Events in Iraq are coming to a head. The vote on the constitution next month will have consequences for our involvement there that may well determine its outcome.
Unfortunately, the agreement to place this text before the voters was made over the opposition of the Sunni negotiators. The Iraqis did us no favors. No side placed the interests of a new Iraq before the interests of their own faction. The killer issue appears to have been federalism. This issue gained its constitution-killing importance only in August, not long before the deadline for an agreement on a draft, when Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, one of several important Shiite leaders, said "Regarding federalism, we think that it is necessary to form one entire region in the south." Others agreed. The right to do this and its expression in the draft constitution soon became a non-negotiable demand. It left the Sunnis aghast, fearful that the Kurds and Shiites would leave them with only a poor, rump state, the runt of the litter. Agreement was reached, in rough agreement with an arbitrary American deadline. The Shiites were left out.
If the Sunni body politic is truly opposed to this text, with federalism embedded, the best outcome will be for the Shiites to decisively reject the constitution. Such a rejection must be honored: a new legislature would have to be elected; a new constitution would have to be written and approved according to the fundamental law under which Iraq operates.
If all that happened, the Sunnis would know that their vote--their presence in the political process--counts, despite their minority status. It would show that they can affect what happens to them in the new Iraq. That should weaken the influence of Zarqawi and his Iraqi colleagues.
As desirable as this may be, if the Sunnis reject the constitution, Iraq could disintegrate. Easily. Would the Kurds sit still for another election merely to satisfy the Sunnis? Would the Shiites do the same? Would there be enough goodwill on both sides to find the compromises needed make a new draft possible? And then to both have it approved and elect a new government to be governed by it?
Whatever happens, we are entering a field of many hazards. As the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, told the U.S. press, centrifugal forces are threatening to fling Iraqis apart. Their neighbors will be pulled into the conflict as a result. They can already be seen to be watchful, standing ready to intervene if they sense the need. Iran may already be exercising influence among the Shiites covertly. The Turks have long been wary of an independent Kurdish polity. The Saudis look at the mess in Iraq with grave concern. Both Syria and Jordan also have both the means to influence the conflict and interests, vital because of their proximity, at stake there. Chaos in Iraq can easily lead to chaos in the region.
That leaves the United States to tame a dangerous, unpredictable Iraqi Cerberus, a labor that will take more skill than strength. It will take an understanding of the people and forces at play greater than we have shown in most of our time there. Because of our errors and the nature of the Iraqis, the outcome may be in our hands, but just barely. As they say in Monte Carlo: "Les jeux sont faits!"
26 September 2005
24 September 2005
Seeing Us Through Enemy Eyes
Yesterday President Bush, at the Pentagon, made another speech about Iraq. This was a minor speech. Little of it, if any of it, was new. He has said little new about it for months. In fact, until he announces some change in course, events on the ground--military and political--will have more influence on the American public than any speech of our highest government official.
There is much more to be said about that, later. For now, one passage in his speech caught my ear:
He has said this many times. But this argument of the president is not just posturing. He is serious about it, and the argument is worthy of our attention. The insurgents in Iraq, the terrorists everywhere, look at the history of American involvement in the Muslin world and see us withdrawing when things get difficult. In Lebanon, the Marine Barracks was bombed and President Reagan withdrew (this is not characteristic of Democrats alone). In Somalia, our soldiers were beaten by a mob and we withdrew. Those are just two examples, but they are recent, prominent, important. And now, the rising toll in Iraq has us rethinking our involvement. Indeed, 100,000 or more people have gathered on the Mall today to protest our presence in Iraq. We are not now, and have rarely been, a power geared to the long term.
In fact, our military is set up to accomplish its goals quickly and as painlessly as possible. It is a central element in the American way of war and something our president has to consider as he charts our course in Iraq.
The point here is that our enemies consider it, too. As we, the American public, contemplate what we will do in Iraq and elsewhere as we fight Al Qaeda and its allies, we must include their perception of us as we weigh the costs against the benefits of the alternatives available to us, including withdrawal. No course of action will be costless.
There are many other considerations, of course: the cost in lives and the financial cost among them. But let us also remember that if we leave with our task undone--however we define that task--our enemies will take note and act accordingly.
There is much more to be said about that, later. For now, one passage in his speech caught my ear:
To leave Iraq now would be to repeat the costly mistakes of the past that led to the attacks of September the 11th, 2001. The terrorists saw our response to the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings in the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. The terrorists concluded that we lacked the courage and character to defend ourselves, and so they attacked us.
