Discourse/Decision.

2007-01-15T09:28:00.001-05:00

Back to the States after an untimely delay and stay in the hopital in Guatemala City. No, no gun shots (although I did seek out MS-13...) but a pretty nasty infection. Anyway, to celebrate the New Year, here's my good friend Jamie's (no, not me) first post at The Plank. Congrats.

2006-12-31T15:22:00.000-05:00

I'll be back after a short trip to Guatemala. Happy New Years!

2006-12-29T10:24:00.000-05:00

What this war in Somalia has reminded us, if nothing else, is that the doctrine of jihad is alive and well far outside of the Arab world and the 'Stans. Here for interesting information on the mostly forgotten, but increasingly nasty, jihad in Thailand.

2006-12-28T12:03:00.000-05:00

I'm a bit behind when it comes to bling culture, but my limited research indicates that rappers have moved from bragging about their cars to bragging about their planes. Am I mistaken? What's next? Spaceships?

"I say I got a benz so you said me too
You hangin out the window so they can see you
But you ain't hangin out the window when you in that G2
Or that G3 or G4 like we do"

- Clipse

Also, isn't it a bad idea to stick your head out the window of an airplane?

2006-12-28T11:42:00.000-05:00

Some interesting stories of the week that Ford's death has covered up in the media...

1. Hamas threatens to attack the U.S. (!)

2. Ahmadinejad wries a letter to the Pope. (!) I think someone should collect these letters and publish them in comic book format...

3. Prince Harry is on his way to Iraq. (!)

A Great Christmas Present

2006-12-26T15:12:00.000-05:00

This would have been a good one: a US Army skateboard. Real hip.

Nuts

2006-12-25T15:57:00.000-05:00

The NRA's comic book.

2006-12-25T11:04:00.000-05:00

So you don't mistake Machiavelli's thoughts for my own, here are two touching pieces on the lives of ordinary Iraqis caught up in this war. I would also recommend checking out some of the very good blogs out there written by Iraqis. For now, here and here.

Machiavelli and the Kagans

2006-12-25T10:11:00.000-05:00

Merry Christmas!

A thought I had while struggling through last night (I just had surgery on my left shoulder and spend my time either in great pain or delirious on painkillers): it seems to me that the Kagans' (father and son Fred) mission vis a vis this war has been to revitalize Machiavelli's distinction between the feared and the hated prince: the ruler must strive to be feared, but avoid being hated at all costs--a fine line to walk. Our refusal to make this distinction, however, has left us with a completely ineffectual security policy for Iraq: we are so afraid of being hated that we cannot effectively convince the insurgents we are adequately powerful and committed to destroy them. We need a bigger footprint in Iraq exactly to do so, while at the same time providing the necessary infrastructure and services to keep us from being despised.

I'm not attributing these thoughts directly to the Kagans, but in my percocet-induced haze last night this Machiavelli-model came to mind as a useful way to think about how they've seen this war from the beginning.

Somalia

2006-12-24T11:48:00.000-05:00

Those pushing the idea of Somalia as the new Afghanistan are failing to take into account two important facts: first, the UIC's stated ambivalence to the ends of Al Qaeda and second, the Ethiopia factor: Ethiopia simply will not allow a full-blown Islamist state to emerge on its eastern border. With that said, I believe this war with Ethiopia, if the UIC emerges alive, will be enough to fully radicalize it into a Taliban-style faction, particularly if the U.S. openly supports Ethiopia. Indeed, it will be interesting to see how much this war, which is developing as I write, will become the new jihad of vogue, with foreign fighters streaming in to help the embattled Somalis. While Bin Laden did recently include Darfur on his list of sites of interest to the global jihadist, Al Qaeda--as far as I'm aware--hasn't had much of a presence in East Africa since Bin Laden's exile fronm Sudan in 1996. But if Bin Laden does help the UIC fight Ethiopia, it's likely that Al Qaeda will be granted some degree of operational freedom and security within Somalia in the years to come. Even more interesting, as I've commented in this space before, the UIC has been sending men to Lebanon to be trained by Hezbollah. The secular government at Baidoa obviously needs our support, but the extent to which this translates into outright support for Ethiopia must be carefully considered. If we do support Ethiopia (I don't think we have a choice) we must do so subtly. At best, this scenario promises an extremely bloody and nasty regional war in the Horn of Africa. At worst, it promises an extremely bloody and nasty regional war in the Horn of Africa with an isolated, bitter, and devastated Islamist Somalia emerging out of its ashes, mindful of how the U.S. helped contribute to its destruction.

Hegel on Love

2006-12-19T00:32:00.000-05:00

As a friend reminded me today, we'd all be a lot less selfish and closed to others if we read our Hegel. And, as I plowed through The Philosophy of Right for my senior essay project on self-actualization, freedom, and ethical naturalism in Hegel and Marx, I came across this stunning passage:

"But we already possess this freedom in the form of feeling [Empfindung], for example in friendship and love. Here, we are not one-sidedly within ourselves, but willingly limit ourselves with reference to an other, even while knowing ourselves in this limitation as ourselves. In this determinacy, the human being should not feel determined; on the contrary, he attains self-awareness only by regarding the other as other" (§7).

Remember the Family Circus?

2006-12-17T19:08:00.000-05:00

Thank you to Mina for the hilarious link.

Gore Gore Gore

2006-12-17T12:50:00.000-05:00

I still think he's the best bet.

2006-12-15T10:02:00.000-05:00

From the London Times.

"As even embarrassed Iranians realise, the conference is a disgrace, a grotesque attempt to relativise, if not deny, a crime against humanity. Far from giving those in the Middle East a chance to discuss this historical event (a chance all too rarely given in their own countries), the organisers have already censored the proceedings by denying a visa to an outspoken Palestin-ian lawyer who said that denials of the “monstrous horror” harmed the Palestinian cause.

He is right. For it is not simply that the denial or playing down of the Holocaust will, as Amos Oz, the liberal Israeli writer, said, “be received with revulsion and disgust everywhere in the world”; it makes the terrible mistake of justifying criticism of Israel by denying the historical fact so crucial to the state’s founding. The more thoughtful Palestinians have already understood that the refusal to acknowledge the wartime persecution of the Jews gives credibility to the assertion that critics of Israel are motivated by anti-Semitism. Iran’s President simply proves the point. He has labelled Israel a “tumour” that should be “wiped from the face of the Earth”."

Bush & The Kagans

2006-12-14T16:54:00.000-05:00

Looks like Bush might take seriously the recommendations the Kagans have been offering for years: more troops, more troops, more troops. The Kagan family is always kicking around Yale, and I've recently had dinner with father and son (Don and Fred). They remain adamant that only a significantly larger American footprint in Iraq, coupled with an overall increase in the size of the U.S. military, offers any hope to pacify the country. Could this strategy still work? Perhaps in '03 or '04, but now? I think it might be worth a shot. I find Yglesias's take on it petulant and ill-reasoned: I'm always surprised by how litle worthwhile he has say to say about Iraq, while still keeping up an otherwise great blog...

The Realist: Iranian Grand Strategy

2006-12-14T00:07:00.000-05:00

A textbook realist reading of Ahmadinejad's Grand Strategy from an email subscription service I receive, Stratfor. I recommend signing up for their free updates. I know the post is long, but it's worth checking out at length if you have the time:

"Tehran has been maneuvering for years to secure certain interests in the region. First and foremost, of course, is the country's own national security, for which the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad was a prerequisite. With the establishment of a friendly (or at least neutral), Shiite-controlled government in Baghdad, Iran would be able to both secure the primary goal of security and be well down the path toward a secondary and equally desirable goal: regional hegemony.

Therefore, an Iranian strategy began emerging almost from the moment the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad fell in April 2003. The strategy has revolved around shaping events in the region and, crucially, external perceptions of Iran and its leadership. The chief tactics employed have been manipulation of political events in Iraq, a vocal emphasis on Iran's nuclear program, skillful use of politically incorrect (at times, seemingly maniacal) statements by Ahmadinejad, the activation of regional proxies and, above all, patience. Stratfor has explored many of these tactics in detail before, but we will recap them here briefly as the strategy, viewed in full, is quite something to behold.

Let's begin with the most potent part of the strategy (both politically and militarily): the nuclear program.

Iran clearly has used this as a bargaining chip in the back channel dealings over Iraq. Rather than pursuing a covert nuclear program -- which has been the logical course if obtaining nuclear weapons were truly Iran's primary goal in the beginning -- the Iranians made a conscious decision to tout their nuclear advances publicly. Their political and energy partners in Moscow and Beijing routinely have played defense, ensuring that the nuclear issue languishes in the U.N. Security Council. And Tehran has made sure to crank up the rhetoric whenever political developments in Iraq take an unfavorable turn -- while always staying clear of the red line (beyond which the United States or Israel could be expected to mount pre-emptive strikes). This tactic has helped shape perceptions of Iran as a force to be reckoned with, while keeping Washington and its allies off balance in negotiations over Iraq. And, significantly, nuclear weapons no longer appear to be a red herring tactic, but an end of themselves for Tehran.

