Since the World Cup kicked off last week, I've noticed a strange uptick in right-wing railing against the world's sport.
The Weekly Standard has a piece about soccer as nihilist and amoral by its very nature. Cannon and Lessner write, "DESPITE HEROIC EFFORTS of soccer moms, suburban liberals, and World Cup hype, soccer will never catch on as a big time sport in America. No game in which actually scoring goals is of such little importance could possibly occupy the attention of average Americans. Our country has yet to succumb to the nihilism, existentialism, and anomie that have overtaken Europe."
John Tierney of the New York Times writes, "Maybe the rest of the world loves soccer because they haven't been given better alternatives". I don't pay for Times Select, so that's as far as I can go with that.
But this goes back at least 20 years. In 1986, former (NFL) football player, US representative and Vice Presidential candidate Jack Kemp famously declared, "I think it is important for all those young out there, who someday hope to play real football, where you throw it and kick it and run with it and put it in your hands, a distinction should be made that football is democratic, capitalism, whereas soccer is a European socialist sport."
What gives? In 1986, I played soccer in the Stoddert Soccer League of Washington, DC, along with every other eight-year-old I knew, and many I didn't. We didn't really care what we were playing. I doubt that the sport informed our epistemological outlook on anything. I'd wager that few, if any, ever became socialists, nihilists, jihadists or some other as-yet uncategorized threat. A great many of us became capitalists. Today, we're doctors, lawyers, drug dealers, lobbyists, wage slaves, and any number of money-driven professions.
I'm sure that if tetherball took off in the 80s, these same guys would have said that it's too much like the commie maypole; its one-on-one nature too similar to descriptions of Marxist class struggle. Tennis and ping-pong would surely follow. We should never have let Forest Gump go to China. That's where all the trouble began.
It's OK not to like soccer. In red-blooded capitalist language, it's a consumer preference. It's OK to be mystified by why the rest of the world is so in to the game, and why America's temperment ranges from lukewarm interest of "elitist coastal liberals" to the outright hostility allegedly found elsewhere.
Why can't we just let the world have their game? At the risk of reification, this is part of a larger mindset. But then, I'm using their logic, succumbing to the same fearful way of thinking.
I say, score one for American exceptionalism and call it a game.
That's all it is.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Friday, June 23, 2006
Why Angelina Jolie Gets on my Nerves
Humanitarian aid is a complicated, heartbreaking and frustrating vocation. Since the second world war, nations have recognized the strategic and moral value of providing development assistance to other, less fortunate regions of the world. The Marshall Plan, Peace Corps, and the US Agency for International Development have added to the mix of war and trade policy that were once the sole means of foreign intervention. And this is only part of America's efforts towards providing humanitarian aid. Almost all members of the political spectrum have found an organization or cause whose aim is to alleviate suffering on foreign shores, from evangelical missions to the most secular-humanist AIDS coalitions.
It is simply unacceptable that in this day and age, people should continue to live in the misery and squalor that defined much of human history. With the growing prosperity that our economic and political systems have generated, development has gained a clear mandate from all but the most narrowly individualistic thinkers.
It is bitterly ironic, then, when narrow, individualistic thinkers attempt to control the discourse on humanitarian aid as if no one before them has given up their lives and livlihoods for these causes, or as if nothing is being done for the starving masses of Africa, Asia, and elsewhere. The mission of Brad Pit and Angelina Jolie to save the world smacks of self-aggrandizement in a way that is as ugly as anyone who uses the hardship of others for personal gain.
Looking over the transcript from Angelina Jolie's interview with Anderson Cooper, what was noticably absent was:
1. the name of a humanitarian group that is currently involved in handling refugees and internally displaced persons in Africa or elsewhere, aside from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, who can't even decide who is a refugee and who is not.
2. the activities or experiences of anyone beyond herself or her entourage.
Read this (emphasis added):
COOPER: Part of the problem that a lot of people watching this tonight, watching this on television, watching these stories, after a while, it becomes this blur of sort of endless suffering in Africa. And I think there's a lot of hopelessness. People sort of throw up their hands and say, well, look, I gave -- there's only so much you can do.
JOLIE: Yes.
COOPER: And it seems endless. Do you -- how do you fight that? How do you...
JOLIE: Well, I think to acknowledge that and say, yes, it is another -- we understand that. But the borders were drawn in Africa not that long ago. These people are tribal people. We have -- we colonized them. We have -- there's a lot of changes that's happened, even just between the blacks and whites so recently. There's a lot we need to -- to understand and be tolerant of, and help them to -- they have just recently learned to govern themselves. But there are also pockets where they're really trying to pull themselves together. And we need to be there to really support them at that time, to help them to understand how better to govern. It really is a work in progress. It's not just going to happen overnight.
COOPER: You're very modest. But you're -- you're not just talking the talk. You're walking the walk. I have read that you give a third of your income to refugees and other causes. Is that true?
Wow, does that sound modest to you?
...and read this:
JOLIE: It was one of my first lessons in Washington. It was like, oh, a bill. I'm pushing for a bill.(LAUGHTER)
JOLIE: The bill passed. Success. And then somebody said, and now the funding. And I thought, and now the funding? I thought was that was the whole...
COOPER: And it's still not funded.