Now the terrorists are testing our will and resolve in Iraq. If we fail that test, the consequences for the safety and security of the American people would be enormous. Our withdrawal from Iraq would allow the terrorists to claim an historic victory over the United States. It would leave our enemies emboldened...
He has said this many times. But this argument of the president is not just posturing. He is serious about it, and the argument is worthy of our attention. The insurgents in Iraq, the terrorists everywhere, look at the history of American involvement in the Muslin world and see us withdrawing when things get difficult. In Lebanon, the Marine Barracks was bombed and President Reagan withdrew (this is not characteristic of Democrats alone). In Somalia, our soldiers were beaten by a mob and we withdrew. Those are just two examples, but they are recent, prominent, important. And now, the rising toll in Iraq has us rethinking our involvement. Indeed, 100,000 or more people have gathered on the Mall today to protest our presence in Iraq. We are not now, and have rarely been, a power geared to the long term.
In fact, our military is set up to accomplish its goals quickly and as painlessly as possible. It is a central element in the American way of war and something our president has to consider as he charts our course in Iraq.
The point here is that our enemies consider it, too. As we, the American public, contemplate what we will do in Iraq and elsewhere as we fight Al Qaeda and its allies, we must include their perception of us as we weigh the costs against the benefits of the alternatives available to us, including withdrawal. No course of action will be costless.
There are many other considerations, of course: the cost in lives and the financial cost among them. But let us also remember that if we leave with our task undone--however we define that task--our enemies will take note and act accordingly.
23 September 2005
Money, Katrina, and Tsongas
The fallout from Katrina continues even as Rita approaches. The storm caught us unawares in many ways. It shook how we see ourselves. It may define what we do as a society for the next few years. The first intallment of this story is the tremendous effort that the Federal government and the public as a whole has made in the last few weeks to make New Orleans right. Much of what has been been done involves money, but the cost and how we will pay it have yet to be determined.
E.J. Dionne addressed some of these issues in this morning's column in The Washington Post. He suggested that the administration's fiscal policy is "stupid." A milder word will not do. I do not disagree. As I wrote him:
In a postscript, I suggested that we may need Paul Tsongas. The Massachusetts senator ran a losing presidential campaign in 1992 and died a few years after. He made no bones about the need for fiscal sanity. He offerred a conservative, straighforward approach to federal spending, arguing bluntly that the budget should be balanced. In a commencement address at MIT in 1989, he said:
We had a good run after that. The economy grew at a fantastic pace. As a result, we were able to balance the budget. But that is past, and we stand again where Tsongas saw us more than 25 years ago. Can we revitalize ourselves as we did then? Many of the President's supporters will say we can. I am less certain. There was bipartisan sentiment that taxes could be increased. They were. It cost the older Bush an election. Both parties agreed to budgetary constraints that vanished soon after the new millenium began. Most importantly, we are a country growing old, with a greater share of its resources promised to the old and less productive (this includes me). No one is saying the things that Tsongas did. No one is asking us to serve the greater good before our personal comfort.
Our country may be on the edge of decline, with our place in the world gradually, but perceptibly diminishing. If we are lucky. If we are not, a greater storm than either Rita or Katrina, born of economic difficulty, may engulf us.
E.J. Dionne addressed some of these issues in this morning's column in The Washington Post. He suggested that the administration's fiscal policy is "stupid." A milder word will not do. I do not disagree. As I wrote him:
"Stupid." Good word; accurate description. But the blame for our fiscal policies can be spread well beyond the White House. No one seems to be willing to stand and say "Tax me, please."
Of course it would be naive to expect that. But who has come out in favor of sacrifice for the goals we seek. We praise the efforts of others in New Orleans and elsewhere (and, indeed, the outpouring of money and effort for the people hurt by Katrina has said much that is good about this country). But who has said that we as a society must tighten our belts for the good of the country? Who has made a modest suggestion that we might cut back for the sake of the future?
Democrats tend to say that the budget deficit can be solved by taxing, in effect, someone else--the rich. (Even the rich think of themselves as middle class.) President Bush, of course, has never asked us to give up anything for the war on terror--or anything else--other than nail clippers at airports.
We all tend to behave as if the bons temps will roll on forever. These "stupid" fiscal policies will guarantee both that they won't and that they will end with something louder than a whisper.
Where are the people who dare to ask us to give up something now to prevent that bang?
