March 3 - Why is there something instead of nothing?

One question that I can contemplate whenever I’m in the mood to try to solve a puzzle that would give me great joy to untangle, but which I know I never will, is the question “why is there something instead of nothing.”  How or why can there be a world?  And, if there is some sort of purpose to this world, what could it possibly be?  My conclusion usually is that, though I hate to admit it, we may be much like ants trying to contemplate world politics.   Our brains may simply be unable to comprehend even the basic concepts and issues involved in a question like this, much like ants aren’t likely to understand diplomacy and religious extremism.  Yet, unlike ants, I do have a mind that can reason, so nonetheless, I try to tackle the question.  Why is there something instead of nothing.  What purpose could this something have.

The two questions are related.  The fact that the former is so difficult causes me to believe there is purpose to existence.  Some people argue that existence is simply a chance outcome of the world’s natural forces.  Somehow, molecules, atoms, and life emerged, with no purpose, and only to disappear when someday the sun explodes or the universe dissipates.  However, how and why would these natural forces exist – wouldn’t the likely default of a purposeless universe  be simply that existence would not exist, that there would be no world, nothing at all?  The fact that there is a world suggests some kind of purpose or design.

So what about religious traditions?  They posit intelligent designers, Gods who created this world and whose teachings provide answers to these thorny questions.  Alas, religious traditions are unpersuasive.  Their answers only pre-suppose the question being asked a level higher – why is there a god? – and end up reflecting ideas and myths that have more to do with the mundane in this world than understanding larger issues.  To be sure, I have one friend who is Christian but admits that the religion cannot be literally true.  Rather, he argues, it is a useful way to give people not able or willing to think about hard philosophical and spiritual issues a guide to answer basic questions and provide moral foundations.  Religion may not be true, but it can be useful, and can at least provide a kind of starting point for positing possibilities on these issues.  He has a point, but given how easily religion can be abused by those who want money or power, and given my desire to really explore and understand the core issues, it doesn’t work for me.

If you've read this blog in the past, I've thought about the work of philosophers like Plotinus and Bishop Berkeley, as well as modern physics, and conclude that the material world may well  be more illusion than real, a reflection of ideas we can experience.  Today I approach it differently, thinking of my children.  It's interesting how children are born completely ego-centric.  The child is the world, the only subject in a world full of objects.  Over time they learn empathy and ultimately how to treat others as subjects like themselves, but it takes time.  Both biology (the development of the brain) and experience combine to allow them to relate to others, though all humans seem to keep a very strongly egoistical self-interested core, and some seem to never emerge from the habit of treating others as objects or means to their own ends.

What if there was a force -- perhaps the word God is OK, or 'all that is' or something like that -- that wanted to create experience whereby it would have to engage others like itself.  If this force was all of reality, then that would be impossible without creating some kind of world of experience where it could exist separate from others, and from the knowledge of its connection to others.  If that were the case, then the world they created would by necessity have to be one where that knowledge is completely cut off from people in the world; it would have to be a world where one could not know why the world exists, or what it's purpose is, if it even has a purpose.  Knowledge of that (rather than playful speculation of the sort I'm engaged in here) would make the endeavor of experiencing true other-ness and separation impossible.   For now, that's as good a speculation as I can come up with.  On the bright side, if it's true there is no real death, no real lasting misery, and this existence is mostly for fun and learning.  On the dark side, every evil experience or perpetrated is being done by part of ourselves, perhaps we are not truly separated from the acts we condemn or the pain we are thankful not to be suffering.

OK, enough speculation, now back to "real" work.

March 4 - Ahmadinejad goes to Baghdad

Although the US retains chilly relations with Iran, accusing it of trying to develop a nuclear bomb, of threatening Israel and sponsoring terrorism, Iran's President continues to improve relations with America's regional allies.  Last year the Saudis said very kind things about Iran's regime, inviting it to participate in the Arab summit and extending a personal invitation to Ahmadinejad to visit Mecca.  Now Ahmadinejad is hosted by Iraqi President Maliki, who raises no objection when Ahmadinejad claims that the Iraqis hate the Americans and prefer the Iranians.   What do we make of this?

The media, caught up in the Obama-Clinton fight for the Democratic nomination, makes little mention of Ahmadinejad's trip, while Iraq hawks try studiously to ignore it, recognizing that it messes up their narrative of Iraq somehow becoming a "success" due to the "surge."  That narrative is fraying anyway, but in a world where what matters is what people hear and see in the news, perception trumps reality.  Yet reality has a way of demanding attention, and the realities in Iraq and Afghanistan cry out for a new approach from Washington.  None seems to be forthcoming.

Ahmadinejad's visit underscores a troubling fact for American foreign policy: Iran has essentially won the Iraq war.  It has gone from nervousness over American threats and power in the region, fearing a pro-American Iraq, to a state with intense influence on Iraqi politics, and lack of fear of an overstretched America, whose public has little taste (or capacity) for another war.  They see the geopolitical sands shifting their way, and as the US slips into recession with oil over $100 a barrel; we are entering a new era, one where the traditional Cold War balances of power are replaced by regional ones, with Iran the power in the region.

To the south, in Pakistan, similar re-calculations are taking place.   Gone are the days when the Pakistanis were willing allies of the US against the Taliban and al qaeda.  That was always a tenuous alliance, given that Pakistan had essentially installed the Taliban, and even during the Soviet war against Afghanistan funneled American aid to the most hardline extremist elements of the mujahedeen.   With NATO apparently losing ground constantly to the Taliban, Pakistan is focusing on its regional position, recognizing that they have little to gain or fear from the United States.  These geopolitical shifts outside the Arab world have forced the Saudis and other Arab states to reposition themselves by moving away from extremely close ties with the US towards a multilateral approach, balancing interests in China, Europe, and elsewhere with their relationship with America.  In short, while the US remains stuck in an Iraqi and Afghan quagmire, we are less able to affect regional politics and have declining influence in the Mideast. 

This is unacceptable.  Being bled of money and military strength in order to achieve something is one thing; to be bled in order to lose more power, wealth and prestige borders on the insane.  Yet, perhaps driven as much by an old Cold War desire to 'save face' or 'maintain prestige,' the US presses on, hoping that advances made on the ground in the surge yield some chance to claim success.  But as the so-called "Sunni Awakening" allies of the US surge turn against the Iraqi Shi'ite government, and militias remain dominant, there is real cause for pessimism on that front.

So what is Ahmadinejad up to?   Clearly, Iran is pushing to weaken American influence, help Iraqi Shi'ites resist pressure to share considerable power with the Sunnis, and promote a regional (that is, non-American) solution to the Iraq question.  If Iran can get the Saudis to pressure the Sunnis, they might end up simply going around the Americans and creating conditions where the various factions have a defacto partition, and the US can claim success and leave -- having perhaps saved face, but lost in terms of just about every strategic interest the Americans took into the war.  And, given the costs of the war so far, the state of the American economy, and US public opinion, that might be a result which will be quite acceptable to whoever wins the nomination.  Only Nixon could go to China, perhaps only McCain can go to Tehran?

