic engagement, than trying to force others to be more like us.  But we can't do that until we make the hard decision on Iraq: to recognize reality and plan our departure.

April 8 - Targeting the Media

Five years ago today three reporters were killed by American attacks on independent media sources in Baghdad covering the war.  At the time the Pentagon said that only embedded reporters were safe, and this was simply part of being in a war zone.  The next day, the US pulled down the statue of Saddam Hussein to symbolize the end of the regime, and the attacks on Al Jazeera and other Arab media sources was forgotten.  In time we learned that these were indeed deliberate attacks targeting media the US felt was undercutting the American mission by spreading "enemy propaganda," and that the reporters were killed by a pre-meditated military action.

The propaganda they were spreading was to simply show that the war was not clean.  They veered from the American script of the US coming as heroic liberators to defeat the evil regime and help the thankful civilians.  They showed dead Iraqi children, American POWs (footage from Iraqi TV) and the large number of civilians caught up in "shock and awe."  As it became clear to the US that the Iraqis were not thankful to see us, and that we were seen as an occupying force, the Defense Department blamed al Jazeera.  They were whipping up anti-American sentiment with these images -- with the truth.  If they were silenced, then the US could control the story line.

Of course, that didn't happen.   Al Jazeera and other Arab media sources continued to report on real conditions in Iraq, and it soon became obvious that the problem wasn't that people were being whipped into an anti-American fervor by Arab media, but that the Iraqis didn't like the American invasion, and they didn't need the television to show them how Iraqis were being killed, injured and humiliated by the American forces.  It wasn't the media that ignited the insurgency, or pushed the Shi'ites to form anti-American and anti-Sunni militias.

Five years ago today, the lie underlying the Iraq war was made evident, even though it would take awhile for it to sink in.  The US thought it could script this war, control the message, and therefore shape the outcome.  It did not understand the culture and the problems involved in trying to actually make Iraq some kind of model democracy.  And, as the script started to unravel with negative Iraqi reaction to the American presence -- no flowers and chocolates -- they refused to rethink their premises and instead killed some reporters and tried to intimidate those people out there trying to bring the real story to the public.   Truth was dangerous to the American goal, truth did not fit the script.  There was an effort made to silence getting the human side of the story to the public, that war is not clean, sanitary, and like a hollywood movie.

Even today, people try to remain in denial.  The tactics were wrong, mistakes were made here or there, and some silver bullet like the surge might make everything better.  The problem with the Iraq war is not just the choices the policy makers made, but their inability to deal with the truth, and squarely accept reality.   To this day, the effort continues to be to spin the war.  Publications like the Weekly Standard completely sacrifice objective reporting to spin anything, even the disaster last week in Basra (continuing today in Sadr City) into some kind of positive event.   Unless we decide to really open our eyes and consider the real human cost of the war and all its complexities, it'll just be slogans and spin, and no real understanding.   The key thing now is to face the truth in Iraq.  Reality has a way of defying spin, if given time.  You can kill reporters, but that won't change the truth.

April 7 - Women sacrificed for the "surge"

Newsweek magazine has an interesting article about the plight of Iraqi women.   This is yet another unintended consequence of the American effort to bring western style democracy to Iraq -- women are worse off than under Saddam's regime.

For all the faults of Saddam Hussein's totalitarian, militarist, Baathist dictatorship, it was a secular regime and women were accorded real rights, and given opportunities.   Unlike many other places in the Mideast they could go to universities, have careers, dress in non-traditional ways, and make their own decisions.  The US invasion was not supposed to change that; indeed, efforts were made to make sure women were elected to parliament and were involved in the process of creating an Iraqi constitution.

However, as the American dream for a model western style democracy in Iraq has given way to the realities of a divided, violent society, the US has had to shift tactics.  As noted in the past, this has meant decreasing the emphasis on democracy and increasing the focus on stability.  That has meant compromises with Sunni tribes, as well as Shi'ite militias.  This also means that women in all parts of Iraq are increasingly under strict traditional rules, a huge step backward.

This has ominous signs for the US.  One of the best predicators of prosperity, quality of life and political stability is the relative equality of the sexes.   The more equal men and women are, the more advanced, stable and prosperous a country will be.  If Iraq is going backwards, this bodes ill for the idea of a model Iraq, moving forward and showing a reformed Islamic state.   Second, this clearly shows the failure of the policy.  Getting rid of Saddam was accomplished easily, but it was believed that unless Iraq had a stable, functioning democracy, any benefits from that removal would be offset by Iraqi chaos and increased Iranian influence.  Unfortunately for us, both of these problems occurred anyway, despite an American presence.  Even the surge, whose success is now very much in question, could only have a chance to succeed by sacrificing the ideals of democracy, such as equality for women, in favor of allowing tribal and local governance. 

