I read a really sad article today in the Wall Street Journal (12/4/06, front page). Since I don't subscribe to the online version, and I doubt anyone who reads this does either (except maybe Old $), I won't bother trying to link to it. The main point of the article was that Paul Rusesabagina, the hero of Hotel Rwanda, is apparently no longer popular in Rwanda and it might even be dangerous for him to return. He has been making the most of his fame by doing public speaking tours and living comfortably here in the US. Before I continue though, I should add a disclaimer that we don't know for sure if what the article insinuates is actually true. The danger might be hyped and his unpopularity might be due to the appearance that he has ditched Rwanda for the US.
For now though I will take the article on face value, and the article says that Paul Rusesabagina is unpopular because he has made statements that are critical of the Tutsi-lead government in Rwanda. He has claimed that the government has only given Hutus token positions and has suppressed dissent. The later claim is believable considering a statement denouncing Rusesabagina from Rwanda's President. There also could be a rivalry since Rusesabagina has hinted at a desire to run for President.
But there are some larger issues that seem to be lurking behind the scenes. Whenever there is a genocide, we tend to want the victims to be completely innocent. In some cases they were (Jews during the Holocaust), but in others the ethnic groups were in open rebellion (the Kurds in Iraq and Muslims in Bosnia). This in no way excuses the genocides. But it does mean we need to be open to the fact that the once victims might one-day be oppressors (and might have been in the past as was the case with the Tutsis). We need to be as vigilant in condemning them as would be anyone else.
Unfortunately, the article also gives the appearance that civil war might descend on Rwanda again in the future. In many of the genocides, people who didn’t want to act dismissed the situations as generations-long civil wars that we cannot stop. Those favoring intervention will argue back that it is not a mere civil war, but an attempt from the top of one government to exterminate an ethnic / racial / religious group. The truth though tends to be that both sides are kind of right. No matter how much we wish that Tutsis and Hutus would learn the differences between them are largely false and created by their colonial power to create division, I have to accept that it will take time. Until then, further flair-ups are a possibility.
If Rwanda were to flair up again, it would probably make some people feel justified that we didn’t intervene. They would say that we will never be able to stop the fighting. While that may be true, the fact remains that we still need to intervene to stop genocidal governments, even if we decide not to intervene in civil wars (although I would prefer to intervene all the time if at all possible).
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Sweat Shops - Redux
I had an intense debate with The Beard a while ago about sweat shops. My basic position was that there was nothing we could do to improve the working conditions in manufacturing jobs in the developing world. The reason wages are so low and conditions so bad is because there is an oversupply of labor. My argument is that the economic circumstances will resist our efforts at reform. Our goal therefore should be to do as much as we can to build up their economies while will drive up wages and allow for improved conditions.
My underlying assumption though does cause me problems. I do feel strongly about poor labor conditions in the developing world, but I also feel like some efforts to intervene will be useless (or even counterproductive – meaning driving jobs away). I have a lot of difficulty reconciling these two points in my mind. I want to say that I see these same issues at play in other policies like fair trade coffee and domestic price supports for agriculture (which I oppose for different reasons).
The issue here is what do we do about a situation that we think we are powerless to change? My position of waiting for the economies to grow allows for the suffering of the workers to continue for the foreseeable future. The Beard on the other hand, even if he accepted that the economic principles at play impede progress, would likely still advocate for some reform rather than accepting the current situation.
As I consider myself a moral being, I should not be okay, accepting the workers’ fate, even as I realize that dangerous working conditions for low wages are everywhere in the developing world (notably in agriculture and mining).
I realize now that the Nicholas Kristof column that inspired our debate, and my post supporting that column, were both insensitive to the horrible working conditions of the workers. What I should have said is that we want to somehow force better conditions, without driving the labor away. The workers need the money, and the countries need that boost to the economy.
But I also want to distance myself from the well-meaning but poorly thought-out proposals, like the ones that make comparisons between wage increases and price increases of the final product. A proposal like this one ignores the fact that the downward pressure on wages isn’t coming from consumers always needing cheaper Banana Republic shirts, but instead from the over supply of labor in the developing world and the need for bigger profit margins by the companies to remain competitive.
The bottom line is that I should not tolerate terrible working conditions. But I think we need to be more creative and think of solutions that keep in mind the serious economic constraints we work under.
My underlying assumption though does cause me problems. I do feel strongly about poor labor conditions in the developing world, but I also feel like some efforts to intervene will be useless (or even counterproductive – meaning driving jobs away). I have a lot of difficulty reconciling these two points in my mind. I want to say that I see these same issues at play in other policies like fair trade coffee and domestic price supports for agriculture (which I oppose for different reasons).
The issue here is what do we do about a situation that we think we are powerless to change? My position of waiting for the economies to grow allows for the suffering of the workers to continue for the foreseeable future. The Beard on the other hand, even if he accepted that the economic principles at play impede progress, would likely still advocate for some reform rather than accepting the current situation.
As I consider myself a moral being, I should not be okay, accepting the workers’ fate, even as I realize that dangerous working conditions for low wages are everywhere in the developing world (notably in agriculture and mining).
I realize now that the Nicholas Kristof column that inspired our debate, and my post supporting that column, were both insensitive to the horrible working conditions of the workers. What I should have said is that we want to somehow force better conditions, without driving the labor away. The workers need the money, and the countries need that boost to the economy.
But I also want to distance myself from the well-meaning but poorly thought-out proposals, like the ones that make comparisons between wage increases and price increases of the final product. A proposal like this one ignores the fact that the downward pressure on wages isn’t coming from consumers always needing cheaper Banana Republic shirts, but instead from the over supply of labor in the developing world and the need for bigger profit margins by the companies to remain competitive.
The bottom line is that I should not tolerate terrible working conditions. But I think we need to be more creative and think of solutions that keep in mind the serious economic constraints we work under.