March 7 - The Iraq Quagmire and the Presidency

This website: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5036 provides some valuable facts about the growing costs of the disaster in Iraq.   Here are the basics:

Think about those facts.  Clearly, we are stuck in something draining our country, preventing us from addressing other issues, and which needs to be changed.  Yet we don't seem to be able to do anything to really alter the dynamics, despite the surge violence is up, and core conditions remain unchanged.  Political reconciliation is as far away as ever, and as noted in the last entry, US strategic strength in the region is a low.

So what will the next President do?   I do not plan to vote for McCain, due to his hawkishness on the war, but part of me wonders if he might be in a better position to really alter policy and make inroads to normalizing relations with Iran and Syria (the key to bringing stability to Iraq) than Obama or Clinton.  Obama and Clinton both are inexperienced and will feel a need to show that they are tough.  Both would face stiff opposition if they were to be seen as "appeasing" Syria and Iran.  McCain, a hardliner, might, when faced the brutal facts about the costs of this quagmire, decide we need to find a way out, and recognize that Iran and Syria are key.   Because of his hawkishness, he could stifle opposition and have credibility as not simply caving in.  As noted a few days ago, "Only Nixon could go to China" might be replaced by "Only McCain could go to Damascus and Tehran."  After all, political party usually gives little hint about the foreign policy to be embraced; external events and Presidential personality seem to shape that more.  And it's not clear what each candidate might to do really alter the policy.  But they will have to do something, the current approach is utterly unsustainable.

March 10  - A holographic universe?

Back in 1991 I bought the book The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot, and after having read it once I put it aside, though as past blogs show my fascination with modern physics and its philosophical implications has not waned.  Last week I was talking to a former student here who transferred down to Georgetown, and she noted how she took a course with Karl Pribram, an 89 year old neurosurgeon who developed the idea of seeing the brain as a hologram.  That caused me to recall the book (which discusses the ideas of Pribram and physicist David Bohm extensively), and start re-reading it this last weekend.

I've never felt comfortable with the notion that "things" are "out there" as separate objects from myself.  First of all, experience itself is very subjective.  It is a series of sensations which I interpret into pictures, sounds, smells, tastes and touches.  The only reason we believe there is something external to ourselves is because of causality and lack of volitional control over our reality.  I cannot choose to fly or stay young, aging and gravity will always pull me down.  If I jump out my window, the fall will cause me injury or death.  Therefore, how can there not be something external to myself which limits what my mind can experience, or what I can or cannot do?

From quantum physics, however, it seems that almost everything is possible, you simply have different probabilities.  Moreover, the observer seems to matter.  While some hold on to the interpretation that says everything is in a state of flux until it is observed, that seems a pretty weak assumption.  What is meant by observe?  Why is human observation/measurement so important?  While one can simply accept it and do the calculations (well, I can't do that kind of calculation!), it's more plausible to believe that all exists in every probability at the same time.  Probabilities may depend upon the way the universe is being looked at.  And that's where the hologram theory comes in.  Like a holographic image, you can get a lot from a little, and angles matter.   Pribram looked at memory, and notes that memory doesn't seem to be located within any particular place in a brain (coincidentally, I heard a story on NPR this morning about how catepillars retain memories when they become moths, despite having their entire system, including the brain, essentially disintegrated during metamorphisis).  Bohm saw the universe as much like an information stream, which we interpret, presumably from a particular angle or perspective.

What I like about all of this is how it meshes with the kind of philosophy I've been leaning towards: the absolute idealism of someone like Berkeley (for whom the 'hologram' is projected from the mind of God), and unity of all by people like Plotinus, or the eastern philosophies.  Now, believing a controversial scientific theory because it complements my pre-existing philosophical biases isn't likely to persuade others who hold different beliefs.   Yet there is something about how this kind of image conforms to my experience of reality -- not just the physical experience, but my subjective/intuitional experience -- that is compelling.  It also is far better able to deal with things like how photons do not experience time or distance, how subatomic particles seem to break down to being nothing more than ripples in fields, with having mass being a puzzle that may be solved by yet another field (the Higgs field).  All of this, combined with quantum puzzles, the space-time continuum as an entity that is unified, etc., push towards a radically different view of reality than we've had before.

And, if ideas are the stuff of the universe, if our material reality is a kind of illusion that at some level we create, and if there is an interconnected unity to all of existence, what does that mean for our experience of life?  I know for many that's just an irrelevant tangent, a meaningless contemplation in a world where bills must be paid, people fight wars, and it's obvious other people are different and there are a variety of things and elements in this world which we cannot control.  Yet for me, I'm compelled to read more, think about these issues, and try to find their relevance to my life.  After all, what's the point in living if you don't try to contemplate what this life is all about?!  And it seems to me the more I think about these things and try to learn more about them, the easier it is to find some kind of satisfaction and happiness in the day to day routine.  I'm not really sure why, but looking at the world this way works for me.  Is it my own delusion?  Does it even matter?   Alas, all that said, I do have other things to think about, papers to grade, Russian to study, courses to prepare...and in the meantime I wonder how I can to tie all of this into a new research project for my field of political science.

March 12 - The Insanity of the Clinton candidacy?

Whatever one thinks of Hillary Clinton, it seems obvious that she should drop out of the race for the Presidency.  At this point the only way she can win is if somehow she can get so called super delegates to switch sides, though she's even hinted that pledged Obama delegates might vote for her.  Why does she think this can happen?  Does she really think she can win the experience factor?  As a former First Lady, her experience is at best questionable -- the comparison is not stark enough to really be a winner for her.  And given that Obama is the age Bill Clinton was in 1992 when he was elected, with a similar lack of foreign policy experience, it seems a bit disingenuous.

Moreover, if she wins by somehow convincing insiders to push her over the top, she'll have a divided party.  Obama is bringing a lot of new people into the political process, providing energy that could go far to help the Democrats in close districts, and may increase black turn out in many parts of the country, perhaps swinging state and local races to the Democrats.  If Clinton wins in a way that reeks of inside deals, that energy will dissipate, and the Democrats could end up losing a lot of steam by November.  She'll look like someone power hungry, who will do anything to win, and that will play into McCain's strengths.

So why is she still running?  Is it because she's a power hungry do anything to win politician?  Perhaps.  But there are other possibilities as well:

1.  Campaign bias.  In every campaign an alternate reality is created, whereby the candidate is the best thing in the world, while the opponent is somehow bad, weak or dangerous.   Overtime that "reality" becomes a part of the mindset of the candidates and workers, and they truly believe that they have to prevail.  Add to that the factor that she would be the first woman President, a lot of successful women of her generation really see themselves in her, and the emotion of wanting to fight on must be great.  She's caught up in her own campaign narrative, and may not be open to seeing the stark reality of the political landscape.   She may think she sees it, but projections of the future are colored by a belief in the inherent morality and superiority of the group.  We may be witnessing groupthink in action.

2.  They know something about Obama we don't.  Perhaps a scandal in the making, or something embarrassing.  Unlikely.

3.  They want to hang around in case something bad happens, like an assassination or some other unexpected event.  This is also unlikely because it's clear they aren't just hanging around, they are going after Obama.

