Sunday, December 28, 2008

dear israel,

what are you doing? this can't achieve anything. it's awful and stupid in so many ways that i won't even begin to list them.

quick responses

friedman's 'win, win, win, win, win...'

he's absolutely right. it's tough, but the us needs a systemic change. a shift in culture and in lifestyle. our myopic, self-indulging, consume-all mentality needs governmental curbs. in other words, gas taxes, to give a soft push towards necessary change.

that said, i don't think obama will do it (it = "increase the federal gasoline tax or impose an economy-wide carbon tax"). and i'm not sure obama should do it.

as friedman points out, raising taxes in a recession is a "no-no." as much as i think friedman's ideas need to come to fruition, i'm afraid that doing so would be political suicide for obama. raising taxes could handicap obama in making other decisions--his overwhelming public support could wane, and 2010 by elections could shift power back to the gop. in a fragile time where bipartisan action is needed to lift the us our of recession, such a move could really hurt.

i know it's silly that political considerations like this factor in. they shouldn't. but the reality is that they do. and if such a move handicaps the rest of obama's agenda, i can understand pursuing other pro-green policies in the short term and tabling this substantial change for later.

that said, i hope obama finds a way to build public support for friedman's initiatives. friedman certainly has me sold on them.




rich's 'you're likable enough, gay people'

i'm not entirely sure where i stand on obama's choice of rick warren as his inaugural invocation speaker. from what i've read--from juan cole particularly--warren seems like a pretty good guy. as rich writes, "His good deeds are plentiful on issues like human suffering in Africa, poverty and climate change. He is opposed to same-sex marriage, but so is almost every top-tier national politician, including Obama."

so all things considered, the choice of any religious figure is bound to stir up some controversy. rich notes that many religious conservatives are upset with warren for accepting this invitation; they believe it compromises his pro-life preachings and christian values. and many people would prefer that a religious figure wasn't invited at all. after all, why would a secular nation need a religious speaker in the first place? and why would a nation with a diverse population of jews, mormons, muslims, buddhists, and atheists need that religious speaker to be a christian?

i acknowledge that a religious speaker is necessary. and personally, i don't mind it. the inauguration has a lot of symbolism in it, and putting a little spirituality into it is a good thing (even if it's via organized religion).

so, yeah, i'm not too happy that warren has said some offensive things about gay people. but most religious leaders and most americans share his viewpoint. i know that doesn't justify it. but that doesn't mean it should be ignored either. part of bridging the gap is making concessions and opening your ears to other folks, even if it does sound like bigotry. this builds understanding, and from this understanding can come change. i think obama sees that warren shares this desire--this drive to open himself and his followers to dialogue, understanding, and change.

in general, religion seems to be the antithesis of open-mindedness and change, but i think that in this case, warren can represent a change towards greater unity and open-mindedness. as rich points out, warren represents a departure "from the Falwell-Robertson brand of zealots who have had a stranglehold on the G.O.P." to me, the selection of warren isn't a sign of hubris on obama's part--and it isn't a sign of a step backwards towards blind bigotry. to me, warren's selection, reflects the reality of things (as imperfect as they may be), and reflects the unity and open-mindedness that has been the centerpiece of obama's message. it sucks that warren can represent the spiteful bigotry of many americans towards gays, but strangely enough, this is a push in the right direction--as small and frustrating a push as this may be to so many.


herbert's 'stop being stupid'

couldn't agree more. i'll do my best. and i think others will too because we have to. in rebuilding, it's important to learn the lesson of our own self-indulgent, myopic hubris and not make the same mistake again.