If it Moves, Tax it
I got another one of those emails that tries to show that government is too big through a few short and clever jokes. Although I did laugh at them because of the stereotype they are using, I do think that sometimes jokes like that allow people to oversimplify issues and prevent them from thinking through their beliefs.
The big government attacks from fiscal conservatives (besides being hypocritical) are more often aimed at a few specific programs. They aren’t talking about the military, police, or even prisons; instead they are talking more often about social programs like welfare, Medicare and Medicaid, and sometimes even education spending.
In my mind though, the size of the government isn’t the issue. What matters is whether or not we want to provide a basic level of support for every person in this country. I never really understand why this is so controversial. If we are to consider ourselves an advanced and humane society, we should be willing, first and foremost, to protect everyone in our society.
The most common response to this is that the government shouldn’t be the one to do this. I will never understand this argument because it rests on the assumption that private and non-profit groups will be able to provide all the resources necessary to care for those in need through the generous donations of private citizens. Somehow I find it hard to believe that the people who aren’t willing to share their money with the government for these purposes will have a change of heart and give what is required.
If everyone agreed that we do need to take care of everyone, the next step is to decide what a basic level of services should be. I feel that this is a productive argument. Is minimum wage enough to live off? When should health care benefits get cut off (right now, there is a disincentive to getting a job because if you are paid a certain amount, you no longer receive Medicaid). How much public assistance is enough to take care of a family? This is where the argument should be.
I have to say before I close that setting a time-limit on welfare is a strange concept to me. I don’t know what the research is yet, but I can’t see how we will stop giving people the money they need for food and shelter because they have been receiving money for more than five years. This was an experiment though that many people wanted to try, so I guess for this we will have to wait and see the effects.
The bottom line though is that I want to see that everyone in this country is taken care of. And towards that end, I don’t care how big or small the government is (which is obviously relative) as long as we can accomplish that much.
The big government attacks from fiscal conservatives (besides being hypocritical) are more often aimed at a few specific programs. They aren’t talking about the military, police, or even prisons; instead they are talking more often about social programs like welfare, Medicare and Medicaid, and sometimes even education spending.
In my mind though, the size of the government isn’t the issue. What matters is whether or not we want to provide a basic level of support for every person in this country. I never really understand why this is so controversial. If we are to consider ourselves an advanced and humane society, we should be willing, first and foremost, to protect everyone in our society.
The most common response to this is that the government shouldn’t be the one to do this. I will never understand this argument because it rests on the assumption that private and non-profit groups will be able to provide all the resources necessary to care for those in need through the generous donations of private citizens. Somehow I find it hard to believe that the people who aren’t willing to share their money with the government for these purposes will have a change of heart and give what is required.
If everyone agreed that we do need to take care of everyone, the next step is to decide what a basic level of services should be. I feel that this is a productive argument. Is minimum wage enough to live off? When should health care benefits get cut off (right now, there is a disincentive to getting a job because if you are paid a certain amount, you no longer receive Medicaid). How much public assistance is enough to take care of a family? This is where the argument should be.
I have to say before I close that setting a time-limit on welfare is a strange concept to me. I don’t know what the research is yet, but I can’t see how we will stop giving people the money they need for food and shelter because they have been receiving money for more than five years. This was an experiment though that many people wanted to try, so I guess for this we will have to wait and see the effects.
The bottom line though is that I want to see that everyone in this country is taken care of. And towards that end, I don’t care how big or small the government is (which is obviously relative) as long as we can accomplish that much.
Half-Way Through
I have had to stop in the middle of reading non-fiction books before. I didn’t make it straight through John Adams by David McCullough or His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph Ellis. But this time I am stopping for a different reason. It isn’t that I have temporarily lost interest in A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide like I did with the others. This time I have to stop because it is affecting my mood. I find that I can only read the book in small doses because of how enraged it makes me. So I will start again with Rwanda after a short break.
If there was only one thing that I could impart on people after reading through half of this book, it would the following: that there are many options of intervening to prevent genocides that are short of a full-scale ground invasion. Too often our leaders supported doing nothing simply because we were unwilling to perform the most drastic option of a full-scale invasion. During the Holocaust we could have bombed the train lines that were carrying prisoners to the concentration camps. In Iraq, we could have enforced a no-fly zone over the north to protect the Kurds, like we did after the Gulf War. In Rwanda, at the very least we could have jammed the radio signals that were issuing the killing orders. In Bosnia we could have ended the arms embargo against the Muslims in Bosnia and we could have launched air strikes against the encampments that were shelling Sarajevo. And in Darfur, we can also enforce a no-fly zone so that the Janjaweed cannot get air support from the Sudanese military.
But in all of the situations we could have at least spoken out against it, and done so without using confusing language that portrays the situation as a centuries-long civil war between groups that will never get along and trying to make both sides of the conflict equal partners in the atrocities. In all of these situations, we could have demonstrated leadership instead of refusing to act because there wasn’t already a pre-formed consensus to act.
If you are willing, there are other things that are important that I have learned from the book. To my extreme dismay, I found that there are very few lawmakers who are free of guilt in our inaction in the face of genocide. While I knew President Clinton ignored Rwanda, I didn’t realize he also refused to do anything significant in Bosnia. Also, I used to respect Colin Powell because I thought he was the only one in the Bush II administration that was advocating for intervention in Darfur. I based this on his insistence to use the word “Genocide”. I have to admit that I don’t know his actual position on Darfur now, but I do know that he advocated against intervention to protect the Kurds in Iraq before the Gulf War and also against intervening in Bosnia both during the Bush I and Clinton presidencies. I should admit though that I was pleasantly surprised by a number of politicians because of their forceful advocacy for intervention, including Senator Bob Dole.