 4.  They know they've probably lost, but feel they are doing a service by giving Obama a test of whether or not he can handle this kind of campaign, how he'll respond, if he can maintain support and fund raising, and stay in the news.  In other words, a trial by fire, what doesn't kill him only makes him stronger.  This may be true even if it isn't the motivation for the Clinton fight.  If Obama survives this attack and becomes the nominee, then it probably will have been a good prep for the fall, especially if the party unifies behind him.  And this also means that states have been peppered with Democratic advertising at a time when usually the stage would go dark.

Finally, the Clinton camp would likely disagree with him that Clinton can't do just as good a job as Obama of unifying the party after a bruising battle.   Perhaps.  But it would be much more difficult, especially with McCain as the Republican alternative.  And again, if it's seen by some as insiders denying Obama what he earned, it could really reduce Democratic energy and enthusiasm.  That could hurt in Congress as well as the fight for the Presidency.

Ultimately, I think it's likely groupthink.  I don't think she can catch Obama, and if she does, it would be very damaging to the Democratic party.  I don't think they see it.  That said, I think McCain is in a good position to defeat either Obama or Clinton, though with Obama heading the ticket it might be better for Democrats running for Congress.  But what do I know, my area is international affairs and European politics!  I guess it's all part of the hologram...

March 13 - Will they strike Iran?

Last year it appeared finally that the very dangerous idea of hitting Iran with military strikes was fading away.  Not only did the National Intelligence Estimate minimize the projected danger, but it also pointed out that Iranian foreign policy is rational.  That means, of course, Iran's leaders are not so stupid as to risk their existence just to strike Israel.  The Iranians aren't even Arab, the importance of Israel is less for the predominately Persian state than for the Arab states.   Even US efforts to increase international pressure on Iran were met with apathy, and the sabre rattling and fears of an imminent war with Iran dissipated.   And, though President Bush has called Iranian President Ahmadinejad a "Hitler," Ahmadinejad doesn't have much independent power, and appears on the outs with the powerful guardian council, which can essentially overrule anything he tries to do.

The resignation of Admiral William Fallon from his position as Centcom Commander (Central Command -- the regional command including the Mideast and Iran) has reignited talk about the possibility of a military strike against Iran.  Fallon was described last week as the man who stands in the way of a war with Iran, and was quoted as dismissing the possibility of an attack against Iran as stupid.  This raised the ire of neo-conservatives who, despite being proven wrong about the ease of changing the face of the Mideast in Afghanistan and Iraq, often think that if only we expanded the war to Iran then it might work.  As commander, Fallon could also assure that the military was not prepared to strike Iran.  In what Graham Allison labeled the decision/action split, there is often a large difference between what the President thinks he's ordered, and what how those who implement the order interpret it, and the pace at which they do it.

So is this a sign that the Bush Administration is set for one last war?   Those who think so note how easily Bush went to war in 2001 and 2003, and point to the continued rhetorical bombs hurled at Iran by the President's neo-conservative backers.  Vice President Cheney is said to be hawkish on going to war with Iran, and many fear that his trip to the Mideast might actually be to inform governments there that something big is coming.  They argue that leaving Iran for Bush's successor would be unfair; whoever takes the job in 2009 should not have a nuclear Iran to deal with.   Some even argue that Republicans believe that if there is a conflict with Iran, that will heighten Senator McCain's chances of winning election, since if there is a major crisis, people will be more likely to choose experience.  Finally, there is continued Israeli bellicosity about Iran, and the White House might want to prevent an Israeli-Iranian war (which might explode into an all out conflict involving Syria and Hezbollah) by doing the job ourselves in a way that Iran cannot respond to with as much efficacy.  Taken together, this makes a persuasive argument that the President may have one more war left in him (though so far he's been unable to finish those he's started!)

Despite all that, I think even a strike against Iran is still unlikely.   One reason is despite Fallon's departure, there is not much stomach in the military for taking on yet another foe when the current military is overstretched, and things seem bleak in Afghanistan and Iraq.  There's been a recent upsurge in violence in Iraq, and with the "surge" due to end soon, there's growing pessimism that it fundamentally altered the situation.  With a reluctant military and a lame duck President, there will be massive resistance to a strike against Iran in the Pentagon, and this can spread to Congress and the media.   Moreover, there are growing doubts that a strike can achieve much good; it certainly won't bring down the Iranian government, and might not alter Iran's capacity to develop nuclear weapons.  With oil at $110 a barrel and the US surging into recession, any regional instability could drive up prices tremendously, and Iran might have the capacity to respond to a strike with actions that hurt the oil flow to the US.  The Iranians also support militias in Iraq which have been quiet in recent months, biding their time waiting for the US to leave.  They could really foul things up on the ground in Iraq if the Iranians wanted them to.

Finally, though the President may not want to leave this problem for the next President, it seems pretty clear he already is leaving Iraq and Afghanistan to the next President to handle, and there are few scenarios which suggest that a strike against Iran won't start a chain reaction that will create problems well into the next Administration.  So at this point, I think the administration will keep its talk tough, but recognizes the reality of Iran becoming a regional power.  Most likely, the Administration felt it could not tolerate someone in command taking views embarrassing to the President.  Late in his term, President Bush needs to remain relevant, and having it appear his own military commanders feel free to contradict him on major policy issues went too far.  Still, it's worth keeping an eye on this issue, and watch the political and military developments in coming months.  Attacking Iran may be foolhardy and dangerous, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

March 14 - Post-ideology

It strikes me, in talking with young people, how different political discourse is these days.  First. while there are partisan Republicans and Democrats out there, people with very strong ideological beliefs, there is a growing sense that ideology is a thing of the past.  If so, that's a good thing.  Ideologies are to ideas what brand names are to products.  It is a consumer age invention, designed to package and sell sets of ideas.  People become convinced that their brand is the best -- the true view of reality -- and thus are willing to spend time, money and often even blood to try to promote it.  In a sense, ideologies are like organized religion, they give a rationale for understanding the world -- how it is, and how it should be.  Often those who reject religion grasp firmly on an ideology, there seems to be a human need to believe in something.

Increasingly it's realized that ideologies are not only particular simplifications and interpretations of reality -- perspectives on a world far too complex and contingent to be captured by any "ism" -- but in fact are themselves constructs, built to reflect the culture, interests and events of a particular time period.   Classical liberalism and capitalism arise as the middle class develops in Britain, Marxism becomes powerful due to the rise of the working class, and all modern ideologies become powerful as the appeal of religion as a motivator for life and politics declines.

What then is post-ideology?  First, it's recognition that it is not possible to seek one right, 'god's eye view' of how the world is, or how it should be.  If such a thing existed, it would be too complex to be captured by a package of ideas, or built from some "first principle."  But given how little we understand about how this world works (think modern physics and its amazing puzzles), how much of reality might be affected by non-material forces, or if humans themselves have any set nature, it seems folly to look for any 'right' ideology.  Instead we have different perspectives, different interpretations, different values.  By breaking out of the packaged value set and thinking pragmatically, we can better deal with problems and avoid the kind of ideological jihads which defined the Cold War and a lot of 20th century politics.