JOLIE: But you realize that, no, that that's -- you know, first, they -- they make it a priority to do it. And then -- and I -- I don't -- I don't -- you know, there are a lot of people that are going to come together. And I will spend more time in Washington, try to raise this funding, and hope that the funding doesn't come from somewhere else.
Wow, does this sound like someone who understands the processes behind getting real programs planned, enacted , and executed? For that matter, does this sound like someone who would be willing to let someone else take a little credit in exchange for getting things done?
Listen, the UNHCR is necessary, and it does good. Jolie and Pitt's donation of $300,000 to a Namibian hospital does good. Bringing attention to some of the easily ignorable horrors out there is good. It's all good, and it beats the pants off of the moral negligence that people like Paris Hilton exemplify. But it takes the same simpleminded self-centeredness to create a sense that all the world needs is Angelina Jolie. It all started to get better when Jolie decided that there are problems, when she got the money together, and when she gave it to other good people. All it takes is her to go to Senegal, Namibia, or Cambodia and bare witness to the suffering, to talk about it, and then everything will be fine.
It is not her actions that are repugnant to me-- it's the overwhelming sense that this person sees herself as the messiah-- the source of all goodness and wisdom come to save us all from our lives as unwashed, unenlightened wretches.
Commandment 1: You shall have no other divas before me.
Movie stars can and should give money to charity. They can and should advocate for the causes that are important to them. In my opinion, to have that level of money and influence, and do nothing is as wrong as keeping a bucket of water for oneself while a neighbor is on fire. Nevertheless, movie stars should also have the humility to recognize that problems related to absolute poverty require complex, often boring solutions best left to complex, boring people.
Throwing around a lot of money in corrupt, lawless places can be hazardous to all parties concerned. The best intentions can lead to the further entrenchment of petty thieves and thugs that are endemic in many underdeveloped regions of the world, not to mention here. Doing it right takes a lot of careful planning. Movie stars should do what their natural talents lend themselves to: being a pretty face and a powerful voice.
Brad and Angelina should use their production company to make movies. Those movies can contain messages about the things they care about. I can think of a thousand plots related to humanitarian crises that would be riveting, inspiring, and thought-provoking. They should continue to tour the world bringing attention to its plights.
Advocates for causes are rarely the architects of the ideas they promote. They are strong personalities that bring attention to important matters. Most important, it's not about them. It's about the message.
It is simply unacceptable that in this day and age, people should continue to live in the misery and squalor that defined much of human history. With the growing prosperity that our economic and political systems have generated, development has gained a clear mandate from all but the most narrowly individualistic thinkers.
It is bitterly ironic, then, when narrow, individualistic thinkers attempt to control the discourse on humanitarian aid as if no one before them has given up their lives and livlihoods for these causes, or as if nothing is being done for the starving masses of Africa, Asia, and elsewhere. The mission of Brad Pit and Angelina Jolie to save the world smacks of self-aggrandizement in a way that is as ugly as anyone who uses the hardship of others for personal gain.
Looking over the transcript from Angelina Jolie's interview with Anderson Cooper, what was noticably absent was:
1. the name of a humanitarian group that is currently involved in handling refugees and internally displaced persons in Africa or elsewhere, aside from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, who can't even decide who is a refugee and who is not.
2. the activities or experiences of anyone beyond herself or her entourage.
Read this (emphasis added):
COOPER: Part of the problem that a lot of people watching this tonight, watching this on television, watching these stories, after a while, it becomes this blur of sort of endless suffering in Africa. And I think there's a lot of hopelessness. People sort of throw up their hands and say, well, look, I gave -- there's only so much you can do.
JOLIE: Yes.
COOPER: And it seems endless. Do you -- how do you fight that? How do you...
JOLIE: Well, I think to acknowledge that and say, yes, it is another -- we understand that. But the borders were drawn in Africa not that long ago. These people are tribal people. We have -- we colonized them. We have -- there's a lot of changes that's happened, even just between the blacks and whites so recently. There's a lot we need to -- to understand and be tolerant of, and help them to -- they have just recently learned to govern themselves. But there are also pockets where they're really trying to pull themselves together. And we need to be there to really support them at that time, to help them to understand how better to govern. It really is a work in progress. It's not just going to happen overnight.
COOPER: You're very modest. But you're -- you're not just talking the talk. You're walking the walk. I have read that you give a third of your income to refugees and other causes. Is that true?
Wow, does that sound modest to you?
...and read this:
JOLIE: It was one of my first lessons in Washington. It was like, oh, a bill. I'm pushing for a bill.(LAUGHTER)
JOLIE: The bill passed. Success. And then somebody said, and now the funding. And I thought, and now the funding? I thought was that was the whole...
COOPER: And it's still not funded.
JOLIE: But you realize that, no, that that's -- you know, first, they -- they make it a priority to do it. And then -- and I -- I don't -- I don't -- you know, there are a lot of people that are going to come together. And I will spend more time in Washington, try to raise this funding, and hope that the funding doesn't come from somewhere else.
Wow, does this sound like someone who understands the processes behind getting real programs planned, enacted , and executed? For that matter, does this sound like someone who would be willing to let someone else take a little credit in exchange for getting things done?
