I renew my call for the occupier [the United States] to leave our land. The departure of the occupier will mean stability for Iraq, victory for Islam and peace and defeat for terrorism and infidels.
— Muqtada al-Sadr, 30 March 2007
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
GREAT QUOTES IN POLITICAL HISTORY: Cuban Edition
"Condemn me, it does not matter: history will absolve me."
— Fidel Castro, Closing words of the speech delivered at the end of trial against the July 26th (Moncada Barracks) attack.
Ted Rall Quote
One of the best lines from the book I discuss below:
Suck it, Canada!
If at least 50% of the American public can't identify at least three cities in a given country, we shouldn't bomb it.
Suck it, Canada!
Afghanistan
I'm even more opposed to our continued involvement in Afghanistan than I was 2 days ago. The reason? I read a book: To Afghanistan and Back. It's a graphic novel/travelogue by Ted Rall, a liberal alternative cartoonist/journalist. He took the unusual step, after the Afghanistan war started, of actually going to Afghanistan:
In short, the situation is far worse than we've been led to believe. Neither we, nor the Afghani government, nor anyone else really has control over the country. And we're not going to be able to control it, either, short of a massive WWII-style invasion. The British failed to control it, the Soviets failed, and we will fail. Hamid Karzai is basically just the mayor of Kabul, and he and the American-approved government ministers are all former oil executives. And they're the least corrupt leaders in the country, as the rest of the place is ruled by gangsters. The "Northern Alliance" and the Taliban aren't just similar — they're the same people on different days. In Iraq we're sitting in the middle of a civil war, in Afghanistan people don't even have enough ideological or ethnic loyalty to give a shit about that, it's just relentless gang violence over money, territory, and power. The uniform code of law is Sharia, not because people are particularly good-natured or religious, but because their society is so fucked up that nobody has the civil authority to make and enforce laws, so they go with the one constant they have. And since we don't have the balls to put enough troops on the ground, we engage in indiscriminate bombing campaigns that kill and maim civilians, destroy what's left of the country's infrastructure (all built by the Soviets), and accomplish nothing because we don't even know who we're really fighting.
And, by the way, the Al Qaeda leadership is chilling in Pakistan. But we can't bomb them because they have nukes.
In short, the situation is far worse than we've been led to believe. Neither we, nor the Afghani government, nor anyone else really has control over the country. And we're not going to be able to control it, either, short of a massive WWII-style invasion. The British failed to control it, the Soviets failed, and we will fail. Hamid Karzai is basically just the mayor of Kabul, and he and the American-approved government ministers are all former oil executives. And they're the least corrupt leaders in the country, as the rest of the place is ruled by gangsters. The "Northern Alliance" and the Taliban aren't just similar — they're the same people on different days. In Iraq we're sitting in the middle of a civil war, in Afghanistan people don't even have enough ideological or ethnic loyalty to give a shit about that, it's just relentless gang violence over money, territory, and power. The uniform code of law is Sharia, not because people are particularly good-natured or religious, but because their society is so fucked up that nobody has the civil authority to make and enforce laws, so they go with the one constant they have. And since we don't have the balls to put enough troops on the ground, we engage in indiscriminate bombing campaigns that kill and maim civilians, destroy what's left of the country's infrastructure (all built by the Soviets), and accomplish nothing because we don't even know who we're really fighting.
And, by the way, the Al Qaeda leadership is chilling in Pakistan. But we can't bomb them because they have nukes.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
GREAT QUOTES IN POLITICAL HISTORY: Liberal Edition
"If by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal.'"
— John F. Kennedy
Dignity
I went out to the bar with a couple of distinguished drinkers tonight, and neither of them were aware of what I meant by Obama's "Dignity Agenda".
He mentioned it again in Berlin today, and this is the best summation of what it seems that he means.
He mentioned it again in Berlin today, and this is the best summation of what it seems that he means.
More Taibbi
I've been pimping Matt Taibbi for a few weeks now (you really ought to buy his new book), and here's something else for you, a classic from 2005: THE 52 FUNNIEST THINGS ABOUT THE UPCOMING DEATH OF THE POPE
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
GREAT QUOTES IN POLITICAL HISTORY: French Revolutionary Edition
"It is with regret that I pronounce the fatal truth: Louis must die that the country may live."
— Maximilien Robespierre, on the judgment of Louis XVI, December 3, 1792.
True Belief
In a continuation of my thoughts on the psychology of campaigns: I don't think that most politicians have some sort of "core beliefs" which are then explained or lied about on the campaign trail. Most politicians just want to be liked, and are willing to follow and believe in the interests of their constituency groups.
For example, George W. Bush originally ran for congress in 1978 as a pro-choice Republican. His father ran as a pro-choice candidate for President in 1980, and switched positions in order to be Reagan's running mate. Both of them followed a hard pro-life position once in power, because you dance with the ones who brought you. Does anyone doubt that Mittens would've been completely pro-life as President? People say that politicians words don't matter, but that's got it exactly wrong. Politicians words, when they're campaigning, are the most meaningful guide to their future performance.
