The CounterRevolutionary

2004-02-15T15:21:00.000-05:00

Stop talking down the economy!

First, I’m sorry that I haven’t posted in a while – work has been busy. Second, I’d like to post about something I know a little about (or at least get paid to do) – finance. Last Friday, an economic statistic was released that greatly troubled me. The University of Michigan consumer sentiment plummeted from 103 to 93. An AP survey released a few weeks ago showed a similar decline.

What troubles me is that this deterioration does not appear to have any economic drivers. After all, the economy is doing just fine. The unemployment rate is lower than it has been since the 9/11 attacks and is currently one of the lowest in the developed world. Even the establishment survey is finally registering job growth. Likewise, the economy is growing at a healthy clip and the stock markets have been advancing. Interest rates are at their lowest in 40 years and the Fed has signaled that they intend to keep it that way. Finally, inflation, the scourge of post-WWII economies, is nowhere to be seen.

Furhermore, there were no economic events during the survey period that would cause consumer confidence to thusly dip. No attacks, no major lay-offs, no corporate scandals or world events that would cause the public to take a bleaker look at life. It appears that sentiment dipped despite a healthy real economy.

What, then, could have caused the public to get gloomy? I believe that the answer is election year politics.

To understand why this development is so troubling we have to travel back to September 12th, 2001. Forget for the moment the emotional and the political situations of that day and focus on the economic. A day earlier, a terrorist strike aimed at the financial heart of the US killed almost 3,000 people and took down two skyscrapers (I worked a block away). The stock market was closed indefinitely, obituaries were being written for the airline and the hospitality industries and the economy was in general disarray.

Unfortunately, the 9/11 attacks were the second major economic disaster in as many years to strike the US. The first was the deflation of the Nasdaq technology bubble. By many measures (e.g. P/E) that bubble was larger than the one that toppled in 1929. There was another, less publicly known, bubble in the debt markets as well. There was a real chance that the aftermath of the exuberance would be as extreme as the bubble was frothy. A Great Depression II was not out of the question.

Yet the nation’s economy survived those two events, suffering only a mild recession. The saviors of the economy were the consumers – they continued to spend. Not only did they turn around the US economy, but they kept the European and Japanese economies afloat by buying foreign goods. Business spending, on the other hand was nowhere to be found. Overspending in the 1990s and weak financial positions (see the debt bubble) caused many companies to be shy about building many new products.

The ability of the American consumer to spend was caused by two major influxes of cash, lower interest rates and lower taxes. Lower interest rates allowed homeowners to refinance their homes and to use the extra cash for spending. They allowed manufacturers to offer 0% financing on automobiles and appliances. Lower taxes were more direct – in an atmosphere where few companies were offering raises, lower taxes put more money in people’s pockets.

What does this have to do with consumer sentiment? After all, consumer spending and consumer sentiment do not appear to be related (people spent during the recession despite low sentiment numbers).

The trouble is that the pillars of our recovery are under threat. The interest rates are low and will stay low for a while, but you can only refinance your house once and many people have already taken that advantage. There is little to no chance that the rates will go any lower than they are today. The tax cuts are also under political threat. As in every recovery, there is a real probability of relapse. Just punch up the Nikkei stock index or the Japanese GDP from 1990 on or the Dow from 1929. There were many “false positives” of recovery which proved to be fleeting.

With the American consumer getting “tired”, to continue our recovery businesses must begin to spend. And consumer sentiment and business sentiment are related. Business owners must produce goods in the amount that they believe the marketplace can absorb. They use measures of consumer sentiment to gauge future demand. And if the consumer acts gloomy, the businesses will not spend. Without new business spending we are in danger of relapsing into recession.

That’s why I’m worried.

Now that it’s clear why consumer sentiment is so important right now – what’s causing it to drop despite good economic numbers?

The economy, of course, is not all statistics and figures. More than anything, the economy is about psychology. When in the 1990s we wanted to believe that dot.coms were real companies with real value – we believed it and made it so. Conversely, FDR was right when he said in the middle of the Great Depression that “the only thing to fear was fear itself” – views of a bleak outlook tend to reinforce themselves.

Consumer psychology, today, is driven by the election process. For the past few weeks more and more people have been paying attention to the Democratic primaries. And what they’ve heard from the candidates about the economy is gloom and doom. They have attacked the President for his stewardship of the economy and for his failure to produce more jobs. The American consumer/voter is taking this to heart.

The poll numbers bear this out. In a recent Washinton Post poll, the President’s economic approval ratings dropped from 51 to 44 over a similar stretch of time (question 2a). Again, no bad economic news could have affected the consumer during this period. But, many more have begun to pay attention to the election process (question 3).

To the Democrats, I say, “Stop talking down the economy!”

Criticism of a president’s economic policy is, of course, a legitimate political topic. But at the same time it is possible to do it without threatening the economy. For example, would it be so wrong to acknowledge that 5.6% unemployment is not a bad place to be? The Democrats can easily argue that our economy is not that bad, but it can do much better. Governor Bush took a similar tactic in 2000. While that approach may not be as effective as sowing economic fear, the candidates should not be beyond reproach for the consequences of their rhetoric.

Conservatives, too, are responsible for some economic gloom ‘n doom. Recently they latched on to the growing budget deficits as an excuse to bash the Administration and the economy. This is nonsense. If a country is allowed to run a deficit, then what better time than during wartime and while escaping a recession. Any one of these reasons should be sufficient and both are present today. Nevertheless, the deficit is not that large. When compared to the GDP, it is smaller than the Reagan deficits. Furthermore, deficits are hard to predict – remember Perot circa 1992 holding up graphs showing an ever increasing trajectory?

The conservatives’ complaints about deficits seem to be a mix of muscle-flexing before an election and a proxy complaint against “big government.” Complaining about deficits has become more politically correct than being a “small government” conservative. But if that is their cause, they should stop bad-mouthing the economy lest the deficit becomes a minor afterthought of a recession.

Finally, the White House deserves some blame for the spreading economic gloom. They have failed to laud themselves for steer this country through a minor economic miracle. How else do you describe a state of affairs when the result of a major terrorist attack and a massive financial bubble is 5.6% unemployment and 4% GDP growth (the French figures are 9.7% and 0.5%; and German are 10.2% and 0.2% respectively)? The Administration should be shouting this from every rooftop. Do they actually expect a hostile press corps to carry their water?

The economy is a legitimate election year topic, but in their zeal to get elected, politicians should avoid causing irreparable harm to the economy. If the Democrats cannot find a way to criticize Bush without spreading economic doom and gloom they do not deserve to be elected. So,

Stop talking down the economy!

2004-01-06T08:15:00.000-05:00

Ghosts of Occupation Past -- Quelling the riots

Here is another story that gives lie to the popular notion that the Iraqi occupation was not planned. In all important respects, food, water, medicine -- we got it right.

BRITISH TO QUELL HAMBURG RIOTING
New York Times; Mar 24, 1946; pg. 11

Some notes:

1. Sorry for the lack of blogging. My son now likes to play at the computer -- so I'm getting a lot less time to blog.

2. The Ghosts series is coming to an end. Are there any other historical periods that would be interesting to post? The 1972 Presidential campaign perhaps?

Thanks,
Eric

2003-12-31T20:07:00.000-05:00

Happy New Year!

Sorry for the lack of posts, but I took an unintended blogging vacation. I will be back with more Ghosts post soon....

Eric

2003-12-21T21:59:00.000-05:00

Ghosts of Occupation Past -- How bad did things get?

Before the Iraq war, one of the more common arguments again was that the war could create famine among the civilian population. That prediction, thankfully, did not come true. Well, in the aftermath of WWII, there were major food problems in occupied Germany.

According to this article, the rations in the British zone were lowered to 1040 calories per day!

Allies Asked to Pool Food To Avert Crisis in Germany
By KATHLEEN McLAUGHLIN By Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
New York Times; Mar 1, 1946; pg. 1

Talk about a lack of post-war planning! We were fighting the Germans for 4 years and we still had no plan to feed them after the war! Please remember this when you hear complains about the lack of post war planning. We obviously planned for the things that counted.

Here is another blurb from the AP regarding the morale of the occupation force:

6,000 GI's in Europe Are AWOL
New York Times; Mar 3, 1946; pg. 36

PS Another blogger is posting French cartoons from the First Gulf War. They are also very revealing.

2003-12-15T22:04:00.000-05:00

Ghosts of Occupation Past -- Germans Return to Nationalism

As we return to the Ghosts series, the Germans are returning to nationalism.

GERMANS RETURN TO NATIONALISM
By DREW MIDDLETON By Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
New York Times; Feb 25, 1946; pg. 3

Allow me to emphasize a passage:

"But former German officers and soldiers are the most active adherents of the new nationalism. They criticize but seldom support the political parties now in being and they are insolent, mischievous and bitter opponents of the Allies' occupation.

German policemen say that the attacks made against Germans working for the military government in the various zones are almost invariably planned and carried out by war veterans."

Like Yogi Berra said, it's deja vu all over again....

2003-12-14T11:10:00.000-05:00

Holy Cow! We've captured Karl Marx!

Congrats to our armed forces and to Iraqis everywhere!

PS, so can we look forward to fewer "Vietnam quagmire" analogies? You know, since we never captured Ho Chi Min?

2003-12-11T00:03:00.000-05:00

Ghosts of Occupation Past -- Russian Elections

Once in a while, I interrupt my regularly scheduled Occupation coverage with other interesting articles that I find. This one is about elections in the Soviet Union (if you are new to my blog -- that's where I was born, so it's interesting to me).

PRAVDA FINDS POLL SUPERIOR TO OURS
By BROOKS ATKINSON By Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
New York Times; Feb 18, 1946; pg. 12

This is the kind of history that makes you long for more repetitions of Florida 2000.

I have one problem with the article: is the reporter just another Duranty or is he writing tongue in cheek? I can't figure it out. Before you answer, consider the last paragraph:

"On the whole the news is discouraging to Americans this morning."

Either this guy, Atkinson, has a very dry, sarcastic writing style (which seems to be absent from his co-workers covering Washington and Germany) or he is commie sypathieser. If it wasn't for the last paragraph, I'd say it's the former...

In any case, at least he mentions that the voters had no choice. I don't think that modern journalists even mentioned that fact when covering Saddam's "elections" last fall.

2003-12-06T20:54:00.000-05:00

Ghosts of Occupation Past -- Fumblin' the O

This article is a great insight into the minds of the New york Times journalists. Not only did they call a meeting to emphasize how the US is "fumbling" the occupation, but htey offered an example of how it should be done -- the Soviets.

U.S SEEN 'FUMBLING' ITS JOB IN GERMANY
New York Times; Feb 15, 1946; pg. 6

It's easy to laugh at the naïveté of the speakers with the benefit of hindsight. Since that time the concept of Soviet re-education has taken on a dark meaning. We also don't see the innocence in setting up Communist headquarters backed by the Red Army.

It's hard not to conclude from this article how wrong journalists can be. Another example from the last paragraph (not copied) quoted Anne O'Hare McCormick:

"...you learn in the Soviet orbit that the United States has no reason to be afraid of Russia, militarily, economically, politically, unless we abdicate our power."

Yeah, and Uncle Joe is a big cuddly teddy bear.

PS I'm off to a conference and won't be able to post articles until Wednesday.

2003-12-04T13:59:00.000-05:00

Ghosts of Occupation Past -- The more things change...

Two stories regarding the occupation from inside the Beltway. They might as well have been written today...

The first deals with the political infighting between State and the War Department:

RULE IN GERMANY HITS SNAGS IN U.S.
By W.H. LAWRENCE By Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
New York Times; Jan 24, 1946; pg. 9

As usual, the occupation authority had trouble recruiting talented personnel:

The next story is also a common theme in Washington today -- the military defending themselves against charges of failure:

RULE OF GERMANY DEFENDED BY ARMY
By SIDNEY SHALETT Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
New York Times; Feb 1, 1946; pg. 6

...

There goes that silly "official viewpoint" -- blatantly ignoring the wisdom of the journalist class!

[Sorry for the truncation, but the rest of the sentence was not that interesting and didn't want to do another jpeg.]

2003-12-03T11:18:00.000-05:00

Ghosts of Occupation Past -- Dark German Outlook...

Another dark dispatch from Germany.

DARK GERMAN OUTLOOK ENCOURAGES RESISTANCE
By DREW MIDDLETON By Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
New York Times; Jan 20, 1946; pg. 66

2003-12-02T11:54:00.000-05:00

Ghosts of Occupation Past -- US Prestige

In our idealization of the past, we sometimes forget how bad and messy things got on the ground.

U.S. PRESTIGE DROPS AFTER GI PROTESTS
By DREW MIDDLETON By Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
New York Times; Jan 13, 1946; pg. 1

2003-11-30T23:28:00.000-05:00

Ghosts of Occupation Past -- Three Occupation Reports

Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving! Back to work on Monday and back to blogging today.

This editorial from the New York Times nicely summarizes the conventional wisdom in early January 1946.

THREE OCCUPATION REPORTS
New York Times; Jan 6, 1946; pg. E8

A failure! Confirmed by "virtually every newspaper dispatch"!

Thankfully, the Russians are doing well....

2003-11-26T20:04:00.000-05:00

Ghosts of Occupation Past -- Thanksgiving.

I know I said that I will post these article in chronological order, but it's Thanksgiving, and I wanted to post a nice Thanksgiving article in honor of all our GIs.

Thank you for keeping us safe and the world free.

DAY'S TASKS OCCUPY AMERICANS ABROAD
New York Times; Nov 29, 1946; pg. 33

Thanksgivnig is my favorite holiday. This year, I give thanks for three things:

1. For my baby boy
2. For my wife
3. For my adopted home, America

Happy Turkey Day!

2003-11-23T21:15:00.000-05:00

The Left’s Bile

The response to my post about Germany’s lack of atomic weapons took me by surprise. A snarky comparison, meant to be lighthearted, brought out the savagery of the Left. I’ve never had such spiteful remarks in my comments section. And it’s not like I’ve shied away from controversial topics before. One piece, entitled “Occupy Iraq!” (which was a controversial idea when written in September 2002), was linked to by the lefty blog “What Really Happened.” On that occasion, I received much hateful e-mail (comments were not enabled then), but nothing like the vitriol that I received in response to the Marshall post.

Honestly, I never meant the post to be very controversial. In the process of my research on the occupation of Germany, I ran into this article. I though it was interesting – there we some parallels to the discussion regarding Saddam’s WMD. I tried to be humorous. In case you were wondering, I don’t really think that Hitler’s Germany was a “Co-operative” or that FDR was controlled by an Anglican cabal (fyi, it’s called sarcasm). No, I wasn’t implicating Marshall – anyone with any knowledge of history knows that the fog of war is always strategic and that it’s next to impossible to peer into closed societies like Hitler’s or Saddam’s.

I was shocked by the response to the article, however. I don’t mind the insults – that comes with the blogging territory. But the sheer hatred of my critics did take me by surprise. I got some intelligent comments (e.g. questioning if our attack on Hitler was pre-emptive), but the bulk of the response was pure attack. That got me thinking -- I obviously pushed some Lefty buttons, but what were they? What made them act so defensively?

Psychologically, the far Left is like a cult. They are fanatics whose goal of a “Heaven on Earth” is just as unrealistic as the those of an Aryan Reich. Like any other cult, they feel that they are the sole recipients of pure wisdom and goodness and those who disagree with them are either stupid or evil. They build mythologies that reinforce these perceptions. I believe that in the Marshall post I inadvertently questioned one of these mythologies.

To the Left, WWII was the last “good” war. Its morality was clear cut – one side was purely good and the other was purely evil. One of the ways that the Left psychologically reinforces their standing on the “good” side is by drawing parallels between themselves and WWII’s Allies. Even more powerfully, they view those that disagree with them as evil by drawing a connection to the Axis. The “Bush = Hitler” meme which fuels the Left’s righteousness depends on this relationship.

This seems to be a powerful mythology, and I think that my crime was in questioning on which side of the divide the modern Left lies. Evidence that the modern Left is more like the Western Nazi supporters would undermine their self image as avatars of goodness. Imagine if you viewed yourself as a righteous paladin battling a moral monstrosity – now imagine realizing that you are the monstrosity. More importantly, the realization would take away the “reasons” for the anger that you so greatly savor. I believe that this realization caused the highly defensive response to my post.

So what did I say? I inadvertently questioned the “legality” of America’s entry into WWII. Why would that be important? With the benefit of hindsight, we know that the purpose of the war was good – so what if a few people fibbed to get us involved? Knowing what we know today – would it matter morally if we simply attacked Hitler with no provocation? Say he never declared war on us, what would have been the moral thing to do? To attack seems to be the easy answer, but not to the modern Left. Why?

In drawing the psychological line to their WWII heroes, the only connection that remains is the supposed purity of America’s entry into the war. On all other counts, their rhetoric lays with the Western supporters of Hitler. Let’s face it, America fought the war to liberate Europe – pure and simple. The moral basis for this was enunciated by FDR in his famous “Four Freedoms” speech.

(Some argue that Hitler presented a greater threat to American security than Saddam. To me, the idea that Hitler with his troops occupying vast Russia, would still be able to conquer Britain and turn his troops on conquest of America, with his second rate fleet defeating ours presented a greater threat to American security than an openly hostile tyrant in the terrorist and ICBM age is at best debatable.)

The Iraq war was a war of liberation – there can be no denial that Saddam’s regime was extremely brutal. One estimate is that the country contains 300,000 dead in mass graves. Saddam used weapons of mass destruction against his enemies, foreign and domestic, and had an extensive system of torture chambers. On a purely moral basis, there was no difference between Saddam and Hitler. The moral analogy between WWII and Iraq argues in favor of the hawks. This should not be surprising – the Left does not even bother to make serious liberation arguments against the war now.

The only arguments against the war are “legalistic” – we acted unilaterally, we did not get the approval of the UN, the given reasons for the war were not true, etc. None of which have any bearing on the morality of liberation. Hence, the remaining connection between the modern Left and the good side of WWII is its “legal” purity. If WWII was shown to have been started illegally, then any similarities between the Iraq anti-war types and WWII allies would cease to exist.

And that’s exactly what my post did – it questioned the purity of WWII. While I was being lighthearted, to the Left my post was tragically serious – I was questioning their self-image. In effect, my post was stating that today’s anti-war types were morally identical to the American Nazi party that rallied in support of Hitler. Worse, it showed that there is no distinction between Bush and the Allied heroes of WWII.

2003-11-22T19:05:00.000-05:00

Ghosts of Occupations Past -- 2 fer...

Continuing our journey into the past...

There have been many discussions about the decision to hold elections in Iraq. I found this interesting article in the archives:

GERMAN ELECTION SET IN TOWNS OF U.S. ZONE
New York Times; Dec 19, 1945; pg. 5

Yes, I know they are just local elections, but I did not realize how quickly they were held.

The next article is in honor of Walter Duranty keeping his Pulitzer Prize. It seems like the Times had (has?) a soft spot in it heart for Stalin and his empire. A page one report from the Russian side of Germany:

Russians Spread Efficiency And Communism in Germany
By GLADWIN HILL By Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
New York Times; Dec 27, 1945; pg. 1

Efficiency, indeed....

2003-11-21T14:17:00.000-05:00

Marshall lied... Update

Wow! Judging by the comments, I really hit a nerve among Saddam supporters with my last post! What was meant as light-hearted fare really brought out the bile in our "humanitarians".

I don't think I could change the minds of those for whom only Vietnam is an appropriate comparison, but I would like to address the most rational criticism of my post -- was our attack against Hitler unprovoked?

Yes, Hitler declared war on America. But what does that entail?

In this case, the German Foreign Minister handed a piece of paper to our Charge d'Affairs, that essentially said "We are at war." And then we were at war.

Does this technicality override all the other considerations? Would the war have been illegitimate if that piece of paper never existed? If Hitler never declared war, would we have stayed out of Europe? Should we have? And, is that piece of paper the difference between Hitler and Saddam?

Saddam attacked his neighbors, practiced genocide and oppressed his own people, but hey -- no piece of paper! He tried to assassinate a former US President, violated the terms of his peace treaty and supported terrorists overseas, but hey -- no piece of paper! He even called for a jihad against the US, but hey -- it was on paper but never officially handed to an American bureaucrat !

If you folks think that the piece of paper legitimized WWII and makes the liberation of Iraq illegitimate, then your moral compass has a needle missing.

Besides, to expect an Middle Easter potentate to act in a European fashion (by officially declaring war) is very Orientalist -- and that's bad, right?

And another thing, does anyone on the left have a sense of humor?

2003-11-20T20:35:00.000-05:00

Ghosts of Occupations Past -- Marshall lied...

While researching the Allied occupation of Germany, I discovered a shocking truth -- WWII was illegitimate! You see, Germany had no atomic weapons program even though the US government insisted that it did.

GERMANS DECLARED FAR BEHIND ON BOMB
The New York Times, 1945
New York Times; Dec 7, 1945; pg. 4

For emphasis, let me repeat a paragraph from the story:

"Chairman McMahon, Democrat, of Connecticut, suggested that General George C. Marshall, former Chief of Staff, had been wrong in speaking of a race between Germany and the Allies in developing the weapon. Dr. Goudsmit said apparently we knew as little about Germany's progress as they did about ours."

I know, I stretching here -- WMD was not a reason that the US attacked Germany. But by today's sensibilities -- nothing else that Hitler did would have mattered. After all, Hitler never attacked the US. Our war against him was pre-emptive. If we use today's standards, his aggression against his neighbors, his genocide or even his abuse of his own people would not have mattered. And he had no WMD to boot! Are we left with any reasons that justified fighting Hitler that are not passé today?

So when we look back at WWII we should remember how savagely the so-called "Greatest Generation" attacked, without provocation, the harmonious people of the German Co-operative ("Reich" is such a loaded term), whose utopia stretched all the way from Brittany to Bergen-Belsen.

PS I hear it was all due to an Anglican cabal in FDR's cabinet...

UPDATE: Here

2003-11-20T16:48:00.000-05:00

Picture Problems

There are some problems with my jpgs. They are based on my att.net server and it has been weird today (that's as technical as I get).

UPDATE: It's working now...

2003-11-19T08:50:00.000-05:00

Ghosts of Occupations Past -- "Germans Declare Americans Hated"

I know this is becoming a recurring theme, but here one more:

GERMANS DECLARE AMERICANS HATED
By KATHLEEN McLAUGHLIN By Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
New York Times; Dec 3, 1945; pg. 6

Yes, we were making improvements, but even there we could do no right,

"Even though they voiced generaa approval of the restoration of amusements, the Germans classed as "American Trash" such Hollywood efforts as "Lady Eve" and "Here Comes Mister Jordan" the report pointed out."

OK, the next post is going to be a good one.....

2003-11-17T16:59:00.000-05:00

Ghosts of Occupations Past -- "Loss of Victory"

Sometimes, from the fog of hindsight it seems that all history was pre-ordained and that participants decisively followed their fated paths. Not true.

The past is rife with indecision and self-examination. The actions that now seem straight forward, looked confusing and fragile to the contemporaries. Remember this the next time you hear a about the failure to have a plan....

LOSS OF VICTORY IN GERMANY THROUGH U.S. POLICY FEARED
By John H. Crider Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES
New York Times; Nov. 18, 1945; pg. 1

Interestingly enough, the article continues by listing several options that can be undertaken. Today, it is unnecessary to give an alternative -- all you need to do is criticize.

2003-11-13T22:53:00.000-05:00

Ghosts of Occupations Past -- random postings...

First -- clearing up one thing. The goal of the "Ghosts" series is not to establish the facts of the post-war German occupation, but to discuss the press coverage of it. The occupation of Germany went well in the long run (at least up to last year), yet the early reports suggested that the sky was falling.