Listen, the UNHCR is necessary, and it does good. Jolie and Pitt's donation of $300,000 to a Namibian hospital does good. Bringing attention to some of the easily ignorable horrors out there is good. It's all good, and it beats the pants off of the moral negligence that people like Paris Hilton exemplify. But it takes the same simpleminded self-centeredness to create a sense that all the world needs is Angelina Jolie. It all started to get better when Jolie decided that there are problems, when she got the money together, and when she gave it to other good people. All it takes is her to go to Senegal, Namibia, or Cambodia and bare witness to the suffering, to talk about it, and then everything will be fine.
It is not her actions that are repugnant to me-- it's the overwhelming sense that this person sees herself as the messiah-- the source of all goodness and wisdom come to save us all from our lives as unwashed, unenlightened wretches.
Commandment 1: You shall have no other divas before me.
Movie stars can and should give money to charity. They can and should advocate for the causes that are important to them. In my opinion, to have that level of money and influence, and do nothing is as wrong as keeping a bucket of water for oneself while a neighbor is on fire. Nevertheless, movie stars should also have the humility to recognize that problems related to absolute poverty require complex, often boring solutions best left to complex, boring people.
Throwing around a lot of money in corrupt, lawless places can be hazardous to all parties concerned. The best intentions can lead to the further entrenchment of petty thieves and thugs that are endemic in many underdeveloped regions of the world, not to mention here. Doing it right takes a lot of careful planning. Movie stars should do what their natural talents lend themselves to: being a pretty face and a powerful voice.
Brad and Angelina should use their production company to make movies. Those movies can contain messages about the things they care about. I can think of a thousand plots related to humanitarian crises that would be riveting, inspiring, and thought-provoking. They should continue to tour the world bringing attention to its plights.
Advocates for causes are rarely the architects of the ideas they promote. They are strong personalities that bring attention to important matters. Most important, it's not about them. It's about the message.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Is Paranoia Funny?
Yesterday evening, my wife and I went to the Tabernacle in downtown Atlanta to see the stage reincarnation of Dave Chappelle. Being a DC local kid done good, we'd followed his career since before his first HBO comedy special in 2000. Seeing him in DC in 2003 at the Lincoln Theater was a blast. In tense times in a tense city, Dave Chappelle was on stage for over an hour; making light of Bin Laden, Iraq, and easing into gentle prods on the recent DC Sniper incident, which until recently had a plurality of the audience bobbing and weaving at supermarket parking lots and gas stations, just in case. He was at the top of his career, recently signed on to a multi-million dollar contract with Comedy Central, often compared to Richard Pryor. He was the next greatest thing. His routine hit the audience like a large-predator tranquilizer dart full of Ecstasy. People of all ages left the Lincoln Theater energized, liberated from fear, and ready to laugh at those all too commonplace, cringing moments of edgy, exhausting wariness that had taken over the collective unconscious of Washingtonians during those days.
The vibe going into the show last night had certain echoes of that uneasiness I'd noticed in 2003. We waited in line for the doors to open for about a half hour in the Code Orange Atlanta Summer Afternoon sun, listening to three girls from the exurbs chatting, snapping gum and blowing smoke. They were terrified of the city, and in a mixed crowd made the somewhat racist comments that everyone is familiar with.
"I just don't know how people can live in Atlanta. I'd always be worried about getting shot or mugged or something."
"I mean at a country show everyone's friendly and says hi to each other. At a rock show you might get kicked in the head. At a rap show, you'll get shot. Or someone'll smoke your weed and then take everything from you... your watch, your money, whatever they can get"
It was one of those conversations that colonizes your consciousness with one stupid remark, and then soon takes everything over, so that any attempt at independent conversation is quickly eliminated. We were a captive audience, along with everyone else in line.
The line was a mixture of yuppies, buppies, greasy kids (some thuggish, some druggish), and the mass of bovine suburbans who come downtown only on special occasions. This combination of people is rare, and makes everyone a little uncomfortable-- reminding us that strangers might like the same things for different reasons.
Once we got in and got seated, the opening act was a local comic who had a funny 15 minute set about getting high and doing yard work. Mos Def was on for about a half hour where he did a few new tracks, a Pharcyde cover, and mixed in some old funk and R&B to make it fun and relaxed. Some cracker yelled out, "where's Dave?" in the middle of it, having no clue who Mos Def was.
Dave Chappelle came on, and came out swinging. He had a bit about getting in to a fight with a meth addict who took on Dave and 7 of his friends after asking him, "what time is it, nigger?" Eventually, his friend and the meth head went for drinks. The humor took cues from lewd heckles, and Dave came back with new material, segues, and witty retorts with the lyrical magic that is reserved for the rarest, most cunning and emotionally intelligent performers out there.
Then clouds moved overhead, and thunderclaps foretold fire and brimstone. Dave started talking about his abrupt mid-season exit from the Comedy Central show, his trip to Africa, the rumors and allegations of drug abuse, mental breakdown, and everything else that was published about this, and ultimately, "the game". The game is based on human nature. The game wants to control all of us. The game won't allow a black man to succeed. The game the game the game. His hour-long routine ended with a 15-minute allegory about the pimp, Iceberg Slim, and how he retained the services of his Bottom Bitch by fooling her into believing she'd murdered a john. Iceberg played the game, and got his way with one of his whores. The metaphor could not have been more clear.
The show ended without a break in those ominous clouds. Unlike the most damning sermons, no sweet redemption was had at the end. There was no moment of contrition, no thought of "well, at least I have my loyal audience". The show was funny, but in the end I think everyone but the most dense of the crowd left a little dumbstruck, a little angered at the ways of the world, a little more hateful towards everyone else around them.