One could view this rationally: a politician is likely to stick with the views that got them elected in the first place, as they're the most likely views to get them re-elected. Or one could view it as a natural human aversion to lying, after all, it's not lying to the people if you start to believe it yourself. Or maybe it's just a matter of politicians liking to feel loved by their supporters.
Romney's flips before running for President were obviously and transparently cynical. Most politicians are rarely such egregious dissemblers, and Romney was punished at the polls for it. Hillary Clinton, to coin a phrase, seems to have "found her own voice". Before she ran for President, she treated Bill's coalition of moderate Democrats as her own, even going so far as to run to the right on abortion.
Not anymore.
I don't know any feminists who considered Hillary any sort of icon before this year's campaign. My hunch is that a few years from now, it'll be hard to find any who don't.
For example, George W. Bush originally ran for congress in 1978 as a pro-choice Republican. His father ran as a pro-choice candidate for President in 1980, and switched positions in order to be Reagan's running mate. Both of them followed a hard pro-life position once in power, because you dance with the ones who brought you. Does anyone doubt that Mittens would've been completely pro-life as President? People say that politicians words don't matter, but that's got it exactly wrong. Politicians words, when they're campaigning, are the most meaningful guide to their future performance.
One could view this rationally: a politician is likely to stick with the views that got them elected in the first place, as they're the most likely views to get them re-elected. Or one could view it as a natural human aversion to lying, after all, it's not lying to the people if you start to believe it yourself. Or maybe it's just a matter of politicians liking to feel loved by their supporters.
Romney's flips before running for President were obviously and transparently cynical. Most politicians are rarely such egregious dissemblers, and Romney was punished at the polls for it. Hillary Clinton, to coin a phrase, seems to have "found her own voice". Before she ran for President, she treated Bill's coalition of moderate Democrats as her own, even going so far as to run to the right on abortion.
Not anymore.
I don't know any feminists who considered Hillary any sort of icon before this year's campaign. My hunch is that a few years from now, it'll be hard to find any who don't.
My General Theory of Pacificism
Generally speaking, I'm a pragmatic pacifist. I'm not sure if everybody's noticed it or not, but the United States has started every war that it's been involved in since 1945. Were any of those wars worth it?
A realistic assessment of the monetary costs of those wars seems to indicate that more good could've been accomplished if we'd spent the money on things like malaria nets and vaccines and blankets and bags of rice and hand pumps for wells and mules and stuff. And that's not counting the U.S. soldiers who've died (and we generally count those) or the foreign civilians we kill (and we generally don't count those). War is rarely beneficial. But even in those instances where the outcomes are good, better outcomes could be had for cheaper if we didn't use violence as our principle form of foreign involvement.
For example, the Kosovo war cost about $45 Billion in 1999 dollars. Feeding the world would cost about $30 Billion this year. And, of course, the United States recently hit the $500 Billion mark for spending in Iraq.
Or, my foreign policy in brief: Rice Meal > Cluster Bombs
A realistic assessment of the monetary costs of those wars seems to indicate that more good could've been accomplished if we'd spent the money on things like malaria nets and vaccines and blankets and bags of rice and hand pumps for wells and mules and stuff. And that's not counting the U.S. soldiers who've died (and we generally count those) or the foreign civilians we kill (and we generally don't count those). War is rarely beneficial. But even in those instances where the outcomes are good, better outcomes could be had for cheaper if we didn't use violence as our principle form of foreign involvement.
For example, the Kosovo war cost about $45 Billion in 1999 dollars. Feeding the world would cost about $30 Billion this year. And, of course, the United States recently hit the $500 Billion mark for spending in Iraq.
Or, my foreign policy in brief: Rice Meal > Cluster Bombs
War, what is it good for?
Radovan Karadzic's capture, nearly 10 years after NATO involvement in Yugoslavia's Civil War, is an unalloyed good. But it does serve to remind us that Clinton's wars, like Bush's, were ultimately futile. It seems pretty obvious that enough people knew where this guy was that the Serbian government could have turned him over earlier, if they had wanted to. Diplomacy, in particular a desire to join the EU, has done what cluster bombs couldn't. If the government can withstand the domestic backlash for turning over Karadzic, we can hope to see Mladic sharing a cell with him fairly soon.
Before NATO involvement in the Civil War, there was a growing reformist movement in Serbia. While the NATO bombing campaign helped the Kosovars achieve independence, it also dealt a blow to the reformist impulse in Serbian politics (afterwords all the reformists could be tarred as foreign stooges) and probably retarded Serbia's growth towards accepting the West.
Our military involvement is almost never helpful to achieving liberal aims. It's a cliche, but it's true: you can't force Democracy at the barrel of a gun. In Kosovo we managed to unite the Serbians behind the nationalists. Our half-century embargo against Cuba helped Castro keep his grip on power. The 1990s sanctions against Iraq destroyed Saddam's native opposition, and our current occupation of Iraq is serving to fuel the Iraqi Civil War.
