Bush thought that once he'd toppled the Taliban and Hussein regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, democratic nation-states would just emerge. Nation-building has proved to be a little more complicated.
I'm not clear that Obama appreciates the difficulty of nation-building either. Given the state of the state in Afghanistan, it seems to me that we have two choices: stay for a generation and massively subsidize education and development to build something akin to a modern nation-state or essentially withdraw from the country and contain its military threat. I think those are wretched choices, but building roads or securing check points into major cities for a year is not the same thing as building a nation or securing its people. Nation-building isn't measured in months but in decades. It has as much to do with reconstructing the minds of people as their towns.
And yet Obama is going to send in a surge of 30,000 more troops but only for one year. Because that is all that Bush got wrong; he was just short by tens of thousands of troops and 10 to 12 months.
It's not even obvious to me that Obama is all that sold on his own plan. His speech lacked the snap of his campaign speeches, sounding like lots of blah blah blah. (Is there a rule that when you send troops to war you talk in platitudes sure to reverse the adrenalin rush of war?) It wasn't obvious to me that he owned this speech.
This is like projecting deficit reduction after this year of deficit increase. I simply don't see how 30,000 troops will change things so much over the course of a year that withdrawal will be any easier. How is war like snorting heroin? It's terribly destructive but hard to quit. Next year at this time, expect a mid-course correction from Obama. Something about the need to keep troops in country just 6 (or 12) more months.
R World (Ron Davison muses aloud)
Showing posts with label troop surge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label troop surge. Show all posts
16 February 2007
The Canadian Invasion
Right now, American troops are stretched thin. Many are in their third rotation in Iraq. Now, Bush is saber rattling again, suggesting an attack on Iran. Iraq’s population is about 25 million; Iran’s population is about 70 million. It doesn’t take a Ph.D. in math to conclude that after attacking Iran, American troops will be stretched thinner than Yul Brenner’s hair.
It is at that moment that our northern neighbors are likely to attack. Sure, Canadians are polite. Or at least they appear that way. They patiently waited about 200 years for independence from Britain, a bloodless event handled with such deference that they left the queen's portrait on their money. Was that polite? Sure, but it was also crafty.
One can only speculate about how long they’ve been waiting for this opportunity to invade. It is well known that Canadians envy our balmy weather and broad freeways. They've been scouting our assets for decades, coming south in motor homes and in tour buses. Once our troops are committed to multiple countries in the Middle East, our own borders will be left vulnerable. It is at that moment that their troops will roll across our border unopposed.
I admit that I have no data to support this accusation, but reliance on data is so quaint. I do have a gut feeling. Those polite Canadians: sitting peacefully on our northern border for hundreds of years only to lull us into a sense of false security. How devious. How shameless. How brilliant.
It is at that moment that our northern neighbors are likely to attack. Sure, Canadians are polite. Or at least they appear that way. They patiently waited about 200 years for independence from Britain, a bloodless event handled with such deference that they left the queen's portrait on their money. Was that polite? Sure, but it was also crafty.
One can only speculate about how long they’ve been waiting for this opportunity to invade. It is well known that Canadians envy our balmy weather and broad freeways. They've been scouting our assets for decades, coming south in motor homes and in tour buses. Once our troops are committed to multiple countries in the Middle East, our own borders will be left vulnerable. It is at that moment that their troops will roll across our border unopposed.
I admit that I have no data to support this accusation, but reliance on data is so quaint. I do have a gut feeling. Those polite Canadians: sitting peacefully on our northern border for hundreds of years only to lull us into a sense of false security. How devious. How shameless. How brilliant.
15 February 2007
Warrior Worship
It is beginning to feel like we're building a culture of warrior worship. Today our politicians and media trip over themselves to laud our brave troops. Perhaps this is heartfelt. Perhaps it is done because of the guilt for treating Vietnam Veterans so poorly. Or maybe it is done out of fear of political reprisal. In any case, it seems to me excessive, dangerous, and even unfair to those troops.
It is true that civilization would collapse were it not for people willing to risk their lives to protect us from fires, criminals, and enemy soldiers. Sam Harris points out that a single psychopath with a knife could theoretically wipe out an entire town of pacifists. It is likely that Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo would have conquered and then divided the world were it not for the resistance of brave soldiers. Tyrants are not checked by their own conscience: they are checked by the courage of others.