Closely related to this has been the image campaign for Ahmadinejad, who has been carefully and purposely branded in the public mind as an utter lunatic. The nearly unknown, populist mayor from Tehran was captured in the public spotlight during Iran's 2005 summer election season. Before the world could even begin to form an opinion of him, he began threatening to wipe Israel off the map, labeling the Holocaust an enormous lie and so forth. As North Korea's experiments with the "crazy fearsome cripple gambit" have showed, an otherwise weak state -- headed by a seemingly wild-eyed leader who just might be mad enough to launch some of the nukes that the state may or may not actually possess -- can gain useful concessions, if not respect, from the rest of the world. And in Iran's case, it certainly made Israel and the United States to think twice about whether to attempt any military adventures concerning the Islamic Republic.

Tehran has shown itself equally effective in its use of militant proxies in the region.

The financial, ideological, political and military support of Iran has helped Hezbollah build a strong following among the mostly poor Shiite population of southern Lebanon. Since Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, the Shiite militant group was left languishing -- provoking the occasional border skirmish with Israel as a way of maintaining its credibility. But over the summer, while the world was focused on Iraq, Hezbollah roared back to life in a conflict that went well beyond a border skirmish.

There is reason to believe Iran had a hand in igniting that conflict. In early July, when long-range missiles began raining down on Haifa, sources within Hezbollah hinted to Stratfor that the launch had taken them by surprise -- indicating something more than a routine kidnapping of Israeli soldiers that garnered unintended consequences. Hezbollah forces certainly took a beating during the 34-day conflict, but the important point is that the militant group successfully resisted the Israeli military.

This outcome has purchased long-term benefits for both Hezbollah and Iran. On the micro level, it has attracted new levels of support for Hezbollah and engendered a new sense of confidence within the movement -- which is now moving to expand its political clout through massive street demonstrations in Beirut, designed to bring down the government controlled by its opponents. On the macro level, the outcome of the conflict left Israel in military and political paralysis -- providing Iran with even more room to maneuver politically within the region.

In addition to Hezbollah, Iran has kept in close touch with its Shiite proxies in Bahrain and Kuwait -- a quiet reminder to Sunni Arab states in the region that Tehran retains the means to destabilize their neighborhoods, as it did Israel's, should circumstances compel it. Iran's rising influence in the region has put the Arab regimes on a defensive footing, and some are now questioning the wisdom of strategies that rely on U.S. military strength to secure their interests. It is for this reason, then, that Saudi Arabia is now hinting it will step up support for Sunni insurgents in Iraq, and the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council have announced plans to launch a joint nuclear program (ostensibly for civilian energy purposes). The Sunni states lack strong military capabilities of their own, but will shout as loudly as possible to make it clear to the United States that they will not sit idly by while Iran recasts the region's balance of power in favor of the Shia.

All of these tactics, of course, hit around the periphery of what is really the first and most crucial issue: Iraq. It is there that Iran's political manipulations, its use of proxies and its great patience -- as the poor position of U.S. troops and of the U.S. president both grew increasingly evident -- have come into play. And with its growing confidence in the region, Iran seemingly has become less inclined to settle for merely a friendly or neutral government in Baghdad. Instead, it wants control.

As expected, October turned out to be a particularly deadly month for U.S. forces in Iraq, with Iran helping to fuel attacks by its Shiite militant proxies. These Iranian-sponsored rebels are an assortment of militants, many of whom received training from Hezbollah cadres in Lebanon. Iran also has enlisted rogue elements from Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr's movement to aid in this effort. The timing of the uptick in American casualties played into the U.S. political cycle -- as the Iranians could have predicted -- and contributed to the Republican upset in November's U.S. congressional elections. At the same time, already loud demands for the Bush administration to shift course or construct a real policy for Iraq gained even greater volume.

In keeping with the strategy, Washington now is feeling pressure from all sides to engage Tehran -- and, crucially, the Iranians have had to sacrifice nothing to achieve this position."

2006-12-13T10:14:00.000-05:00

It's funny the way, when things are going well, we call it the "end of history" and when things are going poorly, we call it "the end of the Pax Americana."

Is there a place for somewhere-in-the-middle journalism?

German Word of the Day

2006-12-07T10:18:00.000-05:00

der Amoklauf = the amok running

2006-12-05T10:42:00.000-05:00

This article in Der Spiegel is really hilarious. Another quote: "Wolfowitz ist das Schulbuchbeispiel für das Nebeneinander von Klugheit und Dummheit." ("Wolfowitz is the schoolbook example of the coexistence of cleverness and stupidness.") The article also comes with these great, People magazine-style photos. Peep America's hottest neo-cons--not only are they "stupidly clever", but wildly ugly!

2006-12-05T10:30:00.000-05:00

One of the funnier headlines I've seen on Bolton's resignation and the twilight of the neo-conservative moment. It translates, literally, as "Bye-bye concrete-heads!"

2006-12-01T10:28:00.000-05:00

I just stumbled across the final report of the Princeton Project on National Security. Reflects in great part some of the ideas presented in this space, although I am wary of some of its perk optimism. It seems that the world this project seeks to recapture has all but disappeared: the United States, sadly, is simply not the same country it was before 9/11 and Bush. And it will take more than one presidency to chage it.

Despite my expressed misgivings over the wisdom of troop withdrawal in this space, I woke up today somewhat dissapointed to this news. At the very least, the discussion of withdrawal could have forced the President to explain how his approach would provide real results. Instead, we get more of the pathological resistance to change that got us into this quagmire in the first place.

Are Mobb Deep Neo-Cons?

2006-11-30T18:04:00.000-05:00

"You should spread love not war
Cause my shit is poppin
And I'd be god damned if you shot me
You need to spread love not war
Cause you wont feel safe
Comin out your crib, knowin that we got beef"

(Thanks to Javier for pointing out this important connection.)

Hot off the Press

2006-11-29T23:52:00.000-05:00

Required reading.

2006-11-29T23:43:00.000-05:00

Saw Shimon Peres speak at Yale tonight. He gave a somewhat desultory lecture on how economic development was the key to peace and stability in the Middle East. There was one golden moment of his talk: (referring to Israel's planned expansion of its solar power producing facilities) "I'd rather depend on the sun than on the Saudis. The sun is more democratic."

So much for that.

2006-11-27T10:48:00.000-05:00

Today's Yale Daily News column.

For the Hershites out there

2006-11-25T23:04:00.000-05:00

If you want to know what the new Secretary of Defense really has up his sleeve in regards to Iran, what better place to look than this extensive brief co-edited in 2004 by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Mr. Gates himself.

From page 47:

"Given the potential threat that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons could pose, the full range of alternatives--including military options--for confronting Tehran must be examined. Yet the use of military force would be extremely problematic, given the dispersal of Iran's program at sites throughout the country and their proximity to urban centers. Since Washington would be blamed for any unilateral Israeli military strike, the United States should make it quite clear to Israel that U.S. interests would be adversely affected by such a move. In addition, any military effort to eliminate Iranian weapon capabilities would run the significant risk of reinforcing Tehran's desire to acquire a nuclear deterrent and of provoking nationalist passions in defense of that very course. It would most likely also generate hostile Iranian initiatives in Iraq and Afghanistan."

2006-11-24T14:18:00.000-05:00

To balance the interesting, but somewhat alarmist, Hersh piece in the New Yorker read George Packer's short bit in the journal's latest issue. Packer wrote the standard-bearer book on the war, The Assasin's Gate. It's nice to read such pragmatic commentary on the problems of withdrawal from someone other than Kagan or Kristol. As Packer points out, there are few who look at this question seriously and realistically, with most choosing instead to hide from the harsh realities of the ground behind political and ideological agendas of little relevance.

Packer points out an extremely interesting phenomenon, one of which I have recently become aware but have not yet put into words: the way, over the last year or two, so many liberals and left-leaning Democrats have become policy realists on the Iraq issue, framing the question of withdrawal in terms of American national interests without considering deeply its important humanitarian implications. And, while the neo-cons themselves have never had much regard for questions of humanitarian intervention, Kagan et al now present a case against withdrawal exactly in such terms. Perhaps they do so (similiarly to how they foisted upon us the ex post facto humitarian justification for invasion) in order to sell their interest-based agenda to a broader American base. Regardless, the burden is now squarely upon liberal Democrats who advocate withdrawal to explain, once all-out ethnic and religious slaughter commences in our absence, upon what grounds this withdrawal was justified. One of the most thoughtful left-wing warriors I know (more of a communist than anything) tried to sell me the argument the other day that he'd rather see Iraqis slaughtering each other than young American troops dying in a meaningless war. Is that the thinking behind advocates of withdrawal? If so, the Left has strayed far from its universalistic, humanitarian principles...

2006-11-23T11:46:00.000-05:00

I am thankful for, amongst other things, this useful new website from the folks at the Hudson Institute. Happy Thanksgiving! Enjoy!