I'm voting for Barack Obama because he understands the failure of our war policy in Iraq and is committed to ending it.
But I'm growing very worried about his Afghanistan policies.
See also, the communist hellhole of Vietnam.
Before NATO involvement in the Civil War, there was a growing reformist movement in Serbia. While the NATO bombing campaign helped the Kosovars achieve independence, it also dealt a blow to the reformist impulse in Serbian politics (afterwords all the reformists could be tarred as foreign stooges) and probably retarded Serbia's growth towards accepting the West.
Our military involvement is almost never helpful to achieving liberal aims. It's a cliche, but it's true: you can't force Democracy at the barrel of a gun. In Kosovo we managed to unite the Serbians behind the nationalists. Our half-century embargo against Cuba helped Castro keep his grip on power. The 1990s sanctions against Iraq destroyed Saddam's native opposition, and our current occupation of Iraq is serving to fuel the Iraqi Civil War.
I'm voting for Barack Obama because he understands the failure of our war policy in Iraq and is committed to ending it.
But I'm growing very worried about his Afghanistan policies.
See also, the communist hellhole of Vietnam.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
GREAT QUOTES IN POLITICAL HISTORY: TR Edition
"We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the consumers.
Wherever in any business the prosperity of the business man is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such practices."
– Teddy Roosevelt, speech at the convention of the National Progressive Party in August of 1912
Monday, July 21, 2008
GREAT QUOTES IN POLITICAL HISTORY: Why Aren't You In Jail Yet Edition
The causes of youth violence are working parents who put their kids into daycare, the teaching of evolution in the schools, and working mothers who take birth control pills.
— Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay
Maliki
Boy, Maliki sure seems to be eating his Wheaties lately.
I'm on record as believing that political campaigns matter very little in our political system. Election outcomes are determined by interest groups and demography, the day to day back and forth of the campaign rarely changes anyone's vote, rather it's a sorting process. Even though how most people are going to vote is largely pre-determined, people follow the campaign in order to explain it to themselves.
My favorite example is from the 2004 Vice-President debate. John Edwards congratulated Dick Cheney on how nice and compassionate he was to support his GAY DAUGHTER. While Mary Cheney is an out Lesbian, the rabid homophobic base of the GOP was largely unaware of this. Edwards attempt to showcase Republican hypocrisy was met with horror from the targeted group — how dare that nasty democrat embarrass the Cheneys! Likewise, charges of flip-flopping, of being elitist, of being "old Washington", etc. are all kind of nonsensical if you're trying to honestly figure out who to vote for. But they make perfect sense if you realize that people are just looking for a way to rationally explain their pre-existing tribal identifications.
This weekend's Iraq news, however, is different. Maliki has fundamentally changed the nature of the biggest issue this November. Previously the administration could always count on their control over Iraq to pressure the government into at least silence. Maliki seems to have realized that Bush can't act to get rid of him before our elections, but that he can act to get rid of the Republicans.
Political campaigns don't determine election outcomes — but political issues determine the electoral landscape. After Maliki's remarks, McCain has nothing left to run on.
Now Republicans can spend the next 4 months answering one simple question: If the Iraqis want us to leave, why won't we go?
I'm on record as believing that political campaigns matter very little in our political system. Election outcomes are determined by interest groups and demography, the day to day back and forth of the campaign rarely changes anyone's vote, rather it's a sorting process. Even though how most people are going to vote is largely pre-determined, people follow the campaign in order to explain it to themselves.
My favorite example is from the 2004 Vice-President debate. John Edwards congratulated Dick Cheney on how nice and compassionate he was to support his GAY DAUGHTER. While Mary Cheney is an out Lesbian, the rabid homophobic base of the GOP was largely unaware of this. Edwards attempt to showcase Republican hypocrisy was met with horror from the targeted group — how dare that nasty democrat embarrass the Cheneys! Likewise, charges of flip-flopping, of being elitist, of being "old Washington", etc. are all kind of nonsensical if you're trying to honestly figure out who to vote for. But they make perfect sense if you realize that people are just looking for a way to rationally explain their pre-existing tribal identifications.
This weekend's Iraq news, however, is different. Maliki has fundamentally changed the nature of the biggest issue this November. Previously the administration could always count on their control over Iraq to pressure the government into at least silence. Maliki seems to have realized that Bush can't act to get rid of him before our elections, but that he can act to get rid of the Republicans.
Political campaigns don't determine election outcomes — but political issues determine the electoral landscape. After Maliki's remarks, McCain has nothing left to run on.
Now Republicans can spend the next 4 months answering one simple question: If the Iraqis want us to leave, why won't we go?
Sunday, July 20, 2008
GREAT QUOTES IN POLITICAL HISTORY: Church and State Edition
The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent—that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own judgement. The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgement of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith.
— President John Tyler, letter to Joseph Simpson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