The only point I would like to make is that its too early to tell what the future holds in Iraq and that pessimistic press coverage does not necessarily lead to a negative outcome.

Second, in addition to posting articles about the German occupation, I would also like to add a few others amusing clippings that I found amusing while doing my research.

The first is from the "Yeah, right" category. But since this is the NY Times, let's call it the Duranty school of journalism.

RUSSIA ALSO EAGER TO QUIT GERMANY
By RAYMOND DANIELL By Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
New York Times; Nov 7, 1945; pg. 10

Stalin is laughing in his grave...

Here is another from the "some things never change" series...

AMERICANS LEAVE DISLIKE IN FRANCE
By DANA ADAMS SCHMIDT By Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
New York Times; Nov 12, 1945; pg. 5

and they're still holding a grudge!

2003-11-13T22:35:00.000-05:00

A blogger goes to Iraq...

Gavin is planning a trip to Iraq. He is looking for advice and support. Take a look.

2003-11-13T00:08:00.000-05:00

Ghosts of Occupations Past -- "Germans Reveal Hate of Americans"

Keeping the momentum rolling...

Another dispatch from the Times' man in Germany.

GERMANS REVEAL HATE OF AMERICANS
By DREW MIDDLETON By Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
The New York Times; Oct 31, 1945; pg. 12

The last paragraph sounds pretty familiar...

And so does this: "The local organizations that have sprung up during October are similar in their objectives which are to annoy and, and when possible, attack the Americans and sabotage the efforts of German officials working with them." Too bad the term "quagmire" was not in vogue in 1945.

Stay tuned -- more to come....

Previous entries:

Ghosts of Occupations Past -- the trouble brews...
Ghosts of Occupations Past -- "We can lose the peace"

2003-11-12T19:52:00.000-05:00

Thanks Instapundit

Two things:

1. I have a ton more of these and I'll be posting them in chronological order.

2. For all of those making comments about American deaths in occupied Germany, have you stopped to consider the fact that 407,316 Americans died in WWII at a rate of 220 a day? Do you also realize how few German men of fighting age were around at the time -- given both the Eastern and Western fronts? Think, people!

UPDATE: Thanks to Andrew as well. I've been away from a computer all day and only now catching up with my usual reading.

2003-11-10T11:01:00.000-05:00

Ghosts of Occupations Past -- the trouble brews...

Last week I published an article from the NY Times entitled "We can lose the peace." No, it was not about Iraq, but about Germany. Today, I continue with a series of articles from the Times covering the German occupation. I will post them in chronological order, and these are early in the occupation -- you can see the negativity start to set in....

AMERICANS' CLASHES WITH GERMANS CROW
By Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
New York Times; Oct 10, 1945; pg. 7

It goes on to note that there are rumors that "a gang of Germans attacked and mutilated three American soldiers."

The next article shows how early fascination with the perceptions of the occupied can be misleading.

REICH GIRLS WANT RETURN OF NAZISM
By DREW MIDDLETON By Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
New York Times; Oct 22, 1945; pg. 3

In case you were wondering, the focus on German girls is due to their, er, close contact with American GIs. The article goes on to say that the views of the girls were beginning to influence the GIs themselves.

"Three times in the last week American soldiers remarked casually that perhaps Hitler had not been so bad for Germans after all..."

Some of the girls refused to believe that Hitler was dead: "One of them told a friend of mine, a young sergeant, that 'he will return again, you Americans will see.'"

Please also remember the name of the reporter, Drew Middleton -- his reports will become increasingly alarmist and shrill.

2003-11-04T20:45:00.000-05:00

Ghosts of Occupations Past -- "We can lose the peace"

Inspired by the Life magazine from Jessica's Well and the Saturday Evening Post posted by Instapundit, I went off to the library. The New York Public Library has a database of New York Times articles dating form 1857.

In the span of an hour, I found many articles dating from late 1945 and 1946 about the occupation of Germany. They were uniformly pessimistic. I would like to post them here. Due to copyrights, I will only post excerpts.

WE CAN LOSE THE PEACE
New York Times; Sep 25, 1945; pg. 21

Can you imagine the Times giving this advice today?

2003-11-03T10:18:00.000-05:00

Underreported story of the day....

From today's Wash Post: "Seized Intelligence Files Spur U.S. Investigations"

BAGHDAD, Nov. 2 -- The CIA has seized an extensive cache of files from the former Iraqi Intelligence Service that is spurring U.S. investigations of weapons procurement networks and agents of influence who took money from the government of Saddam Hussein, according to U.S. officials familiar with the records.

The Iraqi files are "almost as much as the Stasi files," said a senior U.S. official, referring to the vast archives of the former East German intelligence service seized after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

The records would stretch 91/2 miles if laid end to end, the officials said. They contain not only the names of nearly every Iraqi intelligence officer, but also the names of their paid foreign agents, written agent reports, evaluations of agent credentials, and documentary evidence of payments made to buy influence in the Arab world and elsewhere, the officials said.

The officials declined to name individuals who they believe received funds or to name the home countries of the alleged recipients. One official said the recipients held high-ranking positions and worked both in Arab countries and in other regions. A second official said the payments were the subjects of "active investigations" by U.S. government agencies.

The recipients of the Iraqi funds were described by U.S. officials not as formal intelligence agents, but as prominent personalities and political figures who accepted money from Iraq as they defended Hussein publicly or pressed his causes.

Can't wait to see the results.

2003-10-28T21:56:00.000-05:00

Stay the course

In response to yesterday's bombings, the prescriptions have focused on changing tactics in Iraq. While these suggestions are probably somewhat helpful, their focus – Iraq – is completely wrong.

The key to victory in Iraq is right here in the US.

Wars, especially guerilla wars, are a contest of wills. The "loser" is the one who loses the will to fight first. The winner’s will only has to outlast the loser. Military strength is a factor in convincing your opponent that they cannot continue to struggle against you, but it is not the only factor. The political constraints of the warring parties are key. For democracies the key, to victory is to maintain the political consensus at home. If the people no longer believe that a war is worth fighting then no amount of battlefield progress is sufficient. The converse is also true, a determined democracy is the most fearsome opponent on the planet.

This is where the Vietnam example comes in. That war was clearly lost on the American streets and not in the jungles of Vietnam. While it’s true that the war was poorly prosecuted, American forces abandoned the South not due to the North's military success, but because the American people were tired of fighting and wanted out at all costs.

The enemy knows this relationship.

America's enemies have learned that the giant will run when body bags start coming home or when things get messy. They learned that from Vietnam. They learned that from Iran. They learned that from Lebanon. They learned it from Somalia. It has become part of their battle plan.

The relationship between domestic politics and foreign wars has become a feedback mechanism. Neither is independent of the other. This is important to understand.

So, when our enemies attack in Iraq, they do not do so in a vacuum. Their primary goals are not to destroy a police station or to assassinate a political figure or even to cause chaos. They have one goal - to break the will of the democracy. The attacks are meant as "proof" of failure to the American audience. If the enemy believed that we would be discouraged by an epidemic of capitalism in Baghdad, then that is what we would see.

We contribute to the problem by treating the attacks as if the enemy has no knowledge of history or of our politics. We seem to believe that our enemies are not adults who are capable of picking up a newspaper, browsing the internet or learning. So, we fill reams of newsprint about how if Event A were to happen it would show that we were losing and then are shocked to see that Event A occurs. Indeed, we act like Pavlovian dogs –salivating on cue when the right stimulant is presented.

To win in Iraq, we must take advantage of this feedback mechanism ourselves. We must convince our enemies that we will never be discouraged and their fight is futile. The security situation in Iraq will improve when the enemy will cease to believe that the gains in the American politics outweigh the losses to them.

This is easier said than done. First, we are an open society and cannot prevent the free flow of information. Censorship is a useful tool in breaking the feedback loop, but is open to abuse. WWII was the last war that news from the front was censored, but I do not believe that the system can be instituted today (nor would I wish to see that). Second, as a democracy we are ultimately responsible for making the decisions on whether our endeavors are working. It can be difficult to separate the attacks designed to discourage us from genuine gains by the enemy.

Third, international struggles get tangled-up in domestic politics. We are in the middle of a re-election campaign and most of the Democratic candidates have made Iraq an issue. Their interest in defeating President Bush and the enemy’s interest in breaking our will both require a focus on the negative side of Iraq. Now, I don’t believe that any of the candidates actively want us to lose in Iraq, but their actions are effectively an amplifier in the feedback loop. The media, too, for ideological reasons, do their part in magnifying the enemy’s message.

It is conventional wisdom that the violence in Iraq has caused increased criticism of the President (and his sliding approval ratings). In others words, it is violence (“A”) that causes domestic criticism (“B”). But it is possible that the relationship is reversed. Consider the following line of causation. The initial acts of small time thuggery, like the “looting” of the Baghdad Museum cause a great outcry in the US. The enemy is encouraged by their small PR success and tries more outrageous acts. Those are seen in the West as a greater cause for criticism. Which the enemy sees as a further success, and so on, into the vicious circle. In the social sciences, it is difficult to tell which is the cause and which is the effect, but we cannot rule out any possibilities.

Oppositions being what they are can and will use any available legitimate means to win elections. That’s the nature of democracy. Aside from reminding the Democrats of how their words are seen by the enemy, I am not advocating any changes to our political system or our press.

Then how can a democracy fight this awful feedback loop? I have some ideas:

Understand the nature of the dynamic. Just knowing that the loop exists helps to solve the problem. As a parent of a young child, I feel the urge to placate and indulge him every time he cries (especially at night). However, I know that if I do, he will learn that his cries will elicit a certain response from me. He will begin to cry for any reason what so ever. So, the indulgences are rationed. During the night, he is not picked up unless he cries for more than 10 minutes. This process has reduced the nightly incidents from 4 a night to zero. Now both baby and parent sleep through the night.

Similarly, by understanding the nature of the dynamic in Iraq we can more effectively deal with the nature of the attacks. For example, we can start by asking whether the attacks have any military value – are they deteriorating our capabilities? – or are they simply designed to elicit a certain response? Roadside bombs and attacks on aid agencies do nothing destroy our military capabilities and are only designed to break our will. We should not take the bait.

Take the psychological offensive. Regardless of all the defeatist rhetoric you have heard, people fight only when they feel they have hope of success. One of the reasons that the enemy, be they Baathists or jihadists, believe that they can take on an infinitely more powerful enemy is their belief that what they have to do to win is very small. Until Afghanistan, the enemy has been used to seeing ever-decreasing required body counts in order to achieve victory. Just a few dead Americans caused us to run from Somalia. The war on terrorism was supposed to change all that, but the experience in Iraq has given a glimmer of hope to the enemy that the old feedback loop is still alive. September 11th did not change everything after all.

We do not live in a vacuum. Our domestic fears and quarrels are not our little secrets. Our enemies know and understand our weaknesses and take advantage of them. In Iraq, our enemy has chosen to attack in such way as to cause the greatest damage to our national psyche and not our military. To make the situation safer in Iraq, we must make the enemy understand that their acts will not cause us to change our commitment to the region. That to win, they will have to fight long and hard. In other words, we must break their will, before they break ours.

We must understand that the choice between defeat and victory is ours. We have the most powerfull military, so the only way we can lose is by losing our nerve. And that is our choice to make not the enemy's.

2003-10-20T22:26:00.000-04:00

Wilson/Plame – a conspiracy?

In the middle of his Bush-bashing piece in the New Yorker, Seymour Hersh drops a bombshell. Well, it would be a bombshell if the reporter were concerned with anything except sullying Bush. I will ignore the rest of his inane article and go to the money quote:

Who produced the fake Niger papers? There is nothing approaching a consensus on this question within the intelligence community. There has been published speculation about the intelligence services of several different countries. One theory, favored by some journalists in Rome, is that sismi produced the false documents and passed them to Panorama for publication.

Another explanation was provided by a former senior C.I.A. officer. He had begun talking to me about the Niger papers in March, when I first wrote about the forgery, and said, “Somebody deliberately let something false get in there.” He became more forthcoming in subsequent months, eventually saying that a small group of disgruntled retired C.I.A. clandestine operators had banded together in the late summer of last year and drafted the fraudulent documents themselves.

“The agency guys were so pissed at Cheney,” the former officer said. “They said, ‘O.K, we’re going to put the bite on these guys.’” My source said that he was first told of the fabrication late last year, at one of the many holiday gatherings in the Washington area of past and present C.I.A. officials. “Everyone was bragging about it—‘Here’s what we did. It was cool, cool, cool.’” These retirees, he said, had superb contacts among current officers in the agency and were informed in detail of the sismi intelligence.

“They thought that, with this crowd, it was the only way to go—to nail these guys who were not practicing good tradecraft and vetting intelligence,” my source said. “They thought it’d be bought at lower levels—a big bluff.” The thinking, he said, was that the documents would be endorsed by Iraq hawks at the top of the Bush Administration, who would be unable to resist flaunting them at a press conference or an interagency government meeting. They would then look foolish when intelligence officials pointed out that they were obvious fakes. But the tactic backfired, he said, when the papers won widespread acceptance within the Administration. “It got out of control.” [Emphasis mine]

Wow! Double wow! Current and former CIA officials in a conspiracy to deceive elected officials about a matter of utmost national security and it gets buried in Hersh’s story? Where’s the outrage? The front page headlines about a “rogue elephant”? Ah, but it’s the Bush Administration and the Agency can run drugs from Central America and the press wouldn’t care so long as they can bash Bush. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. But, I’m getting off topic.

The possibility of an inside job does explain why Wilson was chosen to go to Niger. Many commentators, including myself, have questioned the suitability of sending a former diplomat to do a spook’s job. Things just did not add up. Let me summarize – he had no prior intel experience, no tools ($$$$) to get the job done and was not bound by regular CIA requirement not to publish. This possibility answers all these nagging questions.

Let’s summarize. A group wants the Administration to “look foolish” so they plant forged documents. That sets the trap, now someone has to spring it. This person has to have several qualifications. The trap must be sprung loudly, so the person needs to be someone who likes to talk. The person also needs to have qualifications that the media find impressive, so he has credibility. The person can’t be bound by any legal requirements not to talk – he can’t be Agency. Finally, the trap can’t be detected, so the person has to have no clue about real intel work. Ladies and Gentlemen, may I introduce Joseph P Wilson the Fourth, International Man of Mystery.

One glaring characteristic about Wilson is that he likes to hear himself speak – he has been all over the media. He has given interviews to everyone, despite the fact that giving more attention to the story would theoretically jeopardize his wife’s safety (see Tom Maguire). In the few months that he has spent in the national spotlight, Wilson has shown himself to be a tireless self-promoter. Doubtless, the people who chose him for the trip knew this to be true. If nothing else, his Baghdad episode shows him to be a man who would jeopardize his life for some attention. Most of the media have looked with awe on his stunt of defying Saddam with a noose around his neck back in the first Gulf War. Yes, it was courageous but for no practical reason – did he really think that he could persuade Saddam (a man who likes to watch people be tortured)? In any case, it got him notoriety despite all the risks – and that’s just the kind of man our conspirators would need.

Second are his qualifications. The media goes on and on about his background and whoever chose Wilson had to know that his resume would appeal to the East Coast intelegencia. He spent time in the foreign service (as an admin officer), speaks French (ooh la la!) and has high level connections in Africa (the media seems to believe that having contacts in one place in a continent is good enough. I live in NYC – does that mean I can get sensitive info in Mexico City?). He even looks dashing – a character right out of a LeCarre novel. He plays so well to stereotype that the media has to believe him.

Third is his lack of legal ties to the CIA. Any employee or contractor would need to sigh an agreement requiring him not to write without prior authorization. Conveniently, he did not have to enter in to any of these messy relationships – he was free to sing.

Finally, he had to have no real intel background. Otherwise, he may have thought it suspicious that he was being sent on a mission of top national security and no one else was available. He also must believe that the best way to ask people if they are suppling contraband to your enemies is to ask them outright. Under no circumstance must he do anything other than to take a holiday to Africa, stay at a top hotel and return having found noting. Which is exactly what he did.

On all these counts, Wilson was the perfect rube.

In one way, the conspirators may have overestimated Mr Wilson. I think that they expected him to talk sooner, before the war began. Theoretically a flop like that could have stopped the war. The yellowcake intel came out right after September 11th, when people first began to speak about going to war against Iraq -- so the timing is right on that count.

Having said all this, I should also say, genuinely, that I’m not sure that the conspiracy story is true. The only thing I’m saying is that it answers all the questions about why Wilson was selected for this trip to Niger. There could be other answers.

However, if the allegations are true, our nation is in danger. Our foreign intelligence service is not only formulating their own foreign policy, but also meddling in domestic affairs by trying to sabotage the White House. Worse, our press, the supposed guardians of our freedom, are too busy trying to have a domestic regime change to care. Hopefully, the Justice Department investigation or the Congressional hearing proposed by Representative King will get to the bottom of this.

PS Tom Maguire has much more on this.

2003-10-07T23:34:00.000-04:00

Ah-nold wins!

It seems like Arnold won big. I wonder how much of his margin of victory is from the voters' disguist with the partisan politics of California jounalism, especially the LA Times? It seems like after the Times "report" came out, Arnold's poll numbers went up. If anyone sees polls about this, please let me know.

If I'm right, I hope that someone in the White House is paying attention....

2003-10-02T23:34:00.000-04:00

Why I want an investigation II – one man’s leaker…

I know that we are all used to being Pavlovian and responding in exactly the way were supposed to, but let’s think for ourselves for a bit. One “truth” that has been accepted in the Wilson/Plame scandal is that the leakers’ motives were nefarious. How do we know this? The only source who claims to know what the leakers were up to was the Washinton Post’s original “senior administration official.” Coincidentally, this was exactly what Wilson has been screaming for months and the press (who are not exactly friends of George) ran with it. But is it true?

Let’s assume for the purpose of this discussion that the leakers gave classified information when they spoke to Novak and let’s assume that the information was known to be classified and revealed freely. Let’s further assume that this broke the law. There is another class of people who reveal classified information to the press – they are called “whistleblowers.” Whistleblowers are treated as heroes by society for ferreting out scandals that we would not have otherwise known while disregarding the penalties to their careers or freedom. Is it possible that we have been too hasty in branding Novak’s little birdies? Could they have been heroic whistleblowers?

Ah, but whistleblowers expose scandals, is there a scandal here? There certainly is, and if maybe the ladies and gentlemen of the press could stop trying to find ways to bash Bush – they would see it.

A few days ago I wrote about questions surrounding the selection of Wilson as CIAs man in Niger. Sure, he had many years in the Foreign Service (mostly as an admin. officer) with some spectacular highlights (acting Ambassador in Baghdad during Gulf War I), but he was not qualified for this mission. It appears that he was also not formally employed by the CIA and given no tools to succeed. Whatever else you can say about his trip to Niger, it was not serious intel gathering. (“I say, sir, in return for this sweet mint tea, could you provide me with proof that you are smuggling uranium?”) While the circumstances surrounding his selection alone are not grounds for a scandal, the explanations given for it are.

The first (thanks to a tip from a reader) is from George Tenet himself explaining the Wlison affair on 11 July 2003:

There was fragmentary intelligence gathered in late 2001 and early 2002 on the allegations of Saddam’s efforts to obtain additional raw uranium from Africa, beyond the 550 metric tons already in Iraq. In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA’s counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn.

The second is from today’s New York Times article, “All Roads Lead to Iraq”

A C.I.A. official said on Wednesday that proliferation experts at the agency were skeptical of reports early last year that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger for weapons. Not long after the reports arrived, Vice President Dick Cheney's office asked the agency to pursue the lead.

Officials said on Wednesday that sending Mr. Wilson to Niger in February 2002 to investigate the leads reflected a belief that the uranium report was not serious enough to warrant starting more ambitious clandestine information gathering.

What is the meaning of “on their own initiative” in the context of the NYT article? If it’s true that Cheney asked the agency to pursue the lead, was tasking Wilson done on initiative? Was it initiative because 1) tasking Wilson was against regulation, 2) tasking Wilson was against the express wishes of their superiors or 3) another department (say, the Africa group) was actually tasked with the VP’s request (presumably pursuing it with actual officers) and the counter-proliferation people wanted their own stringer for what ever reason. Furthermore, who were they to say what was “serious enough”, when the VP already made that decision?

One clear theme emerges from the explanations – the willingness by certain parts of the CIA to undermine the civilian leadership of this country. If Cheney requested the follow-up, why were adequate resources not allocated? Even if someone at the CIA did not like the story, why were they in a position to question the judgement of their civilian authority? By sending Wilson on a half-assed attempt to “gather intelligence”, this group was actively subverting Cheney’s request to get serious answers to a matter of utmost national security.

Could it be that this is what Novak’s birdies were trying to say? It has been clear for a while that the Agency and the White House were not getting along, but did they go too far this time? Anonymous leakers in press giving their opinions were one thing, but publicly undermining the Executive, and perhaps, trying to influence domestic politics was too much for someone. So, they reached out to the press – connect the dots they said – from Wilson to the CIA. Ask questions about how he was hired and why.

In a different time, any sign that the CIA has gone rogue – that it developed its own political agenda, hired unauthorized operatives and undermined the express wishes of elected officials would have gotten the press’ panties in a bunch. After all, who knows what “initiatives” they will take next or what they will consider “serious” maters? But not today. Today, anything that gets George Bush in trouble is OK with the press. Even if that old nemesis, the CIA, misbehaves – it’s fine as long as they hate Bush as much as we do.

UPDATE: Representative Peter King thinks that the Agency has gone rogue too.

2003-09-30T23:29:00.000-04:00

Why I want an investigation of the Wilson leak ?– part I

In yesterday?’s post I said that the Wilson/Plame story stinks and I want to discuss why. The first reason is Joseph C Wilson IV himself. The story begins and revolves around him.

He is the one who traveled to Niger upon the supposed request of the CIA. He is the one who started the "16 woscandaldal" by writing an op-ed piece in the New York Times. Now his wife is at the center of the controversy surrounding the leak of the identity. But something about his story just does not jibe.

I'm very suspicious about the nature of his relationship with the CIA. Was it formal or informal? Wilson claims that he was tasked by the Vice-President himself, a charge that Cheney denies. This is important because the weight given his report by the media. Suppose that he was some private individual who was qualified and decided to travel to Niger on his own initiative. Suppose that he returned with the conclusion that the charge in question was false. Would this individual be given the same credibility by the media? No, for two reasons. One, working on the behalf of the government holds a certain authoritative cache and, two, only if he worked for the government would he be able to claim that they knew the charge was false.

However, it is still not clear what his relationship was. He claims that he was asked by a group at the CIA to go on this mission. But it still does not make sense why he was chosen. Doesn't the CIA have officers in Niger or any other countries of Franco-phone Africa? Why not the Ambassador to Niger? Why was he chosen instead? Why a former State guy instead of CIA? They have plenty of retirees as well. Yes, he was qualified, but weren't there others who were just as qualified? Remember, the question that was posed to him was not to compile a guide of coffee-houses for spooks, but to report on a question of vital national interest? No one on active duty was available for this critical task?

What complicates this question further is his op-ed in the New York Times. Not the content of the article, but the fact that it was written. CIA employees famously sign contracts promising not to write anything without CIA prior clearance. I'm not positive about this, but I believe that CIA contractors have to the same. If his relationship with the Agency was formal, was the essay vetted? If so, who approved it? If it was not approved, did he break the law by disclosing an American intelligence operation? It is unheard of to see editorials by intelligence officers stating the results of their missions so soon after the fact.

In summary, what was Wilson's relationship with the CIA? If none, why did people care what he said? If formal or informal, why was he selected for the task? Finally, if the relationship was formal why was he allowed to publicly reveal the results of his mission?