More on Gaddis, Bush, and Bismarck

2006-11-21T11:49:00.000-05:00

In his use of the term “shock and awe” in "Surprise, Security and the American Experience" and in his 2005 piece in Foreign Affairs, it is evident that Gaddis refers to a broader conception of shock and awe than the one envisioned by the military planners and strategists who originally coined the term. In its original coinage, shock and awe was a military concept, referring to a brand of limited, psychological warfare intended to achieve maximum battlefield effectiveness at a minimum cost in lives and materiel and with little damage to civilian infrastructure. Gaddis, however, uses the term to describe how offensive military operations can shock the international system from stasis such that it reconfigures itself favorably to one’s strategic interests. He writes:

It [is] free-market thinking applied to geopolitics: that just as the removal of economic constraints allows the pursuit of self-interest automatically to advance a collective interest, so the breaking up of an old international order would encourage a new one to emerge, more or less spontaneously, based on a universal desire for security, prosperity, and liberty. Shock therapy would produce a safer, saner world.”

For Gaddis, shock and awe is the Grand Strategic principle of the forward-looking statesman who, dissatisfied with the current world order uses his military power and influence to affect radical change therein. The wise statesman, Gaddis adds, will know when to stop administering such “shock therapy” and when to consolidate his gains in the protection and preservation of the changed international order.

It is important, however, that we do not forget the original tactical description of the shock and awe concept. Harlan Ullman, the inventor of the term, describes shock and awe as a means of affecting enemy surrender or paralysis in such a way that excessively costly and destructive military operations become unnecessary. Shock, Ullman writes, is “the momentary reaction to some event leading to paralysis, impotence and a feeling of helplessness…overcoming an enemy so quickly and rendering that enemy incapable so as to make any resistance futile or impossible.” Awe, he continues, is “an effect that translate[s] the initial shock into an enduring quality, so that will and perception would not revert to a pre-existing condition.” Perfect knowledge of the enemy, control of the battlefield environment, use of superior technology, and rapidity and efficiency of execution in battle are the tools that would allow one the ability to affect enemy surrender at such a low cost. The correct use of shock and awe strategy, Ullman concludes, will help one realize one’s post-war political objectives—short of complete military annihilation—by refusing to continue the use of indiscriminate and imprudent military force beyond when it is necessary.

These two different conceptions of the shock and awe idea—the Grand Strategic and the military—work well in tandem: affecting large-scale disruptions in the international order, as described by Gaddis, can be achieved through the accumulation of smaller-scale, rapid, and relatively painless military victories which help guarantee certain key political objectives. In other words, shock and awe applied on the tactical level in successful military operations can be sufficient itself to rattle the international order from the status quo. For example, military victories won quickly and easily can convey the sense to one’s enemies that they too could be quickly and easily overcome in violent confrontation. This may force one’s enemies to alter their conduct or to accept certain political compromises that they may not have been willing to before. Indeed, this seems to have motivated in part the Bush Administration’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, as the Blitzkrieg operation was hoped to demonstrate to others with what celerity and ease the American military could affect regime change in distant regions of the world.

While Gaddis limits his characterization of Bismarck as shock and awe strategist to a description of how the statesman’s policies conformed to a certain Grand Strategic use of shock and awe, it is useful to consider to what extent Bismarck oversaw the use of shock and awe at the tactical, military level as well. In particular, how much can one can say that the Austro-Prussian War was won through the use of shock and awe-style military tactics in Helmuth von Moltke’s campaign? To what extent did Bismarck use the success of such tactics at the local level to realize a Grand Strategic vision for the restructuring of the European order in the post-war settlement?

Seymour Hersh on Iran--Round II

2006-11-19T21:59:00.000-05:00

Here.

2006-11-15T20:20:00.000-05:00

A ridiculous, poetic NBA blog written by Flea. Enough said.

2006-11-15T10:36:00.000-05:00

Remember how we all hoped that the Islamist front struggling for power in Somalia would turn out, once in power, to be, well, non-Islamist? That it would temper its goals once it were in charge of protecting and rebuilding a shattered state? Nope.

Bush and Bismarck

2006-11-14T13:52:00.000-05:00

I am in the process of researching/composing a paper on the similarities between Bismarck's Austro-Prussian War of 1866 and Bush's Iraq War of 2003, particularly concerning the use of rapid, psychologically-crippling warfare in each conflict--"shock and awe" tactics. I just stumbled across this quote, which reflects pretty closely the shift that occurred in the Bush Administration after 9/11. It's an obvious point, but hearing it said in regards to the 1866 war makes the historical similarities between Bismarck and Bush of all the more interest: "After 1866, the example of Könnigrätz suggested that Prussia-Germany could extend its influence... against any rival if only it struck fast and hard enough...While other powers tended to view war as a question of 'defense,' the Germans, after 1866, came to relish its offensive potentialities."

John Gaddis turned me on to this comparison in his "Surprise, Security and the American Experience" and also in a 2005 piece in Foreign Affairs.

2006-11-12T18:58:00.000-05:00

A useful interactive graphic from Der Spiegel. Also shows what Europeans are thinking about the elections in the U.S. and the fate of Iraq. I'm not sure if the site has a translation feature, but it's worth looking at.

2006-11-10T22:03:00.000-05:00

The Hippo gets coverage at Ivygate.

2006-11-10T14:50:00.000-05:00

One of the more touching and revealing news stories about Iraq I've read in a while. I haven't much more to say for now in this space about Rumsfeld's resignation.

2006-11-10T11:39:00.000-05:00

New Philosophical Gourmet rankings available here. Yale has moved up considerably, likely due to its hiring craze last spring.

2006-11-07T14:00:00.000-05:00

whoa.

some public school in maine puts on a ballet of deerhoof's "milk man." the future of post-modern education...

a clausewitzian passage in proust...

2006-11-06T12:18:00.000-05:00

"There is one aspect of war," I continued, "which I think Robert was beginning to comprehend: war is human, it is something that is lived like a love or a hatred and could be told like the story of a novel, and consequently, if anyone goes about repeating that strategy is a science, it won't help him in the least to understand war, since war is not a matter of strategy. The enemy has not more knowledge of our plans than we have of the objective pursued by the woman whom we love, and perhaps we do not even know what these plans are ourselves. Did the Germans in their offensive of March 1918 aim at capturing Amiens? We simply do not know. Perhaps they did not know themselves, perhaps it was what happened--their advance in the west towards Amiens--that determined the nature of their plan. And even if war were scientific, it would still be right to paint it as Elstir painted the sea, by reversing the real and the apparent, starting from illusions and beliefs which one then slowly brings into line with the truth, which is the manner in which Dostoiesky tells the story of a life. Quite certainly, however, war is not strategic, it might better be described as a pathological condition, because it admits of accidents which even a skilled physician could not have foreseen, such as the Russian Revolution."

Le Temps retrouvé

question of the day...

2006-11-05T17:56:00.000-05:00

What has proven even more difficult for me today than understanding the normative foundations of Marcuse's eudaemonistic/hedonistic theory of the good has been why the hell this guy is so sad if he just won the New York City Marathon.

- Image from NY Times.

2006-11-05T01:05:00.000-05:00

Awaiting tomorrow's verdict...

Whatever happens, I'm sure it will be barbarous.

2006-11-04T15:03:00.000-05:00

Last night I witnessed one of the more amusing things I've seen at Yale in a while. The Harlem Shakes played a show in Ezra Stiles College along with Girl Talk, a Pittsburgh based D.J. whose wildly eclectic dance-beats sample everything from Nirvana to Dipset. About five minutes into the show, the stage was rushed and Girl Talk was thrown into the arms of the crowd, where he hung suspended for the majority of his set. (I thought crowd-surfing was a thing of the 90's, but who am I to judge...) In the last moments of the show, with Girl Talk hanging in the air, stripped to his underwear and screaming into the mic, he managed to articulate a thoughtful message to the crowd of sweaty Yalies: "I'm glad you guys have made it this far. You'll all have a big fucking impact on the world!" With that said, he fell to the ground.

2006-11-03T21:03:00.000-05:00

Remember the '90s? Remember how good this band was (is)? I saw them for the first time this summer in East Berlin, in a warehouse full of sweaty, burned-out, 30-something Germans... Short-hair, tight-clothes--as if the era had never passed.

Today's Post from the Hippolytic

2006-11-03T18:35:00.000-05:00

The Haggard Case

Well here's today's biggest headline: evangelical leader Ted Haggard is accused of having paid a gay prostitute for sexual service over the course of three years. He also admits to purchase of methamphetamines from a gay escort service in Colorado. In some sense, it seems like old news: big political or religious leader accused of sex scandal, massive cover-up ensues, rocks thrown everywhere, and not much changes (unless the Democratic president is impeached). Perhaps things won't happen again this way--it seems to me the evangelical machine isn't as secretive and hierarchical as the Catholic Church, although it is as rich and cut-throat as mainstream political parties. Regardless, I am dying to see how it will react. Whatever it does, it's in big trouble. It could condemn Haggard with equal force as it condemned Clinton or the Massachusetts priests of the Catholic Church's sex-scandal (remember how Santorum attributed this scandal to Boston's culture of "academic, political, and cultural liberalism"? It seems unlikely to me that it will do so, since it refused to come out so hard in the same way on Foley, de-emphasizing what he actually did and instead focusing on how the Democrats were supposedly using the issue for political purposes. The wider evangelical populace saw the scandal more as a result of Foley's own personal failings, rather than as a greater problem of the Republican party itself (i.e. its refusal to disclose telling information on one of its members.) While these aforementioned sex-scandals differ greatly from the Haggard case (Haggard's doesn't involve rape or pedolphilia) it seems we can learn some lessons from the Right's reaction to these former cases. It seems likely to me that the evangelical machine will offer some kind of limited defense of Haggard--if he actually admits his participation in such activity--while ultimately linking it all, à la Santorum, to some kind of "massive liberal conspiracy" (it's not me that does that Stan!).