In a postscript, I suggested that we may need Paul Tsongas. The Massachusetts senator ran a losing presidential campaign in 1992 and died a few years after. He made no bones about the need for fiscal sanity. He offerred a conservative, straighforward approach to federal spending, arguing bluntly that the budget should be balanced. In a commencement address at MIT in 1989, he said:
In the 1980s we have gone from being the world's largest creditor nation to the worst debtor nation the world has ever known. And all of this debt we give to you, our beloved children. America is on the verge of economic decline. We are now in an undeclared and unfelt and unrecognized battle for our future standard of living.
We had a good run after that. The economy grew at a fantastic pace. As a result, we were able to balance the budget. But that is past, and we stand again where Tsongas saw us more than 25 years ago. Can we revitalize ourselves as we did then? Many of the President's supporters will say we can. I am less certain. There was bipartisan sentiment that taxes could be increased. They were. It cost the older Bush an election. Both parties agreed to budgetary constraints that vanished soon after the new millenium began. Most importantly, we are a country growing old, with a greater share of its resources promised to the old and less productive (this includes me). No one is saying the things that Tsongas did. No one is asking us to serve the greater good before our personal comfort.
Our country may be on the edge of decline, with our place in the world gradually, but perceptibly diminishing. If we are lucky. If we are not, a greater storm than either Rita or Katrina, born of economic difficulty, may engulf us.
10 September 2005
Katrina and FEMA
The best comment on the response to Katrina comes from Bruce Schneier. He says that DHS, including FEMA, should focus on gathering intelligence and responding to emergencies, rather than developing measures designed to prevent terrorism that are bound to be ineffective, like profiling passengers and developing a national ID card.
Indeed, the inattention paid to FEMA over the last few years, particularly since 9/11, is puzzling and, to be kind, myopic. If terrorists had caused a disaster, would not FEMA had been called in? Nor have we been able to postpone natural disasters for duration of the war on terrorism. If FEMA stops being left to people whose most impressive quality is the strength of their political contacts, we may do better with the next emergency than we did with this one.
On the other hand, two friends provide a different perspective on what FEMA has done. Given what it has been designed to do, it has not performed all that badly. Bruce Henderson wrote the Morris Dance Discussion List about his own experience with a hurricane-induced flood in North Carolina. He found that
I asked another friend with extensive experience in disaster relief with FEMA about New Orleans. Bruce's message confirmed what he told me: FEMA was not set up to provide instant response. It is set up to go into an area after the storm has done its worst and some measure of stability has been reached. He did not think this approach best and suggested to his superiors at FEMA that somthing else be tried. In regard to New Orleans in particular, he favored making sure that what would be needed would be in place beforehand and that the more vulnerable people--he had older peoole in mind in particular--be removed before the storm hit.
That approach would probably have prevented much of the horrible scenes that we are now watching in New Orleans. But it has two problems. First, it is expensive. Damn the expense, you might say, people's lives are at stake. Consider the second problem, however: most threats of disaster are false alarms. For each Katrina, several storms will pass by. Yet for each one, preparations will be made and people will be removed. You cannot tell beforehand which alarm will prove real and which false. How many of us will willingly relocate once each year or two to prevent what is, in truth, a remote chance that harm will befall us? Consider that the levees in New Orleans had held for more than a century. that, more than any failure on the part of the Army Corps of Engineers, explains why the levees had not been strengthened. The vulnerability was known but the risk was deemed too small. For the same reason, I find that most people do not back up the data on their computers. As someone who works on computer security, I believe they are shortsighted, but like the people responsible for New Orleans, they choose not to take the time and spend the money to make themselves less vulnerable.
FEMA's plans and actions are the result of political choices made from the day it was organized. There can be little doubt that the agency needs to be reorganized and that it can become more effective. Indeed, my friend stopped working for FEMA because he believed that the agencies managers were serving political expediency rather than the public interest. But that was in the 1990s, when President Bush's work address was in Austin, not Washington.
Indeed, the inattention paid to FEMA over the last few years, particularly since 9/11, is puzzling and, to be kind, myopic. If terrorists had caused a disaster, would not FEMA had been called in? Nor have we been able to postpone natural disasters for duration of the war on terrorism. If FEMA stops being left to people whose most impressive quality is the strength of their political contacts, we may do better with the next emergency than we did with this one.
On the other hand, two friends provide a different perspective on what FEMA has done. Given what it has been designed to do, it has not performed all that badly. Bruce Henderson wrote the Morris Dance Discussion List about his own experience with a hurricane-induced flood in North Carolina. He found that
The Federal government response was much the same. It takes time to assure that the storm has past, then the type of storm damage must be quantified (you really have to deal with a wind-hurricane much differently from a flood-hurricane). Then advance teams have to work out logistics (do people need food more than medical help? Or is a police presence needed first? Are airports open*? Our local airport was flooded and couldn't be used -- and teams have to open roads. Even the Interstates in our area were blocked -- trees were literally broken in half and blown in the road. It took highway crews 3 1/2 days to fully open I-40 from I-95 to Wilmington but some of that delay was waiting for flood water to go down. But a number of areas had been so badly flooded that large trucks couldn't get through.
