I'm not the only one to notice either.
Congrats on your new house
Congratulations! You Bought A House!
Four Hundred Thousand of them, actually.
The effect of this kind of thing is to punish economic actors who are intelligent, careful, and thorough, while rewarding those who are reckless and hasty. As we know, when you subsidize something you get more of it; when you tax something, you get less of it.
That suggests that this "remedy" will not be good for the long-term economic health of the nation.
Liberal Thinking At Work
NYT Economics @ Work:
One wonders if Mr. Krugman was consulted.
The New York Times suffers a massive drop in its circulation, advertising, revenue and profits. Solution? Raise the price of the newspaper.
The June performance followed an 11.9 per cent decline in May advertising revenues, and suggested that an already deep erosion in newspaper advertising could be accelerating. Ms Robinson said the company would respond by raising newsstand prices for the New York Times from $1.25 to $1.50 per copy beginning in August, marking the paper’s second increase in a year.'What? Revenue is down? Just raise taxes. Everyone will continue to behave just as before, so the only effect will be more $$$ for us!'
That announcement came as the company reported that second-quarter profits fell 82 per cent to $21m, or 15 cents per share, compared with the same period a year ago, when it benefited from a $94m gain from the sale of television stations.
One wonders if Mr. Krugman was consulted.
CNN
CNN Hits Obama:
We've seen the love affair at length, but give CNN credit where credit is due.
This is a technical violation of the Logan Act; although the Logan Act has never in two hundred years been enforced, so it's probably a dead letter. The point tonight is that CNN deserves a huzzah for allowing a clear violation of diplomatic etiquette to be called out as such on the air.
One other matter of housekeeping: the other day I was mocking the "Obama One." I saw in a report today that McCain has also leased a plane for his campaign, which is apparently also decorated. So -- what we have here is a case of me being ignorant about what is apparently standard practice for campaigning politicians. I apologize for the unfair remarks.
Schadenfreudeburg.
Yeah, ok, its the National Enquirer. But. Just wow.
Vice Presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards was caught visiting his mistress and secret love child at 2:40 this morning in a Los Angeles hotel by the NATIONAL ENQUIRER.
Yeah, ok, its the National Enquirer. But. Just wow.
Defending Obama
Defending Obama:
Even if all of psychology's claims and models are untrue in the final analysis, it can still help a willing participant to overcome problems that he identifies in himself. It's not necessary -- a devotion to rock climbing can work as well or better. But it's not wrong, confined to its proper role as an art, participation in which is wholly voluntary. Any disciplined method will do, so long as it pursues a vision of beauty that you personally truly believe.
These attempts to use psychology as a weapon against political enemies are not within the proper limits of psychology. Its unscientific, unfalsifiable nature means that no one so accused has any means of clearing himself. This is the same reason it should not be allowed in courts: it is an unfair method of argument because its claims cannot be disproven.
No one should be subject to having their fitness for public office questioned because of such an attack. Whether we like them or despise them, they deserve better than this.
It's clear by now that I don't have any brief for the guy. However, just as I defended him a bit this weekend on the grounds of his wife, I'm going to defend him against this psychoanalytic attack. It's from back in March, but just came to my attention this morning.
The problem with the "diagnosis" starts with the fact that it's unethical to diagnose people you haven't actually examined -- especially politicians in an election year. However, ethical rules in the field of psychology are 'really more of a guideline.' In 2006, the Sanity Squad debated whether or not they were free to talk psychology about political figures they hadn't examined, and determined that of course they were. It's the public's fault if they mistake such talk for an 'actual' diagnosis.
The second problem with it is that every single Presidential candidate gets 'diagnosed' with NPD without examiniation. Sometimes it's laymen doing it, but sometimes it's "real mental health professionals." It happened to Bush, it happened to Kerry, and it happened to Gore. Oh, and people raised the charge about Sen. Clinton. And her husband -- that was what the Sanity Squad got criticized for doing in the first place.
Third, the whole methodology underlying psychology and psychoanalysis is non-falsifiable. It's not science. It's pseudoscience. [UPDATE: It is pointed out to me that I use the term "she" and "her" here incorrectly: this piece was posted at the Body Language Lady's site, but was in fact written by one of her male correspondents. She merely endorsed and distributed the view; she did not originate it.] In an email on the subject of the Obama piece, I wrote:
What is the evidence this expert fields?There is nothing wrong with someone going to a psychologist on his own, to seek help for a problem or disturbance in his life. I don't personally believe any of its claims, but just as religion or the martial arts can improve your life, so can psychology in its proper limits: so can a belief in feng shui. Just wanting to feel or do better, and adopting a disciplined method of working towards it, can have positive effects on you. As we discussed with regard to Aristotle and Free Will, the first thing is to adopt a vision of beauty and pursue it.