People filed out quietly into the warm evening, trying to digest what had been said. We made it to the parking deck and got into the stopped procession of traffic on the down ramp. Some guy from the suburbs in a Lexus roared up in a narrow opening, trying to cut in front of us. We edged foreword. No dice. I felt my face flush. Katie and I exchanged epithets about the couple and their back seat passenger. The other woman rolled down her window and said "He's not going anywhere. It's my car." Katie replied, "You can get in behind us." we all simmered in our juices for the next ten minutes. Looking backward, we saw the couple get into a shouting match with those same girls who had been in line with us earlier. I leaned out the car window and directed the girls to move forward, blocking the guy further. They did it, and the car after them, and the one after them. The Lexus ended up about 10 cars back from us. They played the game and lost.
Having slept on it, I'm really saddened that such a gifted performer should allow himself to be so broken, so sensitive to the ways that the Celebrity Apparatus had treated him. We were his captive audience, his shrink to get all of those feelings off his chest. His new material (when funny) was much more ribald and cynical than before-- more reminiscent of Eddie Murphy than his previous work. He had obviously been eaten alive by the pernicious, parasitic hordes of agents, lawyers, contracts, assistants, communications specialists, publicists, and others who live in the shadows behind all persons public.
The old Dave would have made light of this as he had done to the Sniper(s), Bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein. The old Dave would have left his audience inspired to thumb their noses at Hollywood idiots, made a stab at Ryan Seacrest, the lawyers and producers he'd worked with, whoever. He would have laughed at himself a little too. Dave Chappelle's new message was anti-establishment just as before, but with the destructive message of the anarchist, and not the inspiring agitator.
I really hope he gets back on track. Dave Chappelle has the rare gift of being able to inspire a little constructive subversion, something severely lacking in today's climate. He's one of the greatest personalities of our generation. We need you, Dave.
The vibe going into the show last night had certain echoes of that uneasiness I'd noticed in 2003. We waited in line for the doors to open for about a half hour in the Code Orange Atlanta Summer Afternoon sun, listening to three girls from the exurbs chatting, snapping gum and blowing smoke. They were terrified of the city, and in a mixed crowd made the somewhat racist comments that everyone is familiar with.
"I just don't know how people can live in Atlanta. I'd always be worried about getting shot or mugged or something."
"I mean at a country show everyone's friendly and says hi to each other. At a rock show you might get kicked in the head. At a rap show, you'll get shot. Or someone'll smoke your weed and then take everything from you... your watch, your money, whatever they can get"
It was one of those conversations that colonizes your consciousness with one stupid remark, and then soon takes everything over, so that any attempt at independent conversation is quickly eliminated. We were a captive audience, along with everyone else in line.
The line was a mixture of yuppies, buppies, greasy kids (some thuggish, some druggish), and the mass of bovine suburbans who come downtown only on special occasions. This combination of people is rare, and makes everyone a little uncomfortable-- reminding us that strangers might like the same things for different reasons.
Once we got in and got seated, the opening act was a local comic who had a funny 15 minute set about getting high and doing yard work. Mos Def was on for about a half hour where he did a few new tracks, a Pharcyde cover, and mixed in some old funk and R&B to make it fun and relaxed. Some cracker yelled out, "where's Dave?" in the middle of it, having no clue who Mos Def was.
Dave Chappelle came on, and came out swinging. He had a bit about getting in to a fight with a meth addict who took on Dave and 7 of his friends after asking him, "what time is it, nigger?" Eventually, his friend and the meth head went for drinks. The humor took cues from lewd heckles, and Dave came back with new material, segues, and witty retorts with the lyrical magic that is reserved for the rarest, most cunning and emotionally intelligent performers out there.
Then clouds moved overhead, and thunderclaps foretold fire and brimstone. Dave started talking about his abrupt mid-season exit from the Comedy Central show, his trip to Africa, the rumors and allegations of drug abuse, mental breakdown, and everything else that was published about this, and ultimately, "the game". The game is based on human nature. The game wants to control all of us. The game won't allow a black man to succeed. The game the game the game. His hour-long routine ended with a 15-minute allegory about the pimp, Iceberg Slim, and how he retained the services of his Bottom Bitch by fooling her into believing she'd murdered a john. Iceberg played the game, and got his way with one of his whores. The metaphor could not have been more clear.
The show ended without a break in those ominous clouds. Unlike the most damning sermons, no sweet redemption was had at the end. There was no moment of contrition, no thought of "well, at least I have my loyal audience". The show was funny, but in the end I think everyone but the most dense of the crowd left a little dumbstruck, a little angered at the ways of the world, a little more hateful towards everyone else around them.
People filed out quietly into the warm evening, trying to digest what had been said. We made it to the parking deck and got into the stopped procession of traffic on the down ramp. Some guy from the suburbs in a Lexus roared up in a narrow opening, trying to cut in front of us. We edged foreword. No dice. I felt my face flush. Katie and I exchanged epithets about the couple and their back seat passenger. The other woman rolled down her window and said "He's not going anywhere. It's my car." Katie replied, "You can get in behind us." we all simmered in our juices for the next ten minutes. Looking backward, we saw the couple get into a shouting match with those same girls who had been in line with us earlier. I leaned out the car window and directed the girls to move forward, blocking the guy further. They did it, and the car after them, and the one after them. The Lexus ended up about 10 cars back from us. They played the game and lost.