What has made me particularly upset so far are the quotes from various administration officials in many different presidencies and how they talked around the truth in the same way that Bush II administration officials do over issues like Iraq. For example, Warren Christopher during a number of Congressional testimonies, referred to the situation in Bosnia as “tantamount to genocide.” It angers me so much to watch government officials try as hard as they can to avoid saying what is obvious because of what that entails.
Another thing I have learned is the importance of paying attention to early reports and projections of deaths even though they may lack the level of legitimacy that we seek in other circumstances. In most of these situations, people refused to act, or even pay attention, because they didn’t believe refugee reports or rough estimates of deaths. In retrospect, many of the stories out of Cambodia, Iraq and Bosnia gave a pretty accurate picture of the situation. I also have to recognize that while I tend to discount anecdotal evidence, I cannot let this influence me to ignore something like this in the future.
In the end, the only way this book will be useful is if it encourages action in the next genocide. Although forcing people to feel guilty for their lack of concern over the genocides, that feeling is meaningless if it doesn’t change behavior the next time around. But this is where the book has really changed my outlook and view of politics. I feel so much more cynical now because I get the feeling that we will never actually get involved unless it is in our interest. My resolve has doubled to pay attention to international events and speak out against tolerating these situations, but in the end I do feel like my efforts will be useless. When I tried to talk to my family about genocides, some of them said that we shouldn’t intervene and should take care of our own country first (for the record, two very smart women said we can do both). If I can’t convince my own family that 800,000 dead in Rwanda or two million in Cambodia is completely intolerable, than I am left with no hope that the rest of the world will ever come around.
It is time for another book so that I don’t completely lose faith in humanity and retreat into myself. For those of you who are tired of my moral crusades, rest assured that you will get a brief reprieve.
If there was only one thing that I could impart on people after reading through half of this book, it would the following: that there are many options of intervening to prevent genocides that are short of a full-scale ground invasion. Too often our leaders supported doing nothing simply because we were unwilling to perform the most drastic option of a full-scale invasion. During the Holocaust we could have bombed the train lines that were carrying prisoners to the concentration camps. In Iraq, we could have enforced a no-fly zone over the north to protect the Kurds, like we did after the Gulf War. In Rwanda, at the very least we could have jammed the radio signals that were issuing the killing orders. In Bosnia we could have ended the arms embargo against the Muslims in Bosnia and we could have launched air strikes against the encampments that were shelling Sarajevo. And in Darfur, we can also enforce a no-fly zone so that the Janjaweed cannot get air support from the Sudanese military.
But in all of the situations we could have at least spoken out against it, and done so without using confusing language that portrays the situation as a centuries-long civil war between groups that will never get along and trying to make both sides of the conflict equal partners in the atrocities. In all of these situations, we could have demonstrated leadership instead of refusing to act because there wasn’t already a pre-formed consensus to act.
If you are willing, there are other things that are important that I have learned from the book. To my extreme dismay, I found that there are very few lawmakers who are free of guilt in our inaction in the face of genocide. While I knew President Clinton ignored Rwanda, I didn’t realize he also refused to do anything significant in Bosnia. Also, I used to respect Colin Powell because I thought he was the only one in the Bush II administration that was advocating for intervention in Darfur. I based this on his insistence to use the word “Genocide”. I have to admit that I don’t know his actual position on Darfur now, but I do know that he advocated against intervention to protect the Kurds in Iraq before the Gulf War and also against intervening in Bosnia both during the Bush I and Clinton presidencies. I should admit though that I was pleasantly surprised by a number of politicians because of their forceful advocacy for intervention, including Senator Bob Dole.
What has made me particularly upset so far are the quotes from various administration officials in many different presidencies and how they talked around the truth in the same way that Bush II administration officials do over issues like Iraq. For example, Warren Christopher during a number of Congressional testimonies, referred to the situation in Bosnia as “tantamount to genocide.” It angers me so much to watch government officials try as hard as they can to avoid saying what is obvious because of what that entails.
Another thing I have learned is the importance of paying attention to early reports and projections of deaths even though they may lack the level of legitimacy that we seek in other circumstances. In most of these situations, people refused to act, or even pay attention, because they didn’t believe refugee reports or rough estimates of deaths. In retrospect, many of the stories out of Cambodia, Iraq and Bosnia gave a pretty accurate picture of the situation. I also have to recognize that while I tend to discount anecdotal evidence, I cannot let this influence me to ignore something like this in the future.
In the end, the only way this book will be useful is if it encourages action in the next genocide. Although forcing people to feel guilty for their lack of concern over the genocides, that feeling is meaningless if it doesn’t change behavior the next time around. But this is where the book has really changed my outlook and view of politics. I feel so much more cynical now because I get the feeling that we will never actually get involved unless it is in our interest. My resolve has doubled to pay attention to international events and speak out against tolerating these situations, but in the end I do feel like my efforts will be useless. When I tried to talk to my family about genocides, some of them said that we shouldn’t intervene and should take care of our own country first (for the record, two very smart women said we can do both). If I can’t convince my own family that 800,000 dead in Rwanda or two million in Cambodia is completely intolerable, than I am left with no hope that the rest of the world will ever come around.
It is time for another book so that I don’t completely lose faith in humanity and retreat into myself. For those of you who are tired of my moral crusades, rest assured that you will get a brief reprieve.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Deal with the Devil?
This is an interesting story from Afghanistan. I will be very interested to see if this deal with Taliban works out. The fact that the area is peaceful now allows me some optimism, but I doubt that anything will keep the Taliban from sometime soon fighting for power again.
Kristof and Iraq: A Follow-Up
Nicholas Kristof wrote a really good follow-up post to his column about coverage of the Iraq War (yes, Kirstof has a blog). That column has forced me to do a lot of thinking about how I interpreted news from Iraq after the invasion.