1) "An amorphous expression that looks like a child, about three years old, needing approval. I’ve almost never seen this expression in someone who isn’t NPD (occasionally in Borderline Personality Disorder, a closely related type II personality disorder). To me, it’s an exceptionally good indicator. It’s often a fleeting micro-expression (hard to catch without practice)."
So: we are required to take her word for it. If we don't see it, it's because we aren't practiced enough. How do we know who is practiced enough? They can see it!
As always with psychology, there is no way to falsify the claim. You either agree, or you're wrong.
2) "The eyes of NPDs usually have an unusual look. My face-reading friend describes them as “dead eyes”. I perceive NPD eyes as “no boundary between inside and outside”. Some people perceive them as magnetic."
So: their eyes look "unusual." But not unusual in any particular way. Some people see them one way ("dead"). Others see them in exactly the opposite way ("magnetic").
3) "The startle response of pupils (e.g. to disturbing scenes) is often diminished relative to normal people (both less of a change in pupil diameter, and a longer lag before pupil size changes). I think people with NPD also spend less time playing through internal imagery (visible in eye tracking and facial expressions)."
At last, a falsifiable claim. So, has she measured Obama's pupil dilation, to measure it against "normal people"? Well, no, not as such.
Also -- even if she had, it's not telling. The delay is "often" diminished, not always. Nor is it claimed that this is the only potential reason for such diminishment. Most importantly, though, because it is only "often" diminished, a "normal" reading wouldn't clear him of her diagnosis. He might be one of the NPDs whose response is not diminished.
So: in theory this is the strongest claim so far, because it could be tested. It hasn't actually been tested. And even if it were, it wouldn't actually prove or disprove the claim. Once again, psychology doesn't deal in science -- if X then Y. It deals in pseudoscience: its claims cannot be falisified.
I won't go through the whole thing, but hopefully with these examples you can see how the game works. It's all [redacted barnyard expression inappropriate for public discourse]. I don't doubt that she sincerely believes it, as she sincerely believes she is an "expert" in reading people. The problem is that the "expertise" can't really be put to the test: even when individual claims can be falsified, the diagnosis is untouched.
Even if all of psychology's claims and models are untrue in the final analysis, it can still help a willing participant to overcome problems that he identifies in himself. It's not necessary -- a devotion to rock climbing can work as well or better. But it's not wrong, confined to its proper role as an art, participation in which is wholly voluntary. Any disciplined method will do, so long as it pursues a vision of beauty that you personally truly believe.
These attempts to use psychology as a weapon against political enemies are not within the proper limits of psychology. Its unscientific, unfalsifiable nature means that no one so accused has any means of clearing himself. This is the same reason it should not be allowed in courts: it is an unfair method of argument because its claims cannot be disproven.
No one should be subject to having their fitness for public office questioned because of such an attack. Whether we like them or despise them, they deserve better than this.
Yeah
Yeah, This Is What We're Talking About:
But what's it based on? 'He's a gift from the world to us.' He is? What's he done?
Public Service Warning
A Service to the Readers:
If you may too, here is the USDA's page on how to avoid salmonella-caused food poisoning. Keep them cold, clean them carefully, and cook them through. The USDA has specific guidelines.
In the meantime, the cayennes in the garden are starting to come in, so we'll just make do for a while.
We don't usually do public service announcements here, but this one on jalapenos targets the readership in several ways:
For now, the government is strengthening its earlier precaution against hot peppers to a full-blown warning that no one should eat fresh jalapenos — or products such as fresh salsa made from them — until it can better pinpoint where tainted ones may have sold.I know we have a lot of Georgia and Texas readers, and a lot of folks who like to eat jalapenos. I love fresh jalapenos: one of my favorite things to do with any food is to chop up a fresh jalapeno and put it on top, seeds and all. Burgers, salads, chili, whatever: jalapenos are great. We grow them in the garden, but they come in later in the season for us, so we may very well have contaminated, store-bought jalapenos in the house.