The problem with ideology is that by making a claim to be "right," they become rigid systems, unable to co-exist well with alternate ideologies.  People learn to interpret the world through their ideology, consistency seekers who start to think that the truth is so obvious that those who don't see it are either evil or ignorant.  But if we need something to believe in, and if religion and ideology are not the answers, how do humans cope?  Do we become nihilists, believing in nothing?  Do we follow the post-modern notion of liberty - a complete free play of meaning, with no grounding or center?

I think not.  I think the answer is pretty straight forward: we simply recognize that our beliefs about reality are based on a very incomplete picture and may be wrong.  We nonetheless choose to act in accord with those beliefs because they are our beliefs at this time, and what else are we going to act upon?  Each of us then would see it as important to be constantly self-critical, taking seriously other perspectives and ideas, in a clear conversation whereby people try to persuade, convince, and reach compromises in a world where it's less about "this is how things SHOULD be done," and more about "let's decide to try it this way."  This conversation can continue, we can learn by trial and error "this approach gave us something we agree we don't like, let's try something else."  I think most people in our culture think that way, despite all the efforts to peddle ideologies.  I think the end of the Cold War may be more than just the end of a bitter competition, but perhaps a symbolic recognition that fights over ideology are misguided, and can lead to an inability to see the obvious, such as the obvious inability of a planned economy to function.

Ironically, this view brings us back to a conception that was from before the period of ideologies, a kind of classical conservatism.  At that point, culture, religion, and tradition were put forth to be defended not because they could claim to be true and the right away to operate, but because they worked to keep stability and order for a society.  We can't go back to that era, because in a time of globalization cultures are in constant flux, and traditions lose their grip.  But we can recognize that the goal is to find ways to work and live together, solving problems, communicating, compromising and recognizing that none of us is smart to really be able to posit some grand view of the world as the right answer to the question of how things should be.

March 17 - What a Mess!

Although the current financial crisis isn't a surprise -- I've been warning about it in this blog for a few years, and of course I'm getting my information by reading analyses from many others -- coming as it does with the US involved in two military quagmires and oil rising in price faster than people anticipated, the situation facing the United States is extremely difficult.  It's tempting to compare this to the mood back in the stagflation oil crisis era of 1979 to 1981, when recession, high interest rates, high inflation, and turmoil in the Mideast created both a malaise and a sense of shock at the limits of American power.  Unfortunately, this set of crises is far more severe.

In 1980 the Soviet economy was already in collapse; Brezhnev himself had been warned of it.  The bump in oil prices only fooled them into postponing structural change.  Moreover, unlike now, the oil price bump in 1979 was panic induced, it wasn't based on real supply and demand issues.  Hence once it became clear that the Iraq-Iran war would not lead to massive disruptions in Persian Gulf oil, the price went down.  The US was very low in total debt (only 30% of GDP) and had high tax rates.  The US was also a net world creditor and the dollar was solid.  Thus in the 80s when oil prices dropped, taxes were reduced, and deficit spending increased, the US was quickly able to right itself economically.  The Soviet collapse continued once oil prices dropped, and thanks to the partnership forged by Reagan and Gorbachev, the Soviet collapse was peaceful.

Now things are fundamentally different.  First, oil prices might never go down significantly.  While they likely will fluctuate, there is a real issue now of supply and demand driving price, rather than psychology.  Oil reserves are not increasing, while demand is increasing dramatically (though a world recession might reduce demand for awhile and give us a temporary oil price respite).  Furthermore, absent significant new findings, world oil production is likely to decrease -- this is a non-renewable resource after all.  This means we probably won't get a significant jump start from falling oil prices like we did in the 80s.  The US is high in debt and taxes have been slashed to the point that decreases in tax rates won't significantly increase growth, and if financed by higher debt, will only weaken the dollar more and risk stagflation.  The dollar is sinking like an anvil, and foreign investors are considering shifting investments to Euros or foreign stock markets, which would make it harder for the US to finance our debt and recover from recession.  It would also increase the likelihood of severe stagflation, or even deflation of the kind Japan experienced in the early 90s.

Back in 1980 we were involved in the Cold War, but now the continued involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan not only is exceedingly costly, but harms American status abroad and reduces American prestige and power.  This makes it easier for countries to shift away from the US economy, and forge alliances and partnerships with states we might consider adversaries -- Iran, China, Venezuela, etc.  On top of that it divides American society at a time when we need to cooperate to deal with these problems.

Internally the problems we face are driven by credit crises and the collapse of a series of bubbles.  This has lead to structural weakness that defies a quick fix, unlike the situation in 1979-81.   Moreover, we've sustained relative good times largely on the backs of foreigners -- foreign entities investing in the US, or selling our consumers extremely cheap products.  Again, that is unlikely to persist.  All of this points to very difficult times ahead.  This isn't just a short recession -- a jolt that we can ride out in a couple of years.   It won't end with us back on the same track we were on before; rather, we need to adjust to a world where the economic rules have changed.  We aren't the top of the heap, globalization has made borders less important, oil is no longer a cheap, dependable resource, and the American dollar is unlikely to regain the kind of value it had in the past.  I don't know how much pain this will cause or how long it will go on.  It will affect all of us.  The University system in Maine will likely face severe cuts in coming years, health care will not be able to take the strain, and good new jobs for young people may become scarce. 

We are at the start of something; we're not in the middle, and certainly not at the conclusion.  It is a real mess.   We need to restructure our tax system, cut spending and bureaucracy, get the heck out of Iraq and Afghanistan (and in fact close a lot of foreign military bases), retrain workers, make incentives for actual production here (not just service sector jobs -- those produce little) and recognize we are no longer the leader of the free world, but part of a complex global economy.  It won't be easy.  If we have to compare this to the past, the year to compare to is not 1979, but 1929.

March 18 -  The problem with power

Lloyd Etheredge has a theory of American foreign policy decision making that is focused on how our socialization towards government creates an environment where those who crave power are drawn to government service.  He calls these people "hardball politicians," and they have a number of attributes: 1) they are extremely and obsessively ambitious; 2) they demonstrate 'deficiencies in love,' meaning that while they value loyalty, they tend to use others for their own ends and try to manipulate other people; 3) they have defective humor, enjoying ridicule of others, but not liking to be made fun of themselves; 4) they have weak ethics and disconnected morals, meaning they try to appear virtuous while behaving in ways opposite of their stated values; 5) they view others as being like themselves, they see the world as populated by hard ball politicians; 6) they are obsessed with power; and 7) they tend to be hyperactive.  After all, if deep down you don't really think well of yourself, times of inactivity will be painful, as one reflects on who one is.  Instead they try to fill that internal void with external activity, including the exercise of power and enjoying support or adoration from others.

This is, of course, a deeply cynical social psychological theory.   Because government is seen as the most powerful force in society, people with self-esteem problems are drawn to it, and they act to try to bolster their own sense of self-worth, focused on power and control rather than really serving the public.  Moreover, since you can never satisfy from without an emptiness within, they continue on this course, insatiable in their lust for power.  Etheredge doesn't say everyone is like this, or that every hardball politician has all of the above traits.  Rather, Washington DC draws a disproportionate number of them, and that has an influence on politics.  We tend to see little real learning or reflection on goals; learning is tactical, focused on power, and ethical reflections are secondary.