But it is worth remembering that the reason that soldiers had to bravely protect our way of life is because soldiers attacked it. Decades after World War 2, we can see that Germans, Japanese, and Italians turn out to be not so very different from Americans and British and Canadians. Architects from any country design buildings and soldiers from any country follow orders to attack. The great thing about soldiers is also the awful thing about soldiers - they are willing to destroy lives and towns in order to accomplish their mission.
We took a relative to dinner about two years ago. He was my cousin's nephew, a Marine serving in Iraq. He'd been injured in the attack on Fallujah and was getting treated at the Navy Hospital here in San Diego for a grenade wound. One of the things that he shared was a tale of how they drove through Iraqi cities in their armored vehicles. They would drive down the middle of the road and Iraqis were expected to get out of the way. If a vehicle followed too closely or didn't move - and ignored their gestures to move aside - they would "light it up" with machine gun fire. He seemed to me, at the time, just a kid too obviously excited with power to understand or appreciate either the moral issues or public relations consequences of this policy. (It is easy to speculate that such a policy would save American lives in the short term and cost them longer term as more Iraqis began to sympathize with insurgents fighting to rid the country of American troops.)
I say this not to paint the kid or his commanding officer as evil. I suppose that after I'd seen fellow soldiers killed by vehicle attacks I, too, would be eager to stay safe. If you are going to risk an innocent life, would you rather it were the life of your men or the life of a stranger? I mention this just to remind you that soldiers with guns are not an obviously or always good thing.
We could vilify soldiers and not have them when we need them. We could deify soldiers and not question their willingness to kill. Either is dangerous.
It seems to me that the only sustainable view of soldiers is one of ambivalence. These are real people who have volunteered for the job. Soldiers throughout history risk their lives; for this they deserve to be considered guardian angels. Soldiers have also been willing to kill and destroy; for this they deserve to be considered brute animals. They can, in the same act, protect one way of life and destroy another. But even to confess ambivalence about soldiers is to be a social pariah, it seems. I can imagine no mainstream politician or media outlet admitting to such ambivalence, admitting to a feeling of wariness towards a group willing to kill in order to do their job. And none of them seem willing to entertain the notion that the soldiers themselves, foreigners wandering around with guns, might themselves be the problem.
Until we can honestly express ambivalence, it seems to me that we can’t even begin to talk intelligently about how a military force could be used (if used at all) in the battle against the ideology of extremism.
And this is perhaps why soldiers most deserve our empathy: they are willing to sacrifice a life and willing to take it – simultaneously exhibiting a principled bravery and an animal instinct that the rest of us can’t even begin to comprehend. Pretending that they are only saint is to ignore that they are actually human. And perhaps by pretending that they are not like the rest of us it is easier to send them away from home and family on poorly-defined missions for far too long. A feeling of ambivalence is, it seems to me, the only way to be fair towards the very real human beings who we ask to simultaneously serve as angels and animals, forcing them to risk losing touch with their own humanity so that we can enjoy the comforts of civilization that makes us so human.
Finally, there is one last reason to call for ambivalence in place of worship. A society that worships warriors is dangerous.
It is true that civilization would collapse were it not for people willing to risk their lives to protect us from fires, criminals, and enemy soldiers. Sam Harris points out that a single psychopath with a knife could theoretically wipe out an entire town of pacifists. It is likely that Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo would have conquered and then divided the world were it not for the resistance of brave soldiers. Tyrants are not checked by their own conscience: they are checked by the courage of others.
But it is worth remembering that the reason that soldiers had to bravely protect our way of life is because soldiers attacked it. Decades after World War 2, we can see that Germans, Japanese, and Italians turn out to be not so very different from Americans and British and Canadians. Architects from any country design buildings and soldiers from any country follow orders to attack. The great thing about soldiers is also the awful thing about soldiers - they are willing to destroy lives and towns in order to accomplish their mission.