'early american echoes in south africa?'

interesting article. on the surface, the similarities between america's nascent democracy and south africa's are certainly there. and i think it's important to point out--as mcneil does--that democracy in any nation takes a while to build and is rarely ever unshakable. maybe one-party rule is necessary for the first decade or two of a democracy. and maybe civil war is inevitable for every growing democracy. these are tough ideas to consider--especially since we're a nation that unquestionably believes that democracy is the best form of government.

that said, i disagree with mcneil. i don't think a split in the anc is imminent. i don't have a whole lot to back this up, except for something a classmate of mine said while i was studying at uct. he was a member of the anc youth league. and strangely enough, he disliked both mbeki and zuma (although he disliked zuma much more). despite his disappointment with these two leading figures in the anc, his support for the anc appeared unshakable. when i asked him if he'd ever vote for a different minority party, he said no. and he gave a pretty good explanation why he, and other young south africans, would not vote for an opposition party. the anc is still connected so much to the liberation movement. most of its leading members were part of the liberation movement--either fighting apartheid from outside of the country or fighting from within the country within the apratheid regime's prisons. my classmate explained that the anc will split, but it'll take time. he guessed at least a decade, maybe two. when the anc becomes distanced from the unity of its liberation struggle, then it'll split. when domestic issues become more relevant than the party's historical legacy, then a split will occur. it's part of the growth of any democracy.

based on my classmates fervent support for the anc, and analysis of rsa politics, i share his view.

but hey, maybe mcneil's right. maybe the past year has shown that south africa's growing towards democracy at a speed faster than the US. maybe south africa's recent political upheaval reflects that they'll reach a competitive democracy in the near future. or maybe it reflects that the south africa is hurtling forwards to fast towards division and violence.

Friday, December 26, 2008

buildings, new york

ugh...
i have no sympathy for these people. if anyone's gonna suffer in these tough economic times, then the upper crust should be the first. sure, they bring down lots of working class folks with them, which sucks. but change has to come from the top in order for real change to happen. it's all has to crumble before anything new, exciting, scary, and better can be built

Monday, December 15, 2008

a discussion / decision of America's role in the world.
What should it be.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Is there anyway to avoid this

Rapid troop increase in Afghanistan

Defense Secretary, Robert Gates was in Afghanistan today. While there he said some scary things. Not to his own fault. Just reflects the reality of the task ahead.

The U.S. plans to send 20,000 additional troops to Afghanistan as soon as possible (which folks estimate is 12 to 18 months). The US already has 34,000 troops in Afghanistan. NATO forces have 30,000 troops.

So, as a new administration gets set to take office. And as a new state stands on the precipice of collapse, I ask: is there anyway to avoid this?

It certainly seems necessary. The US can't make the same mistake we made in invading Iraq--trying to fight the war on the cheap. Doing so will just drag the war out for longer, and may even worsen conditions. In fact, that's kind of what's been going on in Afghanistan since we first sent troops in 2001. The old Jacksonian strand of thinking might be on target here; if we're going to fight, we have to give it all we've got.

That said, the reality is pretty stark.

Building a democratic nation takes a while. It took lots of money, time, and troops to build democratic states in Japan and Germany. Iraq likely won't be a stable (by stable I mean little violence propagated by non-state actors)democratic (by democratic I mean electoral democracy with peaceful power transitions and little violence propagated by state actors) nation for some time (if it ever is).

And Gates and General McKiernan recognize this. There not deluding themselves.

General McKiernan: "Let’s put it in historical perspective — this country has been at war for the last 30 years,” General McKiernan told reporters, using the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 as the starting point. “Thirty years. That’s not going to stop overnight."

Robert Gates when asked if he thought the war would last 10 to 15 years: “I think that we are in many respects in an ideological conflict with violent extremists,” he said. “The last ideological conflict we were in lasted about 45 years.”

That said, there are clear differences between Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan has a democratic government--albeit a weak one. The US does not have to deal with building political culture and political institutions in quite the same way as we've had to do in Iraq. Also, the US has NATO support. None of that bullshit, coalition of the willing--some actual support.

Nonetheless, there are some new obstacles. The conflict in Afghanistan is increasingly becoming a transnational war that threatens to drag Pakistan into it. This is a serious obstacle the US didn't have to face in Iraq. In comparison to Afghanistan, Iraq's neighbors seem stable and innocuous.

So, it's scary to know that our military leaders have committed troops to Afghanistan for the next three to four years (according to the article). If anything, it tells me that if conflict is absolutely necessary to stave off collapse and Taliban control, the US must have international support.