Having slept on it, I'm really saddened that such a gifted performer should allow himself to be so broken, so sensitive to the ways that the Celebrity Apparatus had treated him. We were his captive audience, his shrink to get all of those feelings off his chest. His new material (when funny) was much more ribald and cynical than before-- more reminiscent of Eddie Murphy than his previous work. He had obviously been eaten alive by the pernicious, parasitic hordes of agents, lawyers, contracts, assistants, communications specialists, publicists, and others who live in the shadows behind all persons public.
The old Dave would have made light of this as he had done to the Sniper(s), Bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein. The old Dave would have left his audience inspired to thumb their noses at Hollywood idiots, made a stab at Ryan Seacrest, the lawyers and producers he'd worked with, whoever. He would have laughed at himself a little too. Dave Chappelle's new message was anti-establishment just as before, but with the destructive message of the anarchist, and not the inspiring agitator.
I really hope he gets back on track. Dave Chappelle has the rare gift of being able to inspire a little constructive subversion, something severely lacking in today's climate. He's one of the greatest personalities of our generation. We need you, Dave.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Afganistan, Iraq... Somalia?
Today's New York Times front page shows a picture of the recently killed terrorist leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi as the necessary proof that he is dead, and not in some other way silenced by US interventions. In war, people need proof of progress-- or at least that all is not lost. During the siege of Stalingrad, the city's inhabitants burned furniture and ate sawdust to stay alive over long, unsupplied Russian winter. Surrounded by brigades of Nazi forces, the city's loudspeakers continued to broadcast music, news, propaganda, and eventually just the lonely sound of a metronome. This alone remained proof that the city had not been overrun, that there was still someone in charge of something somewhere. The death of al Zarqawi is better than the Soviet metronome, but it says little for the people in Iraq and elsewhere who are still in the grips of their own long winter.
Iraq's war of attrition is the fruit of forced regime change. As far as I can tell, if regime change is what you want, there are two basic ways of getting it. First, there is the brute force "send-in-the-Marines" approach that we have come to know and love since the invasion of Afghanistan almost five years ago and the somewhat more recent and involved invasion and occupation of Iraq. Second, there is the sneaky "spooks-fund-the-less-bad-guys" approach that, according to the other international article on today's NYT front page, has led to a disaster in Somalia.
Neither of these approaches do anything to eliminate the prospects of guys like al Zarqawi, nor, beyond a short-lived moral victory, have they ever led to long-term stability of nations, let alone the long-term liberty of their people. At best, unilateral wars for regime change have a track record of producing Macchiavellian principalities where fear keeps the local journalism dull and the trains running on time until the prince dies and his idiot son takes over. Meanwhile, covert CIA-type interventions have given us such successes as the Latin American Dirty Wars, the Iran-Contra Affairs, Iran's current leadership in the first place, continued paramilitary chaos across much of sub-saharan Africa, and countless other simmering quagmires, havens for terrorists, "People's Democratic Republics of Carjackistan" and others. Yesterday's freedom fighters are tomorrow's Taliban.
By funding anti-islamist warlords in Somalia, we have added to this list of successes. We have created a brand-new and relatively unexploited petrie dish for new al Zarqawis to grow and multiply unchecked by any legitmate force.
It is more than likely that the world-renowned security apparatus that our intelligence agencies helped Iran set up in the 60s and 70s is now has its own sneaky spooks on the ground in all of these hotspots, and elsewhere. Without any facts, could you imagine any country with geopolitical aspirations (and real influence) not pursuing their interests in their occupied or weakened neighbor? As a hunch, there will be a great many books written about this in a generation's time.
Seeing what's going on today, and if I were born yesterday, I'd be a big fan of the CIA intervention. Sending 10 experts into a country to foment a revolution in our favor sounds a lot better than 100,000 20 year old kids trying to keep the peace where they don't speak the language, and where the heat, dust, scorpions and snipers will sap the strength of anyone. The problem is that the CIA intervention never seems to work. Compound the spooks' track record with the expertise of the competition, and it looks like a really, really bad idea.
My sense is that intelligence organizations should stick to the fact-gathering, analysis, and consulting roles, while avoiding the active, decisive strategic planning and execution phase of war. They are intellectuals, and like most intellectuals are tough to manageand even harder to be used effectively. CIA intelligence should be more integrated with the decision-making bodies of the armed forces over at the Pentagon. They are essentially the anthropologists of the defense world-- full of cultural knowledge, but struggling to put it to use. War is, among other nightmares, a logistical one.
Our government can't wage wars while every bureaucratic feifdom involved is trying to score originality points. A little harmony between these two warring Bureaus of Combat would do us (and the world) some good. Our military interventions are in need of a major makeover by some flamboyantly gay, optimistic management consultants. Carson, anyone? Olive drab is so out this year. Try this linen suit with these aviator sunglasses.
I know that al Zarqawi was caught by way of a mishmash of US, Iraqi, Jordanian intelligence coupled with military know-how, but this seems like the exception, rather than the rule. We can't put a $25 million bounty on every Tom, Dick, and Hussein with a jones for jihad-- then again, maybe that would be cheaper thatn the roughly $1Billion/day going rate of occupation that we're currently paying.