We took a relative to dinner about two years ago. He was my cousin's nephew, a Marine serving in Iraq. He'd been injured in the attack on Fallujah and was getting treated at the Navy Hospital here in San Diego for a grenade wound. One of the things that he shared was a tale of how they drove through Iraqi cities in their armored vehicles. They would drive down the middle of the road and Iraqis were expected to get out of the way. If a vehicle followed too closely or didn't move - and ignored their gestures to move aside - they would "light it up" with machine gun fire. He seemed to me, at the time, just a kid too obviously excited with power to understand or appreciate either the moral issues or public relations consequences of this policy. (It is easy to speculate that such a policy would save American lives in the short term and cost them longer term as more Iraqis began to sympathize with insurgents fighting to rid the country of American troops.)
I say this not to paint the kid or his commanding officer as evil. I suppose that after I'd seen fellow soldiers killed by vehicle attacks I, too, would be eager to stay safe. If you are going to risk an innocent life, would you rather it were the life of your men or the life of a stranger? I mention this just to remind you that soldiers with guns are not an obviously or always good thing.
We could vilify soldiers and not have them when we need them. We could deify soldiers and not question their willingness to kill. Either is dangerous.
It seems to me that the only sustainable view of soldiers is one of ambivalence. These are real people who have volunteered for the job. Soldiers throughout history risk their lives; for this they deserve to be considered guardian angels. Soldiers have also been willing to kill and destroy; for this they deserve to be considered brute animals. They can, in the same act, protect one way of life and destroy another. But even to confess ambivalence about soldiers is to be a social pariah, it seems. I can imagine no mainstream politician or media outlet admitting to such ambivalence, admitting to a feeling of wariness towards a group willing to kill in order to do their job. And none of them seem willing to entertain the notion that the soldiers themselves, foreigners wandering around with guns, might themselves be the problem.
Until we can honestly express ambivalence, it seems to me that we can’t even begin to talk intelligently about how a military force could be used (if used at all) in the battle against the ideology of extremism.
And this is perhaps why soldiers most deserve our empathy: they are willing to sacrifice a life and willing to take it – simultaneously exhibiting a principled bravery and an animal instinct that the rest of us can’t even begin to comprehend. Pretending that they are only saint is to ignore that they are actually human. And perhaps by pretending that they are not like the rest of us it is easier to send them away from home and family on poorly-defined missions for far too long. A feeling of ambivalence is, it seems to me, the only way to be fair towards the very real human beings who we ask to simultaneously serve as angels and animals, forcing them to risk losing touch with their own humanity so that we can enjoy the comforts of civilization that makes us so human.
Finally, there is one last reason to call for ambivalence in place of worship. A society that worships warriors is dangerous.
13 February 2007
Why the Troop Escalation Will Just Escalate
Any justification for our troops fighting in Iraq is predicated on the odd notion that we can change people's minds by dropping bombs on them, knocking down their doors, or using force to intimidate them.
If indeed the battle in Iraq is a battle against an ideology, the futility of weaponry should seem obvious. The USSR did not fold nor did China begin adopting capitalism because of bombs we dropped or because of our occupying troops. (And if the battle in Iraq is a civil war, it's not obvious how adding a third fighting force, much less better equipping and training the two opposing sides, is going to stabilize the country.)
Because of this, sending more troops into Iraq will only succeed in necessitating more troops. Why? Because we can only use force to coerce behavior - not change minds. Once - and if - the troops stabilize things, we'll be stuck. Like a guy holding up a house of cards, we won't be able to leave because the soft conditions haven't been put in place to make peace within Iraq self-sustaining. We know how to put boots on the ground. We don't know how to build nations.
George Bush is moving ahead with an escalation of troops. The very fact that he supports this move should be evidence enough that the plan does not work. In spite of a series of spectacular miscalculations, he has yet to change his fundamental assumptions or predictions. But it is worse. He has yet to explain why things have not yet worked out, suggesting that he has yet to learn why his predictions have failed thus far. Until he can do that, it isn't the least clear that anyone should believe his bellicose insistence that he's pursuing peace.
From Salon
"He's tried this two times -- it's failed twice," Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said on Jan. 24 about the "surge" tactic. "I asked him at the White House, 'Mr. President, why do you think this time it's going to work?' And he said, 'Because I told them it had to.'" She repeated his words: "'I told them that they had to.' That was the end of it. That's the way it is."
