September 1, 2005:  The news from New Orleans about the devastation wrought by Katrina is intensely sad.  Families ripped apart, people with no job, no money and no hope, and the future for tens of thousands uncertain.

Two political issues strike me.  The first is that anyone who doubts that there is a class difference in the US which is real, and which directly affects how Americans live, need only look at New Orleans.  Those who try to say 'taxation is theft' and consider government action to try to create true equal opportunity and equal rights as somehow a limitation of freedom are, to be blunt, objectively wrong.  The wealthy -- even middle class -- in New Orleans were able to leave well before the storm.  They may have a cash flow problem, but with credit, family, and friends they'll have a place to stay, and they'll get on with their lives with primarily a major headache and inconvenience.  They have to deal with children who don't understand why they aren't home or at school, tough issues of paying off loans and bills, and the planning of rebuilding and plotting their future, but those are challenges that won't threaten their existence or ability to move ahead.

The poor, however, often couldn't leave the city.  Many of them died primarily because they were poor.  They are victims of looters, they have lost everything, they lack the insurance the wealthier could afford, and often have little to their name.  They are homeless with nowhere to turn.  They don't know where their next meals will come from, their lives have been completely disrupted.  Their experience of this tragedy is far more dire and difficult than those of the wealthy.  New Orleans is a stark example of how having money makes a huge difference in what you experience living in America.  The poverty is out in the open, it's impact is profound.  It also shows the importance of having a sense of community, and recognizing that society is more than just a number of discrete individuals bouncing off each other.

Second, I'm rather appalled by the statements that "foreign countries should help us because we're always first to help others."  Besides the fact that foreign countries are offering help, the fact is we're immensely wealthy.  The Tsunami hit very poor regions of the planet, killing over 250,000 (this won't get close to that, thankfully!), and they couldn't afford to pay for what was needed.  We can.  Compare: a fire burns down a house of a family with five children and a low income with no insurance.  They have nowhere to go.  People then realize they need to help that person.  Another fire burns down the mansion of Michael Jackson.  He's out millions, but no one would think that they need to send him money to help him rebuild; despite his problems, he has money.    We certainly can afford to rebuild and take care of the devastation.  Heck, if we weren't involved in that foolish adventure in Iraq, less than a year of what we spend there could probably take care of all the problems caused by Katrina.

Another lesson from Katrina is a reminder to all of us of what is truly important.  We worry about work, buying the latest gadget, office politics, assignments due, whether the car needs a repair, gas prices, stresses over little interpersonal things.   But those are all luxury worries.  They are the kind of worries people have when their basic needs are taken care of.  Such luxury worries drive people to depression, panic attacks, stress, etc., but they really shouldn't.  We need to look at the suffering of especially the poor in New Orleans after Katrina and then put our own worries in perspective.  Some are legit -- worries about children, family, etc.  The stuff that matters.  But so much of what dominates the American psyche these days really is nothing but fluff.  Most of us are not in a position which requires worry, we're 'walking on sunshine.'  (OK, that's a allusion to a song by the 80's group aptly named 'Katrina and the Waves').   Katrina at the very least, can help teach us perspective. 

September 2, 2005:  The situation in New Orleans is simply unbelievable, and the government response has in many ways been totally incompetent.  I normally would not criticize this sort of thing since I'm no expert at disaster relief, and I don't know all the obstacles that they face.  But it simply has become ridiculous.

First, President Bush said a couple days ago "I don't think anyone thought the levees would break, they just expected a serious storm."  Wrong.  All day Sunday people were talking about the danger of levee breaches, toxic damage, flooding and the like in New Orleans.  The fact the President didn't think that had been at all expected shows that at least at top levels the government was out of touch with the reality of what was coming.

Yesterday Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff was on the radio, and the interviewer was telling him about the 2000 or so people at the convention center with no food or water, who felt abandoned, having had elderly people already die with their corpses simply laying there.  Now, a competent official would say, "that is very disturbing news, and I'll make sure we check that out right away and do what is necessary to help those people.  Chertoff was defensive, he questioned the reports (saying 'we shouldn't listen to rumor' -- the announced replied that the reporter on the ground had covered wars and disaster and was not dealing with rumor), said he hadn't heard of such a thing, and repeated over and over that all was being done and people needed to get to established distribution points.  He was evasive and defensive, the last thing he should be in a situation like that.  I was disgusted.

On CNN last night Paula Zahn was interviewing FEMA's director Michael Brown, who repeated over and over "those who chose to stay."  First (as CNN reported extensively) many stayed because they couldn't afford to leave; poverty limits choice.  But Zahn finally asked him, "are you saying it's their fault for choosing to stay?"  He realized that was insensitive and tried to deny that was what he meant, but the way that got repeated was obviously an attempt by government officials to push blame from themselves for a slow response to the people there.  A ten year old girl was raped at the convention center.  Does she deserve that for "choosing to stay?"  Again, disgusting.  These guys should not be making excuses or being defensive, even if they are really doing all that they can.  That sends a message of arrogance and insensitivity at a time when the country, and especially the people of New Orleans need more.

As soon as this crisis became apparent the President should have said, "we will mobilize the military and all available aircraft and equipment to help the people as quickly as possible."  Rather than having New Orleans have to beg for some space in the Astrodome (they wanted to put 25,000 there, it was full after 11,000, with buses of angry people having to finally be diverted to a temporary shelter), the President should have said, "we will make room on military bases for temporary housing and shelter for these people, and do what is necessary to take care of them."   But the government instead has been quiet and unresponsive.  New Orleans' mayor lashed out at the federal government last night, saying that their promises were all BS, nothing was coming.

Is it because the people suffering are predominantly poor and black?  Is it because Iraq has drained too much money and too many resources?  Is it just that they were caught by surprise and have been reacting to this in a manner befitting Larry, Shep and Moe?   Are they out of touch with reality? 

New Orleans is in a state of anarchy.  Law and order has broken down, people have been stranded for days without food and water, and somehow the world's richest and most developed country can't do much at all to get the people out of there, or even get them food and water.   Maybe I'm being overly critical, maybe the conditions are so severe that this is the best that can be done.  I doubt it.  But even if that's the case, the response by officials should not be defensive, should not hint that the people there are responsible for their own suffering, or appear arrogant. 

September 6, 2005:  Labor day is over, summer is officially past -- though this last weekend was glorious, perfect weather to grab on to the end of summer.  And down where the weather has not been so nice -- the gulf coast -- it looks like finally the federal government has its act together and a massive effort has taken place to turn that situation around.  It was too late -- and the quotes I had last week shows that officials were far unwilling for awhile to acknowledge that -- but they finally listened to the criticism and acted.  A few pundits try to whitewash the administration by trying to blame local and state officials, but that obviously is going over like a led balloon.   But better late than never -- though for perhaps thousands the delay meant death, being raped, or some other kind of suffering.  It still exposing the issue of poverty and class in America, and I think a long term challenge is to confront that issue head on in the months to come.

I'm going to talk today about Germany's coming election.  For those readers who don't know about the party system in Germany, here's a rundown of the main actors: SPD = Social Democratic Party of Germany, a left of center party, CDU = Christian Democratic Union, a right of center party, CSU = Christian Social Union, the sister party to the CDU which operates only in Bavaria (where the CDU does not operate), FDP = Free Democratic Party, or the liberals (which in Germany means pro-business and wanting smaller government), the Greens are the environmental left-of-center party, and the Linkspartei is the far left party, a mix of the old PDS (the party that emerged from the old Communist party of East Germany, and which has remained intensely popular in the east) and left Social Democrats who dislike the reform course plotted by Schroeder.  Chief among them is Oskar Lafontaine.   Currently the SPD-Green coalition governs under Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, and the main CDU opposition Chancellor candidate is Angela Merkel. 