Peace has a price to be sure... but we're being ripped off.
Even better than this morbid choice between Marines or Paramilitary deathsquads overthrowing governments would be avoiding these situations in the first place. Past successful purchases of peace took place when a large bloc of nations have come under one ideology to conquer whatever it is they don't like. Think of getting kids in high school to behave a certain way. Where bullying fails, relentless, constant peer pressure works.
Instead of continuing to pursue the brute force solution to regime change, there needs to be some agreement from middle-eastern countries on what Iraq should look like, some agreement from religious leaders on what the role of Islam should be vis-a-vis the state. Jordan, Qatar, the UAE, Morocco, and others seem to make it work. All of these parties could help to reintegrate Iraq into the region, and into the exisiting networks of cultural and economic exchange that keep people happy and productive.
Instead of continuing to send spooks to do a local's job, we need to study and promote institutions that create positive leaders, while discouraging those that produce sociopaths. Job training, university grants, outlets for speech, and even the right kind of religion are good places to look. For every al Zarqawi there needs to be an alternative, freedom-loving cult of personality in place; not some shill for US oil interests, some starry-eyed revolutionary, or someone too into the lessons they learned on tough love at the School of the Americas.
The metronome continues to click, but little more. We need a few Muslim Mandelas, Giza Ghandis, Euphrates Yushenkos and Tigris Tutus. They are the only true counterinsurgency.
Iraq's war of attrition is the fruit of forced regime change. As far as I can tell, if regime change is what you want, there are two basic ways of getting it. First, there is the brute force "send-in-the-Marines" approach that we have come to know and love since the invasion of Afghanistan almost five years ago and the somewhat more recent and involved invasion and occupation of Iraq. Second, there is the sneaky "spooks-fund-the-less-bad-guys" approach that, according to the other international article on today's NYT front page, has led to a disaster in Somalia.
Neither of these approaches do anything to eliminate the prospects of guys like al Zarqawi, nor, beyond a short-lived moral victory, have they ever led to long-term stability of nations, let alone the long-term liberty of their people. At best, unilateral wars for regime change have a track record of producing Macchiavellian principalities where fear keeps the local journalism dull and the trains running on time until the prince dies and his idiot son takes over. Meanwhile, covert CIA-type interventions have given us such successes as the Latin American Dirty Wars, the Iran-Contra Affairs, Iran's current leadership in the first place, continued paramilitary chaos across much of sub-saharan Africa, and countless other simmering quagmires, havens for terrorists, "People's Democratic Republics of Carjackistan" and others. Yesterday's freedom fighters are tomorrow's Taliban.
By funding anti-islamist warlords in Somalia, we have added to this list of successes. We have created a brand-new and relatively unexploited petrie dish for new al Zarqawis to grow and multiply unchecked by any legitmate force.
It is more than likely that the world-renowned security apparatus that our intelligence agencies helped Iran set up in the 60s and 70s is now has its own sneaky spooks on the ground in all of these hotspots, and elsewhere. Without any facts, could you imagine any country with geopolitical aspirations (and real influence) not pursuing their interests in their occupied or weakened neighbor? As a hunch, there will be a great many books written about this in a generation's time.
Seeing what's going on today, and if I were born yesterday, I'd be a big fan of the CIA intervention. Sending 10 experts into a country to foment a revolution in our favor sounds a lot better than 100,000 20 year old kids trying to keep the peace where they don't speak the language, and where the heat, dust, scorpions and snipers will sap the strength of anyone. The problem is that the CIA intervention never seems to work. Compound the spooks' track record with the expertise of the competition, and it looks like a really, really bad idea.
My sense is that intelligence organizations should stick to the fact-gathering, analysis, and consulting roles, while avoiding the active, decisive strategic planning and execution phase of war. They are intellectuals, and like most intellectuals are tough to manageand even harder to be used effectively. CIA intelligence should be more integrated with the decision-making bodies of the armed forces over at the Pentagon. They are essentially the anthropologists of the defense world-- full of cultural knowledge, but struggling to put it to use. War is, among other nightmares, a logistical one.
Our government can't wage wars while every bureaucratic feifdom involved is trying to score originality points. A little harmony between these two warring Bureaus of Combat would do us (and the world) some good. Our military interventions are in need of a major makeover by some flamboyantly gay, optimistic management consultants. Carson, anyone? Olive drab is so out this year. Try this linen suit with these aviator sunglasses.
I know that al Zarqawi was caught by way of a mishmash of US, Iraqi, Jordanian intelligence coupled with military know-how, but this seems like the exception, rather than the rule. We can't put a $25 million bounty on every Tom, Dick, and Hussein with a jones for jihad-- then again, maybe that would be cheaper thatn the roughly $1Billion/day going rate of occupation that we're currently paying.
Peace has a price to be sure... but we're being ripped off.
Even better than this morbid choice between Marines or Paramilitary deathsquads overthrowing governments would be avoiding these situations in the first place. Past successful purchases of peace took place when a large bloc of nations have come under one ideology to conquer whatever it is they don't like. Think of getting kids in high school to behave a certain way. Where bullying fails, relentless, constant peer pressure works.