Tomatoes currently on the market, in contrast, now are considered safe to eat.
The Texas plant, Agricola Zaragoza, has suspended sales of fresh jalapenos and recalled those shipped since June 30 — shipments it said were made to Georgia and Texas.
If you may too, here is the USDA's page on how to avoid salmonella-caused food poisoning. Keep them cold, clean them carefully, and cook them through. The USDA has specific guidelines.
In the meantime, the cayennes in the garden are starting to come in, so we'll just make do for a while.
Groan
Groan:
Barack Obama's campaign unveiled a sparkling makeover for his chartered plane on Sunday, ahead of the presumptive Democratic nominee's high-profile tour of the Middle East and Europe. The remodelled Boeing 757 jet, dubbed "Obama One" is painted blue and white and sports the Illinois senator's distinctive rising sun logo on its tail....Vero Possumus!
Comp. w/ McCain
Who He Is:
Something like this is what you'd expect to see in a man who puts himself forward for election to the highest office in the nation: a record of accomplishments, of good and bad qualities, based on which you make a measured evaluation and vote.
Whatever else can be said about Senator McCain, we know who he is.
As a point of comparison for the discussion below, consider the piece on McCain in today's New York Times:
Mr. McCain, 71, acquired the sobriquet “maverick” about a decade ago. When he was first elected to the Senate in 1986, after two terms in the House, he was in the mainstream of his party. He even made a credible, though unsuccessful, run for a party leadership post.The piece continues in that fashion: now quoting a McCain supporter, now a detractor. Lincoln Chafee, a Republican, plans to vote for Obama apparently (to read the piece) because he's developed a personal dislike for McCain's 'Naval Academy' style. Russ Feingold, a Democrat, is a friend to McCain and works with him, and says that McCain reaches out to younger legislators in a way unusual for senior Senators. Supporters say he demonstrates actual bipartisanship, not just talk of bipartisanship. Detractors say he has a temper. Supporters say he never runs from a fight on principle. Detractors say that he's stronger with independents and Democrats than Republicans.
But his popularity did not last. First, there was his “truculent nature,” as he calls it. His Republican colleagues call him aggressive, brusque and abrasive. He later adopted the habit of publicly scolding other senators about their special privileges, from pet spending projects to airport parking spots. What Mr. Lott called his “cuddling up” to the Democrats has further strained Mr. McCain’s relations with Republicans.
“I suppose over the last 10 years he has passed more significant legislation than any senator around,” said Senator Judd Gregg, a conservative New Hampshire Republican frequently at odds with Mr. McCain. “But that doesn’t necessarily entail being liked.”
Something like this is what you'd expect to see in a man who puts himself forward for election to the highest office in the nation: a record of accomplishments, of good and bad qualities, based on which you make a measured evaluation and vote.
Whatever else can be said about Senator McCain, we know who he is.
Krauthammer
"Who Are You?"
I can forgive the man's own sense of entitlement or arrogance or whatever it is: the world has been handed to him on a platter at every moment. He's never done anything, but he's never had to do anything. For whatever reason, people have rushed to him to lay flowers at his feet. He's 28 years old, doesn't grasp what an opportunity he's being given in being offered a contract with Simon & Schuster, blows his deadline, and then turns in a memoir instead of the work he promised to produce? Hey, no problem -- here's forty grand.
He hasn't updated his awareness on Iraq in two years, and so at the last minute he goes out with a Congressional Delegation to meet with some of the generals he's never talked to as a Senator? Every network sends their anchor along to cover the historic trip. McCain -- a long-term Senator and veteran, and the guy who made the Surge -- goes out while the war is still hot, and walks the Iskandariyah market without body armor? The wire services don't even send anyone. The only photos of the trip are from military public affairs.
His wife gets her salary tripled after he wins election to the Senate, and shortly thereafter he earmarks her employer a million dollars? Hey, now, so what? That's the politics of hate, man. The hospital says she deserved it, so obviously it's just what's fair. We all know how it works. Grim's Hall readers are smart and work hard. Some of you got a 300% raise that year, right? No? Ever?
You're getting your start as a mere "community organizer." Your chief initiative is to get better housing for your constituents. The housing is underbuilt and has to be condemned, and your chosen vendor goes to prison on Federal corruption charges. This is seen in no way as a disqualifying factor to your pursuit of higher office. Really, it's not interesting. Especially not when taken together with that earmark thing. Oh, and the guy who went to prison helped you buy your house. And donated to your campaign. All of your campaigns.