Germany is having an election in less than two weeks.  Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder (SPD) called for an early election due to his party's weakness in state elections, meaning that the upper house of parliament (the Bundesrat) could block major economic reforms he considers necessary for overhauling the German economy.  More importantly, Schroeder has been unable to bring his own coalition to embrace many of the reforms.  His goal was to be a German equivalent of Tony Blair, moving the SPD from a more traditional leftist approach to one that opens to markets while retaining a sense of social conscience.  However, the traditions of Germany and the need to govern a coalition made that kind of move impossible, and Schroeder was unable to push through the reforms.  The Christian Democrats blocked what compromises he could get, so he was stymied from needed reforms by both the left and the right. 

It is almost certain the SPD-Green coalition will lose this election, but it's not clear who will win.   Three or four weeks ago the CDU/CSU (Christian Democrats -- the conservatives) had a 20 point lead over the SPD, and a clear coalition majority with their partners the FDP.  In the past few weeks, however, the lead has narrowed.  The Christian Democrats have 43% to the SPD's 34%.  The FDP still has 7%, giving them a total of 50% -- which may or may not translate into a majority in the Bundestag.  Meanwhile the Greens have about 7%, and the left has to contend with the new Linkspartei, Schroeder has ruled out a coalition with the Linkspartei, and many Greens despise the former Communists.  So even if the Left can get a majority (and it's very possible the three of those parties will together be over 50%), it is very unlikely they'd form a government.

Schroeder is more popular than Angela Merkel, the Christian Democrat Chancellor candidate -- a former East German, and likely to be the first woman Chancellor in Germany.  But Schroeder's personal popularity does not translate into election expectations.  People like him, but not his government.  Still, Schroeder is a superb campaigner, and in a debate Sunday by all accounts defeated Merkel.  That isn't likely to hurt Merkel too much though, since she benefited from low expectations.

What is likely to happen is that neither the SPD-Greens nor the CDU-FDP gains a majority, making a grand coalition likely.  That would be a CDU/CSU-SPD coalition, which neither side wants to see happen.  Merkel would likely be Chancellor, since she has the largest party.  Rather than get into all the interesting aspects of the election system and possible outcomes, it's clear that Germany needs some real economic reforms.  They aren't as bad off as they often believe, but unemployment is too high, and cheap production outside Germany is threatening their industrial base.  Moreover, unlikely America who has benefited from immigration, Germany's labor force is getting smaller, meaning that in a few decades there will be only one and a half workers for each retired person on a generous pension.  Add that to health care costs and other social protections, and Germans face a choice: cut taxes to help the economy, but risk cherished social protections.  And: cut costs for employers to keep them from going elsewhere, but risk the high wages and standard of living German workers have enjoyed for decades.

The left (Linkspartei and some Greens) argue that global capitalism is crushing the working class, and Germany shouldn't give in and reform.  Schroeder says he sympathizes, but the reality is that unless Germany makes the reforms, the economy will not improve.  It may not be the best world, but it's the world Germany has to deal with.  The CDU/CSU and FDP embrace reform as well, but argue that it will ultimately strengthen the German economy and help all Germans.

This is a long posting, so I'll cut to the chase.   Europe is going through a challenge to their political economy that is similar, but far more profound, than the one facing the US.  There are real choices to be made, and the question of sovereignty is real -- does Germany really have a choice on what to do, or is the international political economy forcing it into reforms that ultimately will yield similar policies throughout the industrialized world?  How can parties and politicians balance these challenges?  Can changes be done in a way that doesn't threaten the prosperity and social programs that have been so popular in Europe?  I have a lot of ideas on that, but for Germany the question is a core part of this election.  Do they need a grand coalition to pull this off?  If the CDU and FDP get a majority, can they use their majority in the Bundesrat to quickly make reforms -- and if so, will they be adequate, and will they not be counter productive?  More on this in coming days, but now I have a pile of work to do...

September 7, 2005:  The clean up of New Orleans continues with a lot of international help.  While the US can afford to rebuild, countries like Germany are assisting with expertise and high pressure pumps to help dewater the city.  It's unclear what dangers lie ahead.   The filth in the water could create major public health problems, and we don't know how many bodies and what other problems will emerge.  But at least the corner has been turned.

I saw a good interview of New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin last night, and he has done an absolutely superb job coping with a disaster that's obviously beyond the expectations and capacities of a city government.  His anger at promises unfulfilled helped get the feds moving, and he has been a strong voice for a city that has suffered immensely.  It sickens me to see pundits -- mostly from the right trying to brush off criticism of Bush -- attack Nagin and others who have done an heroic job.  This goes back to the slash and burn tactics I criticized in July, where criticism of the President is met not by explanation and analysis of the President's activities, but by attacks on others.  But to attack the New Orleans mayor?  Sick.  There are lessons for all levels of government, of course -- just as the feds failed, the job was clearly too much for state and local officials -- but in a disaster of this scope the buck does not stop with the local mayor!

Meanwhile in Iraq things continue to look bleak, and reports are that Republicans in Congress are increasingly calling for an exit strategy.  This isn't a war we'll win any time soon, the American public is sick of it (and most suspect that without the Iraq distraction, it would be much easier to deal with Katrina), it's costly, and not achieving any kind of national benefit.  The argument that "well, we started it so we have to finish it" (heard often from Democrats)  is simply absurd and even perverse.  Wars kill people.  It creates disruption.  In this case, our presence is  a core reason the insurgency can recruit and remain strong.  It's not a case where we can "fix" something we broke.  It's a mess that leads nowhere good.

I can actually better respect the Neo-conservative argument that to truly defeat terrorism you have to spread democracy and interdependent markets.  They are probably right in their goal, and I suspect they really believed (perhaps motivated by the fact it would entail increased profits) the application of military power by the strongest nation in the world would work.  In short, they were wrong about the means chosen to pursue the goal.  Those means have actually handed a gift to the hardliners, kept our attention away from the true terrorists and focused on local insurgents, spread the military thin, and weakened us.

When Katrina gets off the headlines, Iraq will still be there, and with the Sunnis fighting against the new constitution, al Sadr showing his muscle, and violence intense -- supposedly insurgents or even al qaeda has taken an entire town in the north (I can't imagine they can hold it for long, but...) -- this shows no sign of ending soon.  How to get out, and what to do while and after getting out raises a number of problems, and ultimately those will have to be dealt with.  For now, the decision needs to be made that this has gone on long enough, and it is not in our interest to continue.

I do want to start adding to the two series above (last entry was in July), but this week has been a bit too hectic.   Maybe tomorrow!

September 8, 2005:  The Bush Administration missed a golden opportunity to bounce back from low ratings in hurricane Katrina.  CBS has a poll out today which shows that only 38% approve of the administration's handling of Katrina, while 58% disapprove.  A natural disaster is a time where Presidents can usually shine, just as Bush did after 9-11.  Instead, President Bush was slow to leave his vacation, made bizarre statements like "no one expected the levees to breach," and didn't really take leadership until this weekend.  Attempts by some to blame state and local officials looked petty -- sure, blame can go all around, but the President is the only one who can marshal the forces of the federal government.

Does Bush deserve such poor approval ratings?  Is it proper to criticize him now (playing what he calls the 'blame game') while people are still suffering?

One can understand why he didn't do more.  Hurricanes hit often, and usually do damage that FEMA and other agencies can handle.  Initial reports were that New Orleans had been spared a major hit, and the reality of the levee breach impact wasn't clear until the second day.  I suspect that the administration had gone off "high alert" after initial reports, and thus were slow to recognize the scope of the problem.  I'm sure that tight budgets also caused them to want to only move if absolutely necessary, and it originally appeared not to be.  That's understandable.  But in my opinion, it isn't the way a leader should react.