To some, this might be reason to stay at the task -- not to leave until women are treated equally, and stability is achieved.  Yet to do that we'd essentially need a massive military force, and we'd probably have to install a western authoritarian leader, an Iraqi version of the Shah of Iran, to force such stability and rule on a divided society.   And, as we saw with the Shah, that kind of authority is fragile, and if lost, the result is usually a strong bit of blowback against the US.   Moreover, our continued presence there means that Iraqis can blame everything that goes wrong on the US, and this arouses anti-western ideals in Iraqi activists.  Trying to argue for American notions of rights and governance is akin to embracing the ideals of the foreign invader.   The more we try to make them do things our way, the more we discredit our way in the eyes of many Arabs.

As hard as it is for pragmatic can-do Americans to accept, some problems have no easy solutions, and some things are outside our control.  At this point Iraq has entered an abyss, and it's unclear we can do much to solve the problems, they need to work through these.  Perhaps a multi-lateral UN effort focused less on military, more on assistance, or maybe an effort of Muslim states can help.   It's also not clear if we caused all this, or if we just hastened the inevitable.  Saddam's authoritarianism wouldn't last forever, sooner or late the Baath party would have lost power.  Would this all have happened anyway?   Perhaps -- much of the century has seen a divided and fragmented Iraq.  Just as Afghanistan has slipped back towards pre-war division, so has Iraq.  Maybe the only real lesson we can draw is that militaries can win wars, but they do not shape the peace.   Even the post-WWII developments in Japan and Germany were less about what we were doing, and more about the choices made by the Japanese and German people.

On the other hand, there were reasons to expect this violence to have been avoided.  It took years before foreign extremists were able to spark on all out Shi'ite-Sunni civil war, and the fragmentation that's occurred has been in large part because the US has tried for so long to shape events in Iraq.   The US went in without a true understanding of the cultural factors that would make a move to a stable democracy extremely difficult, if not impossible in the short term.  The Administration had intellectual and idealistic theories, but these were based on assumptions and attitudes that were distinctly western and modern.  Ideology made people think this was a task that could be accomplished with relative ease, but history and culture trump ideology.   And at some point, we have to recognize that fact, and accept that the US is in no position to shape Iraq's future.  The plight of women is a dramatic example of things have gone south.  It's sobering; we have created problems for the Iraqis which we are incapable of solving.

April 4 - Like a Virgin

The media are full of articles about the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s death, and the poignancy of the Obama campaign in reflecting on the changes of the last forty years.   Taking nothing away from those important reflections and I comments, I choose to write today about a 50th anniversary -- that of Madonna's birth.

Madonna was born in 1958, at a time when the United States was at its peak in power, and though the Cold War was in full force, it was becoming increasingly clear that the West would win the economic race and provide the better material lifestyle.  In that era of optimism and economic growth, the late baby boomer generation was born, destined to become the "material girls (and boys)" of American culture.   While baby boomers are often lumped together, there is a world of difference between those born in the late forties and early fifties, and those born around 1960, at the end of the boom.  The late boomers (of which I'm a part) grew up in a period of social change and rebellion.   Madonna's tenth birthday would be the day Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, her childhood, like those of the rest of the late boomer generation, experienced the Vietnam era as children, uncertain what to make of it.

We were bombarded with different messages.  My father considered King a Communist, and the Vietnam war a necessary fight -- we have to defeat them 'over there' so they don't make it 'over here.'  Yet on television and in music the case was being made for tolerance, peace and love.   Our life styles were by current standards moderate, but by the standards of the time, materially decadent.  Most of us had our own rooms, our houses had televisions, and we never worried about having to do hard work to make the household run.  Mom stayed home and took care of the kids, dad went to work and we'd watch for his car every day at 5:30.  He never had much vacation, but he was determined to provide for his family.   We didn't know what we were going to do with our lives, but we did know that it was expected that we'd work hard to be better off than our parents.   Late boomers had parents who remembered growing up in the depression without much at all as children, and were determined their children would enjoy their childhood -- and we did.

The Vietnam war was a series of images on television, tallies of dead (good, more of them died than us) or lottery drawings to see who would get drafted.  Then there were the hippies, romantic, rebellious, with enticing talk about love, peace, and harmony.  The music fit the times; one of my first 45's was "War" by Edwin Starr -- "what is it good for, absolutely nothing!"   In the evening we had the family in the TV room, to watch what most of the rest of the country was watching -- perhaps Bat Man, I Dream of Jeannie, or Star Trek.  We'd all have to watch the same thing -- after all, only super rich people would have more than one TV.