My original position was that reporters tend to report more about violence than they do stability and that this gives an overly negative view of the war. Kristof does recognize this, but here is what he says:
Note: I replied to a comment on Kristof's post. I couldn't resist.
My original position was that reporters tend to report more about violence than they do stability and that this gives an overly negative view of the war. Kristof does recognize this, but here is what he says:
But that said, the basic narrative from reporters in Iraq in the last few years has been that security and sectarian violence is worsening, while the basic narrative from the administration has been that things are getter steadily better and that the reporters are exaggerating. To me, it sure looks as if the reporters got it right.At the time I didn't trust that reporters were being unbiased. What I realize now is that maybe I should have had a little more faith that those covering the situation in Iraq would have reported that there was stability had it existed. Good journalists want to report accurately about the overall situation they are reporting on, and if they are talking about increased violence, I should probably be quicker to believe it.
Note: I replied to a comment on Kristof's post. I couldn't resist.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Have I Ever Been too Pessimistic?
In case you couldn’t tell, I have been thinking about Iraq a lot lately. I am having a lot of trouble reconciling my feelings and how they fit in with any policies I would want to propose. What I think it boils down to is when should we finally give up.
I don’t want to give up on Iraq, but I am finding it harder and harder these days to maintain any hope that there can be a decent outcome. We have done such a bad job at managing the war that it almost feels like there is nothing we can really do now to make up for it. My problem though lies in the guilt I feel. Since we have messed up so badly, I can’t feel comfortable leaving if the country is in shambles. At the same time though, history can clearly show us what happens when we think we can change something we cannot.
I have long disagreed with the comparisons to Vietnam simply because I thought they were more different than they were the same (for an interesting comparison of Iraq and Vietnam, read this NY Times opinion piece). In Vietnam we were fighting against determined nationalist forces. In Iraq we are standing between warring factions – the majority Shiites that realize their strength, the Sunnis who used to be in power and now see a situation where they get left out of sharing oil revenues, and Kurds who are looking for as much autonomy as possible. The better comparison in my mind is to Lebanon. But that comparison doesn’t project a better outcome.
I feel paralyzed because I cannot predict with any certainty what will happen to Iraq if we stay versus if we leave. I have to believe that things will be at least a little better if we stay, but that isn’t always the case. Many analysts predicted Vietnam would fall apart if we left, and it didn’t (Cambodia was a different story). But again, I don’t see this taking shape like Vietnam did. Lebanon was a disaster until the early 1990s. After Reagan pulled the Marines out, we basically let the country sort it out on their own. The peace there is a little tenuous, but it is far better than it was during the civil war. We can’t as easily leave and allow Iraq to go through ten years or so of civil war. We cannot turn our back on them like we did Lebanon because we created this situation.
In the end, I come back to the same conclusion that we need to stay. But at the same time, I don’t see an end to it. My bet is that we will stay a while longer, but end up pulling out in a year or two. But I get depressed thinking about how bad the country might be then and how much worse it will be after we are gone.
What makes me feel even worse is that there is talk of looking to Iran and Syria to help us out. While I don’t think ignoring them is productive, both countries have a history of manipulating weak countries for their own benefit. In Lebanon they have a common goal. But in Iraq, they are working on different sides. Each of the countries in the region have, “a dog in the fight,” but each supports different dogs. I cannot imagine that any country will be willing to do anything but look out for their own interests, no matter what we offer in return.
Basically, when I look into the future regarding Iraq, all I see is uncontrollable bloodshed with almost no reasonable options to stop it. My hope is that I am wrong, but I have lost almost all reasons to be optimistic. I wonder if those who were actually responsible for decision-making feel as guilty as I do.
I don’t want to give up on Iraq, but I am finding it harder and harder these days to maintain any hope that there can be a decent outcome. We have done such a bad job at managing the war that it almost feels like there is nothing we can really do now to make up for it. My problem though lies in the guilt I feel. Since we have messed up so badly, I can’t feel comfortable leaving if the country is in shambles. At the same time though, history can clearly show us what happens when we think we can change something we cannot.
I have long disagreed with the comparisons to Vietnam simply because I thought they were more different than they were the same (for an interesting comparison of Iraq and Vietnam, read this NY Times opinion piece). In Vietnam we were fighting against determined nationalist forces. In Iraq we are standing between warring factions – the majority Shiites that realize their strength, the Sunnis who used to be in power and now see a situation where they get left out of sharing oil revenues, and Kurds who are looking for as much autonomy as possible. The better comparison in my mind is to Lebanon. But that comparison doesn’t project a better outcome.
I feel paralyzed because I cannot predict with any certainty what will happen to Iraq if we stay versus if we leave. I have to believe that things will be at least a little better if we stay, but that isn’t always the case. Many analysts predicted Vietnam would fall apart if we left, and it didn’t (Cambodia was a different story). But again, I don’t see this taking shape like Vietnam did. Lebanon was a disaster until the early 1990s. After Reagan pulled the Marines out, we basically let the country sort it out on their own. The peace there is a little tenuous, but it is far better than it was during the civil war. We can’t as easily leave and allow Iraq to go through ten years or so of civil war. We cannot turn our back on them like we did Lebanon because we created this situation.
In the end, I come back to the same conclusion that we need to stay. But at the same time, I don’t see an end to it. My bet is that we will stay a while longer, but end up pulling out in a year or two. But I get depressed thinking about how bad the country might be then and how much worse it will be after we are gone.
What makes me feel even worse is that there is talk of looking to Iran and Syria to help us out. While I don’t think ignoring them is productive, both countries have a history of manipulating weak countries for their own benefit. In Lebanon they have a common goal. But in Iraq, they are working on different sides. Each of the countries in the region have, “a dog in the fight,” but each supports different dogs. I cannot imagine that any country will be willing to do anything but look out for their own interests, no matter what we offer in return.