What if President Bush said on the day before Katrina he was going to head back to Washington immediately and assure the US would respond if disaster should hit New Orleans (and people did anticipate levee breaches and the kind of situation that developed).  What if "just in case" there had been a mobilization designed to get food to people right away, and have troops and equipment ready for quick action at the first sign of trouble?  What if the President had taken leadership?  Even if materially the result might have been similar to now (we can't be sure), he'd not have appeared out of touch and uncaring.  And who knows -- two days might have made a huge difference for thousands or tens of thousands of people.

Is it proper to criticize?  Of course.  Thousands of people have died, FEMA's director looks inept (and appears to be a political appointment with no real experience), and we have experienced a kind of national shame.  Criticizing various levels of government and asking "what went wrong" is essential, both now and in the future.  It certainly doesn't prevent a relief effort, and I would argue that such intense criticism is what finally got the government to expand its activities and start to turn the situation around in the Gulf.  It's our job as citizens to question these things, to wonder why the people who are supposed to have their pulse on the problem -- FEMA and Homeland Security -- didn't know about things like the Convention Center even after it was widely reported in the media.  They should know MORE than the media, not less!  There are real questions, and I'm glad that Senator Collins recognizes that this is not a Republican or Democrat issue, this is an issue of national importance.

And that leads me to my final point: the real cause of the problem.   The real cause is not the President or Congress or FEMA.  The cause of this problem is structural, and both parties have played a role.  After 9-11 there was a national paranoia about terrorism.  People saw terrorists everywhere it seemed, and one would have thought that 9-11 had been one of the most horrific acts in human history.   But it wasn't.  The death toll was not that high, certainly it will end up far less than Katrina's deaths.  The destruction was not that intense, nothing near the tens of billions of destruction caused by Katrina (probably over 100 billion).   The economic impact was less too -- the worst thing that happened was a short stock market plunge, and that was psychological.

The bottom line is that terrorists have a very limited capacity to really endanger most of us.  Chemical weapons dissipate rapidly, we saw how anthrax doesn't spread well, and unless they can get a nuclear weapon, their attacks aren't likely to do a lot of real damage.  Terrorists rely on fear and panic to magnify the damage they do, that is the essence of the terrorist strategy.  Even a small nuclear weapon would likely do less devastation than Katrina, and, unlikely as it is, would not threaten the physical existence of the United States, nor our economic core.  But it can psychologically cause us to react in ways that hurt us.

I'd say the attack on Iraq was one way the terror attacks of 9-11 led America to do something that ultimately weakens us.  But we also switched FEMA to the new huge department of Homeland Security, and shifted the focus to counter-terrorism.  Money was poured into unlikely precautions against terrorism, precautions that probably for the most part only alter the way in which a terrorist would strike.  Money was not used to build up levees in New Orleans, or prepare for what everyone knew would be an active hurricane season. 

In that, most of the American public shares the blame, though really the blame rests more with politicians and the media who stoked the fears.  Our fear of terrorism, understandable as it might be, led us to ignore what is a likely threat in favor of an unlikely threat we nonetheless could imagine (in cognitive psychology this bias is to conflate possibility with probability).  We over-estimated the damage terrorists could do, and ignored the fact that threats from nature are far more likely and potentially far more devastating.  Terrorism is with us as a threat, and will be for the rest of our lives.  It can't take this country down, it will have limited impact.  We need perspective. 

So we can criticize Bush, demand changes at FEMA, criticize the preparations in New Orleans and all that -- that is legitimate.  But we shouldn't see this just as a failure by individuals, it was also a societal failure.  And that ignores perhaps the most important aspect of this -- class.  (People claim it's race, but I think it's more class -- the people there were poor, and thus not really seen).  But this entry is already too long, perhaps I'll write more on that soon.

September 9, 2005:  Today I'll hit on a number of issues, a quick Friday hit and run...

Katrina: OK, I've criticized the slow response of the President and the Administration, but now I'll criticize the Democrats.  I think they need to work with the investigation being headed by Susan Collins, and trust that it is possible to have an honest bipartisan investigation even if the other party is in the majority.  One may be cynical about politics, but Congress has to be the primary investigative body on such things, I don't think an independent council is the way.  I trust Collins will be fair; if the Democrats believe their role is being stymied, they should at that time complain.  But now I would hope they would work to make the bi-partisan investigation work.

Iraq: As we struggle with people homeless due to Katrina, the US has essentially driven 200,000 out of the city of Tal Afar: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5264710,00.html   200 insurgents have supposedly been arrested (or suspected insurgents), but at what human cost to the people whose homes were destroyed by missiles and bombs, and who are driven out of the city (to remain is to become a suspected insurgent) with no home.  The tragedy to those people mirrors some of what Katrina victims experience, yet we don't acknowledge it.  These are "other" people, and most Americans seem to think that if it takes their suffering to get insurgents (though no one thinks this will significantly weaken the insurgency) that's OK.  They won't get the aid and assistance Katrina victims will get.  Think about it.  Think about the human cost of this war, the cost that is not reported, the suffering not shown on CNN, and the children and families whose lives are devastated by the on going conflict.  Is it worth it?  Are we doing the right thing in Iraq?   Today's (September 9th) entry on Dr. Juan Cole's blog http://www.juancole.com also details the economic problems in Iraq due to the policies we implemented there to privatize. 

Germany:  In a strange turn of events, the Bundestag candidate in a district in Dresden died.  He represents the NDP, a small neo-fascist party.  His death, less than two weeks before the election, has created a stir.  Now, you might think that wouldn't mean much, since he had no chance of winning.  But German law requires postponing that district's election, probably at least two weeks, as the NDP finds a new candidate and new ballots are printed.  This means that it's possible that on September 18th, if the election is close, Germans will have to wait to see how that vote turns out in order to see what government will take over.  

The latest (today's) Politbarometer shows the SPD gaining yet again, now behind the CDU/CSU 41% to 34%.  The Greens and FDP come in at 7%, meaning that the potential CDU/CSU-FDP coalition still holds a 7 point lead, but far less than the 20%+ lead they had not that long ago.  I doubt it will tighten much further though, I still don't see an SPD comeback like in 2002.   Still with the Linkspartei coming in at 8%, it's likely neither coalition will have a majority, so they may have to wait those two weeks until the final district votes. 

The left in Germany faces a choice.  If this Politbarometer is correct, the left has a slight majority in overall support (the Greens, SPD and Linkspartei).  That is unlikely to yield a government, though, as the reform minded SPD is anathema to the more socialist LInkspartei (and vice-versa).   In essence it's the split from 1918 taking form in a new context, but it illustrates the dilemma before the left not just in Germany but throughout the industrialized world.  Do you reform and "liberalize," thereby moving away from regulation, high taxes and government programs, or do you strive to retain these and perhaps create transnational agreements to regulate?  The reformers say transnational agreements of the kind Oskar Lafontaine (Linkspartei) argue for are a pipe dream, that the power of global capital is too great.  The best bet is to reform, but maintain social justice.  The Linkspartei sees that as capitalism light, and Schroeder (or Britain's Blair) as faux leftists who really have sold out to big money.

Lafontaine's analysis of the power of big money is accurate, but Schroeder's political analysis of what is possible in response (politics is, after all, the art of the possible) is accurate as well.  Lafontaine is the crusader, Schroeder the wheeler-dealer.  Lafontaine wants to fight, Schroeder hopes to prod step by step towards a more just system by consensus.  Lafontaine is the idealist, Schroeder the pragmatist.  Throughout Europe the pragmatists have been winning such fights (including within the green party in the early 90's), and there is a reason for that -- the global system is a kind of straight jacket.  The left is likely to succeed in the long run in building international agreements and regulative regimes, but Schroeder's path is probably the only feasible one for the left to take.  