But could this be a turning point of sorts? That is, could the evangelical community's realization that one of their leaders has gasp homosexual interests turn them on to the idea that perhaps homosexuality is much more human than they had previously imagined? Somehow I doubt it, and, in fact, it could swing the other way: Haggard's apparent use of drugs and prostitution may cement even more deeply the widely held belief in the connection of homosexuality and moral degeneracy. But perhaps the evangelical community will finally see an issue for what it is: a hypocrite in high power who, while fighting against homosexuality as hard as he could, turned out to have homosexual longings himself. Failing to find outlet for these longings in an open, healthy way, he turned to prostitution and methamphetamines. At the very least, it may force some of those who rage so hard against the progress of the gay community in this country to look inside and ask themselves whether this really is the right cause to be fighting for.

2006-11-01T21:58:00.000-05:00

The 2006 edition of the Yale Philosophy Review is now available online.

Obituary

2006-10-31T10:28:00.000-05:00

Red Auerbach
September 20, 1917 - October 28, 2006

2006-10-29T18:37:00.000-05:00

"But we read the newspapers as we love, blindfold. We do not try to understand the facts. We listen to the soothing words of the editor as we listen to the words of our mistress. We are 'beaten and happy' because we believe that we are not beaten but victorious."

-Proust, Le Temps retrouvé

Already in Trouble at the Hippo...

2006-10-29T15:28:00.000-05:00

Here for Stan's comments on my "massive left-wing conspiracy theory."

Here for Jared's.
Here for my rebuttal.

They affectionately refer to me over there as the "punching bag."

Today's Post from the Hippolytic

2006-10-27T13:06:00.000-04:00

Remember that video al Qaeda released just prior to the 2004 presidential elections, supposedly trying to influence their outcome? Who knows how it affected the election, although it seems it probably drove more people into the Bush camp who still saw the Republicans as the anti-terror party. I am convinced that's the outcome bin Laden sought: get Bush reelected, bleed the U.S. more in Iraq, turn as much of the Muslim world against the U.S. as possible, and eventually force an embarassing withdrawl from Iraq for which he could take credit. In that vein, here's another speculation: what if the upsurge in violence in Iraq over this past month is directly linked to the impending November elections? That is, what if the insurgents on the streets are trying to directly affect American voter opinion through heightened activity? This may not be as surprising as it sounds. As of yesterday, there had been 96 American soldier deaths in October, not to mention a large increase in sectarian death-squad activity and attacks on civilians, making this month the most violent month of 2006 and one of the worst of the whole war. It is significant that so much of the new violence has been directly focused on American soldiers, since it is American deaths that influence voter opinion much more than Iraqi deaths.

The problem, of course, with making such an assumption is that it locates the source of the increased violence in a coherent and coordinated movement. As we have seen, the insurgency is in Iraq is one of the most diverse and variegated resistance movements of modern history. But it is not impossible that primarily Islamist Sunni groups have coordinated activity against U.S. soldiers in the past few weeks to force a political outcome. And, since this is war, increased violence from one sector will inevitably encourage violence from others as well. Thus, the Shiite death-squads respond in vigour to increased Sunni attacks.

So let's assume for just a moment that the majority of U.S. military deaths in October are the result of a coordinated Sunni strategy to affect U.S. voter opinion (if anyone can find out more details about exactly who was killing soldiers, then leave a comment--the validity of my hypothesis ultimately rests on this information), then what was their strategy? What outcome are they trying to affect at the polls? While al-Qaeda, in my opinion, probably wanted Bush back in office in November 2004, I think the reverse is true now; that is, a pro-withdrawal Congress in power now is probably more to their liking. U.S. pullout from Iraq would be seen as a major Jihadi victory and the opportunity to finally realize Islamist goals in Iraq: foment sectarian violence into all-out civil war and eventually try to form a Sunni Islamist polity out of the ruins of violence. With that said, the Iraq War has proven a tremendous recruiting tool for al Qaeda, and it may be that they are not ready for it all to be over yet. And al Qaeda certainly wouldn't mind bringing the U.S. even more to its knees through continued violence. But if insurgent activity this month is in any way tied to the U.S. elections, then it seems like the insurgents could have only one goal in mind: dislodge the Republicans and get a pro-withdrawal majority into Congress. While in 2004 the increased threat of terrorist attacks would certainly get a Republican in power, violently demonstrating the failure of this Republican war will most likely help the Democrats.

Again, the veracity of this speculation rests on empirical facts to which I do not have access. But I wouldn't be surprised if Bush has finally gotten what he wanted and has brought the Islamists fully into the democratic political process (think of them as a lobbying group of sorts). Too bad it's ours and not their's.

By the way, I'm still voting Democrat. But you can imagine who my choice is...

Today's Post from the Hippolytic

2006-10-26T23:57:00.000-04:00

I've just stumbled across word from Yale professor of philosophy Keith DeRose that his son at college is conducting some interesing experiments in torture. Read about it here, on the group blog "Generous Orthodoxy"--a progressive Evangelical "think tank"--to which DeRose contributes. The results are pretty illuminating, if not un-surprising.

Idea: Let's get Zack DeRose over to Yale for a weekend, have him give a teach-in on how to build his "cell" and then fill Beinecke Plaza with undergraduates trapped inside these cells, shouting for freedom. It would be interesting collective performance art--a field of entrapped, squealing Yale students--and a nice way to remind everyone what is at stake in this Administration's agenda...

2006-10-25T20:31:00.000-04:00

(it must mean it's midterms when all i can post is you-tube after you-tube after you-tube...)

2006-10-25T20:28:00.000-04:00

enough said.

2006-10-23T21:43:00.000-04:00

I've just agreed to write for a group blog The Hippolytic--a progresive, student-run publication expanding into digital space. I hope my centrist skepticism does not prove too much a thorn in their (left) side...
For now here.

2006-10-19T10:28:00.000-04:00

Julia Boutros Ahibaii

I love Lebanese pop. Here's an interesting song--glorifying the Lebanese "martyrs" of this summer's war against Israel. Thanks to Abu Aardvark for the link.

Causes of Jihad

2006-10-17T11:08:00.000-04:00

"...the American flight from Beirut after the bombings in 1983, the American flight from Somalia after "Black Hawk down," the attack on the U.S. embassies in Africa, the USS Cole, 9/11, the continual bombing of Iraq under the Clinton administration, the economic sanctions against Saddam's regime that Muslims saw as choking the Iraqi people. The Iraq war, as the critics see it, overwhelms the American attack on the Taliban and bin Laden, the Taliban's resurgence in Afghanistan, bin Laden's survivor charisma, the Pakistani madrassa machine, General Pervez Musharraf's retreat from Waziristan, the Saudi Wahhabi multitentacled missionary-money machine--still the most influential conveyer of anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Semitic, and anti-Christian hatred in the world--the existence of Israel, the Israeli retreat from Lebanon in 2000, Palestinian suicide bombings, the resurgence of Hezbollah, the triumph of American pop culture in Muslim lands, the Satanic Verses, Danish cartoons lampooning the Prophet Muhammad, the Western assault on traditional sexual ethics and the God-ordained malfe domination of the Muslim home, the constant, positivist legal assault on the Holy Law, American and European support for Muslim dictatorships, the Western-centered, Western-aping, increasingly brutal Muslim regimes that have transgressed against God ever since Napoleon routed the mameluks outside Alexandria in 1798, and the unbearable Western military supremacy that reversed a millennium of nearly uninterrupted Muslim triumphs. To these critics, the Iraq war somehow is uglier than the whole cosmological affront of the modern world: Western Christians, Jews, and atheists on top; Asian Buddhists, Confucians, and Shintoists gaining power; the Hindu pantheists rising; and the Muslims, Allah's chosen people, descending..."

- Reuel Marc Gerecht

Book Review

2006-10-12T11:03:00.000-04:00

Elisabeth Young-Bruehl's new book on Hannah Arendt: Why Arendt Matters

2006-10-11T23:12:00.000-04:00

I had dinner tonight with some significant neo-con intellectuals and it dawned on me just how bad the world has become over the past five years. This, however, is a nice song.