If I hadn't worked for a few years in the Senate in Washington, I'd probably think Etheredge is far too cyncial, and thinks that his theory, tested by looking at US foreign policyi in Latin America in the sixties and seventies, is under supported.  But having worked there, I remember thinking I had to get out.  Power games dominated, if you didn't devote your life -- sixty hour weeks were the norm, family came second -- to the political game, then you'd never climb up the ladder.   Stories of scandals, observations of misbehavior, and watching young, beautiful women -- power groupies -- fawn over aging Senators and Congressmen struck me as just plan weird.   I finally had to quit.  I left a well paying high prestige job in DC to become a night manager at a Rocky Rococo Pizza place in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota.  My dad was horrified at my negative career trajectory -- after all, how do you explain to your friends that your 24 year old son no longer is in the middle of the political scene working for a Senator in Washington, but now running night shifts at a pizza place.  Yet it is the best decision I made, though it was hard to do what I really wanted to do, but everyone said would be really bad for my career.  Making pizzas seemed more real than those power games, and of course ultimately I decided to study politics rather than do politics.

Yet, as we watch the candidates scramble for office, looking at the economic crisis that's emerged (with roots in decades of economic irresponsibility) and read about Eliot Spitzer's fall -- he seems a classic case of a hardball politician -- I wonder if perhaps Etheredge not only can explain foreign policy with his theory, but a fundamental flaw in modern politics.  In The Republic Plato argues that we should keep from power those who really want power.  Our system requires that people want power badly in order to be willing to do all that is necessary to come out on top.  And once in power, they want to keep and expand their own power, which of course meaning expansion of governmental power.  They rationalize it with ideologies, promising to give the people what they want, and appeal to nationalism and patriotism.   So we end up with a disastrous war in Iraq, government bureaucracy growing out of control, and laws increasingly stifling our ability to make our own choices. 

Moreover, given the consumer oriented election process, whereby candidates are marketed, and more emphasis is placed on what a candidate's preacher says than the actual debate, all is sensationalism and emotion.    I don't think democracy works, we don't have the politicians under our control, we're manipulated like consumers.  Some of us can get really well informed, but most of us simply don't have time for the effort.  So where am I going with this rant?  I don't know.  I don't have a solution.  Etheredge ultimately argues that the press and universities are the key to trying to turn around the social structure that leads to the hardball politicians being the ones who grab power.  Yet the press is as sensationalist as ever, and while I want to believe that teaching and academic research does make a difference, I'm not sure if the academic world really sees the problem.   And, to be sure, I think local and state politics is usually less corrupted by all of this, there isn't so much power centralized, and people have access to the both elected and non-elected officials.  The problem seems to be one of concentrated power and distance between the government and the governed.  Unfortunately, that's only getting worse.

One possible alternative is the new media -- new forms of art, blogs, fragmented interaction and virtual communities.  Perhaps in this we see something to break us away from the old consumerism of mass marketing and mass society.  One can hope.

March 19  - What else could they say?

Today President Bush said that despite five years and a cost that will likely end up at least 50 times the original estimate the Iraq war was worth it.   Never mind that Iraq is nowhere near becoming a stable liberal democracy, that Iran has been strengthened in the region with hardliners using Iraq to undercut moderates, Pakistan is in crisis, and democracy on the retreat in the region, it's still worth it.  Vice President Cheney seems more out of touch, not only saying the war has been necessary, but still trying to link it to 9-11, and responding with a dismissive "so what" when asked about the fact 2/3 of the country is against the war.

When the war started I was pre-occupied by the fact my wife was about to give birth, and did so in early April.  Now as my son is about to turn five and the Iraq war becomes five years old, it's' shocking to me how long this has gone on, and how little has been accomplished.  It's amazing how shameless our leaders are in not admitting they were wrong, not acknowledging the specific mistakes, and not really leveling with the American people.  Instead we get slogans like "leaving will embolden the extremists" and more empty rhetoric.

I've been writing this blog since September 2004.  My first discussion of Iraq on my blog was on September 14:

Here is the dilemma faced by the American military: the only way to defeat the militants is to crack down hard, with a massive military operation to regain control and establish security in the major cities now essentially under insurgent control.  But doing that would mean a lot of dead Iraqis, including large number of Iraqi civilians (including, of course, children).  Beyond the ethical concerns inherent in that course of action, the practical impact of such crack downs has so far been to increase support for the insurgents, and turn Iraqis against America, and the interim Iraqi government.   There is no real solution to this, I don't think the United States can succeed in Iraq.

But do Americans care?  Is this issue one where people really understand what's happening, or are people comfortable thinking that the US is just "fighting terrorists" and that Iraq will soon stabilize?  President Bush conflates 9-11 with Iraq constantly, causing many people to think that the two are linked.  Except for the fact that the terrorists who support Bin Laden are probably gleeful that so much American power is being put in Iraq, taking them away from the fight against al qaeda (note: Afghanistan is not stable either -- they have large sections controlled by war lords or the Taliban), and providing them a recruitment aid, this really is a completely different issue.

The situation today is no better, and in some ways worse, than it was in 2004.   There has been mass ethnic killing and cleansing in between, corruption has become immense, and militias and tribes govern, rather than the central government.  The US tried first to defeat the insurgents, then finally decided to give up the dream of creating a unified democratic Iraq, and accepted that the Sunni insurgents could not be defeated.  That meant we could redefine the enemy as "al qaeda in Iraq" (something that wasn't there when we initially invaded) and buy off the Sunnis if they'd at least support us in a fight against al qaeda, an organization they didn't want to see gain power anyway.  This has helped increase security, but has set up a kind of political quagmire where stability is bought at the cost of political stagnation.  And Afghanistan remains in crisis as well.  Meanwhile, the US faces a major economic crisis which, while not caused directly by the Iraq war, is made more complex and difficult to handle due to both the cost of the war, and its limits on American action.  Finally, the war has laid bare the fact that the US is much weaker militarily than imagined; the weakness is not that we can't defeat militaries (we can), but that this doesn't really amount to much given the nature of global politics.  Military power simply isn't able to shape political results, and it's the political results that matter.  In almost every measure, the US is far worse because of the Iraq war.

But what else can the leaders say?  They don't want to admit that there has been a tremendous loss of life by Americans and at the hands of Americans for nothing.  They don't want to take responsibility for helping ignite the ethnic violence that has gripped Iraq, and still leads to on average dozens of civilian deaths a day.  They don't want to revisit the original war estimates -- $50 billion, Iraqi oil will pay for reconstruction, Iraq will be a model democracy which will bring change to the region, etc.  Instead they can only grimly assert it was worth it, and try to figure out what to do to get us out without losing face.  Yet even five years in, there seems no way out.   Gen. Petraeus bitterly complains that the Iraqis haven't made political progress, but who really expected them to do much, given the circumstances, the corruption, and limited power of the Iraqi government?  The American people seem almost worn down by the war, they don't want to think about it.  There seems to be no answer.   If someone predicted five years ago we'd be in this kind of situation, they'd have been dismissed as a prophet of gloom and doom who doesn't understand both American power and the desire of Iraqis for freedom.  But we're five years in, with no end in sight, but a lot more money will be spent, lives lost, and this will continue to be a drag on both our economy and our status in the world.