So the German election is important, not just for Germany, but also might tell us something about the way the left will handle to the economic and political crises they face in Europe.  Meanwhile Angela Merkel is still poised to be the first woman and the first East German Chancellor for the Federal Republic, but the polls are so unclear that predictions are probably dangerous.   September 18th is the election, a week from Sunday.

Have a good weekend, I'll be back Monday.

September 12, 2005:  It was inevitable that Bush's pro-war supporters -- the ones that pushed for this conflict, react to the low approval ratings of the President (two new polls have job support below 40%) by criticizing the President: http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,169041,00.html

But they have a luxury the President does not.  They can say, "I was right, and the President did it wrong, we should have done XXX to make policy a success."  And if you read the story, the suggestions range from many more troops to fewer troops.  In short, you have a lot of people who have apparently been proven wrong on Iraq, and, rather than accept it, they simply say the job wasn't done right. 

Like most arm chair quarterbacks, they aren't dealing with the reality of the situation.  President Bush did what they wanted, and the belief among most of the pro-war crowd was that the Iraqis would welcome Saddam's ouster by working closely with the US to create a pro-American western style democracy.  They were assured that Iraq's citizens were modernized, and that this was the lynchpin of the mideast strategy.  They argued against the idea that this would be a difficult and costly episode, they even scoffed at such predictions.  Now, with 20-20 hindsight they claim they would be doing it better.  Sure.  Without reality to intrude on ones' fantasies, anything is possible.

I never thought the war would be a good idea, and predicted in advance that this would lead to a long term insurgency.  I may be in no better position to arm chair quarterback than the hawks are, but at least I'm not trying to cover up a mistaken judgment by shifting blame to the President.  The fact is that there is little that President Bush can do right now to create the kind of outcome the hawks hoped for, and there is no reason to think their approaches make sense. 

The political reality is that with an unpopular President, especially in the midst of a domestic crisis (Katrina), it is impossible for the Administration to demand significant number of additional troops and equipment be sent to Iraq.  That could ignite a domestic maelstrom that would endanger the GOP's majority for 2006 and create real opposition and unrest.  Even before this recent turn of events the numbers were limited by the fact the army is stretched thin, and sending more to Iraq would risk even without Katrina public outrage.  Also, the administration understands that Iran, North Korea and other issues are still outstanding, and potentially more important to the real interests of the US than what happens in Iraq. 

One response to those facts is to attack the public for lacking resolve in a war.  In WWII we sacrificed, we stood together, now we don't want to do what is necessary to win, and the public is unwilling to give the President wartime support and trust.  That argument is completely false.  The reason the public was together in WWII was not because of some mystical "we all come together whenever we're at war," but because people in this democracy truly agreed that the war was necessary, moral, and required that sacrifice.  People don't believe that about this war, and with good reason.  Saddam wasn't a major world threat, and he's been defeated anyway.  We're now "nation building," trying to fix what was broken in the effort to oust Saddam.  That is a quite different situation, and the public is justified in questioning what the policy is all about. 

Katrina and Iraq are showing the limits of American power, both to shape world affairs, and to take care of our own.  It shows that our resources can be overstretched. We're risking financial crisis with large budget deficits, and as Iraqi's government now worries whether or not it can print enough copies of the draft constitution to let people read it before voting on it, we're enmeshed in a costly, deadly situation with no chance of "success" any time soon.  It is increasingly clear to many that as unacceptable as it might be to leave them on their own, it is better than continuing, both for America's national interests and for the Iraqis.

The President will address those problems because he has to.  Reality can't be ignored by those in power, at least not for long.  As critical as I have been of the President, I recognize he is a very tough situation, and hope he makes the right choices (and hope he has the courage to admit error).  I have no such sympathy for those pundits who, to protect their reputation or to avoid saying they were wrong, decide to pile on the President and blame the administration for its tactics, rather than questioning the essential goals and assumptions of policy.  Tactical learning is a lower form of learning; we need people to exercise reflective intelligence and ask real questions about the goals, priorities, and interests of the United States.  The world is still dangerous, problems are still immense.  The temptation to hold on to illusions can, at this time, be dangerous.

September 14, 2005:  Another lesson from Vietnam

Nearly everyone has remarked on the parallels between Iraq and Vietnam.  In my view, the most striking parallel is how a hubris filled administration over-estimated its ability to project political power through military power and shape outcomes.  And with approval for Bush’s handling of the war at 34%, and Bush himself at only about 38%, it’s clear that it’s only a matter of time that we extricate ourselves from a situation that is essentially unwinable.  Just today well over 100 people were killed in another series of bombings, the insurgency shows no sign of abating.  In so doing, we need to take heed of the lessons of the past.

When the US left Southeast Asia, one tactic used by President Nixon to try to ease the withdrawal without putting pressure on the fledgling South Vietnamese army was to extend the war to Cambodia.  It started with secret bombings, and ended with an invasion and a bombing campaign that continued after the Vietnam war ended.

In 1970, within a year from America’s first involvement in Cambodia, the US helped Lon Nol, a corrupt anti-communist authoritarian, come to power.  From then on the twin horrors of Lon Nol’s repressive government and America’s campaign (3600 carpet bombing missions, an invasion, a bomb drop supposedly by pilot error over Neak Loung and land mine planting) helped insurgents against the government, most notably the Khmer Rouge, gain popularity and ultimately come to power. 

The US can’t be blamed for the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge.  But we can be blamed with creating an environment where they could come to power, and thus we share partial responsibility for the end result.   We went to fight communism and ended up helping create a communist regime whose atrocities were far worse than anything Ho Chi Minh would have done without our involvement.  We got involved in an unwinable war (and don’t let the revisionists say that we could have stayed and somehow supported Lon Nol’s government; this was a result we could not have prevented, except by not intervening in the first place).

Fast forward to Iraq, and you see similar circumstances.  The US goes to fight Saddam – supposedly in the name of fighting terror and Islamic extremism, but Saddam was an enemy to the Islamic extremists, and not a threat.  It was a completely unnecessary war of choice, and its consequences have been disastrous to the US (we are weakened, military stretched thin, alliances frayed, the country divided), and to Iraqis who are in the midst of a growing civil war.  But the biggest danger could be to the region, especially if the US repeats the error it made in Vietnam and expands the war as a way to create a scenario for “peace with honor."

If the US were to expand the war to Syria, and perhaps even depose Assad, that could provide cover for the US to claim that it can now leave Iraq and the threat is gone.  But given how easily the insurgents can elude US forces (in Tal Afar they almost all escaped via tunnels), they will remain.  They will be an extremist force far more powerful than existed before the US invasion.  Al qaeda will have benefited from the recruitment power of having a foreign enemy invade Arab soil, and the extremists will be in a position to grab real power, perhaps in Syria, perhaps parts of Iraq, who knows?   I doubt that they will repeat the evil of the Khmer Rouge.   But the region could see violence, intense extremism, and perhaps even a terrorist haven that otherwise would not have existed, all because of intervention supposedly for the good of the people. 

The sad fact is that most Iraqis, as well as US national interest and regional stability, would have been better served with Saddam serving until Allah or some Iraqi coup got rid of him, then to create this hurricane in the desert.  As we leave – and leave we will – we need to avoid doing things that only increase anger and anti-Americanism on the way out.  We need to leave by patching up relations in the region, and refocusing on the need to try to limit the spread of and popularity of Islamic extremism.  If we follow the Neanderthal idea of “kill them all before they call us,” we’ll probably create a situation more dangerous to us, and possibly disastrous for the entire region.