In the 70s things started to change.  Oil crises, recession, and watergate.  The TV shows were no longer innocent, but cutting -- All in the Family rather than Bewitched.  The hippies became yuppies, Vietnam was put behind us, and we started worrying about the environment, oil, and the danger of a potential all out nuclear war.  The materialism of our parents was second nature to us -- of course we'd have enough to eat and we'd go to a good school and get a job.  But what kind of world would we inherit? 

Enter a new kind of  rebel: not the bad boy of the 50s, or the hippy of the 60s.  Not a Maoist or a peacenik.  But a girl on a gondola in Venice, dancing provocatively, "like a virgin, touched for the very first time."  The material girl, changing outfits, personas, and toying with all the social norms she could, enjoying upsetting the prudish and proper, yet having fun and avoiding any kind of deeper message.   It was a kind of liberation: she could be feminist, but embrace sex appeal.  She could be challenging social norms, but doing it with a smile, having fun.  She could shock, and also could sell.  She was all image, yet with substance, such as in Desperately Seeking Susan.  She would enjoy her youth, stay young longer than any generation previous had dared, and then have a family late.  She'd experiment with different forms of spirituality, and her politics would be progressive, reflecting the cultural influences of the seventies.

Obviously not every late boomer is reflected in Madonna, but her career symbolizes the late boomer generation.  Post-materialist, distrustful of causes, wanting to have fun, rebelling against authority, yet also enjoying the material delights of the age we were born into.   Not as cynical as the gen-Xers to come, or as idealistic as the sixties youth, late boomers developed a kind of optimistic progressivism, socially active so long as it doesn't cramp their lifestyles too much.   So, Madonna, recognizing you as a symbol of my generation, I wish you a very happy birthday!

April 2 - The Crusade

It was a slip of the tongue, perhaps a poor choice in wording, but early in the Iraq war President Bush referred to it as a "crusade," unintentionally invoking the name of a series of wars fought in the middle ages wherein the Christians from Europe attacked the Islamic world and committed atrocities and massacres.  In some ways, though, the word choice was accurate.  While the crusade is no longer for the Christian God, it is for the current religion of the West - the ideology of liberal democracy.  Back in the middle ages, the legitimacy of the crusades was clear.  It was obvious to Europeans that the Christian God was the one true God, and it was honorable to free the holy land and given the Muslims a chance at salvation.  The idea that Islam was simply a different religion that deserved respect didn't occur to them, there is only one true God, after all!

In 2003 the American public met the idea of spreading democracy with the same uncritical response.  Of course we want to spread democracy, equal rights for women, free speech, and markets!  These things have created prosperity in the West, and seem to be self-evidently good.  We are liberating people from a dictator, we aren't imposing anything, we want to give them the freedom to define their own destiny.  Yet, in reality, that view is itself a bit of a delusion.

First, democracy as a process does not guarantee much of anything.  In the US the cost of competing in an election effectively limits the capacity of people to participate, and requires they adhere to certain "politically viable" views and histories to have a chance to win.  Even if your pastor has said something embarrassing, it can haunt you.  Thus there are strict limits on what actually becomes viable for democratic choice, limits shaped by the elite.  In third world countries many parties have held on to power despite having fair elections due to propaganda, buying off voters, or other means.  Second, democracy as we understand it rests on a variety of assumptions about the nature of politics and indeed human nature.  It assumes people are rational, self-interested, and can accept a democratic method of choosing between different perspectives and opinions.  This requires a toleration of different perspectives and opinions, and an ability to compromise.  Democracy, especially when combined with capitalism, is a western enlightenment invention, a rational way to try to implement enlightenment ideals without the negative effects that the French revolution or Marxism created. 

It would take a lot more time and space to go into how Democracy as we understand it reflects a myriad of assumptions and beliefs about reality that are fundamentally western.  Yet, it is put forth as being universal, outside of a cultural context, something that all should have and want, and which one might even kill and die in order to bring it to another state or people.  That belief is dangerous.  Democracy is part of our culture, its ideology and assumptions are western.   Fighting to spread democracy and markets is fighting to replace another culture's approach to politics and life with ours.  And, even if another culture is suffering under a dictatorship, removing the dictator and then working to try to build our kind of system is more a crusade than liberation.  We see it as liberation because to us it would be, just like the Christians of the crusades saw conversion to Christianity as salvation.