We have a choice right now. We can commit to keeping forces in Iraq until a generational shift occurs. And that is a risky proposition because it could just as easily lead to a new generation of hardened terrorists as a peaceful and prosperous nation. On the other hand, we could leave, letting the chaos continue until a national dictator emerges or until Iraq devolves into regional states. As bleak as that latter option may seem, such a scenario is inevitable should we pull out in less than 20 years. The surge might help for a time, but once we begin to pull down troops again, unresolved sectarian tensions will cause another spike in killings and instability. What needs to be resolved needs to be resolved politically - military solutions are, at best, a stop-gap measure.
We do not have pleasant options in Iraq. Democrats do not want to admit how much chaos will ensue if we pull out. Republicans make no mention of how much we're spending in lives and dollars for at best a questionable - at worse a worsening - impact on stability in the Middle East and peace for Americans. No one can confidently predict what will happen if we stay or go. Yet in the midst of this uncertainty there is one certainty: staying will cost more than what we spend on any portion of the federal budget save defense and social security. It's a huge investment with the promise of little return for Americans. It is hard to conceive of scenarios in which the returns will justify this investment of money, to say nothing of the investment in lives.
It is not that our military will not do their job. They repeatedly have. The problem is that two military solutions do not equal a political solution. A successful invasion followed by a successful occupation still leaves us with a country that has yet to arrive at a political stability.
It is possible that we can have a greater influence over the minds of Iraqis from afar than from near. It is doubtful that we can change their minds by pointing guns at them; history suggests that we have a better chance of creating such change by pointing communication satellites at them, satellites broadcasting news, culture, and reason that actually do change minds. (Doubtful about that claim? Look at the former USSR and China.) That can be done for much less than a trillion dollars.
If indeed the battle in Iraq is a battle against an ideology, the futility of weaponry should seem obvious. The USSR did not fold nor did China begin adopting capitalism because of bombs we dropped or because of our occupying troops. (And if the battle in Iraq is a civil war, it's not obvious how adding a third fighting force, much less better equipping and training the two opposing sides, is going to stabilize the country.)
Because of this, sending more troops into Iraq will only succeed in necessitating more troops. Why? Because we can only use force to coerce behavior - not change minds. Once - and if - the troops stabilize things, we'll be stuck. Like a guy holding up a house of cards, we won't be able to leave because the soft conditions haven't been put in place to make peace within Iraq self-sustaining. We know how to put boots on the ground. We don't know how to build nations.
George Bush is moving ahead with an escalation of troops. The very fact that he supports this move should be evidence enough that the plan does not work. In spite of a series of spectacular miscalculations, he has yet to change his fundamental assumptions or predictions. But it is worse. He has yet to explain why things have not yet worked out, suggesting that he has yet to learn why his predictions have failed thus far. Until he can do that, it isn't the least clear that anyone should believe his bellicose insistence that he's pursuing peace.
From Salon
"He's tried this two times -- it's failed twice," Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said on Jan. 24 about the "surge" tactic. "I asked him at the White House, 'Mr. President, why do you think this time it's going to work?' And he said, 'Because I told them it had to.'" She repeated his words: "'I told them that they had to.' That was the end of it. That's the way it is."
We have a choice right now. We can commit to keeping forces in Iraq until a generational shift occurs. And that is a risky proposition because it could just as easily lead to a new generation of hardened terrorists as a peaceful and prosperous nation. On the other hand, we could leave, letting the chaos continue until a national dictator emerges or until Iraq devolves into regional states. As bleak as that latter option may seem, such a scenario is inevitable should we pull out in less than 20 years. The surge might help for a time, but once we begin to pull down troops again, unresolved sectarian tensions will cause another spike in killings and instability. What needs to be resolved needs to be resolved politically - military solutions are, at best, a stop-gap measure.
We do not have pleasant options in Iraq. Democrats do not want to admit how much chaos will ensue if we pull out. Republicans make no mention of how much we're spending in lives and dollars for at best a questionable - at worse a worsening - impact on stability in the Middle East and peace for Americans. No one can confidently predict what will happen if we stay or go. Yet in the midst of this uncertainty there is one certainty: staying will cost more than what we spend on any portion of the federal budget save defense and social security. It's a huge investment with the promise of little return for Americans. It is hard to conceive of scenarios in which the returns will justify this investment of money, to say nothing of the investment in lives.