September 15, 2005:  The Iraqi justice minister has harshly criticized US methods in Iraq, complaining that people are detained without court order, troops are immune from any prosecution, and that they are working hard to get the release of innocent detainees: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L14678128.htm.  In short, the US is behaving like an imperialist who answers to nobody, and the Iraqi government is starting to assert its sovereignty and say "you can't simply do what you wish without justification or accountability."  This likely further weakens the resolve in Washington to stay any longer than absolutely necessary in Iraq.  They know they can't "end" the insurgency any time soon, that democracies take if not years even decades to develop, and this has become a real burden for America's military.  The writing is on the wall.

What follows is an addition to my series on spirit and belief.  I was cut short in writing it by a visitor (former student) from Britain, and thus am likely to modify it on the spirit and belief page.  But I'll post a draft here today.

Existence

A philosophy student has informed me that questions of epistemology have to come before questions of ontology.  It seems to me, however, that it is sort of a chicken and egg question -- how can you know about something without thinking about what "something" means?  In any event, existence itself is the most profound mystery of the universe.  We exist.  We cannot fathom non-existence.  We can maybe fathom the non-existence of ourselves (imagine the world going on after we die), but utter nothingness? 

If the big bang was the creation of space-time, then existence itself implies if not some kind of creation, at the very least a state that has qualities we can recognize.  Even if we don't know whether or not we're experiencing the world with our senses and beliefs only slightly mediating our sense of reality or if everything is an illusion and we're really in the matrix, we can recognize existence.  The question then becomes a bit more mundane -- what exists, what are it's properties, how do we know it exists, etc.

But what is existence itself?  Well, the dictionary says "The fact or state of existing; being."  The German word for existence is Dasein which means literally "to be there" (sein = to be, da = there).  I like the German word as a start because it gives one attribute of existence beyond just a tautological sense that existence is a state of existing.  Existence is to be "there" -- or to be at some place.  In other words, existence is to be at some place.  You know you exist because you can locate yourself within some kind of context.  Even if you are floating in a vast nothingness, the absence of anything else defines that nothingness.  For us, existence is thus wrapped up in the notion of space-time, we exist within space-time, and it is non-sensical to speak of existence outside of it.  In fact, the reason we can go forward in time (I could hop a spaceship and, if I go fast enough, take a trip and return to earth in a million years while aging only a few days) is that this doesn't require I leave space time.  I can't go back in time because to get to a place in the past, I'd have to literally leave space-time, and that is impossible.  I am part of space-time, my existence would cease outside of it.

So let's go back to the God hypothesis.  If a God created space-time, then the existence of this god would have to be of a completely different sort of existence than our own.  This entity would have to exist outside space and time, which means it would be an existence that does not require location or, for that matter, duration.  Such a god could presumably view our space time universe as a whole, from beginning to end, without having to watch it pass by as a progression of events.  Indeed, for religious determinists and believers of pre-destination, this makes sense.  And in the Newtonian deterministic universe, it would simply require God know the first mover and the first position of all material entities -- from there everything else could be calculated.

With quantum mechanics, well, it gets more difficult, though exactly how so is still debated.  If the existence of a "god" is fundamentally than the existence of an entity in space time, talking about the God hypothesis is more difficult.  We can't just say "does god exist," but we also have to think about what the difference is between existence in space-time and existence outside space time.  Space-time existence itself can be seen as having been (either naturally or supernaturally) created; existence outside of space-time is as incomprehensible to us, by definition it exists in no physical place or time.

September 16, 2005:  President Bush got something very right in his speech last night, but I'm not confident that talking about means something will be done about it.  But talking about it is in any case a necessary first step.  He brought up the issue of class, and how historical discrimination also connects that issue to race.  He noted the need to do something to totally re-make and nature of urban life in America.  While it's easy to scoff at a plan like 'urban homesteads,' one shouldn't.  Something new and dramatic needs to be done, and that kind of idea is better than just throwing more money at the problem.  Will New Orleans be a wake up call to show we have to do something about urban poverty?  Will it make the invisible into people whose lives we care about?  Or is it just a short term focus, nice political rhetoric, and nothing else?  I hope this does get us as a country thinking about how divided we are economically, and how dangerous that is to social stability.  I fear that once the headlines change, we'll just see pictures of cool new buildings in New Orleans and we'll think the problem is being solved.

One thing the President didn't do enough of is admit personal responsibility for the mistakes at the federal level.  The Governor of Louisiana, talking about the mistakes at the state level said "the buck stops here."  The President should have made the same statement, apologized and did something he seems incapable of doing -- admitting he did something wrong.  I think it's that lack of willingness to take personal responsibility which hurts the Presidents status, both for Katrina and Iraq, and helps explain his very low poll numbers.  I think people would be very forgiving if he'd level with us and not be so defensive.  Maybe it's part of his psychology, or maybe it's political calculus, I don't know.

In Iraq an interesting development: the US now seems resigned to the fact that we will leave Iraq before "winning," and that any kind of short term victory is impossible.  Given that there seems to be no political and certainly no public will to stay there for years or decades, this means that the war is indeed unwinnable:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0916/p01s02-usfp.htm

The question is how this will be handled.  If the military and White House has recognized that they won't be able to say "job finished," but instead will have to claim "we did what we could, not it's up to the Iraqis," how will it be done.  My concern is the need to avoid the kind of problem that I alluded to the other day when our intervention in South East Asia made it possible for hard core extremists like the Khmer Rouge to come to power.  There are a lot of dangerous extremist groups in the Mideast, obviously.  Can we extricate ourselves from this without leaving a dangerous mess behind?  How?

More on all this at a later time.  Have a good weekend, I'll be back on Monday.

September 19, 2005:  Two big stories today: the US apparently has reached agreement with North Korea in exchange for aid and a promise by the US not to attack.  This is very good news, even though it represents a retreat from the view the US originally took (that the US was not a threat so it needn't promise not to attack, and that there shouldn't be aid in exchange for not engaging in nuclear weapons production).  But it really was the only option, especially with Iraq proving the limits of American military power.  It's a sign of realism from the Bush Administration, and hopefully this can help create stability in the region that can, ultimately, lead to a peaceful transition in North Korea's style of governance.  It need not become democratic right away -- but even a change like those undertaken by China and Vietnam would be welcome.

And in Germany...what an election.  The final results are: CDU/CSU 35.2%, SPD 34.3%, FDP 9.8%, Linkspartei 8.7% and Greens 8.1% (the other parties together neared 4%, but none made them into the Bundestag.)  Neither of the major coalitions can form a majority.  Nobody is willing to work with the Linkspartei, and all three small parties benefited from the unpopularity of the two major parties.  The SPD is willing to form a grand coalition, but only with Schroeder at the helm.  The CDU/CSU rejects that out of hand, as they are the largest fraction (though they are two different parties in reality), but it's unclear what they'll do if they can't lure the SPD to join them.  They have talked about a "Jamaica coalition" of black (CDU), yellow (FDP) and Green.  But it's hard to see the Greens fitting well in that framework.  The logical choice would be a coalition of red-red-green, since the "left" as a whole got over 50% of the vote and would easily form a majority.  But that's not likely, and perhaps impossible.  The Greens are left-libertarians who can't stand the old Communists from the East that make up part of the Linkspartei, and in general Schroeder's reform course -- upon which he bases his political future -- is anathema to the Linkespartei.  They aren't as divided as they were back in 1918, but it seems close!

From a political science perspective, this is fun -- it's politics in action in ways unpredictable and certain to be interesting.  For Germany though, this could be a disaster if they can't find a way to have stable and effective leadership at a very important time.  It was technically a loss for Schroeder and the SPD-Green coalition since they no longer control government.  But given that they were seen as completely out of the picture a few weeks ago, and polls showed an easy majority by the conservative-liberal coalition (CDU/CSU and FDP), with even a twenty point lead, it was an amazing comeback by Schroeder.  In fact even two days ago polls had the CDU/CSU with a lead of 8 to 10 points, this was really unexpected, and created a sense of euphoria amongst the SPD backers.  For Angela Merkel it was a defeat on many levels -- though she still could become Chancellor and salvage victory from the defeat.  The CDU/CSU-FDP coalition was convinced not long ago that a majority was inevitable and they were readying themselves for the task ahead.  Now, it's all wide open.