Instead of continuing to pursue the brute force solution to regime change, there needs to be some agreement from middle-eastern countries on what Iraq should look like, some agreement from religious leaders on what the role of Islam should be vis-a-vis the state. Jordan, Qatar, the UAE, Morocco, and others seem to make it work. All of these parties could help to reintegrate Iraq into the region, and into the exisiting networks of cultural and economic exchange that keep people happy and productive.
Instead of continuing to send spooks to do a local's job, we need to study and promote institutions that create positive leaders, while discouraging those that produce sociopaths. Job training, university grants, outlets for speech, and even the right kind of religion are good places to look. For every al Zarqawi there needs to be an alternative, freedom-loving cult of personality in place; not some shill for US oil interests, some starry-eyed revolutionary, or someone too into the lessons they learned on tough love at the School of the Americas.
The metronome continues to click, but little more. We need a few Muslim Mandelas, Giza Ghandis, Euphrates Yushenkos and Tigris Tutus. They are the only true counterinsurgency.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Immigrants and Gays
We've got to take a step back and consider a few things about where the national debate is leading us. There is a certain ugly vein that runs through our collective unconscious. America is different, but not immune to the fears and social ills that fed the horrors of the last century. This sentiment needs to be exposed and called by its name.
"...a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." (Anatomy of Fascism, Robert O. Paxton, p 218)
Sound familiar?
How about these:
"...a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" (Merriam Webster's definition of fascism)
"A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism." (American Heritage Dictionary)
"...a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." (Anatomy of Fascism, Robert O. Paxton, p 218)
Sound familiar?
How about these:
"...a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" (Merriam Webster's definition of fascism)
"A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism." (American Heritage Dictionary)
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Monopoly on Violence
To have and display a weapon represents probably 90% of its value.
The sociologist Max Weber described the sovereign state in its simplest manifestation as, "the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force". When we get in to car accidents, make large purchases, or need to settle disputes, who do we call? Ghostbusters? Batman? The local militia? Our favorite warlord? No. We call lawyers.
We call people who can act on our behalf; people who can leverage the government's monopoly on legitimate force in our favor. When there is no government, or when lawyers look more like Patrick Swayze in Red Dawn, then we turn to our friends and neighbors, and we approach strangers with extreme caution. In the absence of higher authority, some of us approach strangers more agressively than others; a select few choose murder and tryanny.
Things look pretty different when there is no Sovereign around who can lay claim to this monopoly on violence. Look back to long-standing customs and we can get a glimpse of what it must have been like to approach a stranger during this epoch. People began shaking hands and bowing to one another as a ritual of negotiation to determine that they would not draw their sheathed swords. People began to clink glasses together in a toast so that "fluid exchange" would occur, assuring that any poison in one goblet would spill in to the other. People without swords or drinks to share cowered in terror and submission every time someone new rode in to town.
Two points modify these rules for modern times.
First, the biggest weapons currently available are capable of incinerating millions of people in one round of attack.
Second, the arena in which these weapons are acquired, and (God forbid) used is one without a legitimate sovereign with a monopoly on force. It is also between states, and not individuals. Ever since the Great War, as the stakes have escalated, we've tried to create some kind of Sovereign via the League of Nations and the UN, but establishing a sovereign without a clear external adversary is a different and maybe impossible prospect. It certainly won't be the United States any time soon.
In the current impasse with Iran over nuclear weapons, we are left to the old tricks of secret handshakes, liaisons, coalitions and third-party proxy negotiators. We're left with one-on-one diplomacy. Failing that, we're left with a gentlemen's duel.
Iran is a big country full of smart people, natural resources, and history going back to the Patriarchs (and I'm not talking the Federalist Papers here). Iranian culture owes much to a long history of serving as traders and negotiators between distant and sometimes hostile societies. They have mastered the use of negotiating in the absence of a third-party protector, of getting what they want when there's nobody around and no guarantees of safety. For America, coming in to this game as a relatively young nation, we are at a severe and too often unrecognized disadvantage in understanding or successfully competing with these tactics that have been honed over scores of generations. Americans are not very good one-on-one negotiators. We're too much of a modern nation-state and not enough of a society. We expect rules to be in writing. Anyone who has ever tried to buy something from an Iranian should know what I'm talking about. All we have going for us these days is our spending (and borrowing) power.
My sense is that despite the nationalist blow-hard rhetoric, no one in Iran with any real power is serious about wiping Israel off the map. Sure, they'll send some money to Hamas and Hisbullah, but they're not interested in total isolation, or the zero-sum-game of multilateral nuclear warfare. They say all that because it sounds good-- sort of like when our leaders say stuff like the recently redacted "dead or alive", or the oft-mocked "bring 'em on". It looks good on a bumper sticker and it keeps most people from thinking about internal threats to their freedom and autonomy. Iran wants nuclear weapons because having them means that other countries would treat them with the respect and deference they demand. In a one-on-one world, this is essential for anyone who wants to hold any authority. Look where they are: they share borders with Pakistan, Russia and China, and are in ballistic spitting distance from India and Israel. To be a big nation and not to have nuclear parity with this mixed bag of cold allies and enemies would be insane foreign policy. 90% of having a weapon is not derived from using it, but rather, from the threat of its use.