I had the same sense when President Bush proposed Julie Myers as the head of ICE, when she was manifestly unqualified -- but related to a key Bush supporter. (Some of you will remember me ranting about that repeatedly and at length.) Myers, though, was clearly a Bush powerplay: the Republicans protested loudly, but finally fell in line. They had used up their political capital killing his SCOTUS nomination.
In the case of Senator Obama, the whole world seems to be in on the game. It's one thing for a Senator or a Presidential candidate to have high and low moments, pluses and drawbacks. That's normal. It's astonishing to watch someone who, since he was a man of 28 and even younger, has been given everything: whose failures have been rewarded with cash advances, praise, adulation, and higher office.
I realize that this is an ad hominem rather than a cogent argument. Still, since I've spent the entire weekend defending Senator Obama's right to defend his wife -- and the basic nobility of such a defense -- I think I can take a moment to point to something that really bothers me about the man.
[W]hat exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop? What was his role in the fight against communism, the liberation of Eastern Europe, the creation of what George Bush 41 — who presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall but modestly declined to go there for a victory lap — called “a Europe whole and free”?...That last bit is probably fair, in spite of his more recent work: but it is all the more astonishing given that he was allowed to write a memoir instead of the book he was contracted to produce, which was to be a book on race relations. He was permitted to write the memoir at the age of 28. For which memoir he was given an advance of $40,000. After he missed his deadline. Oh, and he took five years to finish the memoir of a 28 year-long life, but they never asked for the money back.
Americans are beginning to notice Obama’s elevated opinion of himself. There’s nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?
Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted “present” nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.
I can forgive the man's own sense of entitlement or arrogance or whatever it is: the world has been handed to him on a platter at every moment. He's never done anything, but he's never had to do anything. For whatever reason, people have rushed to him to lay flowers at his feet. He's 28 years old, doesn't grasp what an opportunity he's being given in being offered a contract with Simon & Schuster, blows his deadline, and then turns in a memoir instead of the work he promised to produce? Hey, no problem -- here's forty grand.
He hasn't updated his awareness on Iraq in two years, and so at the last minute he goes out with a Congressional Delegation to meet with some of the generals he's never talked to as a Senator? Every network sends their anchor along to cover the historic trip. McCain -- a long-term Senator and veteran, and the guy who made the Surge -- goes out while the war is still hot, and walks the Iskandariyah market without body armor? The wire services don't even send anyone. The only photos of the trip are from military public affairs.
His wife gets her salary tripled after he wins election to the Senate, and shortly thereafter he earmarks her employer a million dollars? Hey, now, so what? That's the politics of hate, man. The hospital says she deserved it, so obviously it's just what's fair. We all know how it works. Grim's Hall readers are smart and work hard. Some of you got a 300% raise that year, right? No? Ever?
You're getting your start as a mere "community organizer." Your chief initiative is to get better housing for your constituents. The housing is underbuilt and has to be condemned, and your chosen vendor goes to prison on Federal corruption charges. This is seen in no way as a disqualifying factor to your pursuit of higher office. Really, it's not interesting. Especially not when taken together with that earmark thing. Oh, and the guy who went to prison helped you buy your house. And donated to your campaign. All of your campaigns.
I had the same sense when President Bush proposed Julie Myers as the head of ICE, when she was manifestly unqualified -- but related to a key Bush supporter. (Some of you will remember me ranting about that repeatedly and at length.) Myers, though, was clearly a Bush powerplay: the Republicans protested loudly, but finally fell in line. They had used up their political capital killing his SCOTUS nomination.
In the case of Senator Obama, the whole world seems to be in on the game. It's one thing for a Senator or a Presidential candidate to have high and low moments, pluses and drawbacks. That's normal. It's astonishing to watch someone who, since he was a man of 28 and even younger, has been given everything: whose failures have been rewarded with cash advances, praise, adulation, and higher office.
Homer
Homer:
The Claremont Institute reviews a book on Homer, remarking that Alcibiades once slapped a grammar school teacher for not having a copy on hand for his students. He then compares two famous translations into English, Robert Fagles' and Alexander Pope's:
Prince Achilles, ranging his ranks of Myrmidons,My favorite is the Fitzgerald.
arrayed them along the shelters, all in armor.