This is hard to accept; most people say 'of course it's wrong to subjugate women or deny basic rights, or to have rule by a monarch.'  But, of course, we would say that, those are deep culturally held beliefs.  Does this mean, though, that we should all become moral relativists, whatever a culture does is OK?   First, since we can't prove our beliefs right, at one level we have no choice but to be relativists -- and the argument against moral relativism usually rests on emotional grounds.  However, relativism does not imply equivalence.  There are differences, and those differences can be traced, discussed and analyzed.   Maybe treating women as equal to men isn't something I can prove to be right, but I can show that the more equality of the sexes, the more prosperity, the less war, and the higher the standard of living.  Second, and more importantly, even if we have no choice but be relativist, we also have no choice but to make moral calls.   We have to act on our ethical/moral understandings, even if we can't prove we are right.  This means we act politically, try to persuade others, and engage in debate and discussion.  In other words, there is nothing wrong with defending our beliefs, even as we tolerate others.  Finally, most atrocities we see come not from the way other cultures understand the world, but the way in which the state and modern life have made it difficult for cultures to deal with complex issues, allowing power to centralize or colonialism to destroy old cultures.  Stalin, Pol Pot, and many others cannot be protected by claims to doing what their culture accepted; they clearly stepped beyond that.

Perhaps the best thing is to simply avoid crusades.  Live by our values, let them guide us, and perhaps work to persuade others that our approach makes sense (but learn from others in areas where we may be weak -- we are a very materialist culture, that could be a weakness).  Engage and consider the ethics of each situation, even if we lack certainty about what ethical principles should guide our action.  The war in Iraq, however, shows the folly of making it a crusade.  We can't impose our cultural creations wherever we want, the problems in Iraq stem not from bad execution of policy to not truly understanding the political culture and history of the region.  They need to make their own choices, and we need to accept that, and realize that a crusade for democracy simply won't work.

April 1 -  A Victor in the Iraq War

The fighting in Basra has cooled off, but a few things have been clarified by this bout of intense violence.  First, the Iraqi central government is not capable of defeating Shi'ite militias in the south.  The inability to subdue the Mahdi army -- or at least elements of the Mahdi army -- was evident and Maliki extended deadlines and ultimately had to admit they did not expect that kind of resistance.  Even with the Iranian backed Badr brigades supporting the government, Basra remains in control of the militias.  Second, Moqtada al-Sadr did not want this fight.  He was and remains content to wait out the process, and have his militia powerful enough to assure that should the US get thoughts about not leaving at the right time or trying to control Iraqi politics, he'll be able to hit hard.  He called for a cease fire early on, and was rebuffed by Maliki.  Ultimately, Sadr got what he wanted.

Finally, this conflict clarifies the real power broker in at least the Shi'ite sections of Iraq: Iran.  Iran has been supplying pretty much all the Shi'ite militias, while maintaining very close ties with the Iraqi government.  It was Iran who ultimately decided that the fighting in the south would only serve to keep the US in Iraq longer, which is against their interest.  Iran brokered the peace deal, causing Maliki to drop his disarmament ultimatum, and Sadr to get back the cease fire he didn't want to sacrifice.   Iran is looking increasingly powerful in the post-war Iraq, and may even have more influence on (and information about) the Iraqi government and its dealings than does the US military.

The sad irony of this is that US efforts in Iraq now seem to largely benefit Iran, though we continue to pay a high price.   Iran is certainly strong enough to assure al qaeda won't dominate a post-war Iraq, and al qaeda is opposed by all elements, Kurds, Sunnis and Shi'ites.  Not only that, but the Saudis are also anti-al qaeda.  Al qaeda has no long term chance in Iraq.  The idea of creating a stable unified democracy is as distant as ever.  The "Sunni awakening" empowered Sunni tribal leaders, not the Iraqi government.  They have no desire to give away their authority to the central government.  The Kurds have reasserted their autonomy in the North.  The Shi'ite sections of Iraq are fragmented.

In short, five years into this war, it is more clear than ever that not only was going to war a strategic blunder, but there really is no path to success or victory for the US.   Success for the surge was always dependent on the Iraqi political situation moving towards reconciliation and a strong central government; if anything, the last year has seen a deepening of the sectarian rifts.  Arguments to stay in Iraq rest on absurd claims (e.g., al qaeda will win and turn it into a base) or vague rhetorical arguments about democracy and peace.  The nuts and bolts say it's over.

Our best bet now: accept a loose Iraqi confederation, with a Sunni, Kurd, and Shi'ite section.  Work with Saudi Arabia and Iran, who are already working together on this, to plan an orderly withdrawal.  Use this as well to normalize relations with Iran, and approach the issue of Mideast stability and counter-terrorism from a different angle.