In my mind, these questions just don't add up. The CIA does not pull people off the street if they need to answer a question of vital national importance. They don't let them publish either. Given the lead role that Wilson has had in the two major post-Iraq scandals ?– the Yellowcake and Identity -gates -- we should know a little more about his connections to the government and credibility.

UPDATE: One more thing that I forgot to mention -- what leverage did Wilson have to coax the information from his sources -- really strong mint tea? Why would people just admit that they have been violating UN sanctions? Usually, CIA officers use cash to get information. Was Wilson authorized to make payments on behalf of the US government? If so, how much? If not, how was he supposed to find this highly critical piece of information?

2003-09-29T21:53:00.000-04:00

What did Mrs Wilson do at the CIA?

In the ongoing Wilson/Plame “scandal” the press and the pundits are confused about what exactly did Mrs Wilson do at the CIA. Some reports say that she is an Operations Officer (a spy!), others a simple analyst, and the CIA itself is non-committal. Both the moral and the legal implications revolve around her job description. If she is an analyst, then, it is argued there can be no moral or legal culpability. However, if she is a spy then the leakers, if they exist, are both guilty of violating the law and burning a clandestine officer.

I have no personal knowledge of the situation, but there is another possibility – she may have been a Collections Management Officer (“CMO” or a “reports officer” in the old parlance). This would be an “in between” position that would explain the various classifications as an analyst and a clandestine service officer. The CIA describes the position thusly:

“The Central Intelligence Agency's Clandestine Service Collection Management Officers are the connection between the Operations Officer in the field and the U.S. foreign policy community, both in the United States and abroad. As a Collection Management Officer you will guide the collection of intelligence and direct the dissemination of that intelligence. Managing the collection effort requires contact with U.S. policy makers to determine what they need to know and then communicating those requirements to the Operations Officers in the field for collection.”

The Operations Officer, mentioned above, is the person of who we think of when we say spy. It is his (they are predominantly male) job to recruit and maintain contact with intelligence agents (agents are foreign nationals who agree to spy for us in return, typically, for money). The Operations Officer is the one who does the leg work.

The CMO collect the information from the Ops Officers and pass them along to the right users. They do not run agents nor have any agents publicly associated with them. The CMO (predominately women) usually work from Langley (approx. 2/3 of their careers) and, when abroad, are usually in no more danger than a typical foreign service officer. Unlike analysts, however, CMO report to the Directorate of Operations (like the Operations Officers) and assume a cover when working.

The cover assumed by both Ops Officers and CMOs when abroad is typically that of State Department employees. This allows them to maintain diplomatic immunity. The CIA runs very few “illegals” (officers without official cover) and they are never CMOs.

I think that Plame may have been a CMO for several reasons. First, is the general confusion about her job. “Real” Ops Officers don’t think of the CMOs as covert officers in the same sense as them and would likely consider them to be analysts (they don’ run agents and spend most of their time in HQ). At the same time the do not belong to the Directorate of Intelligence, so they are not technically analysts. Her being a CMO is the only way to explain the confusion surrounding her job – nobody confuses Ops Officers for analysts. Second, but less consequentially, she is woman – women in the DO are more readily found as CMOs. For many years, and Plame seems to have been with the Agency for a while, women were “encouraged” to go CMO. Until I hear otherwise, I will assume that this is what she does.

So what are the moral implications of Plame being a CMO? Well because they do not run agents – there is no risk that any intelligence assets would be exposed. It is true that she would not be eligible for overseas posts, but CMOs spend little time overseas and don’t need to go there to advance their careers. For all intents and purposes, the CMO is in the same position as the State Department officer. So, if she’s a CMO – there is some small issues of betrayal of trust, but they are not in the same league as exposing, in increasing magnitude, an Ops Officer, an Agent or an illegal.

How about the legal implications? The disclosure is governed (via Instapundit) by 50 U.S.C. sec. 421. Paragraph (b) states the following:

Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. [Emphasis added]

While lawyers will recognize that the highlighted passage may exculpate any possible White House leaker (who else speaks for the US?), the portion requiring that the US take “affirmative measures to conceal” would be even weaker in the case of the CMO.

Secondly, Section 426 of the same title defines a “covert agent” as:

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii)who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States;[Emphasis added]

I believe that all DO employees fall into (i), but given the employment patterns of CMOs, (ii) may not be applicable.

I will say no more about this “scandal” other than it stinks to high hell and reminds me of the accusations against the Blair government of “sexing up” intelligence. However, I will wait to pass final judgement. By the way, I have never worked for an intelligence agency as defined in 50 U.S.C. Section 426.

2003-09-26T11:03:00.000-04:00

Baghdad’s Press Collaborators – Where Are They Now?

Recently in an interview with Editor and Publisher, John Burns, the New York Times reporter in Baghdad, accused the pre-war Western journalists in Iraq of corruption:

There were correspondents who thought it appropriate to seek the approbation of the people who governed their lives. This was the ministry of information, and particularly the director of the ministry. By taking him out for long candlelit dinners, plying him with sweet cakes, plying him with mobile phones at $600 each for members of his family, and giving bribes of thousands of dollars. Senior members of the information ministry took hundreds of thousands of dollars of bribes from these television correspondents who then behaved as if they were in Belgium. They never mentioned the function of minders. Never mentioned terror.

In one case, a correspondent actually went to the Internet Center at the Al-Rashid Hotel and printed out copies of his and other people's stories -- mine included -- specifically in order to be able to show the difference between himself and the others. He wanted to show what a good boy he was compared to this enemy of the state. He was with a major American newspaper.

Yeah, it was an absolutely disgraceful performance. CNN's Eason Jordan's op-ed piece in The New York Times missed that point completely. The point is not whether we protect the people who work for us by not disclosing the terrible things they tell us. Of course we do. But the people who work for us are only one thousandth of one percent of the people of Iraq. So why not tell the story of the other people of Iraq? It doesn't preclude you from telling about terror. Of murder on a mass scale just because you won't talk about how your driver's brother was murdered.

Burns, who was the best reporter in Iraq is absolutely right. Thanks to his whistle-blowing, people are beginning to ask questions about the behavior of the Western press corps. Jack Shafer of Slate wants to know who the Internet Center reporter was. Given the amount of bad news coming out of post-war Iraq, I wanted to know what happened to this merry band of Baathist lap-dogs? My research indicates that for the most part, the pre-war reporters are still reporting from Iraq.

Methodology. I used Factiva. I looked up stories written in February 2003 from Iraq. I chose Febraury because it was mentioned in John’s article. I selected US newspapers with internationalist pretensions and the two newswires. In order to qualify both the dateline and the authors name had to be clear. Next, I searched for the authors name in the past 3 months to see if they were still reporting from Iraq. Again, the dateline had to be clear in order to qualify. Here are the results of my findings:

[I used a jpeg becasue I can't format a table in html]

This is a scandal, a group of reporters who ignored crimes against humanity to gain favor with a totalitarian regime are still there reporting on events of reconstruction. The people who are telling us that things are bad now felt comfortable sucking to mass murderers in Saddam’s Iraq. Is it possible that this is why the stories from post-war Iraq are uniformly gloomy?

John Burns is right – the journalistic profession is in crisis. Instead of having one Walter Duranty apologizing for Stalinist terror – there are now many who emulate him today. These are the reporters who lied to us about pre-War Iraq, why do we believe that they are telling the truth now?

2003-09-24T23:05:00.000-04:00

Soviet Views – The Kulaks

[By special request from Dean Esmay, a belated translation of the entry on Kulaks. I remember as a child seeing many movies where these Kulaks were the bad guys trying to stop the revolution (in the USSR the good guys wore red hats). I’m not sure who they really (w/o Soviet propaganda) were. It seems like they were just small farmers who did not want their land stolen from them.]

Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary, Volume 2, April 6, 1954, page 200

Kulaks rural bourgeoisie, the most numerous of the bourgeoisie layers in a capitalist village. The Kulaks enrich themselves through the cruel exploitation of farm laborers, the village poor and other layers of the working rural population. The Kulak class is the result of the corruption of small goods production.

In Czarist Russia in 1913, the Kulaks were 12.3% of the population. They “produced” 50% of all bread. The Kulaks concentrated on their farms a large portion of agricultural machinery and instruments of production, also owned commercial-industrial enterprises and ruthlessly robbed working peasants by practicing usury. Along with capitalists and landed gentry, the kulaks are the most rabid, the most unappeasable enemy of the proletariat revolution. During the period of the foreign military intervention and civil war 1918-20, the Kulaks, the owners of surplus bread, tried to strangle with hunger the young Soviet Republic. The Kulaks organized gangs, viciously dealt with workers and rural poor, helped the interventionists. Under the direction of the Communist party the working class and village laborers undertook a ruthless struggle against the Kulaks.

Until 1929 the Soviet government pursued policies of restricting and displacing the Kulaks, decisively suppressing all their attempts to fight the Soviet authority, spoil state bread procurements, kill village activists, etc. As a result of forced collectivization, the Kulaks were liquidated as a class (see Agricultural collectivization). With the victory of the kolhoz* system the conditions that gave rise to the Kulak order disappeared. In Soviet villages, the bourgeois ownership system has been forever liquidated and the socialist system created.

In nations with people’s democracy, in conditions of intense class struggle, after World War II agrarian reforms were carried out, undermining the basis for large-kulak ownership; the special weight of the village socialist sector continues to grow and conditions are being created for it’s total victory.

*kolhoz – collectively owned farms

2003-09-22T22:59:00.000-04:00

2 points:

First: Please donate toys to Iraqi children here (via Zogby blog).

Second: The "Thinking things over" editorial in the WSJ kind of blends what I said in "Top 5 Myths that Leftists believe about themselves (and want others to believe, too)" and an going to say in "The Vietnamnicks and the Vietnamization of Iraq". Namely ignore the ideological arguments from today's Left -- it's all window dressing for a real honest to goodness power struggle.

There was another great opinion in the WSJ by Ion Mihai Pacepa about Arafat's KGB origins. There is no link, but hopefully they'll publish on the weekend.

2003-09-16T08:29:00.000-04:00

Trying something new, again.

My long time readers know that I’ve been struggling to find an appropriate style of writing. There are several issues: First, my time is constrained – I have a full time job and a one year old son. Second, writing is not easy for me – I tend to think in patterns and relationships and translating this non-linear mess into the direct flow of prose is tough for me. Third, I’ve take a liking to writing long works (for the blog world, at least) and, as a result, I post rarely and in big chunks. I am unhappy with the resulting “chunky” flow.

So, I’m going to try something new – again. I will post my essays as I write them. I will post intermittent sections and paragraphs as well as an outline of the whole topic. Hopefully, this way I can post frequent and edible pieces of my rants as opposed to large and rare ones. Practically, I’ll be opening up my drafting process to you. It is unusual, but blogging is a new format and may work well with this style. Let’s see if it works.

My first try is The Vietnamnicks and the Vietnamization of Iraq. You can read the first part adn the remainder of the outline below.

2003-09-16T08:26:00.000-04:00

The Vietnamnicks and the Vietnamization of Iraq

I am too young for Vietnam and, for that matter was not even born in America, so the American obsession with Vietnam has sometimes bewildered me. The Vietnam fever has gotten worse as the consequence of the war in Iraq and commentators have been struggling to make every conceivable comparison between the Wars. There does not seem to be much logic to the analogy – America has participated in many wars (including other failures, like Beirut and Somalia). However, most Americans no longer find this pre-occupation unusual and continue to compare and discuss everything in the context of That War. And I think I've figured why.

The usual explanation that the war left a giant emotional scar on the fabric of our nation is only part of the explanation. The Vietnam that left an impression on our national conscience was not the war overseas, but the domestic power struggle. That struggle was a faint echo of the conflict in South-East Asia and had its own reality and tactics. Today, the winners of the Vietnam War (domestic ed.) constitute the leadership of our government, media and intelligencia. For these people the war was a formative power struggle and they find it hard to relate to any other experience or event. Vietnam, like WWII and the Depression to an earlier generation, was the experience that overshadows all others.

Allow me to retell the story of the domestic war, not in terms preferred by the contemporaries, but in a form of a simple power struggle. Let me introduce you to the generation of Baby Boomers for whom the war became an intellectual proving ground and who went on to build a power base in the name of cherry-picked ideologies. We will review their ascendance to the political peak with the election Bill Clinton and their angst at the election of George Bush. I will show that the domestic war over Iraq is an increasingly destructive battle by these Boomers to defend their vast powerbases. Finally, I will describe how the continued Vietnamization of Iraq reflects a return by these Boomers to the tactics they know best.

The Spoiled Generation

Our story stars with the Greatest Generation -- the men and women who grew up in the poverty of the Great Depression and witnessed the horrors of World War II. When they came home, the last thing they wanted was more of the real world - they had seen enough. So they built suburban islands of fantasy for their families - to raise their children. Any parent can understand their desire to shield their kids from the world that that generation saw, but in the process the Greatest Generation spawned the Spoiled Generation, a.k.a. the Baby Boomers.

The Boomers grew up in the type of environment that produces resentment and anxiety. Their parents were strict, having been brought up that way themselves. Unlike, the children of the Depression, however, the Boomers grew up with no fears. Physically protected by the suburb and materially protected by their parents who wanted to lavish their children with all the comforts not available to them - the Boomers were the pioneers of teenage rebellion. The teenage years were spent trying to shock their parents with rock and roll and sexual promiscuity. But it was when the Boomers went off to college that the real power struggle began.

The Fortunate Happenstance of That War

Tactics used

Undermine credibility of authority figures
Undermine moral authority
Undermine knowledge of authority figures
Shift such authority to friendly power base
Take advantage of communications superiority

The Aftermath of Vietnam -- domestic and international

The inter war years -- building up the base

Clinton – the Vietnamnicks gain political power

George bush and 911

The Vietnamization of Iraq – in order for the Vietnamnicks to win, the US must lose

Outrage over undermining of friendly power bases (UN, France, foreign policy establishment)
Repeating Vietnam tactics after attempt to capture the center (2002 election) fails

Conclusion

2003-09-15T17:19:00.000-04:00

CA Recall blocked

This is really scary. The 9th Circuit blocks an election because of "punch card ballots". What I'm wondering is how much power do courts have to stop elections altogether? Are judicial juntas going to stop elections whenever they don't like the results? Can unelected judges practically stop the democratic process if they don't like it? Talk about slippery slopes....

2003-09-13T10:00:00.000-04:00

Dear Mr. President,

If you want to get re-elected next year, please stop listening to Colin Powell and his UN fetish. Twice he has led you there and twice you have been hurt politically.

The first time was before the Iraq War to request the 18th Final resolution. As everyone knew the French would not allow their friend Saddam to be harmed. You came away empty handed. Worse, you gave your political enemies plenty of ammunition. First, they can now claim that the war was not sanctioned by the "international community" (aka France). Second, by going to the UN you were forced to argue only one of the anti-Saddam positions -- the WMD. His inhumanity and the regional consequences of his demise were ignored. Your critics now claim that there was no reason to go to war in Iraq, since no WMD has been found.
The first trip was a disaster for you.

Now, General Powell has convinced you to drink the Kool-Aid again. Again, there is no chance of ever getting a resolution on our terms. Your return to the UN has been seen by the world and your critics at home a admission that things are going poorly in Iraq. Those Americans who have not yet been convinced by the media doomsayers were now convinced by your actions. As a result your poll numbers have dropped -- mostly as a result of your Iraq performance.

So please, President Bush, if you want to get re-elected (and I want you to) -- stop listening to General Powell and trust your gut. Don't go out of your way to give your critics extra ammunition or to prove them right.

Eric

UPDATE: Although the latest WashPost numbers don't look as bad. I consider the WashPost poll the most accurate of all the majors.

2003-09-11T12:10:00.000-04:00

Two Years Ago

(This is the post I wrote last year)

I don’t remember how the morning started. My wife, who was teaching then, usually left the house about an hour ahead of me. I spent the time dithering about and watching CNN or CNBC. That morning was already different – I had plans to vote in the local mayoral primary. I was a registered Democrat back then and the choice for mayor was between a number of indistinguishable party-machine candidates. I don’t even remember whom I even voted for.

My first encounter with the tragedy that was about to happen occurred as I was walking away from the polling station. I was proceeding west, along East 19th Street, when I saw a plane flying low down the spine of Manhattan. It was close enough for me to recognize that it was an American Airlines commercial jet. I thought nothing of it then – just that it was strange for a plane to be flying so low.

My next encounter occurred when I reached my home on Third Avenue. Large trucks belonging to NYPD’s Emergency Service Unit sped down the avenue, siren blaring. In the time it took me to transverse a NYC avenue, the plane had already hit the North Tower and New York’s emergency services began to respond. To this day I wonder if any of those policemen are alive today. However, I knew none of this then – I walked back up the stairs of my old building so that I could leave my passport at home (I take it when vote for ID purposes). As the only proof of my US citizenship, it is one of my most prized possessions.

Being an information junkie, I turned on the TV, even though I was going to be home for a few seconds. It was then when I found out. CNBC was reporting that a plane had hit the North Tower of the WTC and was showing a live feed. My apartment, at the time was on the 29th floor and faced west. I had a clear view of both the Empire State Building and the WTC. Most every night, after logging off the computer, I would look at both structures, how they glowed in the night and be assured that everything was right with the world. But this time, when I looked out, the tower had a smoking hole in it.

Looking back, I can’t really explain why I didn’t put 2 and 2 together. It did not occur to me then that the plane I saw was the plane that hit the tower. I just assumed that it was a small private plane lost and out of control. I think that I just didn’t want to believe it. In fact, no cataclysmic scenarios occurred to me (which is unusual for me), so I set off for work. My office is in a building one block north of the WTC.

On my way from my home to the Union Square N and R subway station, I ran into an acquaintance and shared my reactions with him and a few complete strangers. Still no thoughts of terrorism. My train ride was not unusual until we reached Canal Street. It was there that the conductor announced that the Courtland Street Station (the WTC station) was closed for a “police action” and the train would be diverted to another track. The last stop in Manhattan would be Canal Street. “Police action” is a generic term meaning that the train will be stopped or diverted for non-mechanical reasons. If you are a frequent rider of the subway you hear this term at least a few times a year. Determined to get to work, I got off at Canal Street and set off south.

Masses of people, however, were walking in the opposite direction. Only now I began to sense that something was wrong. Yet, since I didn’t see the police closing down streets, I decided to try to get to work – to check in. I was also curious to find out what was going on. As I got closer, the crowds going north were getting larger and the situation more chaotic.

I never got to work, a few blocks before my office the streets were being closed. I asked an attractive and friendly EMS worker what was going on. As she told me of the second plane, I saw a part of a plane engine lying next to a payphone. The FBI was arriving in droves and was blocking off the area. I needed to call my wife to tell her that I was OK – now that I understood how serious the situation was. I don’t have a cell phone (I doubt it would have worked) and every payphone had a line next to it. I walked into a small bookshop and asked if I could use their phone. After hanging up, the proprietors told me that another plane had hit the Pentagon. If I had any doubts before, now I knew that this was an act of terrorism.

I decided to walk home – who knows what else is going to happen today? The enormity of what happened started to dawn on me. The mixture of anger and helplessness were taking turns raising my temperature. I was proceeding up West Broadway and almost reached Canal, when I heard the screams. I immediately turned around. I don’t remember any sound from the collapse – just the screams. I may have been screaming too, I don’t remember. The tower fell in slow motion. “Chips” of the building were coming off in places – it seemed to be as fragile as a champagne glass.

While most people saw the collapse on TV, it is difficult to explain the mixture of emotions one feels. When a massive building in which I had meetings, dinners and under which I lunched almost everyday falls to the ground. The massive structure that seemed indestructible only yesterday no longer existed. Muttering disbelief, I resumed my trek.

The journey home did not seem familiar. My city was not the same one I woke up in. I was not alone. Most my fellow trekkers were similarly bewildered. What happened? How many people are dead? What’s next? What is to become of our fine city? I’m sure that these questions were on everyone’s minds. Once in a while, I would encounter a group of people, listening to someone’s car radio (turned up loud) and all looking south – to where the towers were.

It is on the way home that I noticed the sky. It was perfect – perfectly blue and perfectly cloudless. I couldn’t help feel that it was mocking us. How much better would it have been to have a dark foreboding sky to match the weight that has now been placed on my heart. For the next several months, I detested these “perfect”, cloudless days.

I’ll never forget the sky. And I’ll never forget the plane chugging low across it. I’ll never forget the collapse and I’ll never forget the screams. Most of all, I’ll never forget the last day I could look at a plane in the sky without a chill running down my spine.

2003-09-07T22:47:00.000-04:00

Chasing Happiness

The New York Times magazine had a great article this week. It highlighted psychological research that concludes that people always overestimate their reaction to possible future events.

The problem, as Gilbert and company have come to discover, is that we falter when it comes to imagining how we will feel about something in the future. It isn't that we get the big things wrong. … What Gilbert has found, however, is that we overestimate the intensity and the duration of our emotional reactions -- our ''affect'' -- to future events. In other words, we might believe that a new BMW will make life perfect. But it will almost certainly be less exciting than we anticipated; nor will it excite us for as long as predicted. … On average, bad events proved less intense and more transient than test participants predicted. Good events proved less intense and briefer as well.

In my writings, I like to focus on the difference between how we believe we behave and the reality. My past attempts at amateur psychology (the hate series, here, here and here) differ considerably from the common conceptions of what causes mass hate movements. The underlying principle of my views is that human beings are incapable of acting perfectly, ever. Hence, it does not surprise me that we cannot effectively predict how we would react to various future stimuli.

Perhaps, I can answer the query posed by the main protagonist of the article, Daniel Gilbert: “In fact, in his recent writings, he has wondered whether forecasting errors might somehow serve a larger functional purpose he doesn't yet understand.” At the same time, I would like to take issue with a dictum by one of the economists leading this research:

While walking in Pittsburgh one afternoon, Loewenstein tells me that he doesn't see how anybody could study happiness and not find himself leaning left politically; the data make it all too clear that boosting the living standards of those already comfortable, such as through lower taxes, does little to improve their levels of well-being, whereas raising the living standards of the impoverished makes an enormous difference. [This is still the NY Times, after all]

Both concern a common perception of human nature that the group fails to question.

Let’s start with Loewenstein’s statement. Where he does not see how his studies could not push someone to the left, I don’t see how it could not push someone to the right. The difference between our conclusions is how we view human nature. Loewenstein, presumably, sees absolutely nothing wrong with hampering our ability to pursue goals (since the happiness we receive is temporary). On the other hand, I believe that human beings cannot be content in a society where they are not allowed to pursue their greed (no matter how temporary the happiness), and, in fact, history shows such societies to be dangerous.*

My view of human nature is that we are most content in a chase. In our most natural state, we need to continually pursue (driven by love or greed) and be pursued (driven by fear). There are good evolutionary reasons that this may the case. For animals and primal humans, success meant life and failure meant death. Hence, those animals that constantly kept chasing sources of food were more likely to survive than those that took a more “casual” approach. Likewise, an animal that was always on the lookout for potential danger was more likely to survive than those who were less scared of the surrounding predators. Thus, I believe that greed and fear are survival techniques. Our primal impulses constantly drive us to chase further goals and to fear failure – our thin cerebral cortex can do little to overrule the ancient drives coming deep from within our psyche.