Once the situation has been analyzed, then the agencies affected (mostly governmental, plus a very large input from the power companies) can agree and Federal agencies can be authorized by local government. Then, coordination between the different groups must be set up.
I asked another friend with extensive experience in disaster relief with FEMA about New Orleans. Bruce's message confirmed what he told me: FEMA was not set up to provide instant response. It is set up to go into an area after the storm has done its worst and some measure of stability has been reached. He did not think this approach best and suggested to his superiors at FEMA that somthing else be tried. In regard to New Orleans in particular, he favored making sure that what would be needed would be in place beforehand and that the more vulnerable people--he had older peoole in mind in particular--be removed before the storm hit.
That approach would probably have prevented much of the horrible scenes that we are now watching in New Orleans. But it has two problems. First, it is expensive. Damn the expense, you might say, people's lives are at stake. Consider the second problem, however: most threats of disaster are false alarms. For each Katrina, several storms will pass by. Yet for each one, preparations will be made and people will be removed. You cannot tell beforehand which alarm will prove real and which false. How many of us will willingly relocate once each year or two to prevent what is, in truth, a remote chance that harm will befall us? Consider that the levees in New Orleans had held for more than a century. that, more than any failure on the part of the Army Corps of Engineers, explains why the levees had not been strengthened. The vulnerability was known but the risk was deemed too small. For the same reason, I find that most people do not back up the data on their computers. As someone who works on computer security, I believe they are shortsighted, but like the people responsible for New Orleans, they choose not to take the time and spend the money to make themselves less vulnerable.
FEMA's plans and actions are the result of political choices made from the day it was organized. There can be little doubt that the agency needs to be reorganized and that it can become more effective. Indeed, my friend stopped working for FEMA because he believed that the agencies managers were serving political expediency rather than the public interest. But that was in the 1990s, when President Bush's work address was in Austin, not Washington.
05 September 2005
Fallout from Katrina
The anarchy in New Orleans resembled nothing so much as the horrors of Lord of the Flies after the constraints of authority and civilization were removed. As usual, it is easy to conclude that neither we nor our neighbors would behave like that. Let us hope we are right in thinking so, but we should not be certain that we are. Much of what happened, was a crowd like any other getting out of control. Behavior that had been unacceptable became common. If our neighbors benefit from doing things they shouldn't and it seems that no harm will come to them, can any of us be absolutely certain that we would not join in?
On the other hand, giving to help those who have suffered because of Katrina has become close to a social norm. At work, the question asked has not been whether you will give, but when. I was hit up at the grocery store yesterday (Shoppers Food Warehouse), when the cashier pointed out that the Red Cross would accept contributions made there and then at the checkout stand. That is a mild form of extortion, but when it for an acknowledged social good, that's not always a bad thing.
Alan Abelson is a columnist in Barron's, and perhaps the best reason to buy the paper. You might think of him as the Mark twain of Wall Street, or a combination of Jeremiah and Bob Hope. He usually writes well pointed (and well aimed) wit. But this week he was somber as he described what had happened in New Orleans. He gave a warning to keep in mind over the next few months: we can expect the economic ills that will soon befall us to be blamed on Katrina. We should keep in mind when the bad news comes that our twin deficits (of foreign trade and the federal budget), housing prices that are out of control, and energy prices that were following them even before Katrina are not things that make for a healthy economy. "In sum," quoth Abelson, "never before will a hurricane have done so much to bail out so many people."
On the other hand, giving to help those who have suffered because of Katrina has become close to a social norm. At work, the question asked has not been whether you will give, but when. I was hit up at the grocery store yesterday (Shoppers Food Warehouse), when the cashier pointed out that the Red Cross would accept contributions made there and then at the checkout stand. That is a mild form of extortion, but when it for an acknowledged social good, that's not always a bad thing.
Alan Abelson is a columnist in Barron's, and perhaps the best reason to buy the paper. You might think of him as the Mark twain of Wall Street, or a combination of Jeremiah and Bob Hope. He usually writes well pointed (and well aimed) wit. But this week he was somber as he described what had happened in New Orleans. He gave a warning to keep in mind over the next few months: we can expect the economic ills that will soon befall us to be blamed on Katrina. We should keep in mind when the bad news comes that our twin deficits (of foreign trade and the federal budget), housing prices that are out of control, and energy prices that were following them even before Katrina are not things that make for a healthy economy. "In sum," quoth Abelson, "never before will a hurricane have done so much to bail out so many people."