March 20 - Intellectuals and ideology

It is no secret that nation wide intellectuals -- the class of people who are either in academia, think tanks, or high bureaucratic/technocratic positions -- are by and large far more left leaning ideologically than business elites or even working class folk.  In fact, the higher you go in academia, the more likely one is to be ideologically on the left; the most radical voices in academia also come from the most prestigious institutes and universities.  Why is this?   Is this a self-selection bias, are those who tend to have values that lend themselves to a leftist ideology more likely to seek academic careers?  Does this reflect a selection bias in that academics tend to hire people who think like them, pushing aside conservatives or moderates?   I think the answer to each is no, it's a bit more complex.

My dad once told me that he had decided back in the late fifties that he would be Democratic until he earned over $20,000 (quite a bit at that time), and then he'd switch to voting Republican.  He was a JFK supporter in 1960, by 1968 he wanted Nixon (and his income had risen).  He simply followed his self-interest.   This probably happens in ways that aren't so overt or explicit.   Ideologies on the left tend to favor more governmental action, and the intellectual elite benefit from that.  Moreover, the left tends to be more open to radical and unconventional ideas, something that the intellectual class finds appealing.  When social programs are implemented, they are designed by and implemented by intellectual elites, which shifts real power away from business or the private sector.  Hence the GOP bases its support on the business and private sector groups, while the Democrats get more support from professionals and so-called intellectuals.

Of course it could also be that the intellectuals are right -- they're better educated and thus may have a more reasonable and well thought out ideological perspective.  The fact they have such widespread agreement on the ideology of left could be a sign that it is indeed the more reasonable and accurate way to look at the world.  That is extremely unlikely.   It does seem that in terms of social critique intellectuals do much better than others.  They are less likely to be homophobic, racist, or driven by nationalism or ethnic pride.  They are more likely to be open minded, critical of social structures, and understanding of cultural factors that shape societal outcomes.  This ability to provide superior social critique then leads to an over confidence in terms of their belief in their ideological perspective.  Ideology is different than basic social critique, it extends to explaining why things are as they are, and what should be done.  Social critique slides into these questions and for a lot of people the line between the critique and the explanation/prescription becomes blurred.   The certainty that it is unfair for society to have mass poverty alongside wealth extends then to the prescription and explanation: there is exploitation and government must act to prevent or remedy that.  Yet that explanation and prescription is independent from the social critique, and certainly not the only or even necessarily the most reasonable conclusion.

That kind of ideology also fits the interest of the intellectual elite: if there is an exploited class, and their condition must be improved by governmental action, then the educated elite acts as the force for change, taking power from the business or private sector actors.  The private sector has their own self-interested reaction to the social critique, they simply assert equal opportunity and individual responsibility for material outcomes, and develop their own self-serving ideology.  While they are often disinterested in the kind of social critique intellectuals are good at, they are very good at production of value and the creation of wealth, and these material benefits are seen by this class as far superior than the kind of 'ivory tower theorizing' or bureaucratic rule making of the intellectual elite.   Thus the general ideological divisions are not really between contradictory ideologies, where one is right and the other wrong, but represent two perspectives (social critique vs. material production) and then a self-interested response to explaining and prescribing action (ideology).  Each become convinced they are right, and thus there is ideological competition.

Being skeptical of ideology, I find it important that those in my class -- the so called intellectual elite -- be humble when they move from social critique to explanation and prescription.  More government programs and progressive political agendas is a knee jerk reaction to the social critique, one that is self-interested.  In the extreme this can lead to totalitarianism, as vanguard parties try to bring about change.  That's not likely in the industrialized world because the intellectual elite are limited, but they do appeal to the masses to get them to support their goals.  Likewise, the business class or material production elite if you will, needs to be more humble in simply dismissing social critiques from the intellectuals, dismissal of such critiques can hide real problems.

Rather than competing ideologies, there could be conversation about different perspectives and problems.  Poverty is a good example.  Poverty is a problem, but who really is best to give a solution -- those focused on critiquing society, or those whose focus is wealth creation?  Looked at from this perspective the business class might be in a better position to give a solution, but they are often pushed by the ideological conflict to simply deny there is a problem, or assert that the free market can handle it completely.   The left then dismisses them as being the problem, rather than able to provide the solution.

Ultimately the ideological conflict makes it harder to solve problems and understand different perspectives than it need be.  A pragmatic approach resulting from conversations between people from the different "classes" to identify problems and think creatively about solutions would yield a far better result than ideological conflict.  That's a hard sell in academia (though easier in small working class places like where I work than in the ivy league elite schools) and in politics the ideologues have a bit too much authority.  Perhaps that's why people like McCain and Obama capture the peoples' imagination, they seem at least to be more pragmatic, and they stress unity over division. 

March 21 - Is Obama the Democratic Reagan?

My prediction for November has been that John McCain is likely to become the next President.  He's popular with independents, generally liked, and is facing two Democratic candidates that come with flaws.  Hillary is seen as being too power hungry and has proven a rather weak candidate in how she's organized her campaign, and by not being able to hit on a positive message to win votes.  She has stayed alive in the campaign only be going negative.  Obama is black and of limited experience.  The experience problem probably won't hurt him -- Bush in '00, Bill Clinton in 1992, Ronald Reagan in 1980 and Jimmy Carter in 1976 were similarly low in this kind of experience, yet all overtook more experienced opponents.  Americans tend not to reward experience, especially not in a year when change is desired.   But will people really elect a black man named Barack Hussein Obama?  Probably they'll go for the 'safer' McCain.

Yet this week, seeing how Obama has handled the mini-scandal around the Pastor at his church, Rev. Wright, I wonder if I might not be underestimating Senator Obama.  Consider the 1980 campaign of Ronald Reagan.  Politically, Ronald Reagan went into the campaign with more experience campaigning than Obama has in 2008.  He had had his own radio show, spoke on the issues, and had run in the GOP primaries in 1976.  Yet as it was clear Reagan was defeating George H.W. Bush in the primaries, the Carter camp became almost giddy.  Reagan was far too right wing to win, he was a cowboy, said embarrassing things, and could be the one opponent Carter could easily defeat.   Yet Reagan was underestimated.  He had something that politicians yearn for, but few possess: charisma.

Look at two traits of Reagan's: he was an excellent communicator, and he appeared to be 'teflon:' criticism didn't stick.  In terms of communication, Obama's style is different than Reagan's, but the impact is the same.  People who hear him are inspired, charmed, and enthused.  I recall at age 16 when I first heard Ronald Reagan give a full speech on television, at the start of the GOP primary season, I ran upstairs to tell my mom that I knew who I wanted for President, I was inspired by that speech.  Obama is having the same impact, people who hear him find him compelling, and cannot imagine him not becoming President.