Although we enjoy an occasional pause, a long-term static position is incompatible with human nature. A state welfare existence (where there is nothing to fear and nothing to chase) does not satisfy our needs, but creates frustration and impotence. This frustration is then channeled into hate (of self or other), as I relate in the hate series. There is certainly plenty of data showing that welfare states, no matter how wealthy, do not yield content citizens (e.g. the Welfare Kingdom of Saudi Arabia). In fact, it is impossible to name a welfare class that was ever content.
If I am correct about human nature, then the answer to Gilbert’s query is simple. The overestimation of future pleasure or pain is part of our survival technique. If we think that the utility we will derive from our pursuits will be greater, then we are more likely to pursue them. Likewise, if we overestimate the impact of a failure event, we are even more likely to avoid it. This too has an evolutionary origin. An animal that believes that the taste of its prey is more delicious than it is will pursue it much more resolutely. On the other hand, the same animal will defend it’s territory with greater ferocity if it overestimates the impact of the its loss. In both cases, natural selection favors overestimation. Survival is the “larger functional purpose” served by overestimation.

So when Loewenstein says that lower taxes do little to improve levels of well-being (as he defines them) – he is absolutely right, but the observation is beside the point. The level of temporary happiness is irrelevant to our long-term contentment. To maximize the latter, individuals must be allowed to pursue goals even if the happiness from them is temporary and should be allowed to fear the consequences of their failure. The major exception to this, in our wealthy society, is when failure involves issues of physical survival.

The major finding of the research mentioned in the article is that human beings do not behave in step with some ideal that we imagine for ourselves. It is time that we question another imaginary ideal – that humans can live in a static welfare state. As much as we hate to admit it, the most natural human lifestyle is one where we never stop – always running from overblown fears and pursuing overestimated goals. Trying to social engineer ourselves into an unnatural society only causes friction, frustration and, usually, death.

* On the difference between happiness and contentment. Happiness is an intense, temporary (as their research shows) feeling of elation. Contentment, as I use it, is the long-term absence of feelings of frustration that cause destructive or self-destructive behavior. A content person may or may not be happy.

2003-09-04T20:42:00.000-04:00

The Democratic Debate...

is in Spanish and English. I feel very slighted! What about a debate in the native language of my ethno-linguistic pander group?

Where are the Russian debates? The Chinese debates? Portugese? How about ebonics?

I'm sure that these politicians don't mean to say that our cultures are somehow inferior to Spanish, do they?

2003-09-04T15:26:00.000-04:00

How bad is Afghanistan?

I know we all heard how bad things are in Afghanistan -- another predictable failure of the Bush imperialist tendencies. Then you read an article like this on the front page of the Wall Street Journal (subscription required):

Under the Taliban, the streets of Kabul -- some paved, some not -- carried an occasional pickup truck loaded with armed men but relatively little other traffic. Barely two years later, and with the population swelling, the Afghan capital has about 90,000 registered cars and 33,000 taxis, plus buses, trucks, cars from the provinces and cars without license plates.
....

Mirwais Alemyar, a 20-year-old shopkeeper, just bought an old Toyota with right-side drive for $2,500. He is the first person in his extended family to own a car. Under the Taliban, he said, casual driving was frowned upon as a sign of decadence, and Mr. Alemyar didn't want to stand out. He couldn't have afforded a car anyway because most of his savings came after the mullahs were driven out of power.

All of this makes car salesmen happy. Hamidullah Khaksar, owner of Park car salon, sat on an ornate couch as he recounted the history of his shop. He has been in the business for 22 years, but he has never had it so good. On his office wall, Mr. Khaksar has put up posters of a red Ferrari and a pink Lamborghini, their doors opening invitingly upward. These low-riding sports cars wouldn't last long on the bumpy streets of the city, where the car of choice for the wealthy is a four-wheel-drive sport-utility vehicle, preferably a Toyota Land Cruiser, with tinted windows for privacy. In a good month, Mr. Khaksar can sell as many as six SUVs, at about $50,000 each. Abdul Rassul Sayaaf, a wealthy former warlord and a leader of an Islamic party, rides in a convoy of Land Cruisers from his home in Paghman near Kabul. His jeeps stood in a sharp contrast to a smelly latrine and a cow's head lying on the sidewalk in the center of Paghman.

Yep, things sound pretty horrible in Afghanistan, all right.

2003-09-02T15:57:00.000-04:00

Soviet Views – BBC, VOA, and the NY Times

[Some quick translations -- see if you can spot the trend…]

BBC – the abbreviated title of the British Broadcasting Corporation, the propaganda organ of British monopolists. Founded in 1927.

[Are they still trying to prove Comrade Stalin wrong? Is that why they sexed-up their war coverage?]

Voice of the USA broadcasts of the U.S. State Department (Ministry of Foreign Affairs), provided (since 1942) in many languages and controlled by American capitalist magnates. Voice of the USA is the mouthpiece of American imperialists, disseminates lies, slanders the news, and is directed against the USSR and other people’s democracies. Conducts war propaganda.

[This role has been taken over by Fox Network it seems…]

”New York Times” American daily newspaper, founded in 1851. The newspaper is connected to both Republican and Democratic circles. Expresses the interests of the largest groups of US monopolistic capital. Propagandizes reactionary domestic and aggressive foreign policies of the American imperialists.

[The Soviets were such ingrates -- after all the good publicity the Times has given them! At least the Soviets thought that the paper was objective between the Republicans and the Democrats…]

2003-09-01T13:08:00.000-04:00

Top 5 Myths that Leftists believe about themselves (and want others to believe, too)

One of the benefits of becoming a Leftist is the belief in the purity of their cause. Leftists believe themselves to be an exceptional breed and not subject to normal constraints of the human condition. They are so sure of themselves, that they expect others to believe the same thing. We are all exposed to the mythology of the Pure Left through the media and academia.

This body of belief is too great to list here, but I’ve selected what I feel are Top 5 Myths that have woven themselves into our combined culture. Let me be clear from the start – the only thing that I allege about the Left is that they are mere mortals. Whatever their failings or shortcomings, as individuals they are no better or worse than the rest of the population, except that they refuse to acknowledge this fact.

Myth 1. They represent the “little guy”.

Nothing sustains the espirit de corps of the Leftists than the belief that they are laboring not for themselves but for others who are less privileged. Nothing can be further from the truth. Consider, as an example, contributions to political parties. According to the Center For Responsive Politics, during the 2002 election cycle, most of the smallest reported contributions went to the Republicans – supposedly the party of the rich. As the contributions increased, a larger percentage goes to the Democrats – the self-professed party of the “little guy”. In the category of donations of $1 million or more (wow!) 92% of the money went to the Democrats. 2002 is not an aberration, despite their claims to the contrary, the Left has always been composed of middle or upper class radicals who claim that they speak for the less fortunate. George Orwell, writing in 1984, put the relationship this way:

“Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. … The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. … Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High.”

The relationship between the Leftists and their favored groups is tactically symbiotic. The Leftists can claim to be fighting for a disadvantaged group while broadening their ranks from their relatively small number. The favored groups, in return for naming the Left their champion, receive the benefit of a powerful and wealthy advocacy group (how many people can blow a million on a political campaign?). Since the relationship is one of convenience, the relevant “group of disadvantage” can change with time. The original appeal of the Leftists was class based and their favored group was blue collar. As the working class began to defect to the Right, the Left had to find other groups that would legitimize them. The modern Democratic Party is a collaboration between the coastal elite and a menagerie of minority groups with differing agendas.

The myth that the Left works for the benefit of some unfortunate or underrepresented group masks the real power dynamic described so well by Orwell. The real prize is power – some groups are comfortable admitting that, while others need a fig leaf for their pursuits.

Myth 2. They are outsiders fighting the establishment.

This myth paints the Leftists as brave revolutionaries, assaulting the fortress of the Establishment against the odds. This falsehood is similar to the first in that it’s ego-satisfying and elevates the Leftists to the pedestal of Hero. It is also dead wrong.

Today, the Left is the establishment. To be more precise, they are a part of the establishment. The Left has firm control of almost all means of information production. From kindergarten to university, young Americans are educated disproportionately by Leftists and follow Leftist teaching agendas. They dominate the media and the foreign policy establishments. To end-run elected government, scores of NGO (non-governmental organizations) were created to channel money to Leftist causes. Even Wall Street, the center of American capitalism, is evenly split between Republicans and Democrats.

Their ideological grip on these institutions is enforced by a code of political correctness, which threatens the livelihood of any individual willing to take a stand. The technique works poorly against whole organizations, which still frustrates the Left to no end. Thus the anger and spite focused on Fox News, which can’t be silenced by the usual methods of intimidation.

The anger at the Bush Administration can also be explained in terms of the fight over the establishment. The leaders of the Left today are the Baby Boomers. Their Left – born in the Vietnam protests and encompassing the crème of the academic crop did not “drop out,” but took the well paying jobs that would allow them build their power base. By the eighties, the Left already held their current seats of power, but political power still eluded them.

That’s when Clinton came along. Ideologically a centrist, but representing the Boomer-protest generation he gave hope to the Left of real political dominance. Since the real goal is power (see Myth 1) Clinton’s unorthodoxy wasn’t a problem. Simultaneously, the end of the Cold War meant that national security, the strong point of the Right, was not as important to the electorate. Leftist Boomer governments took power in much of Europe as well. To the Left this looked like the beginning of actual, not just theoretical world-wide dominance. Using Orwell’s analogy above, the Middle almost reached that point where they would be able to overthrow the High – they could smell victory.

The election of George W. Bush was the first crack in the façade. However, the war against terror was much more threatening to the Left. First, it threatened the Left’s position of dominance in the foreign policy (both official and NGO); and, second it threatened the nation’s relationship with the Left’s fellow travelers in Europe. These new positions are putting too much of the Left’s patronage at risk. Furthermore, it’s an emotional shock to think that only three years ago you were on the verge of total victory and now to have to fight a rearguard action (to be fair, the Right’s anger at Clinton had similar origins – after 12 years of Reagan-Bush they thought they had a lock on the White House).

It’s slightly less glamorous to admit that rather than being a “working class hero”, you are a part of the establishment’s factional struggle. But that’s the truth – the Left is the establishment.

Myth 3. They are much less bigoted.

This myth seeks to affirm the good-hearted intentions of the Left. So central is this myth to their sense of self-worth that Leftists tie themselves in knots trying to explain away their own bigotry. One way they do this is by insisting that only certain kinds of bigotry count (coincidentally only against those groups that they favor (see Myth 1)). Another way is to pretend that their bigotry is not really bigotry at all, but an aversion to another political movement.

As an example of latter bigotry, consider the movement’s relationship with Jews. From the early beginning, socialism was strongly anti-Semitic. One of Karl Marx’s (his father converted to Christianity) early writings was “On the Jewish Question”. This was perhaps the Left’s most honest attempt to deal with it own bigotry. Since then they felt compelled to use euphemistic terms for the Jews. For Western European revolutionaries, they were the hated bourgeois middle class capitalists, for Stalin they were “cosmopolitans” or the “doctors”, for latter day socialists the preferred term was “international bankers” and so on. Today, Leftist anti-Semitism is reaching one of its periodic frenzies. Israel, the only Jewish nation in the world, bears the brunt of Leftist anger along with America. Rather than admit their bigotry, Leftists use the term of art “anti-Zionist” rather than “anti-Semite” and argue that their problem is only with the actions of the state not the Jews themselves.

However, their bigotry does not end at Israel’s borders. Many Leftists also hate America’s Jews. Some are hated for their support of Israel; others, for their uppity views of foreign policy (as well as their support of Israel). This second group has acquired the term “neo-conservative”, which is batted around in the same way that Stalin used “cosmopolitans.” Despite the fact that Leftists hold in contempt approximately 80% of the Jewish world (between Israel and the US), they still refuse to acknowledge their anti-Semitism. Doing so would not change their policies, but undermine their self-image, which assumes that their hearts are purer than the others’ are.

In reality, Leftists are just as susceptible to bigotry as the rest of us. But because they feel they are not susceptible to this human foible, they feel that they are justified in using it as a political tool.

Myth 4. They are capable of rational and objective thought.

Leftists believe that they are capable of separating their partisan and emotional self from their reasoning self. They believe that they are always capable of reaching conclusions or acting in a reasonable and objective manner. Furthermore, they believe that others are incapable of such mental bifurcation.

This myth most likely has its origins in the roots of the Leftists movement. Through history, most of the adherents have been highly educated or in some way related to the academia. One of the side effects of too much exposure to education is the mistaken belief that everything can solved by reason. Alternatively, that emotion can be suppressed by reason to achieve a clear and unbiased answer. If asked, most Leftists will tell you that they as a group are much smarter than the others are (see Bush, attacks on).

One of the manifestations of this myth is in the continuing argument about bias in the media. In order to believe that a media organization (that’s say 90% Democrat) can deliver unbiased news from its echo chamber one has to believe in this myth. Because Leftists can think rationally and detach their biases can such a miracle be possible.

This also explains the rage against the few outposts of non-Leftist thought in the media. The right, you see, are incapable of objective thought and thus run a propaganda machine. The thinking goes something like this: “I’m objective and since the arguments offered by, say Fox, differ from my objective views, they must be biased.” Game, set and match.

This assurance in their own deductive powers creeps into all areas of debate. If rational people like themselves have determined that there is no God, then that’s it. It’s not even worth the time to debate those uneducated faith-driven zealots. Same for every issue of daily life – the right answer must come from them since they are they only ones capable of seeing through the mist of emotion and superstition.

Myth 5. They are liberal.

“Liberal” is a word that has underwent similar metamorphosis as the word “gay”. Gay once meant happy, but today means homosexual. Liberal once meant someone who advocates individual freedoms for all, today it is simply a synonym for Leftist. And just like not all homosexuals are happy, not all leftists advocate individual freedoms.

Nothing has highlighted the difference between Leftists and Liberals (old definition) than the Iraq War. Here we saw millions of Leftists pour out on the street to protect the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. They claim that they merely wanted to stop the war. But the regime of Hussein, which stood opposed to everything that a liberal stands for, would have continued to murder and torture for the foreseeable future had it not been for the War. Whatever else liberals should stand for, it shouldn’t be for their “arch-enemies” the tyrants.

Of course, Leftists have a horrendous record with liberty. Tens of millions were killed in the name of socialist progress in the 20th century and hundreds of millions lived in socialist tyrannies. The contemporary Leftist will argue that those mass murders were a result of a few bad apples – that the acts of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceausescu are isolated incidents that do not reflect on them. A less self-righteous group would probably question the wisdom of claiming that the perfect correlation between unrivaled socialist control and tyranny is a matter of coincidence. Perhaps, they would say, it is our policies carried out to their logical conclusions that encourage such behavior. But the Leftists are not such a free-thinking group.

Violations of freedom, when they are undertaken by Leftist states, are considered unfortunate, but necessary to the cause. The real relationship between Leftists and liberty, as seen through the lens of history, is that of convenience. When the liberties of the Leftists favorites’ are abused they are outraged, but when an ally is accused of far worse crimes they demure.

The transformation of the word “gay” did not carry with it any moral force. After all, when we think of homosexuals we don’t assume that they are all jolly and happy people. On the other hand, the word “liberal” has managed to keep its moral weight despite its transformation. Leftists consider themselves champions of freedom and human rights when in fact they are selective enforcers at best and grave violators at worst.

Conclusion

When thinking about Leftist, or any other, ideology it’s worth remembering that those who march under its banner are mere mortals. And as mortals, their piety is often cover for less noble causes. There are no exceptions to the rule of humanity – in each group there lurks greed, fear and lust for power. The Left cannot go on imagining itself to be a pure savior of mankind’s future. Belief in a socialist paradise does not absolve one of human weaknesses any more than a belief in an Aryan or an Islamic one.

2003-08-29T18:43:00.000-04:00

Soviet Views – Lysenko

[By special request – a translation about Stalin’s scientist. I loved the phrase, “reactionary-idealistic directions in biology.” I’m getting better at this and taking more requests. Previous selections were about Israel, and Fascism and Terror.]

Encyclopedic Dictionary, Volume 2, April 6, 1954, p. 290

Lysenko, Trofim Denisovitch (b. 1898), eminent Soviet scientist, biologist and agronomist, academic, full member Ukrainian SSR Academy of Sciences and V. I. Lenin All-Soviet Academy of Agricultural Sciences (president, 1938 -). Hero of Socialist Labor, trice recipient of the Stalin prize. Deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.

The works of Lysenko are the furthest developments of Michurinism*. Lysenko established that plants in their development from seed to formation of new seeds undergo a series of qualitative changes – stages. Based on an omni-biological theory on staged plant development develop by him, Lysenko developed an effective agricultural technique – vernalization, discovered the causes of degeneration of potatoes in the south and developed a method to combat this degeneration (planting potatoes in the summer), suggested a series of other new, broadly used practical agricultural techniques, which heightened agricultural yields.

Lysenko developed a large body of work in exposing and defeating theoretical positions of reactionary-idealistic directions in biology (Weismanism – Mendelism – Morganism**). The results of this work are contained in the report “About position in the biological sciences” delivered to the august (1948) session of the V. I. Lenin All-Soviet Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Lysenko continues to further the Michurinistic study of inheritance and its change-ability. Lysenko’s fundamental theoretical works are collected in the book, “Agro-biology. Works on genetics, selection and seed-farming” (1943, 6th edition, 1952). Received 6 Orders of Lenin.

[* “Ivan Vladimirovich Michiurin 1855-1935 Soviet horticulturist; postulated complete heritability of acquired characteristics that as "Michurinism" became state doctrine.” From Merriam Webster online]

** Isms were popular in the Soviet Union. I may have misspelled these names.]

2003-08-27T20:10:00.000-04:00

Soviet View – Fascism and Terror

[This is a continuing series of translations of passages from a 1950’s Soviet “Encyclopedic Dictionary”. The first passage was on Israel]

Encyclopedic Dictionary, Volume 3, March 31, 1955, p. 498

Fascism Openly terroristic dictatorships of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, most imperialistic elements of financial capital; the word “fascism” is also used in labeling the most reactionary movements in capitalist countries, which came into existence during the period of the general crisis of capitalism and express the interests of the most reactionary and aggressive circles of imperialistic bourgeoisie. Characteristics of a fascist dictatorship in the sphere of foreign politics are – chauvinism, preparing and unleashing of war; in the sphere of domestic politics – destruction of all democratic rights and freedoms and establishment of an openly terroristic regime. Fascism uses the advocacy of {people-hatred}* and reactionary anti-scientific racial theories in the form of delirious plans of world supremacy, capturing and the subjugation of other countries and people.

Transition to terroristic methods of control is a sign of the weakness of bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie in many capitalist nations transition to fascist dictatorship under conditions of sharp escalation of class struggle, when it [the bourgeoisie] can no longer rule through the old methods of parlimentarism and bourgeois democracy. Thus, with the assistance of social-democratic leaders, the bourgeoisie founded fascist regimes in Italy (1922) and Germany (1933) and several other countries. Active help in the establishment of terrorist fascist state in Germany was provided by English and American monopolistic capital. Hitlerites marked their rise to power with repression of the working class, the devastation of workers’ and other progressive democratic organizations. With the help of American and English monopolies, the Hitlerites built powerful armed forces. In Spain, fascists consolidated themselves (1939) as a result of Italian/German military intervention.

The main fascist states – Hitler’s Germany, fascist Italy, imperialistic Japan – unleashed the second world war (which was prepared by the forces of international reaction), temporarily capturing and enslaving many countries. The war ended with the complete destruction of the aggressors. The decisive role in the victory over the fascist nations belongs to the Soviet people, who with their selfless struggle saved the people of Europe and Asia from fascist enslavement.

After the 2nd World War, American imperialists aspiring for world supremacy, began the path of preparation for a new world war. With this goal in mind, they imposed fascism on their government apparatus, use fascist methods to fight with progressive elements and organizations, support reactionary fascist forces in other capitalist nations, aspire to restore fascism and militarism in West Germany and Japan, and organize aggressive blocks. The struggle against fascism is led by progressive forces worldwide. Anti-fascist movements are the most important component of the struggle of the broad national masses for peace and democracy.

[Notes:

* literal translation – chelovekonenavistnichestva.

After reading this passage, you can see where the “Bush=Hitler” people get their history.

This passage was very hard to translate. The author seemed intent on squeezing as much propaganda as the space allowed. As a result, the writing was cumbersome and confused. I was also unsure about the use of “terrorist” in the definition. I decided to do a quick translation – thankfully it was short. ]

Ibid., p. 394

Terror policy of frightening one’s political opponents including their physical destruction. Unusual cruelty sets apart the terror in imperialist nations with fascist and semi-fascist regimes, in particular the USA, where the government undertakes police activities against communists and other progressives.

[Note to James Taranto, maybe this is why Reuters won’t use terror without the scare quotes – it doesn’t meet their definition.

Final Note: Notice an obsession with America?]

2003-08-27T09:58:00.000-04:00

Happy Birthday, Misha!

My son, Michael, is 1 today!

2003-08-25T23:38:00.000-04:00

Soviet Views -- Israel

[I recently discovered that my family has a Soviet "Encyclopedic Dictionary" from the 1950’s. This three-volume set was published between 1953 and 1955 and contains Stalin-era views about a number of topics. I thought it would be interesting to translate selections of the Dictionary – most American readers would be surprised to learn how much anti-American rhetoric had it’s beginnings in the propaganda workshops of Moscow.

Instead of attempting a translation of the lengthy section on America, I decided to do a shorter piece for my first work – on Israel. Please remember that this description was written in 1953 – before the 1967 conquest of the West Bank and Gaza, before the Yom Kippur war and before Israel’ nukes.]

From the Encyclopedic Dictionary, Volume 1, page 669, September 9, 1953.

Israel [First paragraph consists of simple statistical information]

After the conclusion of the 2nd World War, in conditions of continuing escalation of the crisis of the colonial system, the English government was forced to declare a repudiation of the Palestinian mandate (received in 1920) and forwarded the Palestinian question to the UN for resolution. During the deliberations of the Palestinian question in the UN in 1947, the Soviet Union suggested either the creation in Palestine of a dual-national Arab-Jewish independent democratic state, or, if that proves impossible, the division of Palestine into 2 independent democratic states – Arab and Jewish. The latter suggestion was approved by the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1947. However, the Israeli state that was formed on the Palestinian territory in May of 1948 was not an independent or democratic state, the creation of which was envisioned of the decree of the General Assembly. Availing themselves of the weakness of the anti-imperialist movements in Palestine and having received support from American and English imperialists, power in Israel was seized by Jewish bourgeois nationalists-zionists. Anglo-American imperialists, using their agents among reactionary Jewish bourgeoisie and Arab feudal lords [Ed- literal translation], provoked armed conflict among Israel, on the one side and Iraq. Transjordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen on the other (May 1948 – July 1949). The Palestine War, ending with the defeat of the armies of the Arab states and the concluding in an armistice, was used by the American and English imperialists to fight the national liberation movements of the Arab people and Jewish workers of Palestine. Operating through the zionists, the USA in fact transformed Israel into a dependent nation and transformed it into a strategic military base in the Near East. The governing circles of Israel pursued policies of suppression of the progressive forces of the country and oppression of the Arab national minority and Jewish workers. The growing forces of peace and democracy in Israel, headed by the communist party of Israel (created in 1948) are leading a fight against reactionary politics of the government and international imperialists.

The economy of Israel retains a colonial character and remains dependent on international capital. Growth of citrus (oranges, grapefruit, etc.), grains. Widespread small and semi-domestic enterprises of light and agricultural industry. In large cities the processing of diamonds sent from South Africa. American capital plants only those branches (assembly factories, enterprises of light industry) that strengthen the dependency of Israel on American imperialism. Mining of potash (Dead Sea area), also, sulfur, asphalt, marble, gypsum, etc. Exploitation of the mineral wealth is led by Anglo-American companies. Through Israel flows an oil pipeline form Kirkut to Haifa, and important strategic routes, connecting the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf.