In a Bind

2006-10-10T11:06:00.000-04:00

I'm now officially a registered voter in Connecticut and, as you know, we have an extremely important Senate election coming up. While many of my political sympathies lie with Lamont, I simply cannot get over his planned withdrawl of troops from Iraq. While there certainly is a case to be made for doing so, it doesn't seem to me like Lamont has fully contemplated or understood it. The case he makes is purely political: out with the Bushites, in with the Dems, reorient our policy to appease American discontent with the failure of this war. Pretty straight-forward. I think such a policy, however, will doom us to a catastrophic foreign policy failure, a kind of failure which may not immediately become apparent, but which will have far-reaching consequences for the first half of this century. Our withdrawl will be seen as the first major (or second major, after 9/11) victory for the Jihadists of the 21st century. It will turn Iraq, until--if ever--it is secured, into a Jihadist training ground and base from which efforts to destabilize surrounding countries will be launched--Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. Iraqi security forces are nowhere near ready to deal with this possibility, nor with the task of preventing all out civil war.

While Lamont makes the case, admittedly a compelling one, that our presence in Iraq is simply keeping these security forces from taking the task onto their own shoulders, the stakes are far too high for us to risk this hypothesis being wrong following our withdrawl.

It seems there a few courses of action the U.S. can now take (as laid out by a professor in a class of mine):

1) Pull-out, trusting that the long-term forces of history will prove our democratization strategy right.
2) Draw down forces, leaving some behind to train and provide intelligence for Iraqi forces.
3) Bring in more troops to secure the country once and for all.
4) Let the three competing sectors of Iraqi society (Shia, Sunni, Kurd) duke it out in hopes that they will eventually balance each other out and reach a stable settlement.
5) Partition the country into three sovereign entities along religious/ethnic lines.
6) Maintain status-quo.
7) Cut a deal with the Iranians.

It seems like 2) and 3) are the only possible solutions, with 3) being vastly unpopular, although certainly the best course of action. 2), although the most popular, will undoubtedly provide our enemies with an enormous symbolic victory.

So where do my allegiances lie? To a Senator who got us into this awful war, but who offers a more realistic and feasible solution to it? Or a Senator with great social policies, but a politically-driven and dangerously naive approach to this war? To the people of Connecticut and of New Haven--this sad and poor city which is, at least for now, my own--whose lives would undoubtedly be bettered by Lamont's election? Or the people of Iraq, whose lives would surely be made worse?

2006-10-09T23:36:00.000-04:00

"North Korea has never developed a weapons system that it didn't ultimately sell."
-NYT

2006-10-09T00:50:00.000-04:00

A very Useful Graphic from the NYT.

2006-10-08T12:13:00.000-04:00

Click on it and blow it up (Ctrl-+ or Command-+) to see it better. Data from Woodward's new book.

An Important Question

2006-10-05T17:26:00.000-04:00

Is Dean Wareham of Luna saying "meow meow meow meow" towards the end of "Moon Palace"? If so, that' s brilliant. Really brilliant.

2006-10-05T14:17:00.000-04:00

I'm Back!

And to celebrate here is possibly the funniest thing I've ever seen. If you know John Zorn, then you'll probably agree. I know A. Sullivan posted it, but I've got to share it too.

2006-09-29T15:27:00.000-04:00

Slowly coming back to posting (just ordered a Mac!). But for now, chew on this: the Left and Islamism.

Broken

2006-09-29T09:43:00.000-04:00

Is what my computer is. Hence, the dearth of new posts and the discontinuation of my daily link-project. Will be back soon...

"Oussama Ben Laden serait mort"

2006-09-23T10:40:00.000-04:00

Report, here.

In English, here.

2006-09-22T21:00:00.000-04:00

See here for more...

Day 3: Ornette Coleman

2006-09-22T20:59:00.000-04:00

"Though he is fascinated by music theory, he is suspicious of any construct of thought."

"The steady attrition of the self-preservation instinct"

2006-09-22T15:04:00.000-04:00

"Opposing the war in Iraq was one thing, defensible in the light of events. But opting out of a serious fight against the Taleban, sabotaging efforts to get Iran off its path towards nuclear status, pre-emptively cringing to Muslim intolerance of free speech and criticism, all suggest something quite different."

Day 2: Gustave Flaubert

2006-09-22T11:59:00.000-04:00

Here's my bed-time post from last night, as I was unable to get it down before I fell asleep...

We have a new portrait of the exemplary 19th century artist, the ultimate flaneur and quixotic genius, in Frederick Brown's recently published biography on Gustave Flaubert. It looks fabulous (certainly not "un livre sur rien”), and, given Flaubert's extensive travels through the Arab world, undoubtedly provides glimpses of our favorite region, glimpses at once illuminating as offensive, undoubtedly distorted through the ideological prism of a European dandy.

Flaubert was certainly one of the most interesting and bizarre artists of the 19th century, embodying the (pre) fin de siecle, and overwhelmingly Gallic, obsession with pathology, illness, and the artistic brilliance borne therefrom. A contemporary of Baudelaire (compare dates: Baudelaire 1821-1867, Flaubert 1821-1880) and a forerunner of Proust, whose works rival their's in originality and erotic brilliance.

Read:

"Brown is especially good at detailing the physical and moral portrait of the novelist: sense of the comic, his bluster and vituperations, his pet dislikes, his erotic fantasies, his loud laughter and stentorian voice, his fascination with imbecility, his jowls and increasingly drooping moustache, his scatological lexicon.Behind the vigorous façade there was, hidden from public view, a vulnerable being who sought refuge from every form of unwanted involvement (such as choosing a career) by welcoming the epilepsy that surfaced when he was in his twenty-third year. Above all, he needed friendship, and in that need he was well served."

The Master of Double-Speak

2006-09-21T11:39:00.000-04:00

Ahmadinejad again stuns on-lookers with his ability to evade, deceive, and twist the language of his interlocutors into a wholly insincere and uncooperative rhetorical defense. Blackwill is spot on: "If this man represents the prevailing government opinion in Tehran, we are heading for a massive confrontation with Iran."

Did the Mullahs just hand-pick the guy who they thought clever enough to delude the world into thinking Iran represented some kind of moral defense against Western "imperialism"? Because he looked best able to buy them enough time to build a bomb and thus guarantee their permanent existence against the demands of the Iranian population?

This guy really, really scares me.

Day 1: TV on the Radio

2006-09-21T00:12:00.000-04:00

I've decided, due to the recent incensed/desperate tenor of my posts, that for the next week I will post a link, before I go to bed, to something that is hopeful, creative, cheerful, or otherwise stimulating in a positive way. I could use it, at least, particularly as I breathe the last gasps of summer air and grudgingly greet the cold sighs of autumn wind...

To start, here.

"(Tunde) Adebimpe...is the best male rock singer to come along since Kurt Cobain."

Discuss.

Ann Coulter the Plagiarist?

2006-09-20T17:20:00.000-04:00

Ha.

Chavez, Bush, the Devil

2006-09-20T12:58:00.000-04:00

This has been an incredibly amusing meeting of the U.N.'s General Assembly. Bush delivered a pretty solid speech, surprisingly, Ahmadinejad a wild and ridiculous rhetorical romp, and Chavez called Bush the devil! At least these meetings are entertaining (said, sadly, with gulping irony).

An Article of Mine Published Today

2006-09-19T16:11:00.000-04:00

"Moderation is crucial to handling Iran threat"

As the United Nations opens the 61st session of its General Assembly this week, it is apparent that the international community has finally agreed to take seriously Iran's nuclear ambitions. The assembly's agenda is devoted to reaching common ground on how best to deal with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime and its quest for nuclear weapons. While some advocate diplomatic pressure, others dialogue and still others military action, each party privy to this debate has had an incredibly hard time trying to figure out what course of action Ahmadinejad intends to take.

In U.S. foreign policy circles, two principal positions in this debate have been articulated, each representing a different theory of international relations. But a proper response to the threat Iran poses should be found somewhere in between the pessimism of one and the optimism of the other.

On one side, there are those - many of whom would be considered "neo-conservatives" - who take Ahmadinejad's public statements on Islam, U.S. foreign policy and Israel at face value and who believe that when he says he is dedicated to wiping Israel off the map that this is exactly what he means and intends to do. This camp takes seriously Ahmadinejad's self-proclaimed religiosity, reading his public statements as proof of an ideological commitment to furthering the Shiite cause throughout the Middle East at whatever price, rather than as the public appeals of a demagogue to a religious populace. And, this side believes, since Ahmadinejad's commitment to confrontation with Israel and the West is rooted in religious conviction, there is no rational, diplomatic means to deal with him. Military action is the only viable option.

On the other side, there are those who believe that Ahmadinejad, like most politicians, is essentially rational, and that he will not acquire and use nuclear weapons when this would all but guarantee the destruction of his regime and the annihilation of Iran. This camp - roughly, foreign policy "realists" - believes that even the claims of religion are not strong enough to motivate a leader to pursue policies obviously not in the interests of his state. This camp argues that strong diplomatic pressure and dialogue with Ahmadinejad should be able to convince him that the pursuit of nuclear weapons is ultimately not in Iran's interests. Thus, despite his apparent conviction of being divinely ordained to do battle with the enemies of Islam throughout the world, Ahmadinejad will eventually give up his program if we pursue diplomacy calmly and rationally.