But is he teflon?  It's too early to say, but the way he handled the Wright case shows that perhaps he might be.  First, there was a piling on, as the comments by Wright were used against Obama, questions were made about whether Obama had been honest about having not heard these comments, which were critical of America and whites, and labeled by some as racist or hateful.  Obama let the dust settle and then hit back with a two prong attack.  First, he gave the speech, a response to the scandal that became widely anticipated and, once delivered, was met with about as much praise and adoration a speech could be met with by the political punditry.  While the usual conservative commentators found fault, moderates and even Clinton supporters had to admit he'd hit a home run.  Someone I know, who is older than me and politically savvy said it was the most inspirational speech he's heard.  Second, pundits came out to hit back at the critics, noting that it is unfair to hold a candidate accountable for what a pastor says, and bringing up the fact that black churches often have emotional, angry rhetoric not as a serious statement of ideology, but as a reaction to conditions seen by many as still intensely unfair.  This seems to have worked, Obama looked wounded, now this might turn out to strengthen him.

Reagan was seen as too conservative in a country that was quite liberal.  But America had been drifting right, and people lacked a sense of purpose and principle after the malaise of the seventies.  Reagan filled that.  Now there is a similar malaise about Iraq and the economy, and while some say Obama is too liberal for today's conservative America, he offers something similar to Reagan: his own sense of principle and purpose.  Never mind that one was conservative and the other liberal, the public seems to see past that, and look for something principled in the message.  Obama is finally moving the Democratic voice beyond special interests and coalitional politics and towards principles.

It is far too early to proclaim Obama a Democratic Reagan.   The criticisms may yet end up sticking, and his communication skills are not fully tested.  Moreover he is black; Reagan was a white male who had been a movie star and an outdoors man, symbolizing the traditional image of American values.  But if the economy stays in a rut, if Iraq doesn't improve and if in fact the surge starts to show signs of failure, Obama may end up surprising everyone come November.  I wouldn't put money on it, but this week Obama is showing signs that maybe he is the real thing.

March 25 - (W)right on race

Sometimes an event in American politics can symbolize clearly the problems we face.  The firestorm over controversial comments made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the pastor of Barack Obama's family church is an example.  Many in the conservative pundit world are skewering Obama for his relationship with a pastor who would say politically incorrect things (such as 'God damn America'), or be associated with a church that overtly embraces its African identity.   They take a line from the church mission in quotes 'as God's "chosen people" we...' to try to claim they are stating black superiority.  Besides the fact that's clearly not what is meant, it's interesting that the same pundits have no problem with Jews proclaiming themselves the chosen people!  These pundits are, in essence, attacking Barack Obama for not reacting to Rev. Wright in a way that a white Baptist would have reacted if his pastor said those things.  It is symbolic not of overt racism, but of how race still matters, still creates double standards, and still prevents people from truly understanding the other side.

Rev. Wright was a civil rights fighter in an era where blacks had to fight to gain even the right to share drinking fountains, sit at the front of the bus, live in neighborhoods predominantly white, go to quality schools, and have a fair shot at higher paying jobs.  They were clearly an oppressed group, denied equal rights.  To overcome that and fight for equality blacks had to form a cohesive community, and then channel anger and frustration over such an unjust state of affairs into political action.  Rev. Wright did that.  That meant that he was able to achieve a lot of good in his career, he became a respected scholar, an activist who got results, and he continually focused on the Christian principles he believes in.  And, of course, in long sermons talking about injustices and acts done to the black community, he would let that rage show through.  That's part of the process of building energy to fight injustice, and expressing deep anger over the past in order to overcome the anger and move towards a positive future.   From all accounts he expressed anger not to arouse rebellion, but to help move towards positive action to address the roots of that justifiable anger.

Along come political operatives, and they go through hours of videotape covering a decades long career, and find snippets where anger is expressed in a way which, out of its context, is politically incorrect.  They salivate over the idea of having 30 second soundbite commercials where they identify Rev. Wright as Obama's spiritual mentor, and then play those tiny tidbits of his work, designed to paint Rev. Wright as nothing but an angry, dangerous, black radical.  Whites then should not trust the black Obama, he may be a secret black radical himself!  The attack is akin to a public lynching, overtly racist, and clearly trying to distort reality to scare voters.  It may work.

Obama is from a generation after Wright's.  As a black man he has to respect the hard work Rev. Wright and others did to forge a black community, recognize their African roots, and fight against oppression.  But, of course, that doesn't in any way mean that he agrees with everything his pastor says.  His generation is different, more pragmatic, and his situation is that he is part of both worlds, part African, part white American.  He respects and works with a man who is driven by Christian values and has fought all his life to help fight oppression.  However, he publicly disagrees with the more radical things Rev. Wright and the civil rights leaders of that generation have said. 

People should easily see that Obama can't and should not react to Rev. Wright the way a white Methodist would react to his pastor.  Wright's career deserves deep respect, especially from a man like Obama who wouldn't be in the position he is in if not for the struggles of people like Rev. Wright.  This situation is different, and there is no reason to try to use Wright to scare voters about Obama.  That is disgusting, immoral, and risks stoking old racial divides.  Of course the political pundits who do this are themselves amoral, they have chosen a side and anything to attack and tear down the opponent is seen as legitimate.  They have their little blog communities to reinforce their biases, and collectively dismiss outside views.  The result is a break down in dialogue that is potentially poisonous for our political discourse.

However it does create an opportunity for Obama.  His speech last week was perfect for the occasion.  He didn't treat it as a campaign speech, designed to reassure working class voters.  It must have been tempting to do that -- he needs to put away Senator Clinton and then fight McCain for that voting block.  Instead, he put the discussion on a higher plane, and laid out some of the issues that we need to face as a community, including a need to understand each other.  In short, Obama's speech made clear that the issue of Rev. Wright's comments show a need for unifying a still divided America, one where white and black communities still do not understand each other as well as they should.  If Obama is able to at least in part raise the level of discourse above the political games usually played around these themes, if he puts winning second to trying to shape and improve our political dialogue, he'll make a significant long term contribution to race relations and our understanding of who we are as a society.  Even if he loses, making the effort to, as Jon Stewart put it, talk to Americans like they are adults, could have a profound impact on our country -- for the good.  And who knows, maybe a politician who doesn't just say what the pollsters and pundits want him to say, and actually focuses on principle might even win.

(An aside, despite two positive blogs in a row about Obama, I personally am not endorsing him.  I still lean to Nader). 

March 27 - A Test in Iraq

The on going conflict in Iraq has dissipated from the public view in recent months.  A downturn in violence, proclamations that ‘the surge is working’ and few major events has gotten eclipsed by economic woes at home and a bitter Presidential campaign fight.  The war in Iraq has ebbed and flowed like this before. This may be different, however.

So far the "surge" has been able to claim success on the cheap.  We didn't take on the Sunni insurgents, we co-opted them.  We didn't defeat Moqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi army, we simply praised him for declaring a truce.   This brought a kind of stability, but everyone, including Gen. Petraeus, realized that it was only superficial stability.  Unless that time was used to truly integrate the Sunnis in the government and weaken the influence of Shi'ite militias, it could all far apart at any time.  Thus, when Gen. Petraeus criticized the slow pace of reform, and Vice President Cheney visited to no doubt deliver a message that the Iraqi government of al-Maliki had to get tough and show results, it became time to test to see if the surge really worked -- did it fundamentally alter the balance of power in Iraq in favor of the Iraqi government?