Israel – bourgeoisie republic. Israel does not have a permanent constitution. The head of state is a president. The functions of a temporary parliament are performed by a constituent assembly. A council of ministers is selected by the president. In fact, the nation is a dictatorship of a small group of large Jewish capitalists – proteges of England and the USA.

[Notes:

1. The language used in the description of Israel (colonialist, oppressive of the Arab minority, etc.) and attitude towards Israel (reactionary oppressive state) is almost identical to today’s anti-Israeli rhetoric. The language of Arab and Western “anti-Zionism” was written in Moscow.

2. The USA and The UK (the selection used the term “England”) are treated as the villains of the story. The few selections that I’ve read in the Encyclopedia reflect this trend. The US and/or the UK are always to blame. Think of this the next time someone asks, “Why do they hate us?” The answer may very well be that the Soviets spent decades focusing the normal frustrations of numerous populations into hate for the US.

On translation: I’m not a professional translator. I tried to translate as literally as possible, as long as the translation preserved the meaning. However, at times I used phrases with equivalent meanings.

I welcome any suggestions for further translation topics.]

2003-08-23T09:30:00.000-04:00

Must Read From Steyn

"Iraq may be on the edge but France has hit rock bottom abyss"

Regarding the recent weather related deaths in France, he writes:

And where are the Red Cross and Oxfam and Human Rights Watch and all the other noisy humanitarians? If 10,000 Iraqis had died of dysentery on George W Bush's watch, you'd never hear the end of it. A few weeks back, with three fatal cases of cholera, the Humanitarian Lobby was already shrieking that we stood on the edge of a humanitarian catastrophe.

France isn't on the edge, it's in the abyss. When I motored round Iraq a couple of months ago, the hospital wards were well below capacity. Yet in France the entire health system – or that percentage of it not spending August at the beach – is stretched beyond its limits (35 hours a week, 44 weeks a year). Why aren't Médecins Sans Frontières demanding to be allowed in to take over?

There's an old, cynical formula for the weight accorded different disasters on American TV news. It runs something like: one dead American = 10 dead Israelis = 100 dead Russians = 1,000 dead Bangladeshis. But 10,000 French can die, and even the French don't seem to care – or not too much, and not with any great urgency.

He is absolutely right everytime someone stubs his toe in Iraq, the press is all over it, but 10,000 (!) have died through negligence in France and the press and international community are eerily quiet.

2003-08-21T10:51:00.000-04:00

Bob Herber Squaler, part 2

Bob Herbert, my favorite squealer, is at it again. Remember, before the war, he posed this question to the American nation:

"Are Americans ready to pay the cost in lives and dollars of a long-term military occupation of Iraq? To what end?"

Once again, Herbert answers his own question:

How long is it going to take for us to recognize that the war we so foolishly started in Iraq is a fiasco — tragic, deeply dehumanizing and ultimately unwinnable? How much time and how much money and how many wasted lives is it going to take?

Are these questions, Mr. Herbert, or your prayers?

Vietnam comes up a lot -- squealers have very selective memories. (Just for the record, The Telegraph's John Keegan writes today -- Iraq is not Vietnam)

Then Herbert suggests that the UN be in charge -- does the man actually process any information that does not fit his views of the world?

2003-08-21T10:18:00.000-04:00

Another Phrase that has lost all meaning...

CNN Headline:

"Hamas quits cease-fire after Gaza strike"

Gee, I thought that they quit the cease fire when they murdered 20 people on a Jerusalem bus. But what do I know....

2003-08-20T23:54:00.000-04:00

What’s Fair?

A quick observation – I know my posts have been long lately. A few weeks ago I had a political conversation with a European friend. We usually have great debates and I always learn something new from them.

What I realized during this conversation is that there is another major difference between the Europeans and us (at least the majorities). It concerns the concept of fairness. In other words – what is considered fair and equitable.

It seems to me that the Europeans believe that the strong/rich are morally required to give to the weak/poor. The weak/poor are not required to give anything in return. If the weak/poor are upset it means that they are not receiving enough, which is morally wrong. Hence, Europeans often look at their relationship to their state as one-way. The state has to give, and all they have to do is take. They look at the US the same way – because we are strong we are required to give to those weaker. We should not expect anything in return. This theory of fairness has Marxist roots.

Americans believe that any relationship has to have a quid pro quo. The parties can negotiate what their respective duties are, but the bargain is up to them. The relationship between the strong/rich and the weak/poor can be one sided, but the details have to be agreed by the parties – neither party is required to do anything. In the context of international relations, we are happy to protect others, but we demand at least respect in return. We bristle at “allies” who live under our protective umbrella, but never miss a chance to undermine us. Where there is no quid there should be no quo.

As a proponent of the latter view, allow me to point out a few issues with the former. First, the relative designation of weak/strong is fickle and subject to political preferences. Second, in order to operate properly, the current “strong” must believe that when they are “weak” they will receive the same sort of bargain. History tells us, unfortunately, that when the weak become strong, usually they want to become even stronger and then renounce the bargain that got them their strength in the first place.

So that’s it. See, I can write short things.

2003-08-19T20:50:00.000-04:00

Blackout threatens to imperil electricity delivery process!

Doesn't make sense, does it? A blackout is the result of the failure to deliver electricity. Everyone knows that. So how long to we have to tolerate quotes like,

A suicide bomber attacked a crowded bus in Jersusalem [sic] today, killing at least 18 people and wounding scores more, Israeli officials said. Two Palestinian militant groups hastened to take responsibility for the attack, which threatened to imperil the fragile Middle East peace plan. [Emphasis added]

Isn't an attack a failure of peace? I know that many in the blogosphere agree with me, but it pisses me off every time the liter-nazis keep twisting logic this way!

UPDATE: The Times just moved the story on me -- thhe link now takes you to a new story which does not include this quote.

2003-08-13T14:19:00.000-04:00

An objective test for Objectivity, a proposal.

Is the BBC’s coverage non-partisan? Is Fox News “fair and balanced”? Can journalists be “objective”? The issue of reporters’ objectivity has intensified recently. Years ago, the inquiry was brought up by various conservative groups who were reacting to what they believed was a liberal bias in the establishment media. Once Fox News was established, liberals began to sneer at its claims of objectivity. Today, as a result of the September 11th attacks and the Iraq War, the question of what side, if any, the media is on has become even more important.

The most interesting debate concerns itself with the allegations that the BBC “sexed-up” its allegations that the Blair government “sexed-up” its pre-war dossier on Iraq’s WMD. This is troubling because the agreement between the government and the Corporation requires the latter to “treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality” [Agreement, §5.1(c)]. If the Beeb can be shown to have been biased in its treatment of the Iraq war, then the Corporation’s Royal Charter should be in jeopardy.

Needless to say, the central inquiry regarding the objectivity has never been answered to anyone’s satisfaction. This is not for the lack of trying, however. Many organizations, columnists and bloggers have spent countless hours going over reports and newspapers. Recently two dueling books have claimed that the media in the US is alternatively liberal and conservative. Yet, without a clear answer, the battle over objectivity in the media has become a quagmire. The cause of this impasse may be the way we test for objectivity.

The current approach to Objectivity.

The trouble with the present approach to objectivity is that it’s so subjective. The most common means of proving bias is to take a news story and analyze it. Critics will point to factual omissions or errors, usage of loaded words, tone of the article, etc to show the bias of the reporter. The defenders argue that the omitted facts and errors were irrelevant and that the loaded language is in fact the common usage. These back and forth arguments go on for both sides of the debate.

Not surprisingly, a conclusion is never reached. Instead, the advocates for both sides become more and more entrenched and the sniping escalates. The trouble is that the test itself is subjective. Too much depends on the critics’ and defenders’ points of view. What facts are vital and which words are loaded are subjective judgements of the beholder. Analyzing supposed bias in reporting with a biased view will not solve the current debate.

An objective approach to Objectivity

In mathematics, if one method of proof does not work, others are tried until a satisfactory result is obtained. I propose that we abandon the current subjective inquiries into objectivity and try a new approach. To develop a new test we must ask two questions: 1) what is “objectivity”? and 2) how can we measure that quality?

What is objectivity?

I’m certain that many philosophical treatises have been written on the concept of Objectivity. However, just like the current debates they have been the subjective opinions of the authors. Instead of asking individually what Objectivity is, I propose we should inquire who should decide questions of Objectivity to make the answers more objective.

To begin our analysis, lets examine the case of the BBC. It is the easiest to analyze because of its Royal charter and contractual relationship. The Charter demands impartiality, but why? The BBC is a media organization that is unique in the UK in that it has the right to collect a fee from every British subject who owns a TV. In return for being able to demand this fee on the penalty of prison, the viewing public makes certain demands of the BBC (through their elected representatives). These demands are spelled out in the Agreement.

So whatever Objectivity is, it’s a function of the British license-paying public. The same can be said of commercial news entities. They are eager to attract readers or viewers and seek to assure them of the quality of their product – that it is “objective” or “fair and balanced”. Contrast this promise with the claims of political magazines like the Nation or the National Review – they explicitly deny being objective, but try to attract their readers by being partisan. So, even in the commercial setting, Objectivity is a promise made to the viewing/reading public.

We can stop our inquiry into what Objectivity is at this point. The right of describing Objectivity belongs to the whole of the relevant public, not elite thinkers right or left. The remaining step is to decide how to measure the public’s view of Objectivity.

How can Objectivity be measured?

Therefore, if Objectivity is a duty owed to the public, then it seems that the best way to determine whether a news source is objective is to ask the population. Take a poll. Ask, “Do you believe that reporter so-and-so is objective?” That would be far more objective than to rely on a select group of individuals either in the media or criticizing it. This simple idea does bring up two practical issues: who are the relevant public? and what is the passing grade?

The relevant public can be easy to answer. In the case of the BBC, it’s everyone who is forced to pay the license fee. For cable and broadcast stations, the relevant public are all those who are capable of receiving the signal. The most difficult decision is in the case of newspapers – is it the current subscriber base or the potential subscriber base. The latter seems to be the better choice, since the former excludes readers who have made their decision about the newspaper’s objectivity by not subscribing to it. The current subscriber list is, in effect, self-selecting.

The passing grade is a more difficult question – what percentage of the relevant public has to say “Objective” in order for a reporter to get a passing grade. If one was to follow the plain meaning of “unbiased” – then unanimity seems to be required. If not a single person thinks that you have offended anyone else – then you must be unbiased. However, this standard is certainly unworkable. A simple majority doesn’t work either --- if 51% says you are objective and 49% says you are not, then the reporter is not exactly getting rousing support from the relevant public. More likely, he or she is merely saying things that the 51% think is unobjectionable.

Statisticians typically use a 95% confidence interval in their analysis (sometimes 90%). Still, that number is too stringent. Practically speaking there will always be 5%-10% of the population that will disagree with anything. And the test must be practically workable.

I propose an 85% test level. It is high enough to ensure that the reporter is truly being objective and not just mirroring the majority’s views. At the same time, it is not impossible to meet. So the Test of Objectivity is this: you are if 85% of your relevant public say you are. For the BBC, its 85% of their license payers and for Fox it’s 85% of their potential viewers. Simple and objective.

The Repercussions.

I presume that main result of the adoption of this test is that most reporters would be judged to be un-objective. This would be a huge change from the status quo and would probably encounter quite a bit of resistance from the community. But knowing what we know about human nature, is the result surprising?

By design, human beings are not objective creatures. Our biases and prejudices seep into everything we do and say. How is it that an entire industry avoids this most human of pitfalls, when most others fail so badly? Moreover, how does it accomplish this when nothing in the training of the potential journalist (many of whom are not even “professionally” educated) teaches him to be objective? When the industry itself is self-policing with few penalties for non-compliance and no one incentivised to enforce objectivity on the members of the profession? Simply put, how can merely deeming someone objective, without any enforcement, override our natural tendency for bias? It can’t.

Consider this – what incentive does a new reporter have to be objective on the first day of work? Already, without doing a lick of work, he is deemed objective by the industry, having attained this supernatural quality by the fiat of the human resources department. To him, the practical manifestation of objectivity is whatever his editor says it is, in whose hands the cub reporter’s career resides. The opinions of the public don’t matter to him, practically or philosophically, he is already objective for as long as he is employed. What incentive does he have to do the extra work and possibly jeopardize his career to attain what he already has – objectivity?

If we truly care about fairness and objectivity in the media, we should ensure that reporters see those qualities as goals to be attained not fringe benefits of employment like free coffee. To begin with, the burden of objectivity should fall on the reporters seeking it. Instead of being presumed fair, they should be judged biased, until they have proven themselves objective beyond a reasonable doubt.

The test I propose can help with that. It takes away the power to claim objectivity from the media and punditry elite and hands it to the people. It can give reporters (and it should be applied on an individual not organizational basis) an incentive to write objectively and fairly. A reporter who can meet the stringent requirements of the test can rightfully claim to be objective and distinguish himself from the crowd.

Conclusion

The very debate about objectivity today, with each side presenting a set of facts that it deems relevant shows how difficult it is to be objective. The proposed test can differentiate the truly objective reporter without relying on the subjective judgements of media elite or their critics. Maybe then we can stop debating the details of each news report and instead ask ourselves what we can do to incentivise reporters to be objective.

2003-08-03T23:33:00.000-04:00

Crony Journalism

Is the Washington Post trying to fill the void left by Howell Raines-less New York Times? Today in a front page, above the fold story, Paul Blustein blames the current economic situation in Argentina on Wall Street. This is not reporting – it is an ideologically motivated position piece that plays fast and loose with the facts, morality and history. Says the author,

Ah, the memories: Feasting on slabs of tender Argentine steak. Skiing at a resort overlooking a shimmering lake in the Andes. And late-night outings to a "gentlemen's club" in a posh Buenos Aires neighborhood.

Such diversions awaited the investment bankers, brokers and money managers who flocked to Argentina in the late 1990s. In those days, Wall Street firms touted Argentina as one of the world's hottest economies as they raked in fat fees for marketing the country's stocks and bonds.

Thus were sown the seeds of one of the most spectacular economic collapses in modern history, a debacle in which Wall Street played a major role.

The fantasyland that Argentina represented for foreign financiers came to a catastrophic end early last year, when the government defaulted on most of its $141 billion debt and devalued the nation's currency. A wrenching recession left well over a fifth of the labor force jobless and threw millions into poverty.

The writer goes on to make a comparison between the recent Wall Street scandals and Argentina’s plight:

Big securities firms reaped nearly $1 billion in fees from underwriting Argentine government bonds during the decade 1991-2001, and those firms' analysts were generally the ones producing the most bullish and influential reports on the country. Similar conflicts of interest involving analysts' research have come to light in other flameouts of the "bubble" era, such as Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc. In Argentina's case, though, the injured party was not a group of stockholders or 401(k) owners, it was South America's second-largest country. [Emphasis added]

This is where the writer performs a rhetorical slight of hand. What Blustein is painfully trying to avoid saying is that Argentina, thanks to Wall Street, received $141 billion to play around with.

In fact, the situation here is similar to that of the corporate scandals. The borrowers (Enron, WorldCom, Argentina) borrowed too much money (thanks to Wall Street) and then defaulted leaving many investors in the lurch and others out of work. However, notice the contrast in the media treatment of the borrowers. Enron and WorldCom were themselves considered “evil” and were aided and abetted in their “crimes” by Wall Street. But according to this article, in the case of Argentina, the borrower is not only not responsible for the disaster, but is in fact a “victim” of Wall Street.

Why does Argentina get the kid glove treatment? Why weren’t poor Enron and WorldCom also branded victims of Wall Street excesses? Is there anything in the facts that would imply the disparate treatment?

Blustein’s article consists of many facts and interviews, but none of them actually support the central thesis of Wall Street culpability. Furthermore, there is nothing in the article to explain why Argentina should be treated as a victim of the default. The disconnected pieces of his opus are all crafted to show bankers in the worst light possible and leave out many inconvenient acts and conclusions. Let’s take a look at his positions.

Borrowing too much or, “My banker made me do it!” Blustein’s central thesis seems to that Argentina’s default is a direct consequence of borrowing too much which is the direct responsibility of Wall Street. This is the only way to explain the claim that Argentina is a victim – it could not achieve this moral status if it were itself responsible for the borrowing.

He never explicitly states this chain of responsibility knowing that most readers would reject such reasoning. Instead, he dances around it –providing examples of Wall Street’s attention to Argentina, Wall Street reaping fees, quotes from cherry picked analysts and, at the same time, the consequences of the default. The reason for this shadow dancing is clear – most Americans could not accept the notion that a sovereign nation is not itself responsible for borrowing too much.

In our daily lives we are constantly confronted with offers of debt. Credit card offers in the mail, advertisements for home equity loans on TV and merchants offers’ of financing for every conceivable product – we are constantly bombarded with solicitations to lend. While the borrowing of ordinary Americans has increased significantly in the past decade, we still recognize that when an individual gets in trouble with debt – the responsibility is his. We do make exception in the case of fraudulent representations to the borrower, but there are no allegations of such conduct here. No one held a gun to Argentina’s head and forced them to borrow. To accept Blustein’s theory, one would have to believe that the Argentinean government is less responsible for its decisions than an individual American.

This is, of course, a silly concept, but the author leaves clues that he believes this to be the case. Consider this line:

In practice, the gusher of foreign money lulled Argentina's government into complacency, acknowledged Rogelio Frigerio, who was secretary of economic policy in 1998. "If you get the money so easily as we did, it's very tough to tell the politicians, 'Don't spend more, be more prudent,' because the money was there, and they knew it," he said.

Poor, simple Third World politicians – “American man come, he give money, we spend – how were we supposed to know the consequences?”

The tendency of leftists to hold in contempt those they claim to protect is well known – the bigotry of low expectations. But to lower the expectations of a sovereign nation to a level lower than that of a Western consumer is something new indeed. Unfortunately for Blustein, if Argentina is held responsible for the level of its borrowings then his theory falls apart.

Early warning. The author spends plenty of space claiming that there was no early warning of imminent default and that pessimism about Argentina was underplayed. Unfortunately, nothing in this discussion shows why Argentina should be treated as a victim. Blustein never addresses whom the warning would have helped. If he means that the information would have helped the investors – it is a valid argument, but not in martyring Argentina. If Wall Street was whitewashing facts, then a silent Argentina was, at best, a co-conspirator in the fraud. A lack of warning to investors does not make Argentina into a victim.

The only way that a lack of warning would have a bearing on this case is if the warning was meant for Argentina. In this scenario, Wall Street had to warn the nation of the consequences of its borrowing. However, such a position, that Argentina had to be guided by the Western Elite in Manhattan is extremely disparaging to the government and the people of Argentina. It assumes that Argentina some sort of political incompetent and must be guided by more enlightened forces. Furthermore, many of the nation’s problems stemmed from the actions (e.g. spending decisions) of the government – how could Wall Street even know what actions the nation intended to take in the future? The government of Argentina knew far better what actions it would take.

Finally, the argument is factually wrong. There was plenty of warning about the state of affairs in Argentina. During the 1990s the highest rating assigned to it by Moody’s Investors Service (a rating agency) was Ba3 – a “speculative grade”. Standard and Poor’s had similarly low ratings on the debt. Contrast that with the highest ratings obtained by Enron and WorldCom, Baa1 and A3 respectively -- both considered investment grade. Any investor doing even the most basic research would have seen that their investment held a great deal of risk.

Rating agencies also took swift action to warn investors of the deteriorating economy in Argentina. Blustein writes that

The reports that Wall Street firms published on Argentina, to be sure, became much less bullish as the recession deepened in 2000 and early 2001. Analysts increasingly stressed the importance of the government cutting its deficit and reforming labor laws. But in general, the reports predicted that Argentina would muddle through. An example was a report published in October 2000 by J.P. Morgan, the biggest underwriter of Argentine bonds in the 1990s, titled, "Argentina's debt dynamics: Much ado about not so much."

However, if he did even some basic research he would have know that Moody’s began to downgrade Argentina in 1999.

It hard to see why these passages were included in the article since they do nothing to support Blustein’s thesis and the facts are cherry picked so as show a certain version of events. The only plausible reason for the inclusion of the discussion is to elicit sympathy from the reader for the writer’s cause. Presumably, that is also the reason for the accompanying photos of poverty in Argentina (see they must be victims – they are poor!).

Regulation. In one segment, the authors laments the fact the absence of government oversight:

Charles W. Calomiris, a Columbia University economist who was one of the earliest prophets of Argentina's financial doom, wonders why government investigators have not intervened, given the danger that the same fate could befall other countries.

"How come we have one standard for private-sector deals, where everybody is getting all upset about conflicts of interest, and nobody in Washington has raised an eyebrow over the obvious conflicts of interest involving research and underwriting activities by U.S. financial firms in the area of emerging-market sovereign debt?" Calomiris said.

Sounds innocent, right? But think through this complaint for a second – this economist seems to imply that Washington should have regulated the sales of debt by another government. Can you imagine the outcry if we did? “Americans block poor nations’ access to needed money!” The activists would be outraged – and rightfully so. Argentina is a sovereign (we’ve been hearing that word a lot in a different context) nation and can make its own decisions about its debt. We have no business telling others how much they can borrow.

Others. There are two other sub-plots given prominence in the article: the loss of money by European investors and the Debt Swap. Like the other arguments, they do not show Argentina as a victim. The Italian situation is interesting, but irrelevant on the topic. So is the debt swap. Blustein’s biggest complaint is the fact that Wall Street made money on the trade. Considering the nation was in distress at the time of the exchange – this may be one of the few times that the bankers actually earned their large fees.

Nothing in the history of the nation shows why Argentina should be treated with more sympathy that any other borrower who defaulted. Why, then, is Argentina treated as a victim by this author? The answer is ideology. We no longer even blink when we hear journalists lecture us about the dangers of the American capitalism. That has become par for the course. So in the case of Enron and WorldCom it was expected that they would share the blame for the defaults with Wall Street (not incorrectly, in my view). Both are symbols of the hated American capitalist system and thus appropriate villains.

But in the case of Argentina, the borrower was a Third World nation, and as we all know Third World nations are never responsible for their fates, but are victims of Western/American oppression. This view is derived from Marxist thought that states that the West (especially America) has gotten rich by stealing Third World resources. In the December 2002 issue of The Policy Review, Lee Harris lays out the foundations of anti-Americanism, including this recent reinterpretation of Marxism:

A Polish born American economist and a Marxist, Baran is the author of The Political Economy of Growth (Monthly Review Press, 1957). In it, for the first time in Marxist literature, Baran propounded a causal connection between the prosperity of the advanced capitalist countries and the impoverishment of the Third World. It was no longer the case, as it was for Marx, that poverty — as well as idiocy — was the natural condition of man living in an agricultural mode of production. Rather, poverty had been introduced into the Third World by the capitalist system. The colonies no longer served the purpose of consuming overstocked inventories, but were now the positive victims of capitalism.

Blustein’s goal is to fit the facts of the Argentina default into this ideology. That is why Argentinean government officials are treated like helpless kittens against the onslaught of Wall Street. That is why he focuses on the images of Western bankers enjoying themselves in Argentina (cue caricatures of fat international bankers in top hats). Finally, that is why there is so much emphasis on the fees earned by the bankers. Presumably, these fees signify how the West stole money from the poor people of Argentina. Unfortunately, Blustein’s rhetoric masks the real cash flow in this case. Yes, Wall Street reaped fees on underwriting the debt ($1 billion on $141 billion of debt is less than 1% -- your real estate broker gets 6%), but the net transfer of wealth from the West to Argentina to the tune of $140 billion. When Argentina defaulted, it was the West that lost the billions and Argentina got to keep whatever it bought with the money. Even by Marxist standards this article is joke.