I do not like the guys in charge of Iran. I do not like the inflammatory language with which Ahemadinajad routinely addresses the world. But I do not see a threat of immenent destruction from this matter, nor do I think that we are acting in a way that would affect change within Iran. We are ignoring Iran's role in the Iraqi insurgency, their role supporting terrorist groups across the world, and we are slowly allowing them to ally with other nations who want capitalism without democratic rule. By not directly engaging Iran, and confronting them on the geopolitical issues that matter to us, we are only strengthening a populist, fascistic leader's position, and creating a newly polar world in a time of scarce energy resources.
We can't stop Iran from getting the bomb, and really, it might not be so bad if they had it. Continuing under the policy that Iran must stop uranium enrichment before any discussions can take place only allows them to further thumb their noses at us, and to mock our demands. Iran is a big, powerful place. It must be treated as such, and not as some cold, rogue, remote, peninsula. We must engage Iran under any circumstances, find any leverage we can and make demands for reform of their government and civil society. Engagement works. No deals will be had that deny them this weapon. Our best bet is to change who is behind the trigger.
The sociologist Max Weber described the sovereign state in its simplest manifestation as, "the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force". When we get in to car accidents, make large purchases, or need to settle disputes, who do we call? Ghostbusters? Batman? The local militia? Our favorite warlord? No. We call lawyers.
We call people who can act on our behalf; people who can leverage the government's monopoly on legitimate force in our favor. When there is no government, or when lawyers look more like Patrick Swayze in Red Dawn, then we turn to our friends and neighbors, and we approach strangers with extreme caution. In the absence of higher authority, some of us approach strangers more agressively than others; a select few choose murder and tryanny.
Things look pretty different when there is no Sovereign around who can lay claim to this monopoly on violence. Look back to long-standing customs and we can get a glimpse of what it must have been like to approach a stranger during this epoch. People began shaking hands and bowing to one another as a ritual of negotiation to determine that they would not draw their sheathed swords. People began to clink glasses together in a toast so that "fluid exchange" would occur, assuring that any poison in one goblet would spill in to the other. People without swords or drinks to share cowered in terror and submission every time someone new rode in to town.
Two points modify these rules for modern times.
First, the biggest weapons currently available are capable of incinerating millions of people in one round of attack.
Second, the arena in which these weapons are acquired, and (God forbid) used is one without a legitimate sovereign with a monopoly on force. It is also between states, and not individuals. Ever since the Great War, as the stakes have escalated, we've tried to create some kind of Sovereign via the League of Nations and the UN, but establishing a sovereign without a clear external adversary is a different and maybe impossible prospect. It certainly won't be the United States any time soon.
In the current impasse with Iran over nuclear weapons, we are left to the old tricks of secret handshakes, liaisons, coalitions and third-party proxy negotiators. We're left with one-on-one diplomacy. Failing that, we're left with a gentlemen's duel.
Iran is a big country full of smart people, natural resources, and history going back to the Patriarchs (and I'm not talking the Federalist Papers here). Iranian culture owes much to a long history of serving as traders and negotiators between distant and sometimes hostile societies. They have mastered the use of negotiating in the absence of a third-party protector, of getting what they want when there's nobody around and no guarantees of safety. For America, coming in to this game as a relatively young nation, we are at a severe and too often unrecognized disadvantage in understanding or successfully competing with these tactics that have been honed over scores of generations. Americans are not very good one-on-one negotiators. We're too much of a modern nation-state and not enough of a society. We expect rules to be in writing. Anyone who has ever tried to buy something from an Iranian should know what I'm talking about. All we have going for us these days is our spending (and borrowing) power.
My sense is that despite the nationalist blow-hard rhetoric, no one in Iran with any real power is serious about wiping Israel off the map. Sure, they'll send some money to Hamas and Hisbullah, but they're not interested in total isolation, or the zero-sum-game of multilateral nuclear warfare. They say all that because it sounds good-- sort of like when our leaders say stuff like the recently redacted "dead or alive", or the oft-mocked "bring 'em on". It looks good on a bumper sticker and it keeps most people from thinking about internal threats to their freedom and autonomy. Iran wants nuclear weapons because having them means that other countries would treat them with the respect and deference they demand. In a one-on-one world, this is essential for anyone who wants to hold any authority. Look where they are: they share borders with Pakistan, Russia and China, and are in ballistic spitting distance from India and Israel. To be a big nation and not to have nuclear parity with this mixed bag of cold allies and enemies would be insane foreign policy. 90% of having a weapon is not derived from using it, but rather, from the threat of its use.
I do not like the guys in charge of Iran. I do not like the inflammatory language with which Ahemadinajad routinely addresses the world. But I do not see a threat of immenent destruction from this matter, nor do I think that we are acting in a way that would affect change within Iran. We are ignoring Iran's role in the Iraqi insurgency, their role supporting terrorist groups across the world, and we are slowly allowing them to ally with other nations who want capitalism without democratic rule. By not directly engaging Iran, and confronting them on the geopolitical issues that matter to us, we are only strengthening a populist, fascistic leader's position, and creating a newly polar world in a time of scarce energy resources.
We can't stop Iran from getting the bomb, and really, it might not be so bad if they had it. Continuing under the policy that Iran must stop uranium enrichment before any discussions can take place only allows them to further thumb their noses at us, and to mock our demands. Iran is a big, powerful place. It must be treated as such, and not as some cold, rogue, remote, peninsula. We must engage Iran under any circumstances, find any leverage we can and make demands for reform of their government and civil society. Engagement works. No deals will be had that deny them this weapon. Our best bet is to change who is behind the trigger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)