The US will need to cooperate and appeal to its NATO allies. The US will need to listen to their concerns and explain our own concerns. The US will need to ask for more troops.

And the US will need to do become solid partners with Pakistan and the Zardari government--not to mention the Karzai and Singh government.

And the US better hope that Iraq is a success. The whole point of Iraq (as explained to me by Rice's writing) is to build a democratic state that can stabilize and democratize the region. By her account, the US has stood by authoritarian leaders as long as they defended our interests. Now, this strategy has proven unsustainable, and democratic stability is absolutely necessary. The hope is that Iraq will serve as a strong, democratic ally that can be an outlet for US soft power and an ally in hard power. (Yet still sovereign; they should not be a US puppet, just a US friend). Iraq will be both a model and an anchor in the region. A pivot.

The hope is that pivots will make state-building projects in neighboring nations easier. It'll continue to get easier. But who knows if that's the case.

I have no military knowledge, and I don't know what makes wars stablize and what makes them spiral out of control. But it seems like there's no way to avoid this. Seems like we'll have a war that's dragged on and intensified for over a decade by the end of Obama's term. Let's hope we can learn from our on-the-ground mistakes in Iraq. And let's hope we can confront this reality with the most success and least amount of death possible.

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Indian Police Disclose More Suicide Attackers

- seems to suggest that Pakistani intelligence knew all along where Lashkar-e-Taibar was, and was operating.

- nonetheless, great. great symbolic act with practical consequences

Saturday, December 6, 2008

quixotic or driven by malicious self-interest?

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Incubating Nation-States

For a paper I'm writing in an Urban Planning seminar, I'm reading up on institutional development. Institutional development is pretty self-explanatory. It's the idea that institutions develop--they evolve, they grow, they change. Different authors have different theories about how institutions tend to develop in certain circumstances, and how institutions should develop.

Phillip Selznick has an idea termed "incubation for maturation." He recommends that nascent institutions must have a period of incubation in the early stages of their existence. They must be free from external pressure that may undermine the institution's values and constituents. This period of "incubation"--which he also calls "isolation"--allows an institution to have the freedom to sort out their ideas. An institution can refine and experiment with its values, so that they may become stronger and more unifying. After "incubation," an institution will have a strong set of values that can unify all its members. When faced with external pressures, the institution will now be able to confront them head on. It can rally around its tested values and its loyal members.

He gives the example of the Bolsheviks, and how their period of "incubation" from 1924 to 1935 allowed them to emerge as a strong--albeit authoritarian--party. As a group with a strong unifying set of values and a committed body of members, the communist party was able to firmly grip its power for decades.

This is of course an ugly example. However, it makes me wonder if a period of incubation could be good for developing countries. Maybe a populist group with democratic ideals should be allowed to rise to power, and then tighten its grip temporarily. Rule in an authoritarian manner and unify its nation under the identity and ideology that it offers.

I realize that this sounds completely awful. Just writing it, I realize how terrible it would be. The goal of incubation to strengthen identity and ideology inevitably necessitates indoctrinating and purging a nation. That's how a ruling party keeps external pressure out, and strengthens its unity; kill off the disunity.

Also, I think incubation may cause creativity to be restricted. Rather than incubation allowing new ideas to be tried out, the same old values are just tweaked and tried out in different ways. Most of the strengthening that incubation enables goes towards disciplining its constituents rather than refining its ideology.

Nonetheless, I recognize the (few) virtues of this idea. Building national unity is a tough thing. National unity often needs a national identity that citizens can unite around. Creating a national identity--of cultures, values (and language?)--is tough. Maybe this is the point/goal of incubation. Incubation allows weak, diverse state to gain cohesion. It doesn't mean cultures must be obliterate--although this is a definite, definite threat. It allows a nation to overcome its sectarian divisions.

If the idea of the nation-state really is to show its merit in the world, maybe this is the only realistic way it can be done. The US had to fought a civil war over its national identity (among other things). Maybe a period of intense incubation eliminates conflicts like this taht will certainly arise in developing states with multiple ethnic and religious groups.