I work in the financial world, but I don’t normally write about it (disclosure: I work in fixed income, but not with emerging markets). But I could not keep quiet about this. I think that the author is trying to re-write the history to absolve Argentina of all fault in the matter and place it on America and Wall Street. His screed belongs in a left-wing opinion magazine like The Nation and not in a newspaper that hides behind the veil of objectivity. It’s an even bigger shame that the Washington Post decided to publish this article on page one.

2003-07-31T12:01:00.000-04:00

Squealer Profile: Bob Herbert

Writing in his March 20th editorial against the war in Iraq, Bob Herbert asks:

"Are Americans ready to pay the cost in lives and dollars of a long-term military occupation of Iraq? To what end?" [Emphasis added]

It seems that Mr. Herbert is not a pacient man. Today he writes in the Times:

"Why are these kids dying?
....
Right now there is no viable plan for securing the peace in Iraq, and no exit strategy. There is no real plan for demolishing Al Qaeda and the genuine threat it poses to the security of all Americans. (Similarly, at home, there is no plan to get the economy moving and the millions of unemployed Americans back to work.)
....
Iraq is not Vietnam, where more than 58,000 Americans were killed. But it is like Vietnam in that deceptive leaders have maneuvered the country into a tragic situation that I do not believe Americans will support over time.
....
For the youngsters condemned to the shooting gallery, it's a fearful exercise in survival in a conflict that has never been adequately explained."[Emplasis added]

Oink, oink Mr. Herbert.

2003-07-24T22:53:00.000-04:00

Day by Day

is returning on Monday July 28th.

2003-07-22T14:32:00.000-04:00

Squealer’s Return

I used to be baffled about how a true statement in the President’s State of the Union speech has become a political scandal. The transmutation of a truth into a “lie” seemed very Orwellian to me. Reading the source -- George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” has helped me to see through the fog of the scandal to its core.

As you may recall, the animals on this fictional farm took control from the humans to build a four-foot Utopia. The pigs (smartest of the animals) took control, with two young boars, Snowball (Trotsky) and Napoleon (Stalin), struggling for control of the new enterprise. In one crucial early sequence, Snowball led an attack against the re-invading humans. He is wounded by shotgun shot but the defense succeeds and the animals remain unmolested. He is hailed as a hero.

His popularity does not save him from the wrath of Napoleon, who during one meeting, chases Snowball off the farm with the help of his dog goons. During the subsequent reign, much of the communication between the Leader and the rest of the animals occurs through Squealer. Squealer is a pig whose talent is convincing others of the correct point of view. He was the farm’s propaganda chief. Through his words, Snowball is slowly transitioned from hero to traitor. Orwell does a great job of describing how Squealer uses selective memory and rhetorical distractions to persuade even those animals who were there to witness Snowballs heroism. With mere words, Squealer changed history.

Today’s Squealers have a similar mission – to discredit President Bush. Their techniques are likewise the same – to change history and to snatch defeat from the mouth of victory. These Squealers, the media elite, academia and some in the Democratic Party, bet heavily against an American victory in Iraq. Before the war they printed dire predictions of the war’s consequences (chemical weapons will be used, the war will cost countless lives on both sides, humanitarian disaster, the “Arab Street” will rise up in anger). None of which came true. Instead the victory was swift, with few lives lost and the Street pacified. Even, the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are back on track.

For the Squealers of the world, these developments were a disaster. Their credibility was in shambles – imagine countless pages spent predicting a tragedy that never came. Worse, their arch-rival, Bush, was basking in the admiration of the people (btw, where else but this blog will you see our President compared to Trotsky?). The situation was intolerable. There was only one thing to do: the Squealers have been tasked with changing history.

The Squealers are attacking on two fronts: questioning the President’s motivations for going to war and slandering the victory we have achieved. Each task has required different tricks of propaganda and we will explore them each in turn.

The Rationale attack.

The attack on the President’s rationale for war includes the now infamous uranium “scandal.” The purported scandal is a result of a series of “sleight of hand” assumptions, false analogies and willfully hazy memories. Let’s begin:

The Big Lie technique. This is an exceedingly common and effective propaganda tool. The Squealer merely repeats a lie over and over, without justification in the hopes that the listener will assume that the proposition is true because of the conviction of the speaker and the frequency of repetition. In our case, the Big Lie is about 16 words in the Presidents SOTU speech. The accusation that the President lied or misled is batted around with some frequency, without any proof. In fact, the statement is true – PM Blair has reiterated the fact that his government stands by their intelligence. Furthermore, although no WMD has been found in Iraq yet, no proof has been offered to show that the British intelligence was false. In fact it boggles the mind to assume that Saddam never “sought” (the exact word used in the SOTU) uranium. But with the press and some politicians repeat the Big Lie over and over it seems to be having an effect on the President’s standing.

So why the scandal? Once confronted about the Big Lie, the Squealers usually offer several purported reasons why the statement deserves the attention its getting. They say that the uranium claim was justification for the war and thus central. They also claim that the uranium statement shows that Bush twisted or “sexed-up” intelligence to justify war.

False Prominence technique. This technique involves highlighting an issue that was previously seen as peripheral and giving it undue prominence. This is the case with Saddam’s nuclear program. Prior to the war, proponents had three broad justifications – humanitarian, regional (i.e. getting rid of Saddam will help to pacify the region) and, finally, WMD. The only reason that the last claim was given undue prominence in the press was because of the abortive effort to obtain a UN mandate (the UN doesn’t really care about the first two reasons). The most important components of the WMD justification were the biological and the chemical weapons and the nuclear concerns were secondary. The justification for war was the totality of these arguments not any specific one. Yet the Squealers would have us believe that were it not for this claim, the nation would not have gone to war.

It is also amazing to see all the Squealers, who think of themselves as Champions of the Human Rights be completely unmoved by the mass graves found in Iraq or the children’s prisons. They shed no tear for the humanitarian or the environmental damage administered by Saddam to the Marsh Arabs, the Shiites and the Kurds. Isn’t that enough?

False Analogy technique. This tool is used to transfer the conclusion from one situation to a seeming related, but in reality different, situation. If the result of B is X, then the result of D (because it looks like B) must be X also. The Squealers claim that the President lied about the Iraqi intelligence, or at least misled us. The faulty analogy is comparing intelligence products to facts. Facts are certain, so any divergence from a fact is lying which is wrong. On the other hand, if something already contains a great dose of opinion, interjecting more opinion is not lying.

By definition, intelligence products are not facts – they are educated guesses based on sketchy evidence. It is something akin to finding a handful of pieces from a massive jigsaw puzzle and trying to determine the full picture. Given the limited information, different people can have different opinions. CIA analysts and NSA analysts, National Security Council officials and State Department officers all can take a different view on the topic based on the same evidence.

Th clear implication of the Squealers’ attacks is that either intelligence is a certainty and the President abused it or that good intelligence requires courtroom like burden of proof which the President did not meet. Neither case is true – intelligence is best seen as shades of gray and not as black and white.

Furthermore, all this has to be seen in the light of September 11th – the day that intelligence failed us. The same Squealers who now go about complaining that the Administration did not get unanimous sign off from every single employee of any intelligence agency (past and present) were just a year ago howling about the failure of the intelligence agencies to see September 11th coming. The attack was the result of “cover your ass” intelligence at its best – the same approach that the Squealers have implied that the President should have taken with Iraq. On the contrary, if the attack on the WTC taught us one lesson it was that as good as our intelligence is, relying on it exclusively can prove very costly.

Post-War Iraq.

The other tact taken by the Squealers is the slandering of the post-war Iraq. While the assault on the pre-war rationale is potentially damaging to President politically, this attack is dangerous to us as a nation. This attack seeks to recast our victory in Iraq and to turn it into a loss.

False perspective technique. Here the Squealer utilizes relativistic terms to describe a situation or a person, without verbalizing what it/he/she is being compared to. Variations on this theme are using different standards of comparison for identical situations or using unrealistic standards for comparison. In the case of post-War Iraq, the false perspective is used in claiming how “disastrous” the occupation has been.

Disastrous is a relative term – 6% unemployment rate can seem “disastrous” when you come from 4%, but great if you come from 8%. So, what situation would not be “disastrous” three months after a war as far as the Squealers are concerned? A Utopian world of peace and love? That seems to be the implication in the Squealers’ accusations – because the nation is not perfect (as they may define it) then we have failed.

Why not start with the Armageddon scenarios that the Squealers were using before the war. There are no humanitarian disasters – food and water are flowing freely. There are no environmental disasters, no uprising of the feared Arab Street, and no millions of dead civilians. On the other hand, only three months after the war a nation that once was ruled by dictator is now ruled by a Washington bureaucracy and is on its way to free elections. We know that newspapers, cell phones and satellite dishes are sprouting all over, that mass graves are being dug up (instead of being filled) and that people are no longer tortured for questioning the regime. Furthermore, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has gotten new steam, thy Syrians and the Iranians are stymied and the Arab street is quiet. This is called “disaster”?

In pondering the post-war Iraq situation, a realistic standard is required. Considering that Iraq is three months into freedom after 30 years of brutal repression and waste, I think that things are going exceedingly well.

The Narrow Vision technique. This technique involves the Squealer to select the worst features of a person or a situation in order to prove a point. The selected features are representative of the person or situation. The Squealers’ claim that we are “losing the peace” is based on the uniformly gloomy media reports. But is the media giving us a realistic picture of the situation in Iraq? Are they selecting stories that fit with their ideological prejudice? There is evidence that they do.

Allow me to use New York, my home, as an analogy. Depending on my prejudices as a reporter, I could communicate very different views of the city. If I hated it, I could emphasize the crime, the dirt and the poverty. However, if I was partial to the city I could focus on the museums, the parks and the food. The situation is exacerbated in Iraq, since due to its isolation the gloomy views of the Squealing journalists can not be easily (i.e. by traveling) verified.

Furthermore, say you were a foreign reporter who stayed only in New York (or even just the Northeast) and your task was to describe Americans’ feelings about the Bush Administration. Would your reporting accurately describe the support for the Administration in the whole country? No, yet all of the reports I have seen recently have been from the Sunni Triangle. That is where the 20% of the population that lost the most from the American occupation lives. Rarely are there reports in the Big Media from the Shiite or the Kurd regions (I use “rarely” to hedge my statement, since I have not actually seen any). Focusing on the Sunni triangle is similar to focusing on South African whites right after the end of apartheid – their opinions are not representative of the nation as a whole.

Finally, there’s what I call the Walter Duranty syndrome. Duranty was the New York Times reporter who looked away while millions were forcibly starved in the Ukraine, and wrote glorious reports about Stalin’s Soviet Union. With respect to Iraq , how can you trust the judgement of reporters who saw little wrong with Saddam’s regime? CNN, for example, has admitted that there were things that they did not report in pre-Saddam Iraq, how do we know that they are reporting the full picture now?

False Opportunities technique. The Squealers utilizing this tool claim that their opponent missed a great opportunity, while never mentioning what the opportunity was. Like the Big Lie, this technique relies on repetition. This is the case of the missing Plan™ for Iraqi occupation. This common accusation states that the Administration did not have a Plan™ for post-war Iraq and the current situation is the result.

The false assumption is that there exists a plan that would have magically solved all the Iraqi ills if only the warmongers would have bothered to spend time creating it (you can imagine some thick five-year plan similar to those produced by the Soviet Union). We certainly don’t hear many details of the Plan™ from the Squealers – all they do is accuse. In reality, no such plans exist. If they did, then the Soviet Union would probably still be around today. It’s true that some planning is always required, but it is false to assume that they can solve all the world problems.

The threat to National Security

While the attack on the rationale for war can be exceedingly damaging to the President, it is not likely to bring harm to our nation. That is not the case with the attack on post war Iraq. These have the potential to do great damage to our national security and kill many Americans in the process.

First, if we are seen as skittish about our commitment to Iraq, then it’s not likely that we will find many friends there. The Kurds and the Shiites remember 1991 when we told them rebel, but did nothing to stop Saddam’s brutal revenge. If the Iraqis perceive that there is any risk of us leaving early, why would they risk the retribution of Saddam by helping us to secure the nation or finding his WMD? On the contrary, the attacks on our GIs will increase if the enemy believes that that will really hasten our departure. It’s a political game of chicken and we must not blink.

Second, and more importantly, if we do leave early the signal we will send to the rest of the world is perilous. Osama bin Laden saw us run from Somalia and concluded that we are a paper tiger and unwilling to tolerate pain. The path to the WTC led directly from Mogadishu. If we run from Iraq, we will reinforce a notion of American weakness in millions of hateful hearts. Then we will truly create millions of new Osamas.

For these reasons, a swift departure from Iraq must never be contemplated. We must stay the course no matter the price and must never give any sign of weakness. Ironically, even though one of the Squealers’ pre-war criticisms was our lack of long term commitment to Iraq, they are the first to call for the return of the troops. Their advice must not be heeded.

Conclusion

What drives these Squealers’ to jeopardize our nation’s security? I don’t think it’s a conscious attempt to weaken the nation, but drive fed by hatred of the President and the desire to be justified at all costs.

During the run-up to the war the stakes became exceedingly high. In the aftermath of September 11th, the Administration’s newly assertive foreign policy was up against the status quo foreign policy establishment and media, most of whom cut their political teeth during the Vietnam War. Each side bet every single ounce of their political capital on the outcome of the war and the stakes were winner take all.

The debate was clearly won by the proponents of the war. None of the opponents’ catastrophic scenarios came true – no mass casualties (military or civilian), no environmental disaster, no wider wars and no uprising of the Arab street. On the other hand, most of the proponent’s claims did come true – the country was happy to be liberated from a dictator and the region is being pacified. Casualties were far smaller than anyone, including the proponents, imagined. The only claim that has not been borne out, so far, is the WMD.

To the Squealers this has been a disaster. As a group they are people who pride themselves on having the right opinions, on being smarter than others and having insight about the rest of the world that the mere mortals lack. It was bad enough to be wrong about the highest stake debate in decades, but to be beaten by a man (Bush) they consider a fool and a simpleton was just too much.

So the Squealers have gone to work to reverse history and to turn victory into defeat. They want to be shown to be right and the Administration wrong. They want the neo-conservatives to get their comeuppance. They want to see our nation go groveling back to the UN and the French. They want another Vietnam.

They may feel that they are allowed to pursue this attack against the Administration because of the inquisition against Clinton. While that episode was clearly wrong and vindictive, the nation was not at war. Pursuing the same vitriolic attack today threatens our national security.

The behavior of the Squealers, in my humble opinion, is unpatriotic and un-American. In as much as they pursue the attack on the post-war Iraq, they are causing irreparable harm to our future. They are sacrificing our security for the sake of their egos and political ambitions.

There is another, more important reason that the Squealers are un-American: when given a choice they prefer the values of totalitarianism. Given their complaints it is clear that they favor procedure over morality, status quo over humanity and order over freedom. Their complaints are not the arguments of a loyal opposition, merely the tirades of those who wish us to take the road to serfdom.

UPDATE: This 9/11 Report clearly shows that decision makers cannot completely rely on our intelligence agencies. Sometimes they have to rely on their own counsel.

2003-06-25T15:31:00.000-04:00

Poll Spinning

Is the Washington Post spinning poll numbers? I expect this from the NYTimes, but I've developed higher standards for the Post. The headline for the poll released last night is "Doubts Temper War Support" and the article paints a gloomy picture of backing for the war.

Surveys conducted since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks have consistently shown that a majority of Americans favor military strikes against Iraq. But this general agreement that force should be used is neither absolute, unconditional nor uniformly shared by key voting groups, an analysis of recent Washington Post-ABC News surveys suggests.
This ambivalence, most recently reflected in a Post-ABC News poll completed Sunday, raises questions about the depth and durability of public support for using force to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The poll found that 59 percent of respondents favor using military force against Iraq, even without the support of the U.N. Security Council. But four in 10 supporters also said they had reservations about the looming conflict with Iraq. When these doubters are combined with opponents of military action, the result suggests that more than six in 10 Americans harbor at least some doubts about using force while only a third are unequivocally behind going to war.

Sounds pretty grim for the White House, huh? Well not if you compare this survey to the one taken on February 23.

5. (IF FAVOR, Q4) What if the United Nations opposes such action - in that case would you favor or oppose having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq?

Q4/5 NET

Favor Oppose No opinion
2/23/03 50 46 4
2/9/03 50 47 3
2/5/03 All 49 46 5
Watched Powell 55 41 4
Didn't watch 41 53 6
2/1/03 51 46 3
1/28/03 46 50 4
1/27/03 44 52 3
12/15/02* 37 58 5
*Wording: Would you favor or oppose having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq, even if the United Nations opposes such action?

Question 4 asked if the respondent favors the removal of Saddam Hussein. Now let's go to today's poll.

The Bush administration says it will move soon to disarm Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power, by war if necessary, working with countries that are willing to assist, even without the support of the United Nations. Overall, do you support or oppose this policy?

Support 59%
Oppose 37
No opinion 4

The support without the UN number jumped from 50% to 59% (yes, the question is slightly different, but not significantly so in my opinion). In fact, it's never been higher. This is cause for the gloomy article? The writer seems to have hooked on the next question which asks if the respondet has any reservations about the war -- 40% say they do. I would read that data exactly the opposite way. I am very surprised that only 40% have reservations about the war. I have many reservations and I'm 100% behind the effort. You're supposed to have reservations about an undertaking of such significance even if you believe that it is completely necessary.

Oh yeah, not even a mention of the increase in the President's approval rating (up 2 statistically insignificant points to 62% form last survey).

It is sad to see such a blatantly spun article from the Washington Post. Recently, the New York Times has earned a well-deserved reputation for such tactics, but I had more respect for the Post. I guess extreme situations require extreme measures, and the truth is always the first victim of the self-righteous.

2003-06-02T22:00:00.000-04:00

Summer vacation

My regular readers know that I have constantly struggled with my ability to write for the blog and my family and work commitments. Writing has never been easy for me and it takes a great deal of time. And I am losing the battle. Recently, my work responsibilities have increased and my boy has been a little sick (nothing serious, thank God). At the same time I'm trying to find a house and spend every available weekend moment searching the suburbs.

My excess energy level has hit zero. I have tried writing, but I have had no time. Kamil Zogby, who runs the excellent Zogby Blog, even generously invited me to join his site. But, I haven't been able to do that either.

I thought that I was alone, but as Glenn Reynolds points out, I'm not the only one. He is right -- this is no time to rest on our laurels, but I really need to buy that house before I consider blogging again. So I've decided to take the summer off, recharge and, hopefully, write to you next from my American Dream house.

Happy summer,
Eric

2003-05-11T20:28:00.000-04:00

Cold War II

I decided to do something different this week - play analyst.

I predict that there is a good chance (30%-40%) that in a quarter of a century the US and Continental Europe (“CEU”, I firmly believe that the UK will not be part of the Continental construct) will be engaged in a new Cold War.

Please remember that all predictions about the future are predicated on current trends. It is possible and even likely that these trends will change with time as people realize where events are leading. An analogy can be made to two ships on a collision course. If nothing is done, then the ships will collide. However, once the crews realize what is going on, then they will take defensive actions that may or may not be able to avert the disaster.

I base my assertion on the following three European trends:

1. Demographic time bomb. European societies are dying. The European fertility rate is now less than 1.4 (compared to America’s 2.1 - the replacement rate). This will have significant effects on European societies. The modern European welfare state is dependent (like the US) on the working population to fund the benefits of retirees. As the working population shrinks compared to the supported population, the burden on the individual worker increases dramatically. Add to this the fact that European societies have a track record of ever-increasing benefits, which will create an even higher burden.

There are two “peaceful” ways to confront this problem. Increase the immigrant population or increase productivity. Culturally, Europeans have been incapable of the first. The few immigrants that they do take in are segregated and marginalized. A small, isolated, unassimilated population will not be able to single-handedly support the increase in the European benefit needs. The increase in productivity is impossible while restrictive labor and business laws remain in place. There has been no appetite in Europe to reform these impediments.

2. Economic time bomb. The unwieldy nature of European economies is well known. The labor markets, the products to be offered and trade are all highly controlled, mainly to protect against competition. I believe that there is another potential weakness that has yet to be confronted. I’m talking about the dollar bubble.

For the past decade, America’s strong dollar policy has made European manufactured goods cheaper to sell in the US (we are the world’s consumer). It has also made American investments more attractive. The resulting “virtuous” circle - Europeans buy dollar-denominated assets, driving up the price of the dollar and inducing others to buy dollar denominated assets, driving up the price of the dollar - has created a bubble. A similar process was (is?) at work in the Nasdaq bubble (buy stock, stock goes up, others buy stock only because it went up, stock goes up some more) created that calamity. An unwinding of the dollar bubble will have bad effects on both sides of the Atlantic.

In the US, a weaker dollar will drive down the markets, but because the dollar will be cheaper, there should be a corresponding increase the demand for American goods and services (good for jobs). On the other side of the Atlantic, however, the situation will be more uniformly bleak. European companies are still highly leveraged and depend for a large portion of their profits on the American markets. They cannot as easily fire employees to lower costs. Any repatriated euros will have to be spent on debt service to the continent’s credit-stressed banks. As a result, European companies will not be able to do the one thing that the demographic time-bomb requires them to do - create jobs.

3. Move away from democracy. Despite the fact that most European nations are democracies, the emerging EU apparatus is clearly undemocratic. It is a sprawling bureaucracy that does not respond to the will of the European people. The ineffectual European Parliament has about as much power as the Iranian one. The European bureaucracy is staffed by the Continental elite whose attitudes about government mirror that of the Bolsheviks - “dictatorship of the proletariat”. Like Lenin and his wealthy comrades, these Continentals see themselves as the über-smart vanguard of a new Utopian society. They will not allow the pleadings of the unwashed masses to affect their goals.

The influence of individual governments, which still have some democratic responsibility, is being whittled away in the new European Constitution. The attempts to build a powerful European Presidency to marshal the European bureaucracy to the detriment of the nation-states has been checked for now, but the struggle away from democracy continues.

Finally, individual liberties are on the decline. Most worrisome are the new laws against xenophobia, which has yet to be defined. These prohibitions against improper “views” can easily evolve into instruments of repression. Many European governments already have hate-speech laws whose application is a function of the speaker. For example, anti-Semitic speech by right-wing speakers is outlawed, but similar speech by left-wingers is encouraged as “discourse”. Application of the xenophobia laws will be just as political.

The combination of factors one and two shows that European society is unsustainable. The first factor shows that European culture is literally dying. They refuse to either reproduce or to assimilate enough outsiders into their culture. Given the current trends, cultural Europeans will die out in several hundred years.

This would not be a concern for any of us, if it weren’t for the second factor. The deteriorating economic situation ensures that the day of reckoning for Europe will be soon, in our lifetimes. Not only will the population decline, but they will also become much poorer. The resulting loss of standard of living, influence and power will bring closer the day when the Europeans start taking their predicament seriously and look to reverse their plight.

This is the point where my predictive powers take the greatest leap. There will be many ways to deal with a dying civilization, but I believe that European history and current trends show a clear preference for blaming the outsider. Most contemporary states/cultures undergoing painful (for the ego) transitions have chosen to blame either a disliked local minority or an outside force. Consider, for example, Nazi Germany, the entire Arab world, the former Communist states, and the current Communist states (North Korea, Cuba).

I believe that the CEU will be no different. The last century has shown the propensity of Europeans to shift blame for failure onto others. The Communists blamed the local capitalists, and when power did not yield the beneficial results, then foreign capitalist powers. The Nazis blamed the Jews and the Communists, all naturally operating under foreign influence. Blaming others for one’s problems is a common human reaction mainly because it is easier then self-reflection. This is especially true of welfare cultures, where people have been conditioned to relinquish the responsibility for one’s actions to a central authority. Under the circumstances, I believe that the first reaction of the CEU to the impending disaster will be to find a scapegoat.