Hungry as wolves that rend and bolt raw flesh,
hearts filled with battle-frenzy that never dies—
off of the cliffs, ripping apart some big antlered stag
they gorge on the kill till all their jaws drip red with blood,
then down in a pack they lope to a pooling, dark spring,
their lean sharp tongues lapping the water's surface,
belching bloody meat, but the fury, never shaken,
builds inside their chests though their glutted bellies burst—
so wild the Myrmidon captains, Myrmidon field commanders
swarming round Achilles' dauntless friend-in-arms
♣
Achilles speeds from tent to tent, and warms
His hardy Myrmidons to blood and arms.
All breathing death, around their chief they stand,
A grim, terrific, formidable band:
Grim as voracious wolves that seek the springs
When scalding thirst their burning bowels wrings
(When some tall stag, fresh-slaughtered in the wood,
Has drenched their wide, insatiate throats with blood)
To the black fount they rush, a hideous throng,
With paunch distended, and with lolling tongue,
Fire fills their eye, their black jaws belch the gore,
And gorged with slaughter, still they thirst for more.
Like furious rushed the Myrmidonian crew,
Such their dread strength, and such their deathful view.
Akhilleus put the Myrmidons in arms,
the whole detachment near the hut. Like wolves,
carnivorous and fierce and tireless,
who rend a great stag on the mountainside
and feed on him, their jaws reddened with blood,
loping in a pack to drink springwater,
lapping the dark rim up with slender tongues,
their chops a-drip with fresh blood, their hearts
unshaken ever, and their bellies glutted:
Such were the Myrmidons and their officers,
running to form up round Akhilleus' brave
companion-in-arms.
Cost of Gov't Day
Cost of Government Day:
The Whited Sepulchre celebrates "Cost of Government Day," the day when you've finally paid off what you owe the several governments who tax you. He details his celebrations, in honor of the example set by the gov't.
* I went to Starbucks and took up a collection for orphans in Burma, to be paid when the orphans retire at age 65. If it appears that the orphans will live past 65 and the funds are running low, I can always push back the retirement age.Our correspondent has been watching too much C-SPAN. He needs to get out and do like the rest of us: try to forget the government exists as much as possible. It's the only way to be happy. :)
* I took part of the orphan money and bought a double espresso. I paid $25 for it, which some of you might think is too much. That's none of your business. Starbucks was a major contributor to my Burmese orphan fundraiser, and this is how I give back to the community. Plus, I have to protect American jobs by paying too much. To do less would be unpatriotic.
* Since I work in the transportation industry, I have a vested interest in keeping the cost of fuel as low as possible. I purchased several farms worth of wheat, and converted the wheat to ethanol. Not only is this bad for the environment (which gives me an opportunity to set up more programs to protect the environment), but when I convert food to fuel it also helps create more orphans in places like Burma ! More orphans = more fundraisers !
...
*Shortly before lunchtime on COGD, I used Eminent Domain legislation to tear down a Burmese orphanage and put a Wal-Mart in its place. We'll see a huge increase in tax revenue from this move. This will allow us to spend more than ever.
Demographics
Anti-Declinism:
This article makes some very good points against what has become a sort-of 'conventional wisdom' that the US is in decline, at least relative to other powers. As the author points out, there is much to doubt in some of the trend analysis. For example, his point about the reserves China holds is correct: China's economic expansion is deeply tied to exports to the US. China, because of where its demographics are right now, needs to expand or else it will collapse. If it were to undercut America's economy, it would be cutting its own throat. We, being vastly richer, might survive, but there is no reason to believe that they would.
A further point to be made is that the demographics don't favor many of these trends continuing. The EU's demographics are much discussed, and need to be remembered here also. As the aging EU population is replaced by immigrants, internal stresses will only increase. How to formulate a common foreign policy between several nations when each is struggling with such internal difficulties? One can easily imagine a case in the not-too-distant future in which some of these nations where the demographic trends are strongest begin to agitate against the nations where they are weakest.
China also has a major demographic disruption on the horizon, due to the one-child policy. There will be a massive depopulation, and aging of the populace there also. It's already happened -- we cannot now have more children for the years they passed under one-child -- and we are only waiting for the problem to ripen. China's interest is in stability and continued growth, to help it pull past the demographic collapse.
Japan? The demographic collapse is even worse. Russia? Same.