We may soon find out.   The violence that has flared up in Basra, parts of southern Iraq and sections of Baghdad could threaten any gains brought about by the surge and Iraq could have a long, hot summer of violence.  This would undercut the US strategy and probably deliver a death blow to McCain's Presidential bid -- a bid in which he's the current front runner.  Despite that, the President is praising the actions of the Iraqi government to pick this fight, as they decided to try to bring Basra under their control.  The President says he considers these developments positive.  How could that be?  How could the US want violence in Iraq to increase.

First, they want out of Iraq.  For all the talk about 100 years or "long term," they know the military is overstretched, Afghanistan is falling apart, and Iraq is a net loser for the US.   They can't say that, of course -- that would assure that the militias, Sunni tribes and other factions would do whatever they could to wait us out.   They hope that an assertive, bold Iraqi government will be able to establish control, and give us the capacity to start a major withdrawal of forces.  Second, they want something to change soon, so that Iraqis don't become comfortable with having a weak central government, Sunni tribes in control in the "Sunni triangle," Kurds basically autonomous in the north, and Shi'ite militias running the south.  With 90% of Iraq oil flowing through Basra, and Iran heavily involved in funding the militias, that's something the US wants changed.  The current operation was very likely encouraged or even demanded by Cheney and Rice on various visits, with the US hoping that defeating the most powerful Shi'ite militia would send a message to other militias: recognize the legitimacy of the government and stop creating your own fiefdoms.

So the Iraqi government has descended on Basra to take on the Mahdi army and al Sadr, picking a fight al Sadr would have preferred not to have (or perhaps at least to delay).  If it works, if Basra is truly under governmental control at the end of the day, the Mahdi army essentially disarmed, and other militias integrating into Iraqi security forces, a huge piece of the puzzle will have been solved.  I will have to revisit my argument that the surge is failing and instead recognize that a major problem -- Shi'ite led militias controlling much of the country -- will have been greatly reduced.  If it fails, and the Mahdi army remains in control of Basra, with government forces retreating back to Baghdad, or calling on the US to bail them out, then it will be evidence of a real surge failure, and we'll be back where we were in late 2006 when things were at the bleakest.  Iraq will again be a major issue in the election campaign.

It could also happen that both sides decide not to push this to a clear conclusion, and instead reach a deal.  If the deal allows the Sadrists to keep their weapons and share real power, especially in the South, there will be no conclusive judgment on the US 'surge.'  Supporters will call it an important show of will by the Maliki government, and point to any gains the government made in limiting Mahdi power as progress.  Opponents will note the continued strength of Shi'ite militas and relative weakness of the government.   In such a case the argument will continue, but the public will become far more skeptical -- the "surge" will take its place alongside "stay the course."

So the surge strategy is being tested at this very moment in Iraq.  The next few weeks will give us a better sense of what to expect in this conflict that seems to go on and on and on...

March 31 - Spongebob Politics

More on Iraq tomorrow, but today I veer into the world of children's television.

Last week was a bad week.  I had a horrid cold, and was home sick without much of a voice on Wednesday, along with two year old Dana, who had a stomach bug.  It was actually a good day; he was active and didn't seem really sick.  Friday I still had the cold, and then I got the stomach bug, as did Ryan, who turns five next week.  Ryan was not active, he was completely floored by the stomach bug, and the combination of cold and stomach flu had me not wanting to move.  The two of us simply laid in the living room, Ryan on the loveseat, me on the sofa, not daring to eat anything (yes, neither of us could keep anything down) and thus out of energy due to lack of food as well.  At one point Ryan slipped off the loveseat and was on the floor.  I think I took about thirty seconds before I asked, "Ryan, why are you on the floor."  After a few seconds he finally answered, "I can't get up."  I knew what he meant.  I felt too tired to move too.  "Do you want me to help you up," I asked?  "Yeah."  I took a few seconds to gather my strength, and finally lifted him to the love seat, covered him and fluffed his pillow, then jumped back under the covers on the sofa.  I think except for a few checks of world news and some e-mails, we each spent about seven hours in that room laying down, sick.

For much of the day, the TV was on.  We watched one of my favorite childrens films, Cars (excellent even for adults), and some TV, including a rather strange show called Spongebob Squarepants.   While at first it seemed, well, just weird, I grew to like it (I think we watched or at least partially watched about four episodes).  One episode had an interesting insight on politics.  In it Spongebob's friend Patrick, a star fish, sees an elegantly clad gentleman and becomes terrified that it's the librarian out to collect back fines.  Turns out it's someone from the royal ministry, come to inform Patrick (who is rather an idiot) that he is actually the King of Bikini Bottom (that's the town they live in).

Patrick isn't sure what a King is, but when Spongebob tells him that it means he can have whatever he wants, Patrick becomes intrigued.  They go to the Krusty Krab (Spongebob's work place -- he is the perfect employee, and loves his job) and Patrick eats a lot pleasing the money hungry Mr. Krabs.  Yet Krabs becomes upset when informed that Patrick could have whatever he wants.  Patrick then demands everything he can see...the comic book collection from a pathetic forty year old who finally has competed the collection he'd spent his whole life gathering, lollypops from babies, food from people on the street, a walker from an elderly man.  They all give it up when told that royal decree said they must.  Patrick becomes opulent, selfish and arrogant.   This all comes to naught when they move the home of Squidword, a more cynical Krusty Krab employee, to make way for Patrick's new castle.  When told of this, an indignant Squidword goes on the rampage, "look at him!  He's an idiot!  What possible qualification can he have to be King of Bikini Bottom?  Don't give him anything!"

The citizens look at each other, decide Squidword's right, and stop serving Patrick.  Patrick goes into a rage, that horrible Squidword has ruined everything, he is the cause, and must be stopped.  Finally, after Spongebob his loyal friend betrays him, Patrick looks in the mirror and sees the monster he's become.  He freaks out, finds the man from the royal ministry and says he no longer wants to be king.  The ministry official understands, noting that "absolute power requires absolute responsibility" and informs Patrick that he isn't the king after all -- a coffee stain on the document reveals that really Spongebob's pet snail Gary isn't king.  And, while Gary can't stand splinters, he doesn't abuse power.

That's got a lot of poli-sci in it.  Power corrupts.  People blindly acquiesce to injustice because of demands by "royal decree" or government law, not really questioning whether it's just or ethical.  Then when things get really bad a rabble rouser finally wakes the people up who turn on the corrupt government.  The government of course blames the rabble rouser or revolutionary.  So when the Sandinistas rebelled against the Somoza government (Somaza was a lot like Patrick), the US and many anti-communists looked at it as a communist plot to spread their evil doctrine, rather than also compelled by people waking up to a grotesquely unfair social-political situation.  In almost every situation the leader of a revolt or country is considered the problem, not much effort is made to understand the deep social causes.  An even Patrick, the lovable dunce, gets overtaken by the desire for power.   In fact it's those boorish ones, like Stalin in Russia or the businessman Uthman, chosen over Ali as third Caliph in the Islamic world, who was seen as unambitious and thus safe, who set up a corrupt regime that ultimately led to his son, Mu’awiyah taking the Caliphate by force and turning it into a military dynasty.   Anyway, we're all feeling better now and ready for a week of melting snow.  Back to more serious stuff tomorrow.