Chances are that this scapegoat will be America. This pattern is already emerging. Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder won his last election by diverting the electorate’s concern about economics by engaging in a campaign marked by anti-Americanism. The same can be said of the Jacques Chirac, who saw his popularity rise by opposing America. If the price of opposition to America is seen to be small, this pattern will be amplified as the economy gets worse. This dynamic can already be seen in the Arab world. For more than three decades, Arab potentates have seen criticism of America as essentially cost-less and used it to divert attention from domestic problems. As a result, America’s two greatest “allies” in the Arab world (Egypt and Saudi Arabia) are our greatest critics.

These anti-American sentiments stem from frustration and impotence in the face of American successes. The present rift with CEU can be traced to the widening gulf between CEU’s image of itself and it’s actual abilities. Due to factors one and two, this divergence will surely increase in the future.

Finally, factor three ensures that this turns into a Cold War. There is a high correlation between the states that have sought out scapegoats and authoritarian forms of government. The Nazis, the Communists and the Arabs have all had a tremendous control over the possible range of opinions available to the public. Each of these had a strangle hold on the sources of public information and the ability to censor opponents. The emerging bureau-authoritarian EU government has all the tools it needs to run an anti-American propaganda campaign. The freedom of the press in the CEU is already limited. Most nations already have state controlled television networks and the freedom of the independent news sources is hampered by the government. Case in point is last year’s injunction by a German court against a news agency banning it from publishing claims that Schroeder dyes his hair.

The new crime of xenophobia is especially troubling. Those who think little of laws punishing “bad” speech, are obviously ignorant of Soviet propensity of assigning noble causes to all their immoral actions. They should also re-read Orwell. My own Soviet-instilled paranoia suggests that it will possible to prosecute, say, the Danish for xenophobia for opposing some German functionary. It is possible that Europe will acquire, under this law, its own nationality and those who oppose further “integration” will be quieted as xenophobic. Notice, for example, that to date no European leader has been admonished for his xenophobic anti-Americanism. To paraphrase Orwell, it seems that “all hatreds are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

To conclude, I believe that European culture is dying and that there is a good chance that at some time in the near future America will become the primary scapegoat for their problems (the local Muslims being a close second). The resulting confrontation will be similar to the first Cold War against a rotting Soviet Union. The confrontation will be ideological (American survivalism against European “soft-power” veneered nihilism), political (through proxies - see Israeli-Palestinian conflict), economic and, in some cases, military.

By my own reckoning this prediction has a greater chance of NOT occurring. This could happen if the Europeans begin to reproduce or to assimilate foreigners in large numbers, dismantle their welfare states, reform the EU, or some combination of these. Nevertheless, because this is a distinct possibility, we must plan for the contingency that the “Axis of Weasels” truly becomes the main threat to our security.

UPDATE: The Telegraph talks about Europe today. Leader: Europe: the wolf is here and Barbara Amiel: Anti-Americans are really against liberal democracy.

2003-05-01T23:46:00.000-04:00

Multiculturalism and culticidism

A British inner city doctor has a great piece in the Times of London connecting culticidal attitudes and multiculturalism, and, eventually, violence.

2003-04-30T12:03:00.000-04:00

Where is the WMD?

That’s the latest question posed by critics of the administration. We’ve been snookered, they say. The administration based its justification to go to war on the presence of WMD and it is nowhere to be found.

They are right, of course. So far, the search has come up empty. It is possible that the Saddam regime hid the weapons, destroyed them right before the war or shipped them elsewhere. It is also possible that American intelligence was wrong and the weapons were not there.

But given what we have seen of the Iraqi regime, does it matter? As Thomas Friedman put it:

As far as I'm concerned, we do not need to find any weapons of mass destruction to justify this war. That skull, and the thousands more that will be unearthed, are enough for me. Mr. Bush doesn't owe the world any explanation for missing chemical weapons (even if it turns out that the White House hyped this issue). It is clear that in ending Saddam's tyranny, a huge human engine for mass destruction has been broken. The thing about Saddam's reign is that when you look at that skull, you don't even know what period it came from - his suppression of the Kurds or the Shiites, his insane wars with Iran and Kuwait, or just his daily brutality.

Whether you were for or against this war, whether you preferred that the war be done with the U.N.'s approval or without it, you have to feel good that right has triumphed over wrong. America did the right thing here. It toppled one of the most evil regimes on the face of the earth, and I don't think we know even a fraction of how deep that evil went. Fair-minded people have to acknowledge that. Who cares if we now find some buried barrels of poison? Do they carry more moral weight than those buried skulls? No way.

Of course, there are those of us for whom the liberation of the Iraqi people has always been the primary reason for the war.

However, the new inquiries do tell us something about the questioners themselves. Namely, how much do these people really care about human rights if they are now complaining about being tricked into liberation? It appears that the questioners were unconvinced about the humanitarian argument for liberating Iraq. For them the procedural violation of UN resolutions was the only legitimate reason to invade. Even after liberation and discoveries of torture chambers, mass graves and children’s prisons these people are still unconvinced that humanitarian reasons alone justified the invasion. While this is a perfectly legitimate position to take, how can these people be taken seriously the next time they make an argument based on humanitarian reasons?

And do they ever! These guys are full of humanitarian appeals, but only when American society can be blamed. When someone else is the violator then procedures, debates and resolutions must comfort the victims. In those cases, violations of human rights, even the most severe cases like Iraq, are never enough to justify action.

This is culticidal behavior. One set of morals applies to the US while a totally different applies to the anti-American totalitarian dictatorships. So the next time you hear one of these blowhards espouse on some perceived American human rights violation – understand that they care little about the violation itself and are only motivated by their hate of America.

2003-04-28T12:48:00.000-04:00

Taking a break…

My job has a policy that if you don’t take your vacation days from the previous year by April 30, then you lose them forever. So I’m on vacation. I have tried to write something, I really did, but nothing has come out. Things are going well politically and I’m not motivated to write anything. I tried to write about the pro-Saddam celebrities, but they now sound like pathetic whiners. I tried to write something about the media coverage of the War, but many things have been said already. However, I think that the main culprit in my writer’s block is the good weather. After a long cold winter (a very curious phenomenon for a warming globe) the warmth has finally returned. I’ve had a great time just taking out my son for walks around the city.

That’s not to say that there is nothing to worry about. The ideological war against the culticidists must continue. We must strengthen our foreign policy despite our foreign policy establishment. But in the glow of victory and the first days of spring these things can wait a few days. I want to enjoy being daddy for a bit.

2003-04-19T17:17:00.000-04:00

Foggy Bottom, 20520

Is it me, or are the American foreign policy establishment, academia and media elite all obsessed with popularity? Our popularity among other nations has become Topic One for the chattering classes. Who likes us? Who hates us? Why? And how can we get them to like us more? You would think that we were all back in high school and the most important thing in the world was getting elected Most Popular by the senior class.

Presumably, they will say, there is some sort of connection between being popular and being secure. But this connection is questionable. Does popularity really provide security? During the late 1990s, I traveled to France several times and felt very popular. Today, these feelings are gone and replaced with virulent anti-Americanism. This raises two interesting questions. One, is popularity worth pursuing if it’s as fickle as a Frenchman’s goodwill? Second, if the popularity in the 1990s was not genuine, as some now claim, how will we ever know that we are really popular? Delusions as to our popularity do not help our security.

High school is a fitting metaphor for our predicament. It is a social laboratory, where many lessons are learned about human nature. In this context we can begin to explore the reasons why we need the approval of others so much that we are willing to sacrifice our national security.

So, welcome to International Community High School. Ms. America is the school’s richest and prettiest girl. She gets straight A’s and is the captain of the school’s fencing team. Unfortunately, she is also painfully insecure and desperately wants to be popular. To improve her self-esteem she seeks to please others. Indeed, she did feel popular for a while, but who reached out when Ms America got in trouble? Almost no one wanted to be responsible. To be sure there were a few good hearts, especially the English chap, but the others were whispering that it’s all America’s fault – she got what she deserved.

America, the country, is no different. For fifty years, we have subsidized the rest of the world providing it with security so that they could focus their attentions elsewhere, asking nothing in return. The Europeans have built massive welfare states while the Arabs have used their excess oil wealth to spread their faith to our detriment. Now, those nations who needed us in their most vulnerable moments turn their backs on us.

Ms America is rightfully upset. “How did this happen? Didn’t everyone want to be with me just a short time ago? Why does everyone hate me now?” she asks. Maybe if she just gave more of herself, then everything would go back to “normal.” How would a parent or a caring friend deal with Ms America’s problems? What advice can they give her?

We can go through all the clichés that our parents told us. Popularity is not important. You can’t be popular with everyone. Pick your friends wisely – friends in need are friends indeed. Don’t let people take you for granted. Seek not popularity, but respect. These are helpful, but as every therapist will tell you, they won’t solve Ms America’s problems. You see, people who seek approval from outsiders do so because they don’t believe in themselves. If she wants to be respected by others, she must first learn to respect herself.

Imagine how the world sees America – a strong, successful nation whose influence is felt around the globe. Yet this reality is contrasted by the country’s lack of self-esteem. We deride our successes, our cultural habits and our political system. In short, we have the looks of Halle Berry, the mind of Einstein, the strength of Wonder Woman and the personality of Woody Allen. To those who are already jealous of us this is not humility – this is provocation. Our lack of belief in our success can sound scornful to those who have tried to compete with us, but have failed miserably. People like to believe that they were bested by worthy rivals and not by neurotics.

How can we hope export our ideals of democracy and our economic system when so many of us freely deride these very same institutions? How can we ask our allies not to be disloyal, when so many of us take our nation for granted? How can we ask others to respect us, when so many of us have so little national self-respect?

Foreign policy begins at home. To build a safer world we must discard our obsession with popularity and to find our self-esteem. We must build strong relationships with the few true friends we have and demand respect from others. Just like high school, at the 20 year reunion, no one will care how popular you were, just how successful.

UPDATE: Speaker Gingrich calls for reform of the State department. Amen!

ANOTHER UPDATE: State strikes back at its critics:

As Iraqi Shiite demands for a dominant role in Iraq's future mount, Bush administration officials say they underestimated the Shiites' organizational strength and are unprepared to prevent the rise of an anti-American, Islamic fundamentalist government in the country. [Emphasis added]

Gee, that's a pretty defeatist statement by the administration! There is no hope there -- just defeat and political quagmire. If you had to guess who these unnamed "Bush administration officials" are, or what department they belonged to, what would be your call? This just proves that Newt is right -- State is no longer willing or able to carry out the will of the President. They have relegated themselves to taking potshots.

2003-04-11T23:29:00.000-04:00

Newsgate

The revelation today, by CNN’s chief news executive Eason Jordan, is scandalous but not surprising if you are familiar with totalitarian regimes. Jordan stated that CNN has been regularly withholding News in order to maintain a presence in Iraq. They did not report the arrest and torture of one of it cameramen as well as the plot to assassinate Saddam’s sons-in-law. Because CNN could not possibly be the only organization to succumb to Iraqi pressures (and deserves some credit for coming clean) the entire Western journalism profession is implicated in this scandal.

I’m not overstating -- this is a scandal of giant proportions. It puts the entire function of news organizations into question. Follow me:

1. The raison d’être of journalists is to bring News to the public they serve.
2. News, at the very least, should be truthful and contain no material omissions.

Now read Jordan’s piece again – if he could not provide us with News by his presence in Iraq – why was he there? What could justify the presence of CNN, or the other news organizations, if they could not deliver the truth?

To understand the dynamic think back on the equity research scandal on Wall Street. Analysts, whose function was supposed to be to provide unbiased research, were anything but. During the hey day of the Nasdaq bubble they competed with one another on who can give the best “write-up” to a company.

As a result, analysts became mere spokesmen for the companies they “covered” just like these journalists became mouthpieces for the Saddam regime. Yes, they tried to pass on the truth in code, but so did the analysts. The crux of both scandals is that neither group fulfilled their function – analysts did not analyze and reporters did not report.

So, what’s the point of having them? If all the analysts did was to regurgitate the company line and all reporters do is summarize what the relevant Minister for Propaganda said – why bother with the middleman? Furthermore, how do we know in the future, that they are actually reporting the truth and not covering-up?

This scandal is not limited to Iraq. The reporting from the Palestinian Authority areas is just as tainted. In fact, we can assume that the news from any totalitarian regime in not News. That was certainly the case when the Soviet Union was around.

In many ways this is bigger than the research scandal and Enron. They were only about money – if we made the wrong choice we could only lose our money. But news organizations report on things that are far more important – in many cases if we make the wrong choice based on their reporting, people can lose their lives.

How can we solve this problem? Even the news organizations don’t want people to lose faith in them. The solution is not as easy – we cannot and should not regulate the news media by law. I don’t have any clever solutions, but there are three avenues of approach:

1. Improve journalist education, reinforce the notion that their client is the viewer/reader and not the client state.
2. Improve end user education. We as a society periodically seem to forget that news from a closed society is worthless. Time to relearn that fact.
3. Boycott – the market can regulate the news organizations. The profit motive gives and it can also take away. Disincentivize any organization from “reporting” lies.

2003-04-01T17:24:00.000-05:00

Culticidal Example

Here is a good example of culticidal attitudes. This article from the National Review Online talks about how many on the Left (not all) look at the issue of racism.

When it comes to America -- racism is a most heinous crime.
When it comes to America's enemies -- what's a little genocide, when its for a good cause?

The two attitudes on racism are not consistent. The most likely explanation for this paradox is that racism, for the pro-Saddam Left, is a convenient ideological weapon against the US and nothing else.

2003-03-30T16:04:00.000-05:00

Blogging Pause

Unless something huge happens, I anticipate a blogging pause for the next two weeks. There are two reason for this:

1. I need to do our taxes. and
2. We are buying a house -- just entered into a contract.

2003-03-26T18:11:00.000-05:00

The Second Front

1000 Paratroopers have landed in Northern Iraq. They have seized an airfield which will now be used to deploy (I think) a division (looks like the First Infantry). This is the opening of the second front. Saddam has commited most of his troops to the battle in the south and the north is lightly guarded. The units in the south will not be able to reinforce the north without being decimated. The northern approach should be clear for entry into Baghdad!

Other thoughts about units not yet commited to combat:

The independent 173 Airborne Brigade was used in the North -- where is the 82nd Airborne Division? It can also be commited quickly.

Where is the 101st Airmobile Division. We have heard very few reports about them.

Where is the 4th Infantry Division? Yes, some are on ships, but I suspect not the whole Division.

Remember, we seized the H2 and H3 airfields in western Iraq a few days ago. Partly to shut down Skuds, but once you control an airfield (an done of them was large) why not start to deploy some troops. Recall how quickly we were able to deploy entire divisions in in Afghanistan.

Conclusion: It is possible that the southern advance was a "diversionary" tactic used to lure out Saddam's best while the real hit comes from the north and west. Stay tuned....

2003-03-26T14:45:00.000-05:00

Who is culticidal?

Following my first posts (here and here) about the cultural war, I received many comments and letters that had a common theme. Readers wanted me to further define those whom I refer to as the “opposition” in the cultural war and to know what side of the cultural war they were on. It is an issue that I deliberately avoided discussing in the original article, because it is a complex issue that I did not want to explore in one post. However, it is impossible to ignore the issue, so I will elaborate on the definition of “opposition”. The “opposition” are the people who I call “culticidal” – those seeking the suicide of American society.

A culticidal American is someone, who despite receiving the benefits of living in our society, despises it and wants to destroy it. Such an attitude is common in prosperous societies (please see my series on hate here, here and here) These tendencies are dangerous and have historically led to violence, weakening of the home state and tyranny. The key to remember about culticidal citizens is that they hate without reason and the ideologies they spout are acquired in order to justify their hate.

I will limit this discussion to the domestic culticidal only and ignore, for the time being, the foreign angle. The local culticidal comes in two forms – the overt hater and the covert hater. The former are identified by definition, the latter needs to be identified and confronted ideologically. While there are others who constitute the “opposition”, the culticidal group is the largest and the most dangerous and thus will constitute the bulk of this discussion.

How to diagnose culticidal tendencies

To diagnose the culticidal behavior we must bear in mind that these feelings need not be consciously formed. A person may say and believe that they are not culticidal, but in every respect act as if they were. I am constantly surprised that even in our culture of psychological sophistication, many still believe that when it comes to politics people say exactly what they believe. The complex psychology we ascribe to our interpersonal relationships (see Oprah) for some reason stops short of politics. In fact, a person’s political convictions are probably even more complicated psychologically and use such mental techniques as projection, rationalization, and denial. Socialism, for example, was especially adept in allowing adherents to rationalize their quest for power in terms of helping the poor.

As I’ve written many times, one’s static statements of positions are irrelevant. What we want to know is where do these positions lead. One way to judge positions is historical precedent, another, the focus of this post, is to try to judge the intent of the speaker. We can all enunciate reasonable sounding solutions – most advocates understand that radical solutions turn Americans off. It is more important to get into the mind of the advocate – are the positions sought the final goals of the speaker or are they just illusory and lead to more demands? The debate about the war in Iraq shows how this process works. The initial arguments concerned the necessity of the war itself. This argument was quickly lost in the court of American public opinion, so new criticisms were marshaled. There were those that seem legitimate: concerns about the future of Iraq after the war, the effect of the war on terrorism and the domestic economy. While each one of them is legitimate on their face, one cannot help thinking that after this question is answered, there will be other “reasonable” questions ad infinitum. For example, the next argument may concern universal health care and a 35-hour workweek for the Iraqis. There have also been illegitimate arguments claiming that a cabal of Jews is running the war. Again, due to the complex nature of human psychology, these intentions need not be conscious. I would wager that this is more common than not, with the culticidal instincts covered up by thick layers of rationalization. Nevertheless, they are still dangerous and must be identified.

To determine who is culticidal based solely on domestic issues is not very difficult, but as we shall see later, there are far easier methods. After all, when we speak of domestic issues it is possible to argue that the essential conflict is between groups of Americans and as a result some part of American society will be strengthened. This is not necessarily true, since things like prolonged application welfare tend to weaken society as a whole. But, at least you can argue that your goal is the strengthening America. Hence diagnosing culticidal tendencies on the domestic front is slightly more difficult, but not impossible. The same cannot be said on the international arena.

In international disputes, America takes sides against other countries. As a result of many of these issues, America will be weakened to the benefit of smaller or weaker nations. As we shall see, the response of a person to issues in an international arena may determine whether they are culticidal or not based on their reactions to identical issues one involving America and the other not.

Judging America

The main hallmark of culticidal behavior is judging America by a different set of standards than other countries. If other countries can do well enough, America must be perfect.

There are two ways to judge the conduct of nations-- the perfection standard and the relative standard. In the perfection standard, the nation under inquiry is judged against standards of perfection. There is no nation, not even America that can reach these ideals. The other standard is the relative standard. In this case, a nation is judged on its ability to adhere to a set of given moral standards. It is compared to others in order to ascertain whether it is better or worse with respect to that set of moral standards.

The culticidal judge America by the perfection standard and all others by the relative standard. Alternatively, a relative standard is used in both cases, but America has a much higher hurdle to meet than the nation it’s being compared to. For example, I wish I had a nickel every time someone brought up Chile in the context of American foreign policy. Supposedly the events that transpired there disqualify the U.S. from ever becoming as moral player on the world stage. While the events in question were tragic, even the staunchest advocates only claim that 10,000 lives were lost. At the same time, millions were dying in the gulags, in re-education camps, and the torture chambers of the Soviet Union, Red China and their various subsidiaries. If you are a humanitarium and your concern is how many lives were lost, you should rightfully spend most of your time on the tragedies of socialism, assuming a real relative standard is used.

On the contrary, in these cases America is typically judged by a perfection standard -- her mistakes being immortal sins, while the slaughter of millions is explained away or rationalized. If the same perfection standard were to be consistently applied, then no nation in this world could pass muster. As Jesus said, “Let those of you without sin cast the first stone.”

The Test for Culticidal Behavior

We can say that someone is culticidal if he:

1. Advocates a strong domestic position critical of American society; and
2. Advocates an international position that is contrary to the domestic position held; and
3. The international position is to the detriment of America or anti-American.

The rationale for the test is as follows. Being opposed to any U.S. policy or being critical of the government do not prove culticidal tendencies. A person can have strong convictions and, as a nation, we should encourage that person to speak up. It is not okay, however, when those same convictions disappear in the international arena. Even worse, is when a person supports an international position that is contrary to the one advocated at home when that position is held by a person that is anti-American. When these three elements are present, we can only conclude that part one is not a true conviction, but merely a tool used to undermine American society. A person with strong convictions would apply them consistently anywhere in the world.

Here are some tests that determine whether the speaker is culticidal.

If you support democracy, why do you support the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein, or, say, Yasser Arafat?

Do you think that the use of force by America is always illegitimate, but support the various anti-American “freedom fighters” whose violence is aimed only at civilians?

If you are a strong supporter of gay rights, do you support anti-American regimes where homosexuality is illegal or even punished by death?

If you are a strong supporter of minority rights, do you support anti-American regimes where minorities are regularly discriminated against or killed? Do you look favorable upon the French policy of de facto apartheid?

If you are a strong supporter of women’s rights, do you support anti-American regimes that treat women as second class citizens or even property?

If you support the freedom of religion, do you support regimes that forbid the practice of non-majority religions? Do you support Europeans states that persecute all religion like with the ferocity of the Inquisition?

If you decry the American use of the death penalty, do you support anti-American regimes that execute and torture thousands of their citizens?

If you are an environmentalist, why are you so concerned with Kyoto, but have no problems with the severe environmental impact of the release of weapons of mass destruction?

If you treat every pronouncement of the American government with cynicism, do you unquestionably believe the leaders of anti-American dictatorial or semi-dictatorial regimes? Do you nod with approval the statements of Jacques Chirac, someone who Christopher Hitches called “a man who would pay for the pleasure of selling himself?”

Finally, do you believe that the US is required by law to avoid any and all violence to the civilians, while other s have the right to target them at will?

This list can go on and on. The key elements are always the same – a domestic position critical of the US is quickly dropped on the international arena. It is not wrong to have a position critical of American society, but if you believe that something is wrong when done by Americans, it surely must also be wrong when done by others.

Notes

1. The holders of these positions will surely have lengthy rationalizations justifying these paradoxes. They will claim that another set over moral is more important in that specific case. But if you explore the new more important moral position, the paradox will repeat itself. At the end of this line of rationalizations will be one last tat for some reason (too strong; too rich; too white; too religious; too male) America must be discriminated against. But it is irrelevant how this self-hatred is justified – this belief is culticidal on its face.

2. There is no litmus test. No one test is dispositive – we must consider the locus of answers to diagnose culticidal behavior.

3. "Support" is equivalent to "leave in place" for our purposes if, on the domestic front, the person advocates active change in American society.

4. This test puts the lie to the claims of anti-war protestors that they are patriots. Disagreement with US policy (part 1) does not make you unpatriotic so long as you apply the same standard of judgement to all other nations in the world. But if part 1 appears with 2 and 3 then the person cannot be patriot by definition of culticidal behavior.

5. Culticidal beliefs in the international arena cannot be unique only to international issues. Self-hatred is not selective – if you are seeking to weaken your country internationally, it is not likely that you are seeking to strengthen it domestically. People with culticidal tendencies should not be trusted to do what’s best for America on domestic issues as well.

Conclusion

September 11th was a key date in gauging culticidal attitudes. Prior to that date, I also believed that most “liberal” positions were meant to strengthen the country. The events of that day and the aftermath that followed showed me that I was wrong. I was shocked to see how many people quickly threw away the morality they purported to apply at home and used the opportunity to throw scorn at America. I quickly began to understand that “liberals” could not possibly strengthen the country because I no longer believed that they wanted what is best for the country.