Somewhere in between these two extremes lies a position much closer to reality. This position dismisses the neo-conservative insistence that Ahmadinejad's religiosity would drive him to suicidal military conflict, while also distancing itself from the realist's optimism that straighforward diplomatic efforts will work. It takes the form of a hypothetical question: What if Ahmadinejad, even as a rational actor who would theoretically respond to diplomatic carrots and sticks, simply cannot be convinced that the acquisition of nuclear weapons is not in Iran's favor? What if he is either so foolish or so self-confident that he believes he can get away with it?

If so, there remain two things the international community must do to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. First, it must think of new ways to convince Iran that the price it will pay by violating international nonproliferation treaties really is much higher than the potential benefit of a nuclear arsenal. On the one hand, this would require a revamped and more thorough program of sanctions. On the other, it would require abandoning the rhetoric of regime change and military preemption; the more the Iranian government comes to believe it will be attacked or invaded, the more it will see its survival as dependent upon the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Second, Ahmadinejad cannot be allowed to believe that the West, riddled with internal divisions and feelings of distrust, will sit back and watch while he pursues his nuclear program. But if sanctions prove ineffectual due to Russia's and China's intransigence, the only threat that may carry any weight will be that of military action. Not only would the danger of such action be enormous, but, as we have seen, even the threat of a military operation will make nuclear weapons appear all the more attractive to the regime. Thus, the international community must think of a new way to frighten Iran, with something stronger than sanctions but weaker than direct military action.

Only by refusing to fall prey to the Scylla of apocalyptic neo-conservatism and the Charybdis of naive optimism can we hope to find any way out of this puzzle. Let us hope Ahmadinejad's government really is several years away from the bomb. It will take some time for us to clean out our own from the extremists that fill its ranks and to replace them with minds equipped for the task.

A Good Thing To Remember

2006-09-14T10:57:00.001-04:00

"The downfall of Athens didn't occur due to enemy operations, but because of a grandiose campaign against Syracuse, the wealthiest and most powerful of Greek colonies, dreamed up by the city's resident wild man, Alcibiades. The Syracuse campaign was carried on well past the limits of sanity, much less common sense, resulting in the complete annihilation of the Athenian army, and setting in motion the tailspin that ended only in the city's defeat and occupation."
- J.R. Dunn

See James Fallows great article in last month's Atlantic.

2006-09-14T10:47:00.000-04:00

Again, from Amis.

"The age of terror, I suspect, will also be remembered as the age of boredom. Not the kind of boredom that afflicts the blasé and the effete, but a superboredom, rounding out and complementing the superterror of suicide-mass murder. And although we will eventually prevail in the war against terror, or will reduce it, as Mailer says, to 'a tolerable level' (this phrase will stick, and will be used by politicians, with quiet pride), we haven't got a chance in the war against boredom. Because boredom is something that the enemy doesn't feel. To be clear: the opposite of religious belief is not atheism or secularism or humanism. It is not an 'ism'. It is independence of mind - that's all. When I refer to the age of boredom, I am not thinking of airport queues and subway searches. I mean the global confrontation with the dependent mind."

"It is painful to stop believing in the purity, and the sanity, of the underdog."

2006-09-14T00:09:00.000-04:00

From novelist Martin Amis.

"Suicide-mass murder is astonishingly alien, so alien, in fact, that Western opinion has been unable to formulate a rational response to it. A rational response would be something like an unvarying factory siren of unanimous disgust. But we haven't managed that. What we have managed, on the whole, is a murmur of dissonant evasion. Paul Berman's best chapter, in Terror and Liberalism, is mildly entitled 'Wishful Thinking' - and Berman is in general a mild-mannered man. But this is a very tough and persistent analysis of our extraordinary uncertainty. It is impossible to read it without cold fascination and a consciousness of disgrace. I felt disgrace, during its early pages, because I had done it too, and in print, early on. Contemplating intense violence, you very rationally ask yourself, what are the reasons for this? And compassionately frowning newscasters are still asking that same question. It is time to move on. We are not dealing in reasons because we are not dealing in reason...

...suicide-mass murder presented the West with a philosophical crisis. The quickest way out of it was to pretend that the tactic was reasonable, indeed logical and even admirable: an extreme case of 'rationalist naivete', in Berman's phrase. Rationalist naivete was easier than the assimilation of the alternative: that is to say, the existence of a pathological cult...

Suicide-mass murder is more than terrorism: it is horrorism. It is a maximum malevolence. The suicide-mass murderer asks his prospective victims to contemplate their fellow human being with a completely new order of execration....

There are vast pluralities all over the West that are thirsting for American failure in Iraq - because they hate George Bush. Perhaps they do not realise that they are co-synchronously thirsting for an Islamist victory that will dramatically worsen the lives of their children."

2006-09-09T10:56:00.000-04:00

Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, in an interview with Time, admits the benefits of the Iraq War for the Iranian regime. Priceless.

"I don't know what President Bush, the father, would have done. But I know that eliminating Saddam [Hussein] has been to our benefit, to the benefit of Iran."

Check out the interview. Confirms my belief that the brilliance and terrifying insidiousness of despots like Khatami remains their ability to use the language of the West--the rhetoric of freedom, democracy, and human rights--to critique the West's excesses, while their own regimes not only violate these same values, but explicitly refuse to graft them into their political systems. It's laughable, actually, that a regime that has sponsored art exhibits glorifying the Holocaust would challenge the West to combat on the level of democratic and humanitarian values. But they know how easily people in the West dissatisfied with the Bush/Blair Administrations will sympathize with this language. Nasrallah becomes Che, Hamas the revolutionary defenders of the oppressed...

2006-09-09T10:38:00.000-04:00

Perfect quote from an unsettling article:

"To attribute the West’s problems to our colonial past contains some truth. But it is again to misunderstand the inner strength of Islam’s revival, which is owed not to victimhood but to advancing confidence in its own belief system.

Moreover, to Islam’s further advantage, it has led most of today’s “progressives” to say little, or even to keep silent, about what would once have been regarded as the reactionary aspects of Islam: its oppressive hostility to dissent, its maltreatment of women, its supremacist hatred of selected out-groups such as Jews and gays, and its readiness to incite and to use extremes of violence against them. Mein Kampf circulates in Arab countries under the title Jihadi."

An op-ed of mine published today

2006-09-08T17:21:00.000-04:00

"Now more than ever, type of retaliation is key"

As students, we step into a new school year inevitably affected by the experiences we have had during the summer. We gain something useful from them — we hope — and learn new ways to navigate through the academic year. Similiarly, as a nation emerging from a summer marked by the outbreak of a new war in the Middle East and a narrowly avoided terrorist attack on British and American airlines, we are afforded an opportunity to reassess our foreign-policy goals based on the changing nature of our security needs.

The threats of this past summer were different from those we have grown accustomed to during the past five years of the so-called “war on terror.” While news of bombings, beheadings and shootings have become commonplace, we had yet to face the possibility of a post-Sept. 11 attack on the scale of the British bombing plot or one organized by such a motley crew of European Islamist extremists. Nor had we to face the threats posed by a rising Middle Eastern power like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran, one willing to wage proxy war against our allies and hellbent on acquiring nuclear weapons. The novel nature of these threats offers distinct, new lessons.

First, we have been reminded that, despite the significant weakening of al-Qaida’s operational capacity, the threat posed to us by small groups of Islamist terrorists still exists. In the foiling of the British bombing plot, however, we have witnessed one of the greatest success stories in the campaign against terror and have learned how well-organized and diligent police effort, international law-enforcement coordination, and the sharing of intelligence can effectively combat terrorist threats before they are realized. This comes as a shock to a nation bombarded with the rhetoric of warfare, battle and impending apocalypse. But Scotland Yard’s excellent work has given us an effective, nonmilitary model to deal with the increasingly decentralized and diffuse nature of international Islamist terror.

We should consider this success an overdue reality check. A world free of terrorism is impossible, even with the mightiest military in history at our disposal. If we recognize this fact, we can shift the focus of our security strategy away from military pre-emption toward better integration of our domestic law-enforcement and intelligence services. This will enable us better to combat particular threats as they arise, and unburden our military from the impractical goal of crushing every possible source of terror throughout the world. While military force will remain necessary at times to deny terrorists sanctuary, we should bear in mind what terrorism has always been and what it will remain: criminal activity used by the weak and alienated, not means of conventional warfare waged by an able and equal enemy. The hands of the military must be freed to deal with the possibility of greater, state-based security threats, such as those posed by a nuclear-armed Iran.

This brings us to a second important lesson: Iran’s repeated aggressions against Israel and the West throughout the summer have implicitly reminded us of what ill can come from responding to terrorism with exaggerated and inappropriate military action. It has become cliche to speak of the ways the United States’ poorly planned and executed invasion of Iraq has abetted the rise of Ahmadinejad’s regime. Indeed, by toppling Iran’s most powerful regional adversary in Saddam’s Iraq and granting Iran a sphere of influence in Iraq’s predominantly Shiite regions, the United States practically guaranteed that Iran would test its newfound power by goading the West into further conflict. Moreover, the arrogant dismissal of our allies by the Bush administration in the run up to the Iraq conflict has made it increasingly difficult to produce a unified front against Iran’s nuclear ambitions, although cooperation between European and American diplomats has admittedly improved during the last few months. The strategic tunnel vision we have displayed throughout the Iraq war has undeniably made the region more dangerous and has given Iran the strength and audacity to trick and tease the West at every occasion.