It is not that our military will not do their job. They repeatedly have. The problem is that two military solutions do not equal a political solution. A successful invasion followed by a successful occupation still leaves us with a country that has yet to arrive at a political stability.
It is possible that we can have a greater influence over the minds of Iraqis from afar than from near. It is doubtful that we can change their minds by pointing guns at them; history suggests that we have a better chance of creating such change by pointing communication satellites at them, satellites broadcasting news, culture, and reason that actually do change minds. (Doubtful about that claim? Look at the former USSR and China.) That can be done for much less than a trillion dollars.
10 January 2007
The George-Free Media Network
It's time for a at least one new source- George-free Media.
Like a drunk at a dinner party waking up to insist that everyone repeat the conversation of the last hour, George has a genius for derailing progress. The Democrats are once again taking the bait, noisily reacting to his apparent madness. Ted Kennedy scuttled a speech to the National Press Club on domestic policy and instead addressed the troop surge. The Democrats are now in charge in the House and Senate, but their announcements for new policy have been drowned out. What the neocons have learned is that if they are outrageous enough in their policy pronouncements any attempt by moderates and liberals to shift the topic at all will get about as much coverage as a news conference announced by the local chapter of Neighborhood Watch.
Just about the time the family is about to serve an appetizer or entre, George insists that everyone have another round of drinks. Every time the political discussion in this country looks set to shift towards a topic of substance - climate change, minimum wage, universal health care, rising crime rates, or the best policy to respond to the reality of globalization - George announces some outrageous change (or refusal to change) in Iraq and the entire conversation is scuttled.
The only hope is to offer at least one channel, one website, one newspaper or magazine that imagines a George-free political world. This news source would cover events not forced upon it by George's pronouncements or actions. It would discuss long term policy that had a hope of making a positive impact. It would do the news equivalent of photo-shopping George out of the picture. Until we find some way of grounding George ("No addresses to the nation for three months, young man!"), this might be the best we can do.
George-free TV. George-free radio. George-free website. In the words of Louis Armstrong, What a wonderful, wonderful world.
Like a drunk at a dinner party waking up to insist that everyone repeat the conversation of the last hour, George has a genius for derailing progress. The Democrats are once again taking the bait, noisily reacting to his apparent madness. Ted Kennedy scuttled a speech to the National Press Club on domestic policy and instead addressed the troop surge. The Democrats are now in charge in the House and Senate, but their announcements for new policy have been drowned out. What the neocons have learned is that if they are outrageous enough in their policy pronouncements any attempt by moderates and liberals to shift the topic at all will get about as much coverage as a news conference announced by the local chapter of Neighborhood Watch.
Just about the time the family is about to serve an appetizer or entre, George insists that everyone have another round of drinks. Every time the political discussion in this country looks set to shift towards a topic of substance - climate change, minimum wage, universal health care, rising crime rates, or the best policy to respond to the reality of globalization - George announces some outrageous change (or refusal to change) in Iraq and the entire conversation is scuttled.
The only hope is to offer at least one channel, one website, one newspaper or magazine that imagines a George-free political world. This news source would cover events not forced upon it by George's pronouncements or actions. It would discuss long term policy that had a hope of making a positive impact. It would do the news equivalent of photo-shopping George out of the picture. Until we find some way of grounding George ("No addresses to the nation for three months, young man!"), this might be the best we can do.
George-free TV. George-free radio. George-free website. In the words of Louis Armstrong, What a wonderful, wonderful world.
09 January 2007
Two Reasons to Pull Out of Iraq
By the time you read this, George will have announced his intention to send another 20,000+ troops into Iraq. Here are two reasons to resist this that you are unlikely to read in the mainstream media.
1. Climate change.
The first reason to pull out of Iraq is that spending there makes it difficult to afford research into alternative energy. As long as we're spending $100 billion a year in Iraq, we can't afford a serious program to transform our energy policy. We need the equivalent of a NASA program - billions of dollars in funding - to support an array of solutions to the problem of carbon dioxide build up. Just to stabilize carbon dioxide levels - not even reduce them - we need to cut carbon dioxide emissions by about 75% across the globe. This is not going to happen without serious investment in creative solutions. As long as we are pumping $100 billion a year into Iraq (a soon to be greater number, presumably, as Bush gets his surge in troop levels), funding for such programs is unlikely to emerge. This alone is reason enough to stop funding the aggravation of Iraqis and continuing to place our troops in harm's way as if they were the ducks at a shooting gallery, but there is another.