At one level, this shows a weakness of a proportional representation system, as you have uncertainty in a time where leadership is needed.  But it also shows that the politicians are forced to deal with divisions and uncertainties in the public, as well as a dissatisfaction with the politics of the major parties.  This could ultimately force the parties to better reflect public will, rather than just play a power game.  For now, I'm just going to watch this as yet another interesting episode in the politics of Germany.

That's all for now, it's a hectic Monday as we were in New Brunswick this weekend to visit a friend.  I'll probably post another entry on Wednesday.  Ciao!

September 21, 2005:  With Rita heading towards the Texas coast (most likely), the federal government is busing people out of Galveston and doing everything possible to help local authorities prepare for a potential disaster.  The lessons from Katrina, apparently, are being learned.  Still, the Gallup poll published yesterday shows that only 40% approve of how the President handled Katrina, while 57% disapprove.  That has hardly moved since right after the storm, so all the promises of rebuilding and the like haven't helped; people have made their judgment already.  Of course, you still get people trying to whitewash FEMA and the feds by pointing out errors from local and state officials, but that obviously makes no sense, especially since the Feds are now doing things in advance they didn't do before.  Everyone made errors.  The most ridiculous thing I've seen on the net is (I think on the Drudge site) a picture of numerous school buses as a hint that the city could have evacuated people.  The problem with evacuations isn't having the buses available, but having a place to go, and the money to undertake the project.  It amazes me the lengths some people try to go in order to avoid having to simply admit that the federal government was slow and inept in the early response to Katrina.

Another bit from that poll, which had Bush with 40% job approval overall, is that 67% disapprove with how Bush is handling the war.  The country seems to overwhelmingly disapprove of the way things are going in Iraq, and as violence continues and expands, it's unclear just what the administration will or can do.  This isn't surprising, I realized long ago that the policy in Iraq had failed.  But recognizing it and figuring out how to politically deal with failure are two different things.

In Germany things still appear at a stand still, as no coalition possibility is truly possible -- at least if you take politicians at their word.  The most likely result is probably a Grand Coalition led by CDU/CSU with the SPD, though with neither Merkel nor Schroeder at the head.  The so-called Jamaica coalition still seems unlikely, and the FDP is adamant that they will not work with the SPD.  The Linkspartei is still sticking to its claim that it cannot work with or support any of the other parties, and the other parties all reject any cooperation with the Linkspartei.  If something can't be hammered out, there is the chance of new elections, perhaps in January.  In such a case, I would expect the CDU to choose someone other than Merkel to lead (Wulff or Koch?), but everything is up in the air.  Politics!

In Germany, with 11% unemployment and large budget deficits, there is real concern of continued economic malaise.  But in the aftermath of Katrina, with promises of $200 billion more deficit spending, the US economy is in severe trouble.

Here's the deal: the US has a current accounts deficit of 6.1% of GDP, and a budget deficit currently just over 4% of GDP (but could go up dramatically due to Katrina).  All this is financed by foreigners.  A current accounts deficit that huge should create an economic imbalance that would require higher interest rates and a strong decline in the value of a currency to adjust.  It is not a sustainable deficit.  The US can get away with it -- for now -- because of large investments in the US capital market, as well as relatively cheap bond sales.  This increases the leverage of countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Japan and EU states on the US, and if these countries decided that due to US budget deficits and other worries to shift some of their assets to someplace outside the US, a chain reaction could ensue which could create real, fundamental problems with the US economy.  This is an economic version of Katrina that is lurking out there, seen by economists (many have been worried by the current accounts deficit for some time), but ignored by the public who thinks that things are going well.  High interest rates, of course, would probably burst the housing bubble, and we could be in for a major recession.

Meanwhile, we wait for Rita, and see the number of dead in Iraq -- a unnecessary war that has worked against our interests -- pile up.  We shouldn't ignore the economic and political storm clouds on our horizon.

September 22, 2005:  First an interesting tidbit: at least one news source notices a similarity between Bush's words on Iraq now, and LBJ's on Vietnam in 1967:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1151&slug=Words%20of%20War. 

Yesterday I talked about the problem the US has with its current accounts deficit, and how that could portend crisis down the line.  Today I'll expand on that a bit.  The current accounts deficit essentially means that we Americans, and our economy, are living beyond our means.  We import more than export, we take in more than we put out.  Beyond that, we borrow heavily to pay for our government spending.  As a country we can do that the same way an individual can -- we borrow.  We are, in some ways, purchasing goods (trade deficits) and getting cash advances (budget deficits) on credit, with small minimum payments.  Can this go on forever?  Well, try it at home, take your credit card and live beyond your means for as long as you can, and see what happens!

Seriously, though, this is a structural problem.   As noted yesterday, we rely on mostly foreign states and investors (especially from places like China and Saudi Arabia, but really all over the world) to keep investing in the US to finance this deficit.  The good news is that they are not doing this out of good will; if we were relying on foreign good will, given the popularity of American policies, we'd be in trouble.  Luckily, they do this out of self-interest.  The United States is still seen as the safest place to invest, the US economy is stronger than many others around the world, and the dollar is still trusted.  In short, the US has a good track record and is wealthy.  (Try that at home -- get rich, get a good credit rating, and then try to borrow -- you'll find it easy, and people will loan you lots, for a long time!)   Yet it would be a mistake to think this can go on forever; our position buys us time, it isn't a free place to borrow and spend forever, living ad infinitum beyond our means.

Back around 2000 it looked like we'd found a solution.  Budget surpluses were supposed to grow, the US was supposed to be able to pay off its debt, and economic growth was robust.   That meant the dollar was strong, and the temptation to invest in America was immense.  This investment in turn helped spur growth, and as long as you grow and keep your budget in line, the economy is strong.  The current accounts deficit was also lower at that time (though getting to the 5% mark), and while this raised alarms for some economists, the situation looked tenable.

Then came the "crash."  The stock market declined dramatically, but perhaps just as importantly the dollar dropped.    In 2000 you could buy a Euro for eighty cents.  Now it costs you about $1.30.  The decline, of course, mirrored the shift from budget surpluses to budget deficits, the currency wasn't as valuable, and this could threaten inflation.  Theoretically it should also have narrowed the American trade deficit, correcting part of the current accounts deficit, but that didn't happen.  The US economy managed to keep moving forward, but in part due to massive federal government spending (deficit spending), and continued external investment.  The US economy, despite this weakness, promises at least better short term results than most European and emerging market investments, and Japan is still uncertain.  But many think the EU is poised for an economic rebound, and Asian and Chinese markets are becoming more lucrative.

At some point, investors will start shifting a part of their portfolio away from US markets towards others.  It could start slowly (a shift from 40% to 35% for some, for instance), but once it starts, it could snowball.  Add to that the possible rise in interest rates if the demand for cheap treasury bonds dries up (to finance the deficit we'd need to increase the interest rate paid), and the dollar could have significant pressure for a further move down in value, and the US economy would be hit by a shock.  Factor in the costs of Katrina, the potential costs (both economic, and for rebuilding) of the coming storm Rita, and then factor in a probability for some kind of event like a terrorist attack, a crisis in Iraq or elsewhere, and you see the threat.  We're living high on borrowed time right now, many smug about the higher unemployment rates in some OECD countries, believing that our economy is invincible.  That is an illusion.  It's the same kind of illusion people had about military power and its ability to alter politics and easily bring change to Iraq. 