Let’s not forget the lessons of this summer. If we keep in mind that even the most deadly of terrorist threats can be effectively combated by nonmilitary means and that overly ambitious military endeavors can have very dangerous consequences, then we can chart new strategic responses to security threats as they emerge. Remember exactly the effect bin Laden desired from Sept. 11: an American military response in Afghanistan that would lead to the kind of quagmire that helped topple the aging Soviet Union in the 1980s. The greatest threat now posed to us in this conflict is the possibility of being pulled into more unnecessary and debilitating military campaigns against illusionary foes. If we are not to become our own worst enemy, we must remain patient and humble in distinguishing which threats require handcuffs and which require bombs.

What Next?

2006-08-28T15:43:00.000-04:00

Unsurprisingly, Iran has rejected the U.N.'s August 22nd ultimatum. Unsurprisingly, the Security Council looks helpless to take decisive action due to China's and Russia's intransigence. What next? How effective will American/European sanctions be while China remains dependent on Iranian oil?

Here are my thoughts on the situation:

First, it seems as though diplomacy is not going to work. Iran is emboldened by Hezbollah's "success" in Israel, the disintegration of U.S. influence in Iraq, and its ability to trick/manipulate the U.N.. I would not be surprised if the U.S. carries out limited airstrikes on selected Iranian targets before 2008. If not the U.S., then Israel by 2010.

Second, Iran's army is notoriously weak. While the addition of nuclear weapons to their arsenal will make them, essentially, untouchable, their current conventional forces are limited and outdated. This makes U.S. intervention a greater possibility.

Third, while U.S. intervention does remain a possibility, the threat to American interests posed by attacking Iran are quite high. Oil prices will inevitably shoot out the roof and terrorist attacks on American sites throughout the world will increase significantly. In particular, U.S. forces in Iraq will become prime targets (although it seems unlikely that Iran will want to push the Iraq situation into total chaos.) Hezbollah will strike Israel again, hard, and I wouldn't be surprised if a task-force of Iranian Republican Guards are dispatched to organize small scale terrorist strikes against American interests around the world.

Fourth, while striking Iran's nuclear sites before they become fully operational is a possibility, I am not convinced this will permanently disrupt their nuclear ambitions. The democratization of nuclear technology makes it nearly inevitable that capable and dedicated regimes, who have already achieved a fair degree of regional influence and power, will eventually acquire nuclear weapons. It simply depends on a) how strongly Iran sees its success and survival as dependent on their acquisition and b) how they view their chances of getting away with it. The more the U.S. touts regime change and pre-emption the more likely a) becomes. The more the U.N. falters, the more likely b) becomes. Unfortunately, it seems the only real solution to the crisis would be regime change, although this is clearly a pratical impossibility. And while the remaining solution lies with the U.N, their incapacity to force Iran bodes poorly for a diplomatic solution.

Thus, our response to Iran needs to be framed within a serious consideration of which would be worse: the possibility of a nuclear armed, belligerent Iran and the threat of a new regional arms race this poses or an inevitably destabilizing military strike and the international economic disruption and terrorist threats to U.S. interests around the globe it would create.

Journalists and strategists have been weighing these two sides of the coin for the past few years (see particularly the Atlantic's December 2004 coverage of Iran war-games). What I have not yet seen, however, is a serious Plan-B. That is, how to contain, weaken, and isolate a nuclear armed Iran such that its weapons pose little threat to the region, Israel, or the West. I am convinced Iran will have the bomb within a few years (perhaps decades if the U.S. does strike) and that American policy should be equally concerned with this inevitably as with preventing/postponing its realization. Indeed, it seems that U.S. policy throughout the coming century should be more concerned with containment, isolation, and balancing of nuclear powers than with pre-emptive elimination of their nuclear projects. The spread of nuclear weapons will become easier and easier throughout the 21st century and, as the U.S.'s hegemonic reach diminishes and the center of world gravity continues to shift towards the East, pre-emptive war will increasingly become an impossibility.

It is time to envision a world, and the possibility of a peaceful world, with a nuclear armed theocracy.

It's a scary thought and will require courage, humility, and patience to address its possibility.

Iraqi Reality TV

2006-08-27T21:42:00.000-04:00

Hope?

Che & Nasrallah

2006-08-27T21:23:00.000-04:00

I wonder if Urban Outfitters will start selling this t-shirt next...

Images from a great Egyptian blog The Arabist.

Rejected!

2006-08-23T12:05:00.000-04:00

Ooops. No, I mean the package offered Iran by the Security Council. Are we surprised?

The West and the "Other"

2006-08-19T12:33:00.000-04:00

My recent posts have clearly centered on the problem of imagining a just and responsible response to the growth of the truly dark and frightening force of militant Islamic extremism in its myriad of Sunni/Shiite, state-based/terrorist group, Arab/Asian/European forms throughout the world. I have tried to articulate a post-Bush vision which, while without failing to critique the current Administration's horribly planned and executed vision for an unnecessary and illegitimate war, keeps in mind the threat posed by anti-Semitic, totalitarian, misogynistic, and violent extremism to the democracies of the West--Europe and Israel in particular, the United States, and--to a far lesser extent--Canada and Australia. Europe--Britain in particular--is slowly awakening to this threat, as the proliferation of extremist groups continues to grow relatively unchecked throughout the countries of the Continent. I have also tried to articulate a common ground between the United States and Europe; that, despite the current and tragic trans-Atlantic rift, the strength of democratic institutions and a shared tradition of freedom and secularism will ultimately land the United States and Europe firmly in the same boat as the threat of mass-based, violent, racist totalitarianism continues to grow unabated. My position certainly relies on some cognitive simplicity, as "the West" is certainly not an ideologically-free, neutral, or politically harmless concept. It relies, necessarily, on an "Other" against which it can be defined. According to the tenor of my posts, this "Other" appears more and more to be a certain brand of Islamic extremism. I have tried to emphasize that the values of the West--as imperfectly as they have been applied throughout history--imply an openness to the "Other", to Islam and to all other religions, races, etc. However, I believe that the failure to distinguish between healthy and just multi-cultural pluralism and the toleration and protection of those groups whose ideology and violent practice call for its overturning is a real threat. Unfortunately, Europe--particularly guilt-ridden Germany--has been poor at making this distinction and has done little to stymie the growth of an extremely virulent brand of Islamic extremism in its midst. I believe, however, Europe may be reaching a turning point, and is coming to realize that the vitality of an open society depends both on its ability to protect the marginalized and the capacity to see clearly from what sectors of society the threat to free institutions come. Democracy cannot be so polite that it allows its own murder.

I invite a thouroughly post-modern, cultural relativist critique. I acknowledge the simplicity of my position and its potential for ultimately destructive "Othering."

I am convinced, however, that the very potential for a debate of this sort relies upon exactly the freedom that Islamic extremism wishes to do away with.

Anti-Semitism, Islamofascism, and Nazism

2006-08-19T12:30:00.000-04:00

Timely. The world's most powerful Holocaust-denier/anti-Semitic has just won a war against Israel.

Too bad this has to come from a conservative, American magazine and not a liberal, European one.

Just Words?

2006-08-19T11:26:00.000-04:00

Maybe. But like I've said before, words mean a great deal, particularly in the massive propaganda war that is being waged right now in the post-ceasefire Levant. Check out the difference in rhetoric between Israel and Syria/Iran. Supports the theory that Olmert's war was intended primarily to convince Israelis he was hard on security/serious about Hezbollah before proposing a disengagement from the West Bank? Or the theory that Iran started this war as dress rehearsal for a greater future conflict with Israel?

2006-08-18T14:05:00.000-04:00

Remember when I said that Hezbollah was a military organization and "not a legitimate political organization"? Well.... Here and here.

"Wer schweigt, wird schuldig..."

2006-08-18T12:56:00.000-04:00

First coverage I've seen in U.S. media. I guess the whole Ramsey ordeal is better celebrity gossip...

More on Islamofascism

2006-08-18T12:33:00.000-04:00

Good article about the "Islamofascism" debate. Would be nicer if it were a little longer and more developed, but it makes good points anyway. The term "Islamofascism" has always made me a little uncomfortable as well--it always seemed somewhat anachronistic, inappropriate and propagandistic. On the other hand, its relative conceptual simplicity appealed to me--at the very least it reminded people that what we are up against is more than freedom fighters. Let's hope this debate continues--language is perhaps the most important weapon in this war of ideas, and it will be very important how we decide to understand it and sell it as a war worth fighting.

My Predictions

2006-08-17T10:23:00.001-04:00

These were my predictions at the beginning of the war:

1. Hostilities ending the first week of August.
2. Big losses for Hezbollah in arms, manpower, and territory but not total defeat.
3. A more confident, brazen, and angry Iran emerging out of all of this.
4. An Arab world (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) awakened to the threat Iran poses to their regional interests.
5. Increasing cooperation between the Arab world and the U.S. to deal with Iran.
6. Increasing impatience on Israel's part with Iran's nuclear program and belligerence.