2. Terrorism.
Oil money from developed countries helps undeveloped countries to get money without modernizing. Our dependence on oil finances extremists in the Middle East, effectively subsidizing their refusal to modernize. Islam does encourage violent extremism, as did medieval Christianity. There is, however, one really big difference between the two. Christians could not enjoy economic advance without choosing to ignore traditions and teachings that contradicted progress. That is, they had to generate their own source of economic progress and fostering economic modernity required accepting philosophical modernity. Burning witches is one way to attempt an increase in crop yield, but it won't be as effective as adopting steel plows or fertilizer. The communities that cling to superstition about witches are going to have so little in resources in comparison to the communities that adopt the scientific method that those superstitious communities will be of little threat. Primitive communities may have dangerous philosophies, but their technology will not be dangerous. By contrast, Muslim states sitting atop of oil can cling to dangerous philosophies while earning enough income to finance dangerous technology. (Think of Iran and its nuclear program.) If they did not have oil revenues, they would face two paths: cling to religious authority in lieu of modernity and be of little threat because they would not have the resources or technology to become a threat; or modernize in thought and, consequently, technology and be of little threat because they now rely upon reason instead of religious extremism. As it is, they can refuse to modernize even while buying modern weaponry.
As long as we don’t sever our dependence on oil, we don’t force the Middle East to sever its dependence on religious extremism. Our continued reliance on oil effectively subsidizes the Middle East's continued reliance upon outdated, dangerous, and otherwise bankrupting ideologies.
The biggest problem with continuing to pursue an Iraqi policy that has yet to accomplish any of its stated goals? It continues to distract us from real issues, only two of which are listed above.
1. Climate change.
The first reason to pull out of Iraq is that spending there makes it difficult to afford research into alternative energy. As long as we're spending $100 billion a year in Iraq, we can't afford a serious program to transform our energy policy. We need the equivalent of a NASA program - billions of dollars in funding - to support an array of solutions to the problem of carbon dioxide build up. Just to stabilize carbon dioxide levels - not even reduce them - we need to cut carbon dioxide emissions by about 75% across the globe. This is not going to happen without serious investment in creative solutions. As long as we are pumping $100 billion a year into Iraq (a soon to be greater number, presumably, as Bush gets his surge in troop levels), funding for such programs is unlikely to emerge. This alone is reason enough to stop funding the aggravation of Iraqis and continuing to place our troops in harm's way as if they were the ducks at a shooting gallery, but there is another.
2. Terrorism.
Oil money from developed countries helps undeveloped countries to get money without modernizing. Our dependence on oil finances extremists in the Middle East, effectively subsidizing their refusal to modernize. Islam does encourage violent extremism, as did medieval Christianity. There is, however, one really big difference between the two. Christians could not enjoy economic advance without choosing to ignore traditions and teachings that contradicted progress. That is, they had to generate their own source of economic progress and fostering economic modernity required accepting philosophical modernity. Burning witches is one way to attempt an increase in crop yield, but it won't be as effective as adopting steel plows or fertilizer. The communities that cling to superstition about witches are going to have so little in resources in comparison to the communities that adopt the scientific method that those superstitious communities will be of little threat. Primitive communities may have dangerous philosophies, but their technology will not be dangerous. By contrast, Muslim states sitting atop of oil can cling to dangerous philosophies while earning enough income to finance dangerous technology. (Think of Iran and its nuclear program.) If they did not have oil revenues, they would face two paths: cling to religious authority in lieu of modernity and be of little threat because they would not have the resources or technology to become a threat; or modernize in thought and, consequently, technology and be of little threat because they now rely upon reason instead of religious extremism. As it is, they can refuse to modernize even while buying modern weaponry.
As long as we don’t sever our dependence on oil, we don’t force the Middle East to sever its dependence on religious extremism. Our continued reliance on oil effectively subsidizes the Middle East's continued reliance upon outdated, dangerous, and otherwise bankrupting ideologies.
The biggest problem with continuing to pursue an Iraqi policy that has yet to accomplish any of its stated goals? It continues to distract us from real issues, only two of which are listed above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)