Basically, when I look into the future regarding Iraq, all I see is uncontrollable bloodshed with almost no reasonable options to stop it. My hope is that I am wrong, but I have lost almost all reasons to be optimistic. I wonder if those who were actually responsible for decision-making feel as guilty as I do.
Enlightenment?
This opinion contribution has some really good commentary on the secularist / modern enlightenment zealots and their war against religion. I may not be a member of the religious right, but I have no patience for the books out there now that are desperately trying to show the world that people who have faith in something other than science are delusional.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
It's Not Your Fault
I never expected that Democrats would be doing this, but I guess I should have. Although blaming Iraqis for the state of the country isn’t the right thing to do, it is the politically expedient thing to do. If it is the fault of the Iraqis that the country is falling into a civil war, then Democrats should feel no guilt in pulling American troops out of the country. After all, despite the fact that many Democrat Senators and Congressmen voted in favor of the war, most claim that they didn’t really support it.
The facts are simple though, if you care to look. The administration has made a number of fatal flaws following the invasion that made a successful outcome almost impossible. To name a few; they came in with too few troops, showed contempt for the countries that wouldn’t invade with us which prevented them from wanting to help later on, disbanded the Iraqi army, did nothing to stop the looting or early insurgency, and did not seal the border to prevent foreign fighters. From day one, we did not create a stable situation in Iraq. Sunni insurgents killed Americans and Iraqis alike, and Shiites finally stopped being patient and decided to fight back. I don’t support that decision, but I am not sure that I blame them for it.
The fact is that we are at fault for the crisis in the country. Although I understand that the parliament cannot agree on anything and is largely ineffective, that isn’t why there is a problem. The problem is that violence was never controlled and people got tired of waiting for that to happen.
Here is the bottom line – blaming the Iraqis requires the assumption that they have, or at one point had, the capacity to stop the violence. The problem is that this assumption is very obviously wrong. We were the only ones that could have stopped the violence and improved the lives of Iraqis. But we failed miserably at that and therefore we should feel guilty. Our incompetence has ruined that country. Therefore, we should feel compelled to stay as long as we can to keep the violence as low as we can. If we choose to leave, we need to do some serious self-reflection and take credit for what we have done. Unfortunately, this is something politicians are usually incapable of.
The facts are simple though, if you care to look. The administration has made a number of fatal flaws following the invasion that made a successful outcome almost impossible. To name a few; they came in with too few troops, showed contempt for the countries that wouldn’t invade with us which prevented them from wanting to help later on, disbanded the Iraqi army, did nothing to stop the looting or early insurgency, and did not seal the border to prevent foreign fighters. From day one, we did not create a stable situation in Iraq. Sunni insurgents killed Americans and Iraqis alike, and Shiites finally stopped being patient and decided to fight back. I don’t support that decision, but I am not sure that I blame them for it.
The fact is that we are at fault for the crisis in the country. Although I understand that the parliament cannot agree on anything and is largely ineffective, that isn’t why there is a problem. The problem is that violence was never controlled and people got tired of waiting for that to happen.
Here is the bottom line – blaming the Iraqis requires the assumption that they have, or at one point had, the capacity to stop the violence. The problem is that this assumption is very obviously wrong. We were the only ones that could have stopped the violence and improved the lives of Iraqis. But we failed miserably at that and therefore we should feel guilty. Our incompetence has ruined that country. Therefore, we should feel compelled to stay as long as we can to keep the violence as low as we can. If we choose to leave, we need to do some serious self-reflection and take credit for what we have done. Unfortunately, this is something politicians are usually incapable of.
Personality Matters
Until very recently I thought it was ridiculous that so many conservatives hate Hillary Clinton. I thought that if they were rational, they would easily see that she is far more moderate and would be far less dangerous to conservatism than someone like John Kerry, Barak Obama or someone in the mold of Howard Dean. I don’t know why it took me this long, but it finally dawned on me that personality should be important when making political decisions. This is something I recognized when it is in the affirmative, for example when looking at someone like John McCain or Barak Obama. But I never gave it enough credit when it was in the negative. If I am willing to vote for either McCain or Obama, neither of whom are exactly where I am on the political spectrum, then it is perfectly understandable for someone to oppose Hillary.
This doesn’t mean that I oppose Hillary. I think she would make a good president and depending on who she is running against, I would probably vote for her. But I do understand now that some people just don’t think she is a good person.
This doesn’t mean that I oppose Hillary. I think she would make a good president and depending on who she is running against, I would probably vote for her. But I do understand now that some people just don’t think she is a good person.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
United Nations: What is it Good For?
Someone told me this weekend that they thought the United Nations is worthless and ineffective. I don’t necessarily disagree, but it made me wonder if he, or even if I, know what we want the United Nations to do. Like any legislative body, it is extremely slow to act and its members often make decisions in their own interests and not necessarily based on morality. But if there was some consensus on what we do want it to do, we could move it in a better direction and help it to become more effective. I think the biggest thing hindering the UN right now is that we don’t know what we really want from it.
Based on what I know, the UN most often defers to a state’s sovereignty. The internal affairs of a state are its own business. This might have been a good policy immediately following World War II (although even that is debatable), but it doesn’t fit now. In my opinion, the biggest problem facing our world is the treatment of groups within states. Genocide continues to be a problem that is ignored despite the commitment of states to take reasonable measures to stop it. There are also far too many people displaced from wars or famine, with governments that are incapable or unwilling to support them. In those situations, we need an international body that is willing to act to protect and defend these people.
The reality is that this change will not happen overnight. It is too easy for member states to turn away from these terrible situations and pretend that they are incapable of doing anything about it. As I read A Problem From Hell, I get depressed at how the world continues to fail in its moral obligation to protect those who cannot protect themselves. We are great at showing regret long after the fact, but we never learn the lesson that true self-reflection leads to. The famous saying is, “Never again, again and again.”