Some of my predictions were off: the cease-fire came a little later than I expected, and Hezbollah did not lose any territory (we'll see what the Lebanese/UN force is going to do).

Some are not clear yet: who knows how the Sunni Arab world will react and how Israel will respond to Iran's belligerence.

Some were right on: Hezbollah was beaten up, but not beaten. And Iran, more than anyone else, is claiming victory in this war.

But regardless of my predictions, I had not imagined things winding up (just beginning?) this way at all. A major shift has just occured in the Middle East and each day since the cease-fire we are learning more exactly what this shift will mean... More later...

The Best News I've Heard in a While

2006-08-16T18:43:00.000-04:00

Finally. Finally. Europe gets it. How long did it have to wait to remember the long shadow of its totalitarian past and acknowledge this threat for what it is? Perhaps the U.S.'s greatest failure since 9/11 has been its inability to convince the world that this threat is truly international, truly a threat directed at the Western way of life. Europe has couched its new approach in inspiring terms:

"At the moment, there are two fundamentally different sets of values in play in Europe, Mr. Reid said: Those of the European Union, including 'democracy, freedom and justice to all' and those of 'totalitarianism,' which hopes to 'subvert a religion whose very name stands for peace.'"

Right on.

Peace At Last

2006-08-15T16:34:00.000-04:00

But before we get too excited... let's remember who won this war and what Israel's supposed "defeat" now means...

2006-08-15T11:17:00.000-04:00

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan (he tends to get a lot of thanks on my blog...) for pointing out the backwardness of so much of the Western Left's opposition to the war in Israel. Check out this picture from a rally in San Francisco: supporting Nasrallah?! Do people know who he is? The man who shoots unguided, shrapnel-filled missiles into pouplated Israeli cities in order to tear apart as many Israeli civilians as possible? Who bragged about the inevitable weak response of Israel to his provocations? Who is supported by a theocracy in Iran and a Baathist dictatorship in Syria? It's exciting to support freedom fighters (why everyone wears Che Guevara t-shirts and listens to Rage Against the Machine), but let's please discriminate between freedom fighters who care about freedom and radical, murderous terrorists. This is a group who wouldn't shrink from committing atrocities of the likes of 9/11, Bojinka, etc. The fact that the West allows popular resistance to war, public demonstrations, etc. is what makes it such a wonderful place to live in. It's what gives it its moral and political legitimacy. But when I see people touting such crap as this it makes me wonder what would happen if they were taken seriously... C'mon people. Anti-war demonstrations are the bread and butter of America. But if we're going to have them give us something serious, not this self-contradictory, anti-Semitic, ignorant bullshit.

(Photo from here. Click on it to see some truly terrifying anti-Semitism from our Lefty friends in San Francisco. Isn't it a hate-crime to say some of these words?)

2006-08-14T11:30:00.001-04:00

Top-notch article from Janet Daley that confirms my general beliefs about this war.

I am an unabashed liberal, but there is a grave danger in being too friendly with your enemy. If we liberals are committed to freedom (remember where the word comes from and what it really means) then we cannot forget Daley's excellent points.

Remember that the original World Trade Center bombing and the planning of both the Bojinka plot and 9/11 occured before we even really knew who G.W. was. Add to this the fact that 9/11 occurred relatively early into his tenure--when he was still just pissing off liberals, environmentalists, and Democrats--and it becomes obvious that we cannot reduce this war to retaliation against a corrupt and immoral Administration. This is a war of ideas where far more is at stake than well-meaning liberals are willing to admit.

Daley writes:

"...many of those same sceptical sophisticates who wished to distinguish so carefully between the various Islamic discontents would also claim that the answer to all our problems was to solve the Palestinian problem (and thus withdraw our support for Israel), which is certainly of little relevance to the anger of Kashmiri separatists with whom most British Muslim suspects identify.

Al-Qa'eda began talking about the Palestinian question after 9/11, only when it found itself having to give a plausible public account of its motives. Until then, it was frank about its actual goal, which is to re-establish the Caliphate over the historic Islamic empire. So maybe those who wish to conciliate this movement, who believe that it can be negotiated with in some rational way, would like to tell us where they would begin making concessions. Would they like to explain to the citizens of Turkey that they may have to sacrifice their secular democracy and be ruled again by the theocracy from which they had broken free? Or perhaps they could persuade the residents of Spain that, since Islam would like to rule the Alhambra once again, they must, in the interests of meeting al-Qa'eda halfway, consider sacrificing this region. Next, perhaps, would be the recognition of sharia law in Muslim-dominated regions of Britain and France.

No wonder the liberals are in disarray. What we are up against is quite outside the limits of our rational political discourse. This enemy does not even bother to offer explanations for its actions that fall within the acceptable bounds of Western debate: it is overtly racist, explicitly imperialistic and unapologetically inhumane...

This is a critical moment. What we must call the "free world" will either decide that it must unite unequivocally against a force so dark that it is almost incomprehensible to democratic peoples, or else succumb to a daydream of denial that is nothing more than appeasement."

Our Plans for this War

2006-08-13T08:43:00.000-04:00

The New Yorker has been excellent about breaking news on the Administration's war plans for Iran. Chilling. But will we resist such a war? What are the stakes?

Also, look at what Nasrallah said about Olmert and Peretz. Hezbollah was expecting a "weak" response from Israel, for a short retaliation which would not hurt their operational capacities in any way. Nasrallah himself thus admits that his organization--backed by Iran and Syria--is not one to be negotiated with. Critics in the West often forget that Islamic militant organizations (Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc.) have always relied upon a perception of American and Western unwillingness to respond in force--Western "weakness" or "softness"--to allow them space within which to conduct terror operations. This, of course, does not give the West free hand to shatter this preception by brutal and violent campaigns. However, it should be recognized that Hezbollah is a military organization, not a legitimate political organization or nation-state with which straight-forward negotiation makes any sense. When your enemy, whose explicit goal is to destroy you completely, relies on your weakness to hit you, how can you respond? We cannot forget the ethos of violence that motivates such groups. Israel's withdrawl from Lebanon in 2000 has given Hezbollah time to rearm in frightening proportions while the UN stood-by and watched. I will never cease to believe that war and violence are perversions of humanity, but what good does talk of peace do to one committed to your destruction, whose religious convictions hold that you must die? Remember, this is not the PLO anymore. Secular resistance to Israel is turning into militant Islamic resistance--whether by Sunni Hamas or Shiite Hezbollah.

Unfortunately, Israel's response is turning into a strategic failure with high civilian cauasalties. Is this inevitably the outcome of this Administration's military fiascos (as the article points out, Cheney's war-horse played a large role in planning and supporting the Israeli initiative)? How can we formulate a new set of guidelines by which unnecessary and excessively bloody, albeit limited, warfare appears less like a strategic necessity? How can we ween ourselves from our addiction to air power, which inevitably has bloody consequences? On the other hand, how can we convince the world that sometimes military action against violent, dogmatically motivated and explicitly anti-Western and anti-Israeli groups is necessary?

I do not know how to proceed forward.

Günter Grass

2006-08-13T08:23:00.000-04:00

I'm surprised and shocked not to find any American media coverage of one of the biggest stories in Germany right now: Günter Grass's admission after sixty years that he was a member of the Waffen-SS, the combat branch of the Nazi organization. See the interview here.

Clarification

2006-08-13T07:57:00.000-04:00

My last post was misleading: Mann himself did not live through the Nazi's reign of terror and the Second World War since he, a non-Jew, was in exile in the United States between 1939 and 1952. Hence the title of Brecht's 1943 poem "Als der Nobelpreisträger Thomas Mann den Amerikanern und Engländern das Recht zusprach, das deutsche Volk für die Verbrechen des Hitlerregimes zehn Jahre lang zu züchtigen," a title that acknowledges Mann's distance from the events in Germany that he criticized. See also Brecht's later poem Ich, der Überlebende--one of my favorites--for Brecht's own feelings of guilt at being in exile during this period.

Ich weiß natürlich: einzig durch Glück
Habe ich so viele Freunde überlebt. Aber heute nacht
im Traum
Hörte ich diese Freunde von mir sagen: »Die Stärkeren
überleben«
Und ich haßte mich.

But I think Mann's entire oeuvre speaks to my previous point clearly: the abandonment, relativization, or over-intellectualization of simple humanism and democratic freedom leads inevitably to a barbarism that forgets the value of the human and human culture. We cannot forget what freedom means: we are fighting against a foe that has no respect for Western freedom. Unfortunately, however, our own government seems to forget its value as well.

2006-08-11T12:54:00.000-04:00

In the midst of this terrifying, dangerous new world, where conflict rages without forseeable end in all direction, don`t forget the simple wisdom of a man who lived through far worse. We are in the midst of a war that must be won through the strength of ideas and values:

"...the democracy of the West--however outdated its institutions may prove over time, however obstinately its notion of freedom resists what is new and necessary--is nonetheless essentially on the side of human progress, of the goodwill to perfect society, and is by its very nature capable of renewal, improvement, rejuvenation, of proceeding toward conditions that provide great justice in life." - Thomas Mann