Of them all, India is the only one that is likely to push forward without a massive adjustment. India and the United States are both maintaining natural growth, without suffering economic collapse. China may recover: Russia and Japan will not, and the EU's future is hard to predict at this time.
If I were betting on the future, I'd bet that the US will continue to lead the world. An Indian-American or Chinese-American alliance will develop, as we have many common interests with both.
In fact, it's possible we may have an alliance with both. They border each other, and will rub against each other as they grow. They may prove to need us more than ever as a balancing actor between the two.
Cut it Out
Cut it Out:
I've made this same mistake myself in conversation, and I'm rather younger than either Senators Nunn or McCain. Czechoslovakia was such a wonderful name, it sticks in the brain. If we're going to talk about what people have forgotten, both these men have forgotten more about the region and its history than certain persons have ever had occasion to learn.
Gates Speaks
SECDEF Gates & DOS/USAID:
The problem hasn't just been underfunding, however. This is a market-driven solution, so to speak: the reason the military has been taking over intelligence and even diplomacy is that it has done a better job. The reason it has done a better job -- aside from the military's culture of honor, which has salutory effects on human behavior -- is that the military is the only part of the government that doesn't regard war as a failure to be avoided, but rather as a tool to be used.
The civilian agencies don't just need more money. They need a change in mindset. They need -- State especially -- to reconsider diplomacy's relationship to war.
The view of diplomacy that has come to dominate the West is one of quasi-law: the point of negotiations is to create regulations and bodies to enforce those regulations. That mindset has an honorable history, and attempts to mitigate the worst tragedies in human history; but it also creates new problems.
For one thing, it should be obvious at this point that the international "enforcement" mechanisms are broken -- or, rather, that they were always illusions. The legalist model tries to treat relations between states as we treat relations between people within a state, but that concept cannot work. There is no similar way to punish a state, as our systems of law punish individuals.
If a man defies the law, we can fine him, or put him in prison: we don't necessarily have to kill him. If a nation defies its treaty obligations, however, fines don't work: the various 'sanctions'-style regimes end up being shrugged off by governments, the costs pushed down onto the people. The experience in dealing with North Korea should show that you can push sanctions to the point of absolute, grinding poverty, and still not force the rogue state to change.
Nor can we put nations in prison. We can only make them into prisons.
That, too, punishes not the nation but the poor people of that nation. Within those prisons, the leadership remains free to do what it will.
The traditional "enforcement mechanism" in international relations was war. This is not because our ancestors were barbarians, but because it is the only system that works. Engagement and diplomacy are good things, but they must always be braided together with the threat of war if agreements are not kept. Similarly, failing states and rogue states can be addressed better using civilian means much of the time -- so long as the military means are kept plainly in sight, to ensure that a proper understanding exists between us and the people with whom we negotiate.
Modern civilian agencies do need to become more central, and more important. They do need more funding.
They also need to rethink their relationship with their brothers in uniform. They should see each others as partners in the greater cause of national security, and the interests of human liberty. We should not punish the people of rogue states, but seek to help them. If that means we punish their governments, so be it: but methods that punish only the people are unfit for a nation such as ours. We should always be on the side of human liberty and happiness: always on the side of the people, even when we are opposed to their government.
USAID, USDA, State -- they can be a very positive part of making that a reality. They have to recognize, though, what works and what never works: and rethink their relationship to war.
It is not that war is desirable: it is not. But it is also not the thing to be avoided. Diplomacy does not exist to prevent war. It exists to expand the space for human freedom, and to protect the interests of our civilization. Diplomacy and war are not opposed, but are the twin tools available to us. We -- our civilian and our military officers -- must be ready to use whichever one is necessary at the given moment.
Secretary Gates reiterates the point that LTG Chiarelli was making.
"America's civilian institutions of diplomacy and development have been chronically undermanned and underfunded for far too long -- relative to what we traditionally spend on the military, and more importantly, relative to the responsibilities and challenges our nation has around the world," Gates said at a dinner organized by the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign, according to prepared remarks of his speech.The American Enterprise Institute has also written on this, and challenged the Country Teams to take the lead in dealing with counterinsurgency (COIN) and stabilization efforts worldwide. They are not the only ones to feel that the Country Team -- an interagency group that reports to the ambassador, but involves both military and civilian advsiors -- should be the focus of leadership in any COIN or Foreign Internal Defense (FID) efforts. It's an existing solution, but it needs a change in focus from our goverment.