Great powers fall primarily because of hubris.  Call it "imperial overstretch" or whatever, the biggest danger and threat to a major power is not to recognize its limits, not to understand its weak points.  As we throw money we don't have at Katrina (and soon Rita), stay in a war that has already surpassed Vietnam in its cost and sucks resources and life from both the military and the budget, and seem not to realize our need for close alliances and cooperation, we are in danger.  As we play high stakes games with Iran and North Korea because they supposedly want what we already have -- nuclear weapons -- ignoring the concerns of other third world states about that apparent double standard, we risk alienating states we ultimately will need as partners.

It's not too late.  America still has a very vibrant economy, our ideas about liberty and limited government are powerful, and despite anger at current policies people around the world not only admire much about this country, but they yearn for an America that respects others, doesn't act arrogantly, and recognizes the interdependence of the world system.   And that is what we need to become.  The current accounts deficit and that vulnerability, as boring as it may sound at first blush, illustrates the dependence the US has on other states for our economic well being.  If we don't acknowledge that and work to be a good global partner, we'll learn the hard way that we have to recognize this interdependence.

September 23, 2005:  As I read about the response to Rita -- the massive traffic jams, people running out of gas on the interstate, stuck for hours, a bus exploding and killing over 20 people -- I think of that old fairy tale "The Three Bears."  During the first storm we didn't do enough, during the second are doing too much -- will the third (Stan? Tammy?  Vince?  Wilma?) find us responding "just right?"  Houston is not as vulnerable as New Orleans, I don't think trying to get everyone to leave the fourth largest city all at once made much sense.   Today I'll give my first entry on the Power and Governance series since July:

What do rights mean?

If there is, as I argue, inherent and equal value to human life, and if this does lead to a conclusion that humans do have some basic rights that stem from this assumption (fundamental human rights), then the obvious question is what does this mean in the real world?   If every human has a right to life, then does that mean we have to do everything we can to keep everyone alive for as long as possible?  Or does it just mean that we aren't allowed to kill people.  And if it's the latter, does that mean we can never kill people, or are there times when a person's actions and choices create a condition where he or she has sacrificed their right to life?

What about theft and exploitation?  That raises the question of how one determines if ownership is valid.  Is just claiming something for ones' self before someone else does make ownership valid?  Are massive inequities coming from historical circumstances mean it is valid for person X to have 1000 acres and millions of bars of gold, while person Y is starving, owning no land of their own?  Is it theft if a wealthy person exploits the fact a poor person needs money to feed their family, and pays him barely enough to survive in exchange for work that disproportionally increases the wealth of rich person?

These are questions which have no objective answers.   If you alter assumptions and definitions you can create answers to fit those assumptions/definitions, but agreement on assumptions/definitions will be much more difficult than getting agreement that all humans have equal and inherent value (and, of course, there are many who disagree with that assumption -- the one that gave us the claim that human rights exist as ought statements).

This gets made even more complicated by the fact that the kind of contexts we can talk about vary between cultures as well as historical eras.  It's not just that conditions were different, but the very meaning of social interaction changes.  A culture might, for instance, consider property to be more collective than private, meaning that anyone who needs something not in use can take it if needed.   What about sacrificing virgins to the Gods if these virgins willfully submit their lives, believing they will receive special rewards in the afterlife?  In short, how does culture and context impact our understanding of what these rights mean, and do they provide clues for how to answer the questions posed above?

One key point in all of this is the idea of some kind of consent.   Taking the collective property is not theft because there is general societal consent to the fact that the property in that culture is collectively owned.  The sacrificial virgin who consents to her death is different than one who fights it.  But even consent is loaded; we think of it as an individual thing, but the collective ownership culture may not recognize the right of individuals to simply claim something as their own personal property if it is of greater use to the community.  The idea of consent (or social contracts and the like) has always been a difficult issue in political theory.  We can not address the issue of what rights mean, however, without considering the question of consent.

September 26, 2005:   There is more troubling news from Iraq.  Besides the weird goings on in Basra, which raise more questions than they answer, the US and the government are finding themselves confronting Shia forces more often than before.  Until new it was primarily a Sunni insurgency.  A Sunni insurgency couldn't ultimately win, since the Shi'a were no longer in a position of weakness as they were in much of Iraq's history.  But with various groups using violence to try to get the upper hand, and a government riddled with corruption, Iraq has become a failed state.  I don't think there is much the US can do to "fix" it.  Getting rid of Saddam was supposed to solve the major problems, but the problem was less the person than the political culture, ethnic differences, corruption, and history.  That is a mistake we Americans make too often -- we think problems are the result of 'bad guys,' but often 'bad guys' are the product of the conditions in a state or region.   I now more than ever (yikes that was a Freudian slip to the Nixon days) believe that the Bush Administration is planning to 'declare victory and leave.'  And, realistically, that's probably the best they can do.  But the unintended consequences of our intervention may stoke extremism and violence in the region for years after we're gone, much like how US intervention in Southeast Asia helped create conditions that brought the Khmer Rouge to power there. 

The Economist this week has a good article on economic imbalances in the global economy, and the dangers they poise.  They echo the concerns I posted last week of the US current accounts deficit, as well as other troubling issues. 

Today's a bit busy, so that's all for now.  I'll post more tomorrow!  

September 27, 2005:  Terrorism vs. the Cold War -- which provided the worst threat?  That's an interesting question.  In terms of consequences, clearly the Cold War and the fear of massive nuclear destruction was far more dangerous than terrorism.  Knocking down some buildings and killing 3000 people, as what happened on 9-11, was nothing compared to what could have happened if, say, the US had attacked Cuba in 1962 instead of blockading, leading the Soviets to respond with the missiles they already had operational.   And if we look at nuclear arsenals in the 70's and 80's, the potential for mass devastation was unbelievably high.  Even in a worst case scenario -- a terrorist with a small nuclear device -- the impact would not be near as horrid as what would have happened if the Cold War had become hot.

Of course, one has to also consider probability.  The cold war becoming hot was, I would argue, never probable, and in fact extremely unlikely after 1962.  Say what you will about mutually assured destruction, but it certainly is a powerful deterrent.  The probability was never zero, though.  A mistake in brinksmanship, an error, a glitch...it is imaginable that a crisis combined with accident could have led to conflict.  With terrorism, the probability of events happening is 100% -- they have already happened.  The probability of more terrorist attacks occurring also comes in at near 100%, though the more dramatic and disastrous, the lower the percentage.   Yet the probability that any one person will be caught in a terror attack is low, especially if you do not live in a major city.   Unless there is a massive increase in weapons available to terrorist organizations, their ability to do significant damage is limited; their power is mostly symbolic and emotional, such as the reaction to the twin towers collapsing.

Symbolism in politics should not be underestimated.  A mistake at a press conference leads to confusion and ultimately people dancing on the Berlin Wall in November 1989.  The wall was the symbol of the Cold War, this symbol being breached led to a collapse of Soviet power in Eastern Europe and a reshaping of the international system.  The ability of terrorists to leverage actual damage into symbolic power is potentially large.  In fact it happened on 9-11, the response to the attack was based more on psychology and symbolism than actual damage done.   The fear afterwards reflected a loss of a sense of invulnerability, and uncertainty about the scope of terrorist penetration into the US and West.

Terrorists rely on uncertainty, fear, and emotion for impact.   The are engaged in a strategy designed not to actually severely hurt the target state or defeat it through damage inflicted, but to create a climate whereby people and governments make decisions that ultimately serve the interests of the terrorist organization.  For al qaeda, many people believe that the goal is somehow to conquer the US, or Islamize the world, or some other wild scene.  Sure, some terror organizations may have extreme long term goals.  But the short term goals are to create economic weakness through uncertainty, destabilize the system, and goad the target into taking actions out of fear, uncertainty and emotion which will actually harm the target state in a manner worse than the attacks themselves.