We didn’t learn enough from the Holocaust to stop Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosivic, the Hutu’s in Rwanda or even the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed. We have never learned the lesson, and so our regret comes off as extremely hypocritical.
But I don’t want to focus entirely on genocide. Millions die or are displaced from civil wars every year. We should care about this. War torn regions in Africa or Southeast Asia should not be ignored because they are hard problems. President Kennedy once said, “We choose to do this and the other thing, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”
I have been told during my rants that my position will never get me elected. Let me make something clear. My goal is not to get elected, but to change people’s minds. I want to make people think about their beliefs and understand the moral consequences of their positions. When we ignore major international problems, hundreds of thousands of people die. This should be just as enraging when it is Africans as it would be if it were Americans.
I did start this blog hoping there would be dialogue and debate. I want to know what other people think the United Nation’s role should be. I am calling for an end to what is now complete respect for state sovereignty. To me, this seems like an obvious solution to what ails the UN. To the others who think the UN isn’t useful, feel free to tell me what it should be doing.
Based on what I know, the UN most often defers to a state’s sovereignty. The internal affairs of a state are its own business. This might have been a good policy immediately following World War II (although even that is debatable), but it doesn’t fit now. In my opinion, the biggest problem facing our world is the treatment of groups within states. Genocide continues to be a problem that is ignored despite the commitment of states to take reasonable measures to stop it. There are also far too many people displaced from wars or famine, with governments that are incapable or unwilling to support them. In those situations, we need an international body that is willing to act to protect and defend these people.
The reality is that this change will not happen overnight. It is too easy for member states to turn away from these terrible situations and pretend that they are incapable of doing anything about it. As I read A Problem From Hell, I get depressed at how the world continues to fail in its moral obligation to protect those who cannot protect themselves. We are great at showing regret long after the fact, but we never learn the lesson that true self-reflection leads to. The famous saying is, “Never again, again and again.”
We didn’t learn enough from the Holocaust to stop Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosivic, the Hutu’s in Rwanda or even the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed. We have never learned the lesson, and so our regret comes off as extremely hypocritical.
But I don’t want to focus entirely on genocide. Millions die or are displaced from civil wars every year. We should care about this. War torn regions in Africa or Southeast Asia should not be ignored because they are hard problems. President Kennedy once said, “We choose to do this and the other thing, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”
I have been told during my rants that my position will never get me elected. Let me make something clear. My goal is not to get elected, but to change people’s minds. I want to make people think about their beliefs and understand the moral consequences of their positions. When we ignore major international problems, hundreds of thousands of people die. This should be just as enraging when it is Africans as it would be if it were Americans.
I did start this blog hoping there would be dialogue and debate. I want to know what other people think the United Nation’s role should be. I am calling for an end to what is now complete respect for state sovereignty. To me, this seems like an obvious solution to what ails the UN. To the others who think the UN isn’t useful, feel free to tell me what it should be doing.
Monday, November 27, 2006
For Macie and LEM
Kristof has done it again ($). This time though, it isn’t about genocide. His column is about early reporting of the Iraq War that described the violence and the potential for Civil War. I must be honest that I was also one of the people that ignored the early reports of escalating violence. I was desperate for Iraq to succeed because I wanted to see a relatively stable democracy develop in the Middle East. I hated the argument that Iraq was incapable of being a democracy and thought success here would prove that it could exist anywhere.
I need to give some credit where it is due, mostly to my friends that had said for a long time that this war was a mistake and that this would happen (Macie and LEM to name two). As soon as reports came out that Iraq was wrapped in violence, they brought this to my attention. And when they did, I told them they were ignoring the good reports and I said that things would settle down.
While I do admit that I was hesitant to hear the bad news even as it got worse, I still maintain that there were points when good management of the war could have made this more successful. I think if there had been more troops and we were able to maintain stability early on, we might have avoided the civil war that appears imminent. I must also recognize that part of the reason I cling to that belief is that I am an optimist, and I don’t want to admit that democracies cannot be helped along by foreign involvement. I believe that everyone wants some level of freedom and no one really wants (or needs) an oppressive regime like Saddam’s.
With that said, we do need to learn something from this example. Creating a new democracy is obviously a difficult mission and can end up with us leaving the country worse that when we found it. We must be prepared to use significant troop presence over long periods of time if we are to be successful. Since we are probably not prepared to do this, we should avoid nation-building scenerios like this one in the future.
What I am afraid of though is that this (similar to Mogadishu) becomes proof of why we should not ever get involved in other country’s affairs. Iraq was clearly a mistake, but there are other situations that could use international intervention and will not require long term troop commitment (Darfur, Somalia, Lebanon / Palestine). The Middle East (and Africa) has a violent past and present, but there is good we can do to protect defenseless victims and help the region move forward.
I need to give some credit where it is due, mostly to my friends that had said for a long time that this war was a mistake and that this would happen (Macie and LEM to name two). As soon as reports came out that Iraq was wrapped in violence, they brought this to my attention. And when they did, I told them they were ignoring the good reports and I said that things would settle down.
While I do admit that I was hesitant to hear the bad news even as it got worse, I still maintain that there were points when good management of the war could have made this more successful. I think if there had been more troops and we were able to maintain stability early on, we might have avoided the civil war that appears imminent. I must also recognize that part of the reason I cling to that belief is that I am an optimist, and I don’t want to admit that democracies cannot be helped along by foreign involvement. I believe that everyone wants some level of freedom and no one really wants (or needs) an oppressive regime like Saddam’s.
With that said, we do need to learn something from this example. Creating a new democracy is obviously a difficult mission and can end up with us leaving the country worse that when we found it. We must be prepared to use significant troop presence over long periods of time if we are to be successful. Since we are probably not prepared to do this, we should avoid nation-building scenerios like this one in the future.