03 September 2005
Once Again, Evolution
Much of the public is reluctant to dismiss calls to teach creationism or intelligent design alongside evolution in school science classes. That is one result of recent poll by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. So was I, as the entry made last month shows. My reluctance has faded as I have give the idea more thought.
Part of that thinking comes from an article in the Guardian Unlimited that addresses the issue forcefully. It argues that the epistemology of intelligent design is questionable. In other words, we do not know how those who favor intelligent design know what they know. Creationists argue that the theory of evolution has gaps that intelligent design can fill, but they do not present the evidence for intelligent design over other theories, a revision of evolution, for example. Contrast, how Copernicus destroyed Ptolemaic cosmology, to take an obvious example. His observations, carefully recorded and reproducible, showed that the earth does not sit at the center of the universe. New facts were brought in to destroy an old theory. In contrast, creationists argue simply that the ineffable complexity of the universe makes a man-made theory like evolution untenable.
A glance at the pages of the Discovery Institute's web site confirms what the Guardian article say about the lack of evidence presented in favor of intelligent design. It includes a page that lists peer reviewed publications that make the intelligent design argument. Several are listed, but they show only that there are gaps in evolutionary theory or that alternative theories are possible, a priori. Who would argue otherwise? Moreover, the page begins by saying that peer-reviewed articles are not necessary for the argument in the first place.
The fact is that one can accept both evolution and the existence of an intelligent designer. After all, Darwin did. So have most biologists since. That God has a place in the universe is not at issue in the physical sciences; scientific theory and the existence of God are not in conflict. Rather, the issue is over how we learn what we do no know about the universe. The creationist answer seems to be to abandon the scientific enterprise in favor of either a closer reading of the Bible or a search for proof of a theory whose truth they do not doubt. If there is another answer, they have not made it apparent.
The Pew poll is disturbing for several reasons. The high proportion of people who seem to believe in creationism is one. Another is that it shows that those who favor creationism have advantages that minority interest groups often have--they are less divided on the topic and more certain of their argument than the opposition. These are advantages that, the poll shows, that are able to take full advantage of.
The Guardian authors fear that a victory for creationism in their efforts to have the theory taught in schools "would be the end of science education in America." As my earlier entry says, the stakes are higher still: Not just education, but science itself.
Part of that thinking comes from an article in the Guardian Unlimited that addresses the issue forcefully. It argues that the epistemology of intelligent design is questionable. In other words, we do not know how those who favor intelligent design know what they know. Creationists argue that the theory of evolution has gaps that intelligent design can fill, but they do not present the evidence for intelligent design over other theories, a revision of evolution, for example. Contrast, how Copernicus destroyed Ptolemaic cosmology, to take an obvious example. His observations, carefully recorded and reproducible, showed that the earth does not sit at the center of the universe. New facts were brought in to destroy an old theory. In contrast, creationists argue simply that the ineffable complexity of the universe makes a man-made theory like evolution untenable.
A glance at the pages of the Discovery Institute's web site confirms what the Guardian article say about the lack of evidence presented in favor of intelligent design. It includes a page that lists peer reviewed publications that make the intelligent design argument. Several are listed, but they show only that there are gaps in evolutionary theory or that alternative theories are possible, a priori. Who would argue otherwise? Moreover, the page begins by saying that peer-reviewed articles are not necessary for the argument in the first place.
The fact is that one can accept both evolution and the existence of an intelligent designer. After all, Darwin did. So have most biologists since. That God has a place in the universe is not at issue in the physical sciences; scientific theory and the existence of God are not in conflict. Rather, the issue is over how we learn what we do no know about the universe. The creationist answer seems to be to abandon the scientific enterprise in favor of either a closer reading of the Bible or a search for proof of a theory whose truth they do not doubt. If there is another answer, they have not made it apparent.
The Pew poll is disturbing for several reasons. The high proportion of people who seem to believe in creationism is one. Another is that it shows that those who favor creationism have advantages that minority interest groups often have--they are less divided on the topic and more certain of their argument than the opposition. These are advantages that, the poll shows, that are able to take full advantage of.
The Guardian authors fear that a victory for creationism in their efforts to have the theory taught in schools "would be the end of science education in America." As my earlier entry says, the stakes are higher still: Not just education, but science itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)