I believe that the US to some extent fell for that.  Panic at home, the weakening of civil rights, going to wars in the Mideast, strained relations with allies, sky high budget deficits, and being stuck in a quagmire in Iraq (with a lot of uncertainty in Afghanistan as well) are all results of choices made as a response to the sense of vulnerability, the uncertainty, the fear, and the emotion of 9-11.  There is a lesson there, a lesson we need to take into account should a similar attack succeed in the future:  stay reasonable.  Think through the policies, don't react as if this was the start of some kind of war which could be won through military action.  That's not the game that's being played.  Terrorists operate from weakness; they have no state, limited resources, and limited places to hide.  They only gain strength when their attacks lead states to undertake counterproductive and self-damaging responses.  I hope we've learned that lesson; but I also hope we're not tested on whether or not we've learned the lesson.

September 28, 2005:  There are people in this world who accept responsibility, are able to look at their mistakes clearly and not be afraid to admit that they screwed up.  Then you have people like former FEMA head Mike Brown, how tried to push off responsibility on to Louisiana officials and others, and blame the media for his resignation.  What he did was classic of those who refuse to accept personal responsibility for their errors: he took the existence of mistakes by the Louisiana officials (and yes, they made mistakes too) and simply that to try to evade responsibility.  And the sad thing is, he probably believes it himself.  People who evade responsibility tend to simply rationalize their actions post-hoc, and not ever confront painful truths.

I've also seen that in people debating politics.  I remember one stubborn individual who insisted (because his ideology apparently said so) that humans did not have instincts, and only humans could reason.  Science, of course, has shown that there is instinctive human behavior, and even dogs show some basic reasoning skills.  But his view was so focused on a black and white explanation of human rights that he could not allow acknowledgement of reality.  Instead, it was smoke and mirrors.

This problem permeates society, not always as obvious as the examples above.   I'll pick on both liberals and conservatives here.  A lot of liberals haven't come to grips with the fact that government spending on the poor often can create a worse situation by increasing a psychology of dependency and hardening the class divisions.  The failure of government redistribution to work needs to be acknowledged, especially by those who believe (as I do) that class differences are real and need to be actively addressed.

Pro-war conservatives, on the other hand, offer a portrait in shifting rationales and interpretations of the war in Iraq.   The insurgency was just hold outs, or al qaeda foreigners whom the Iraqis wouldn't except.  Then it was just ex-Baathists.  When the insurgency seemed to wane a bit after the elections, it was trumpeted as success, every sign the Sunnis may participate was paraded as a turning point.  What isn't done is to say, "gee, this whole thing has gone very different than expected, perhaps the very essence of this endeavor was misguided and should be fully reconsidered."

We are at a point in political life that the traditional approaches, both liberal and conservative, which see government action to solve problems through either force or throwing money at problems become increasingly less effective and prone to unintended negative side effects.   That's real.  That should present a challenge to liberals and conservatives alike.  It's easier, however, to simply shift rationales and interpretations, focusing not on confronting reality, but defending pre-existing beliefs and ideas.  Confronting dissonance is hard, but it is needed, especially in a time of transition.  That takes a mix of both honesty and self-confidence -- refusal to admit to being wrong on something is a sign of a lack of self-esteem, as everyone is wrong quite often about various things -- and each seem to be lacking in politics.

I'm not really going anywhere with this rant.   I'm just appalled by the arrogant incompetence of Mike Brown, and what it exemplifies about politics these days.  It's all spin, a kind of nihilistic 'political expediency = truth' approach.   We need more minds like Galileo and Einstein, instead we get Machiavelli and Rove. 

September 29, 2005:  Second terms of administrations tend to have scandal/corruption problems, and for President Bush this is no different.  The cronyism that brought Michael Brown to FEMA, and according to Time magazine many, many other plum jobs to political allies, is starting to sully the reputation of the Bush White House.  This includes David Safavian, an inexperienced 38 year old who became chief procurement officer in charge of $300 billion of spending.  He has since resigned and has been arrested for obstructing a criminal investigation.  Add to that Bill Frist's apparent insider trading (he's Senate majority leader), and the host of ethical problems which have played the House ex-majority leader Tom Delay, including yesterday's indictment which caused him to step down from the majority leadership position, and the GOP has a real image problem.  Then of course you have a war with Iraq that most of the public opposes, and which has sent our budget into deeper deficit than ever before, and you'd think the Democrats would be licking their chops.

You'd think.  But the Democrats seem to be in disarray.   Many are more inclined to oppose John Roberts -- who really was an excellent choice by Bush, whether or not you agree with his judicial philosophy -- than to stand up against the war in Iraq and call for the US to end the fiasco.  If they are divided on the war, they are even more unclear about their priorities should they regain power.  Besides "repealing tax cuts for the rich," how would they stop the flood of government spending, deal with the current accounts deficit, rising interest rates, and fundamental economic challenges facing the country?  What is their vision?

Take the war.  While my view is very clear that we need to end this, you certainly can understand the argument that while going to war was a mistake, leaving now could make matters worse.  Their argument goes like this: Iraq was not a terrorist haven in 2003 due to Saddam's iron fist rule and his opposition to religious extremism.  Our invasion helped create a terrorist haven in Iraq which could be threatening.  We shouldn't have done that, but we did, and we can't leave until we make sure it doesn't remain a terrorist haven, a sort of "Afghanistan II."   Others, of course, buy into the "pottery barn" rule: you broke it, you own it.  Fine for store, but a pretty sillly rule of thumb in dealing with sovereign states.

I'll save for another post why that "Afghanistan II" argument is flawed, but the point is that the Democrats won't develop a common stance on the war, these divisions are simply too strong.  But they need to find a way to build on the public distrust of the Bush administration and his near record low poll numbers.  Domestically, they need a theme, a vision.  If I could make a suggestion (the label probably needs to be changed):  A Pact for Peace and Prosperity.   If you can't stress the means for ending American occupation of Iraq, at least emphasize the notion of peace -- the idea that most conflicts cannot be solved with military means, and the Bush administration's fiasco in Iraq proves that military power is of limited value, even in the war on terror.  Peace might require conflict at times, but the goal has to be limited to a definable target (e.g., the Taliban) with a specific plan, not some grandiose 'spread democracy' scheme based on uncertain intelligence.

The peace aspect will need to emphasize cooperation on mutual interests, coordination of intelligence, and a 'community of shared values' (the West and allies) to confront threats to those values.  We can achieve the goals of winning against terrorism without pushing the rest of the world away and embracing a militarist approach that clearly and undeniably has failed.

Prosperity will be more difficult.  The Democrats will have to craft a message of equal opportunity, with an emphasis on effective means to help people help themselves.  Social welfare programs will be targeted to creating opportunities rather than simply providing handouts, and every program potentially will be rethought.  To those who fear this as a kind of code of Blair (or Clinton) style neo-liberalism it will have to be clearly stated that the old methods didn't work.  And while the GOP wants to simply ditch all efforts and let the market settle things, the Democrats recognize that the market creates structural differences that government has a duty to remedy.  But the remedy so far has often been worse than the cure; the cure is to have opportunity for productive activity for all, and creating opportunity has to be the clear goal.  Importantly, the Democrats will have to risk support of interest groups that reject any change in order to embrace principle and appeal to the public at large. 

Right now there is, to borrow Jimmy Carter's phrase, a malaise in both parties, and in the American mood in general.  I don't think the party in power is in a position to offer a bold alternative.  Last time we had such a malaise, the Democrats held the Presidency and Congress, and Ronald Reagan brought a new vision to the GOP which, whether good or bad, was very effective in changing the country and bring the Republicans back from the Watergate mess.  Now the Democrats have a golden opportunity for a similar come back and rebirth.  Will they grab it?