What I am afraid of though is that this (similar to Mogadishu) becomes proof of why we should not ever get involved in other country’s affairs. Iraq was clearly a mistake, but there are other situations that could use international intervention and will not require long term troop commitment (Darfur, Somalia, Lebanon / Palestine). The Middle East (and Africa) has a violent past and present, but there is good we can do to protect defenseless victims and help the region move forward.
Genocide - Always so Controversial
There have been some interesting, although heated, debates recently about America’s role in stopping genocide. In a column from last week ($), Nicholas Kristof took a reader to task for suggesting that we should deal with domestic problems before fixing problems around the world. Since then, I have had similar arguments with family. The view expressed by the reader is not uncommon.
If someone says that they don’t get involved in that debate because they choose other issues that are more important to them, I can’t really find fault with that. There are so many problems in this world that choosing to fight any of them is worthwhile and noble. We all have to follow our passion.
What I do find fault with though is a similar argument that says we shouldn’t do anything about genocide because we haven’t fixed our own problems. Those two arguments may sound similar, but to me the difference is that the one I just mentioned dismisses any effort to stop genocide, whereas the first one only says that the particular person is more invested in other issues while not disinvested in genocide.
The reason I find the latter argument problematic is because its foundation rests on putting certain human lives above others simply based on nationality – an somewhat arbitrary division. I realize that we cannot intervene right now to prevent every loss of life or stop every repressive government. We have to draw lines somewhere. I happen to think that one of the first places to draw a line is when someone tries to eliminate, “either in whole or in part, a group based on their race, religion, or nationality.” I find the Holocaust appalling for the same reason that I find Pol Pot’s genocide appalling. It has nothing to do with the race of the victim, but that the victims were attacked en masse because of their race (or ethnicity or nationality).
One of the first things people attack when you talk about genocide is the fact that the UN resolution doesn’t include political groups. This part is debatable, but I can see why it exists. It isn’t because anyone tolerates persecution of political dissidents, but is instead based on a belief that there is something inherently destructive to the fabric of humanity when a culture is eliminated. Since some people might not agree that political mass murders should be excluded, I would accept as a compromise that groups should be forced to intervene when there is mass murder of political groups as well.
What usually happens with this argument though is that they think genocide is a bogus term if it doesn’t include political mass murder. Therefore, somehow it becomes acceptable to ignore mass murder based on race, simply because the genocide convention does not include politics.
The bottom line here is that I don’t see any moral difference between killing Rwandan Tutsis, European Jews, non-Muslim Sudanese, or Americans. The difference to me exists in the numbers that are murdered, the motivation behind the murder, and our ability to stop the murders. I am happy, but not satisfied with, condemnation of genocide. Looking back at our history, even that was too much to expect. I look forward to the day when everyone can feel anguished when they become aware of mass murder, and not be able to dismiss it because the victims are not American.
If someone says that they don’t get involved in that debate because they choose other issues that are more important to them, I can’t really find fault with that. There are so many problems in this world that choosing to fight any of them is worthwhile and noble. We all have to follow our passion.
What I do find fault with though is a similar argument that says we shouldn’t do anything about genocide because we haven’t fixed our own problems. Those two arguments may sound similar, but to me the difference is that the one I just mentioned dismisses any effort to stop genocide, whereas the first one only says that the particular person is more invested in other issues while not disinvested in genocide.
The reason I find the latter argument problematic is because its foundation rests on putting certain human lives above others simply based on nationality – an somewhat arbitrary division. I realize that we cannot intervene right now to prevent every loss of life or stop every repressive government. We have to draw lines somewhere. I happen to think that one of the first places to draw a line is when someone tries to eliminate, “either in whole or in part, a group based on their race, religion, or nationality.” I find the Holocaust appalling for the same reason that I find Pol Pot’s genocide appalling. It has nothing to do with the race of the victim, but that the victims were attacked en masse because of their race (or ethnicity or nationality).
One of the first things people attack when you talk about genocide is the fact that the UN resolution doesn’t include political groups. This part is debatable, but I can see why it exists. It isn’t because anyone tolerates persecution of political dissidents, but is instead based on a belief that there is something inherently destructive to the fabric of humanity when a culture is eliminated. Since some people might not agree that political mass murders should be excluded, I would accept as a compromise that groups should be forced to intervene when there is mass murder of political groups as well.
What usually happens with this argument though is that they think genocide is a bogus term if it doesn’t include political mass murder. Therefore, somehow it becomes acceptable to ignore mass murder based on race, simply because the genocide convention does not include politics.
The bottom line here is that I don’t see any moral difference between killing Rwandan Tutsis, European Jews, non-Muslim Sudanese, or Americans. The difference to me exists in the numbers that are murdered, the motivation behind the murder, and our ability to stop the murders. I am happy, but not satisfied with, condemnation of genocide. Looking back at our history, even that was too much to expect. I look forward to the day when everyone can feel anguished when they become aware of mass murder, and not be able to dismiss it because the victims are not American.
The Year Has Arrived
The funny thing about Ken Rosenthal’s column is that I don’t disagree with his position. I am so angry with McGwire, my boyhood hero, that I don’t know that I want him to get into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot. My problem though is with all of the sanctimonious sports writers. They write like they had no idea that they were part of the steroids era, and now pretend like it is over because of some weak testing.
The fact is that I don’t think any of the baseball writers are objective. They beat up Barry Bonds (who deserves it) but as far as I can tell have given Sheffield and others a free ride. Writers bow down to Pujols, refusing to speculate on whether he uses performance enhancing drugs. Far from the investigative journalists that have infested politics, baseball writers only attack people where there is overwhelming evidence, and turn a blind eye to everyone else.