Over the next 20 years, Gates predicted, "the most persistent and potentially dangerous threats will come less from emerging ambitious states, than from failing ones that cannot meet the basic needs -- much less the aspirations -- of their people."
The problem hasn't just been underfunding, however. This is a market-driven solution, so to speak: the reason the military has been taking over intelligence and even diplomacy is that it has done a better job. The reason it has done a better job -- aside from the military's culture of honor, which has salutory effects on human behavior -- is that the military is the only part of the government that doesn't regard war as a failure to be avoided, but rather as a tool to be used.
The civilian agencies don't just need more money. They need a change in mindset. They need -- State especially -- to reconsider diplomacy's relationship to war.
The view of diplomacy that has come to dominate the West is one of quasi-law: the point of negotiations is to create regulations and bodies to enforce those regulations. That mindset has an honorable history, and attempts to mitigate the worst tragedies in human history; but it also creates new problems.
For one thing, it should be obvious at this point that the international "enforcement" mechanisms are broken -- or, rather, that they were always illusions. The legalist model tries to treat relations between states as we treat relations between people within a state, but that concept cannot work. There is no similar way to punish a state, as our systems of law punish individuals.
If a man defies the law, we can fine him, or put him in prison: we don't necessarily have to kill him. If a nation defies its treaty obligations, however, fines don't work: the various 'sanctions'-style regimes end up being shrugged off by governments, the costs pushed down onto the people. The experience in dealing with North Korea should show that you can push sanctions to the point of absolute, grinding poverty, and still not force the rogue state to change.
Nor can we put nations in prison. We can only make them into prisons.
That, too, punishes not the nation but the poor people of that nation. Within those prisons, the leadership remains free to do what it will.
The traditional "enforcement mechanism" in international relations was war. This is not because our ancestors were barbarians, but because it is the only system that works. Engagement and diplomacy are good things, but they must always be braided together with the threat of war if agreements are not kept. Similarly, failing states and rogue states can be addressed better using civilian means much of the time -- so long as the military means are kept plainly in sight, to ensure that a proper understanding exists between us and the people with whom we negotiate.
Modern civilian agencies do need to become more central, and more important. They do need more funding.
They also need to rethink their relationship with their brothers in uniform. They should see each others as partners in the greater cause of national security, and the interests of human liberty. We should not punish the people of rogue states, but seek to help them. If that means we punish their governments, so be it: but methods that punish only the people are unfit for a nation such as ours. We should always be on the side of human liberty and happiness: always on the side of the people, even when we are opposed to their government.
USAID, USDA, State -- they can be a very positive part of making that a reality. They have to recognize, though, what works and what never works: and rethink their relationship to war.
It is not that war is desirable: it is not. But it is also not the thing to be avoided. Diplomacy does not exist to prevent war. It exists to expand the space for human freedom, and to protect the interests of our civilization. Diplomacy and war are not opposed, but are the twin tools available to us. We -- our civilian and our military officers -- must be ready to use whichever one is necessary at the given moment.
Friends & Enemies
Friends Like These:
This is the number one story on Memeorandum today.
I would like to say -- it would suit my temperment -- that this story was a waste of air and that we should be reading Obama's new plan for Iraq instead. However, he has demonstrated such a disloyalty to his own statements that I see no reason to bother with anything he says or writes at this point. I think we can say with some certainty that anything he says is designed for political advantage in the moment, and will not be considered binding in any way in the future.
So, since the discussion I'd prefer to have is really off the table -- it's bootless to argue about where his plan is wise (though I like the focus on nonmilitary assistance that he's been mentioning lately; a more complete reading on the subject, from people who can be relied upon to mean what they say, is LTG Chiarelli and MAJ Smith's paper from the Combined Arms Center), or where it is foolish. His word, he has demonstrated, is irrelevant.
Thus, the popular opinion -- that the New Yorker story is actually more important than Obama's stated plan on Iraq -- is actually, sadly, tragically correct. "With friends like these," folks; though I suppose, given Obama's record on loyalty to his friends, that one reaps as one sows.
Still, I don't really want to talk about the New Yorker. Maybe we could talk about Chiarelli instead -- it's the one point from Obama's piece that I think is strongly correct, and a worthy idea that deserves wider consideration and awareness. On the chance that Obama might not reverse himself, then, let's read the Chiarelli piece and talk about it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)