If I want to be fair though, I have to include myself in with my diatribe against sports writers. I was one of the many people who roared with indignation anytime people suggested McGwire was on steroids. I should have known the truth, and so my disgust is somewhat hypocritical. Ken Rosenthal and others have a hard choice to make, but I would find their columns much less ridiculous if they both took responsibility for their role and ignorance, while changing their behavior as we continue to exist in the steroids era.
The fact is that I don’t think any of the baseball writers are objective. They beat up Barry Bonds (who deserves it) but as far as I can tell have given Sheffield and others a free ride. Writers bow down to Pujols, refusing to speculate on whether he uses performance enhancing drugs. Far from the investigative journalists that have infested politics, baseball writers only attack people where there is overwhelming evidence, and turn a blind eye to everyone else.
If I want to be fair though, I have to include myself in with my diatribe against sports writers. I was one of the many people who roared with indignation anytime people suggested McGwire was on steroids. I should have known the truth, and so my disgust is somewhat hypocritical. Ken Rosenthal and others have a hard choice to make, but I would find their columns much less ridiculous if they both took responsibility for their role and ignorance, while changing their behavior as we continue to exist in the steroids era.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Politics of the New Majority
There are two news stories that have begun to errode the excitement I had over the new Democratic majority. First, Pelosi might try again to put someone more favorable in a strong position. If this fails, I think it might be time to find a new Speaker of the House.
Also, it looks like Obama has finally let me down. And I thought it wasn't going to happen until his 2008 run for the Democratic nomination. Anyone who looks at the situation in Iraq has to see that pulling out American troops will lead to civil war. So why is he calling for troop withdrawals? He is relying on a common Democratic misconception that Iraq has the capacity to defend itself, they just aren't utilizing it right now (note: I borrowed this wording from an article I read - I can't find the link though). I admit that he seems genuine and speaks the truth. But if he can't see what will happen to Iraq, than I seriously doubt his abilities to correctly analyze a situation.
In good news though, I do like how the Demcocrats plan to deal with ethics reform: lots of individual bills, which hopefully means lots of votes. The flip side is that it might also mean very little (if any) change. We'll see.
Also, it looks like Obama has finally let me down. And I thought it wasn't going to happen until his 2008 run for the Democratic nomination. Anyone who looks at the situation in Iraq has to see that pulling out American troops will lead to civil war. So why is he calling for troop withdrawals? He is relying on a common Democratic misconception that Iraq has the capacity to defend itself, they just aren't utilizing it right now (note: I borrowed this wording from an article I read - I can't find the link though). I admit that he seems genuine and speaks the truth. But if he can't see what will happen to Iraq, than I seriously doubt his abilities to correctly analyze a situation.
In good news though, I do like how the Demcocrats plan to deal with ethics reform: lots of individual bills, which hopefully means lots of votes. The flip side is that it might also mean very little (if any) change. We'll see.
More on the Cluster Bombs
I posted about this earlier, and I am relieved to see that it isn't going to be completely ignored:
The chief of staff of the Israeli military, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, ordered an inquiry today to determine whether the military followed his orders in its use of large numbers of cluster bombs in Lebanon during the month-long war with Hezbollah there over the summer.It is interesting that we had a secret deal with Israel about their use. Apparently our criticism is secret also.
Several human rights groups have criticized Israel’s use of cluster bombs in the fighting, saying they were dropped in or near populated areas.
Cluster bombs are not prohibited in warfare, but much controversy surrounds them. The munitions spray out many small bomblets that explode over a wide area and may strike unintended targets. In addition, some of the bomblets do not explode when they first hit the ground, and effectively become land mines that can be unwittingly detonated by civilians long after the fighting has stopped.
[Edit]
Israel has received cluster munitions from the United States for many years, and also makes its own. The New York Times reported in August that the State Department was investigating whether Israel used cluster bombs in Lebanon in violation of secret agreements with Washington that restrict their use.
Tazer at UCLA
If you haven't seen the video of the student being tazered on YouTube, here it is. There isn't a lot to see actually, but you still get the idea that the police abused their authority. Tazers should be used only against people who are out of control and represent a risk to the safety of cops or bystanders. This clearly was neither. From what the LA Times is reporting, the police officer that discharged the tazer has some very contraversial incidents in his past.
Autism
From the NYTimes:
The research emphasis of the act is appropriate, given how little is still known about the causes and the physiology of autism spectrum disorders, as well as the means by which medical treatments can reduce autism’s severity if applied early enough. Basic questions like whether the frequency of childhood vaccines today contributes to autism are still unresolved.This Opinion piece explains briefly how expensive quality intervention can be (more than $50,000 a year for preschool children), but also how the chances for improvement are increased dramatically with it.
As parents of a child facing these challenges, we applaud those lawmakers and fellow parents who have done so much to promote this and other initiatives. But research is not enough. We as a nation must also begin to focus seriously on treating those children who are already afflicted. At present, we are failing miserably to do so.
Studies now show that 40 percent to 50 percent of toddlers undergoing intensive Applied Behavior Analysis, one of the best-known methods, can be mainstreamed in regular classrooms without personal aides by the time they reach school age. (The figure is close to zero for children not given special care.) Most of the other 50 percent to 60 percent make notable progress too.What makes this even more of a no-brainer is that it isn't just the humane thing to do, it also seems to be the efficient thing to do. By investing money up front to help improve the lives of these children, you decrease the long term costs associated with their care for the rest of their life. The authors are right, more funding for research is good, but not enough. Here are our options:
Our options range from mandating that insurance companies cover therapies documented to work, to trumpeting the example of places that do provide coverage in the hope others will follow, to expanding autism Medicaid waivers.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Trade Deficit
In case you wanted an objective analysis of the trade deficit and how we need to respond to it, the NYTimes has it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)