UPDATE: I worded my conclusion poorly. I did not mean to imply that all people who call themselves liberal are culticidal. That is not the case. For example, I have been impressed with Christopher Hitchens.

2003-03-22T09:40:00.000-05:00

First shots in the Cultural War

Kudos to Michael Moynihan of the Politburo for this montage of photos. This is precisely what we need in the coming cultural battle. We need more of these, perhaps superimposed with quotes. If there are more of these montages, please pass them along to me. Thanks.

PS I'm off for the weekend and will try to fininsh the "Who is culticidal?" piece (finally!). Have a good weekend and God bless the USA and our armed services.

2003-03-21T15:50:00.000-05:00

Victory Conditions

Since the war is going well, and "what will happen next in Iraq?" attacks against America are falling the short, the media has come up with a new line of assault. Starting with this Washington Post poll which showed that 70% of Americans backed the President. But for some reason the pollsters also asked:

6. Do you think (the United States has to kill or capture Saddam Hussein for the war in Iraq to be a success), or do you think (the war in Iraq can be a success if Saddam Hussein is removed from power, but not killed or captured)?

US must capture/ War can succeed No
kill Hussein without Hussein opinion
3/20/03 49 43 7

Make no mistake, this is the next line of ideological attack. I just heard several similar questions at the White House news conference. It's just another political hurdle for the opposition to be able to claim that despite any victory that we score on the ground. Ther will be no end to it -- if we get Saddam, they will soon demand universal health care and a 35-hour workweek.

The answer to this specific attack is history. As I've written before, with regard to Osama bin Laden, we never "got" Hitler either. He just disappeared. Nevertheless, we managed to get almost 60 years of peace out of the Germans (until recently).

2003-03-20T01:07:00.000-05:00

Was it really Saddam?

Maybe I'm being hopeful, but I don't think so. His moustache was off-color (light brown), his shoulders slumped and those glasses were very un-Saddam like.

Let's hope.

UPDATE: Al Barger comments.

2003-03-19T21:47:00.000-05:00

And so it begins...

The war has begun.

God bless our brave fighting men and women.

2003-03-19T17:56:00.000-05:00

Comments

Seem to be dissapearing. Have no idea what's going on....

2003-03-19T12:38:00.000-05:00

More Double Standards

Yesterday, on NRO Ion Mihai Pacepa, a former General in Romanian Intelligence wrote about the origins of the peace movement.

Over the March 15-16 weekend there were simultaneous anti-American and pro-peace demonstrations around the world, with the largest in Athens and Moscow. It is significant that the headquarters of the Soviet-created World Peace Council (WPC) is now in Athens, and that its honorary chairman is still the same KGB asset, Romesh Chandra, who chaired this Cold War organization during the years when I was a Communist general. This current bashing of the U.S. makes me believe I am watching a revival of an old stage drama, the lines of which I know by heart. Back in the 1970Ss the drama featured that same Ramesh Chandra and consisted of the WPC's virulent offensive to counteract American efforts aimed at protecting the world against Communist expansion.
...
The WPC was created by Moscow in the 1950s and had only one task: to portray the United States as being run by a "war-mongering government." To make it look like a Western organization, Moscow headquartered it in Paris, but in 1954 the French government accused the WPC of being a Soviet puppet and kicked it out of France. Therefore, its headquarters were moved to Soviet-occupied Vienna, and then to Prague when Austria became neutral. It is remarkable that, after the Soviet Union collapsed and the United States remained the only superpower, Romesh Chandra moved his WPC to Athens and focused its operations toward "waging a struggle against the New World Order." According to its current charter, adopted during a 1996 Peace Congress in Mexico, the WPC has now "broadened into a worldwide mass movement" whose task is to support "those people and liberation movements" fighting "against [American] imperialism."

Last month, Amir Taheri (portions here) wrote a similar piece about the Stalinist origins of the "peace" movement. Personally, it was always fascinating to me that the "peace" activists and the Left in the West used exactly the same words and images that I had seen in the Soviet Union as a child.

OK, what's my point? Does it matter what the origin of the peace movement was? Yes! Imagine if it was pointed out to an average American that his slogans were originally written by the Nazi regime or an organization that he was marching with was founded by the Klan? That person would rightfully question the sincerity or veracity of the position they were taking. Questioning the violent Right is acceptable. What about the violent Left? Why are we not more suspicious of the slogans and images first crafted by Stalin's murderous KGB? Why do they get a moral pass?

2003-03-18T12:33:00.000-05:00

Humanity

An editorial in the Times of London by Ann Clwyd, a Labour MP has a few choice descriptions of the Saddam regime.

“There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food . . . on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam Hussein’s youngest son] personally supervise these murders.” [Emphasis in the original]
...

Another witness told us about practices of the security services towards women: “Women were suspended by their hair as their families watched; men were forced to watch as their wives were raped . . . women were suspended by their legs while they were menstruating until their periods were over, a procedure designed to cause humiliation.”
...

For more than 20 years, senior Iraqi officials have committed genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. This list includes far more than the gassing of 5,000 in Halabja and other villages in 1988. It includes serial war crimes during the Iran-Iraq war; the genocidal Anfal campaign against the Iraqi Kurds in 1987-88; the invasion of Kuwait and the killing of more than 1,000 Kuwaiti civilians; the violent suppression, which I witnessed, of the 1991 Kurdish uprising that led to 30,000 or more civilian deaths; the draining of the Southern Marshes during the 1990s, which ethnically cleansed thousands of Shias; and the summary executions of thousands of political opponents.
...

I do not have a monopoly on wisdom or morality. But I know one thing. This evil, fascist regime must come to an end. With or without the help of the Security Council, and with or without the backing of the Labour Party in the House of Commons tonight.

Here is my point: how can anyone who is actively trying to stop the liberation of the Iraqi people have any shred of humanity left?

When these anti-war types speak about the morals of any other issue, how is it possible to take them seriously if they fail this basic test of humanity?

2003-03-17T21:54:00.000-05:00

Quick Notes...

Too busy to blog (work, family, etc.). Half finished with the "Who is culticidal?" piece I promised.

Speach was great.

The thing that made me blog in the first place -- The stories about living in NYC and being pro-war (starting from the New York Magazine article, ranging to Jane Galt, Andrew Sullivan and Instapundit).

I say stand up for what you believe in! So, you lose a few friends -- it is better than losing your soul! If you can't stan up for issues of life and death in a free society, where you r life is not at stake, then what can you stand up for? I shoot my mouth off all the time. Read Cultural Counterattack again for strategy.

Go for the jugular:

Often, when I speak about Saddam's murders -- people respond with something like "it's an internal matter" or "he's not the only one" -- tell then how immoral and inhumane they are. Don't let them forget it -- once they show any lack of consideration for the people of Iraq don't let them make any humanitarian arguments. "How can I believe you care about the women and children after what you just said?"

Also, use an old Lefty trick. We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Well using that logic, one man's anti-war protestor is another man's (mine) Saddam sympathizer.

Let them know how you feel. You can't have a debate if one side refuses to speak.

UPDATE: BTW, there is a reason to use these tactics -- its not just spite. A great majority of people, especially in a conformist city like NYC, don't really feel passionately about these issues. But they are very passionate about being on the Correct Side -- the side with the Correct Thoughts and Correct Actions. Being seen as a humanitarian is very important to them. If you challenge their self image, they will begin to question their stances.

2003-03-15T10:37:00.000-05:00

More Bit Wisdom

Why is Turkey being so uncooperative in dealing with Iraq?

The standard answer is that the ruling party is an Islamic one and is hesitant to attack a fellow Muslim country. The Kurdish situation is also sometimes cited. But there may be more to it. The ruling party is also a pro-European one.

One of the unstated reasons for Turkey's constant failure to gain entry to the EU is that it was too pro-American (the other unsaid reason was that it was Muslim). All the other EU nations have thriving socialist or nationalist movements who kept the fire of anti-Americanism, but Turkey did not. The EU, and especially France and Germany, are extremely concerned about cultural orthodoxy. The admission of such a pro-American member was unthinkable (remember that the UK had a very hard time entering the Union, for the same reasons).

Turkey's recent actions may be a sign that Turkey has worked out a deal with France and Germany -- rejection of America in return for admission to the EU. I would not be surprised if Turkish resistance persists that in the coming months the EU will finally announce an accelerated admission schedule for the Muslim nation.

Update: Kamil Zogby comments.

2003-03-13T10:15:00.000-05:00

Bit Wisdom

Who is destroying the international system, the US or France?

The answer depends on what you believe the aims of the international system ought to be. If you believe that the international system exists to control the US hegemon, then the US is destroying the system by refusing to be controlled.

On the other hand, if you believe that the international system is designed to protect humanity from cruel dictators, then France is at fault for actively supporting the worst contemporary example of a tyrant.

2003-03-11T21:46:00.000-05:00

About time..

Donald Rumsfeld announced that the United States will go it alone if political problems keep the UK out of the battle.

This is actually good -- it will put an end to the UN charade, since Blair is one of main reasons we are there. It means we can finally get the liberation of Iraq underway. It is unfortunate that we spent all these months for Tony's sake, so we shouldn't waste a day more.

In any case, thanks Tony for the support -- given the predicament that you are in. But now it's time to get to work....

PS in the comment below I promised a post, unfortunately it's not ready yet. It's getting larger and my work more hectic, so please wait a few more days. Many apologies.

2003-03-10T12:04:00.000-05:00

Notes on the Coming Cultural War

There was more discussion of the coming cultural war over the weekend. Andrew Sullivan had a post on which the Instapundit commented. As far as I'm concerned the domestic cultural war is underway already, even if we refuse to acknowledge it. To me the stakes are clear: those who believe that America, while imperfect, is the best system in the world and those who wish to commit cultural suicide. The longer we keep pretending that nothing is going on, the more entrenched and powerful the culticiders will be.

Here's thought about the theme of the cultural war -- it is a war of style versus substance. That is, the thesis of the culticiders is that how people and institutions describe themselves is more important than how they have behaved. This notion must the fault line of the coming ideological battle.

As I described before, socialist appeals rest primarily on the notion that the socialists wish to do "good" deeds. Actual past (bloody) performance does not matter.

Journalists are "objective" because they claim to be objective and claims of bias are just the ranting of right-wing nuts who could never reach the Nirvana of "objectivity" like professional journalists can.

The UN is vital and good because it's founders had good intentions for it. The simple fact the institution has done little to minimize human misery, legitimized many a dictator and has, in general, been a hindrance to the cause of humanity are irrelevant. Only the image counts.

On the other hand, the US, which has done more than any other nation in the history of the world to free humanity, is derided as imperial and totalitarian.

Victory over the culticiders will come only if we demand that people, ideas and institutions are judged only on the basis of their deeds.

2003-03-05T11:29:00.000-05:00

Joyous Occasion

Today is the 50th anniversary fo Stalin's death. Sadly, as I stated in Cultural Counterattack, the West has made no progress in the moral judgement of Stalin and socialism in general. The Telegraph reports:

Posterity has been kind to Stalin. His crimes are already sinking into oblivion, whereas his great rival, Hitler, has rightly become uniquely synonymous with radical evil. We recall the Holocaust or Shoah in countless ways, and all the nations that fought or were occupied by the Nazis commemorate their dead. Where are the memorials to Stalin's nameless victims? Historians do not even agree about their numbers; more are constantly discovered as new evidence comes to light. At a conservative estimate, Stalin was directly responsible for the deaths of some 20 million. Indirectly, the totalitarian communism of which Stalin was the chief architect has so far killed up to 100 million around the world. By comparison, the Nazis' victims numbered about 25 million.
...
The most important reason for Stalin's relative impunity, however, is the intellectual double standard that was applied to Communism and Nazism throughout the 20th century, the influence of which has survived the collapse of the Soviet Union itself. Hitler's atrocities taught the Right a salutary lesson, but Stalin's crimes have not served the same purpose on the Left.

Robert Conquest, the man who exposed Stalin in the West writes in the Guardian:

It is lucky for many - for the world - that Stalin did not live as long as Mao. His death in Moscow 50 years ago, in circumstances that are still dubious, proved a direct and immediate benefit to large numbers of people.
In the prisons, for example, the large group of physicians arrested in the "doctors' plot" and charged with conspiring to assassinate the Soviet leadership had confessed and faced execution. Their "trial" was due in a couple of weeks. The men were freed almost immediately after Stalin's death.

Jonathan Hari writes in the Independent:

Still we do not take Stalin's crimes seriously in this country. While Le Monde publishes a pull-out supplement and the anniversary features on the front pages of most Eastern European papers, here there is a distracted silence save for a BBC documentary. Or, to give another, trivial but revealing example: Gordon Brown's former spin doctor, Charlie Whelan, used to keep the collected writings of Stalin prominently on his bookshelf, "for a laugh". Obviously Whelan is far from being a Stalinist; but can you imagine if, say, Amanda Platell, William Hague's spin-doctor, had kept Mein Kampf prominently on display in her office?
...
One anecdote will have to suffice to give some sense of Stalin's contempt for human life. His wife Nadezhda began in the early 1930s to teach courses in textile production in an attempt to escape the misery of life in the Kremlin. She and her students carried out assignments in the Russian countryside, where she witnessed the degeneration of the peasantry because of Stalin's policy of forced seizures. According to the historian Robert Conquest, 3.5 million people starved to death, and cannibalism became rife. Nadezhda's students were so shocked that they insisted on reporting back to the great leader Stalin. They did, and Stalin had them all arrested for "sedition". Nadezhda killed herself not long afterwards.

In the Washington Post, two articles, one by Anne Applebaumand one by Masha Lipman:

It was the end of a reign under which every man and woman knew that he or she could at any time of the day or night be arrested, tortured and killed or sent to a concentration camp. Swept by deadly fear, Soviet people worshiped their ruler. They sacrificed neighbors, wives, husbands, mothers and fathers to Stalin. Denouncing your colleagues and relatives to the authorities in the hope of extending your own life a little longer became routine practice. "You die today, so I will live till tomorrow" was the motto of Stalin's subjects.

On the other hand, the newspaper that won a Pulizer Prize for helping to hide Stalin's artificial famines, is running a story which seems to be truly concerned that "Uncle Joe" did not die of natural causes! Think of the tragedy of that!

MORE: On Stalin and Peace -- Amir Taheri writes in the NY post:

The Soviet dictator was the father of the first "peace movement," which for years served as an instrument of the Kremlin's global policy.

Stalin's "peace movement" was launched in 1946 at a time when he had not yet developed a nuclear arsenal and was thus vulnerable to a U.S. nuclear attack. Stalin also needed time to consolidate his hold on his newly conquered empire in eastern and central Europe while snatching chunks of territory in Iran.

Pablo Picasso, a "fellow traveler" with the French Communist Party, designed the famous dove of peace as the emblem of the movement. French poet Paul Eluard, another fellow traveler, composed an ode inspired by Stalin. The "peaceniks" were told to wear white shirts, release white doves during their demonstrations and shake their clenched fists against "imperialists and revanchistes."

Soon it became clear that the "peace movement" was not opposed to all wars, but only to those that threatened the U.S.S.R., its allies and its satellites.

Stalin, Saddam -- hey, they even look alike...

2003-03-02T16:36:00.000-05:00

Cultural Counterattack!

Recently Andrew Sullivan wrote about the burgeoning cultural war being fought in our country. I've also worried about this war for some time. While Iraq is the nominal reason for the internal conflict, the real ideological clash is over America. There are many people, internationally as well as domestically, who believe that America is the real threat to them. America in this confrontation represents the superiority of Western liberalism over the hate-sustained and tyrannical ideologies of socialism, fascism and Islamism. Unfortunately, the practical advantages that American liberalism holds over those systems has not translated into a similar ideological advantage. The reasons for this are numerous, but include the self-destructiveness of prosperous individuals and, as this essay will make clear, a poor strategy for debate.

Sitting back and waiting for people to see the light, as I believe Andrew suggests, will not yield the desired results. We face three obstacles: we keep fighting the wrong battles, we fight them on their terms and, most importantly, our methods are defensive not offensive. We must recognize that to win this cultural war, expending more effort or waiting for a miracle will not advance our cause. We must shift our tactics – take the offensive and fight the battle on our terms.

To understand the stakes and the tactics, we must first define the opposing sides of the cultural war. On the one hand, there are those who believe in freedom, the sanctity of the individual and democracy. On the other, are hordes of revolutionaries, mostly well-off Westerners who seek to smash the liberal society in which they live in the name of the latest “glorious” cause, like socialism, nationalism, anti-globalization or anti-Americanism. To understand the relationship between wealthy but static societies and the drive for violence please read here, here and here.

Wrong Battles

The first mistake that the defenders of liberty make is the belief that it is desirable to defend each issue that the opposition brings up. This is a noble sentiment and is particularly attractive because the arguments made by the opposition seem so easy to address. Their arguments are inconsistent, their values inconsistently applied and they ignore facts which do not fit their agenda (this, of course is a common debate tactic and not indigenous to the opposition). We keep the faith that answering each argument (and the next argument) will finally make the opposition see the light. This is never the case.

In the case of Iraq, the specific issues that we continue to debate are mere diversions for their current main thrust – America. That’s the reason for their apparent inconsistencies – they want to blame America, yet they must seem (even to themselves) to be making an argument on the basis of some set of moral values. Yet, this set of values is applied in only so much as required to attack America, and then discarded when its application becomes inconvenient. So, pinning down the opposition to a set of arguments is a fruitless task – while you debate one, numerous others will crop up. It is easy to find fault in others, especially if you don’t have to stand by an objective set of values and no one holds you to your past statements.

The conclusion we must come to is that this is a losing battle. It may feel good, but it takes time and effort, which detracts us from defending the country that embodies the values we hold dear. Even if they are easy to win, these diversionary debates must be ignored.

Fighting on Their Terms.

“Conservatives” deride the opposition as “fools”. For example in a recent editorial, George Will said, “In Europe, anti-Semitism has been called the socialism of fools, which is confusing, because socialism is the socialism of fools.” How many more millions must be killed to transform socialism from a philosophy of fools to a philosophy of murderers? Between the Soviet Union, China and many small socialist tyrannies (Cambodia comes to mind) tens of millions have died as a result of the ideology. Yet we continue to refer to socialists as “misguided” and fail to question their belief that all those slaughters were mistakes and “real” socialism has not been tried. Have we not reached the point when we can call all these deaths a function of socialism’s’ design and not a string of unrelated accidents.

This is a failure to challenge the opposition’s terms of debate. The main concession we make is that we allow a moral pass to those who claim that their cause is for good. So, socialists are thought of as fools, not as supporters of bloody tyrannies that they are, and “peace” marchers are thought of as supporting a worthy goal, even after the lessons of 1930s appeasement.

A very close friend of mine hypothetically stated that he would categorically never march with self-styled Hitlerites, but he would be open to marching with Stalinists, depending on the cause. This shows the belief that the former is, correctly, inherently evil while the latter, while evil, may have some redeeming features. In my eyes, both are evil and should be treated equivalently.

It is not surprising that conventional (even “conservative”) wisdom treats socialists and anti-Americans with a moral pass. After all, their fellow travelers have controlled the means of information distribution (media and entertainment) in the West for some time. Don’t get me wrong this is not some conscious, conspiratorial effort at mind control. But each individual brings their beliefs to their work and Hollywood and the press have unconsciously been softening the edges of socialism and anti-Americanism.

In 1984, George Orwell’s main character worked for the Ministry of Truth whose job was to alter the facts of the past: “'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'” It is important to understand that this process need not be conspiratorial, organized or forced. All you need is a group of people who think alike and who agree on the similar interpretation of past events. What cannot be achieved by tyranny, can just as easily be accomplished by simple repetition.

This lengthy aside leads to the conclusion that a winning strategy must not concede the basic tenents of the opponent’s ideology. The operative one being the inherent morality of its adherents. History has shown that tens of millions have died in the name of “peace” and socialism and we must stop conceding that this was OK simply because the proponents meant well. In terms of the cultural debate, we are conceding to the opposition our very strongest argument and their biggest weakness.

Taking the Offensive

The above two failures naturally fold into the final mistake. We are fighting diversionary battles on the terms of the opponents’ choosing. They pick the arguments and the time for debate. Every opportunity to take the offense, e.g. the end of the Cold War, has been squandered. Time has been spent debating issues brought up by the opposition and not initiating the debate ourselves. In short, we are fighting a defensive battle.

To win the cultural war – we must go on the offense. I believe that I have a plan for such an offensive. It involves targeting the opposition’s weakest point during a window of ideological opportunity.

The Weakness

The opposition’s entire house of ideological cards rests on one simple assumption that has been accepted by both the adherent and the disbeliever. Yet, it is flimsy and easily challenged by historical reference. It is their Achilles’ heel, but one that has not been subject to any serious challenge.

The assumption is this, if you claim that your cause is humane then all your arguments and subsequent actions are excusable. People are to be judged by their claims of humanity and not by their actions. This is how socialist tyrannies (whose aims were/are considered humane and progressive) escape moral judgement in the West. When Stalin uttered that it you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, he was admired, because the goal of the “omelet” was considered far more important than the unfortunate eggs that got broken (all 30 million of them). Castro is still fawned over by the Europeans and the Left in this country despite his bloody record. Instead we hear lectures about Castro’s hospitals (Hitler’s supporters used to like to say that he built the autobahn).

As a result, appeals for the restoration of Nazism, whose evil is correctly considered inseparable from its philosophy, are rare and come from the margin. But appeals for the return of socialism, whose massacres are wrongly thought to be unfortunate side effects of poor but noble efforts, are common and frequent.

The aim of our cultural counterattack must be to break this perverse asymmetry. We must insist that people and ideologies are judged by the results of their actions, not on the lofty ideals they claim to uphold. Without the reliance on the façade of humanity socialism, and it’s modern derivatives anti-Americanism and anti-globalism, are reduced to hate ideologies no different from fascism or Islamism. Fortunately, on our side of the Atlantic, these hate ideologies have never held mass appeal.

The Right Time

The strength of the assumption varies in proportion to the visible evidence of inhumanity. Thus when a tyrant hides his brutality in a closed society, it is easier for his supporters in the West to claim humanitarian goals. It is only after his cruelty is exposed when it becomes difficult for people to stomach the piety of those who once supported the tyrant.

Such piety can today be seen among the Western supporters of Iraq who claim that it would be best to keep the people of Iraq in lives of fear, torture and suffering. Their hate-filled speeches and appeals (made in the name of peace, of course) completely ignore the pleas and opinions of the Iraqis themselves (here and here). Their real motives are a cornucopia of pettiness and selfishness, such as jealousy of America or the frustration of an over-fed middle class. But instead, we are supposed to believe that it is more humanitarian to abandon the Iraqis to their lives of suffering.

The liberation of Iraq can provide a window of opportunity for cultural counterattack. The images of liberated Iraqis, of torture chambers, and stories of cruelty can be superimposed with the words of the “anti-war” activists. We will be able to show, again, that there is no relationship between those who claim to be humanitarian and the people and causes they support. We must not shrink form this confrontation and be lulled into a false sense of ideological victory. We must not stop until the opposition’s ideology is marginalized.

Conclusion

The ideological mistake we made at the end of the Cold War is identical to the military mistake we made at the end of the first Gulf War. In the latter altercation we failed to push to Baghdad because we felt certain that the weakened Saddam would fall on his own accord. We were wrong, instead he became stronger and threatens us today. Similarly, at the end of the Cold War we failed to push the ideological battle to show the true evil of socialism. The tired West decided that it was better to let bygones be bygones and that socialism would disappear because its biggest backer had imploded. In this we were also wrong – the middle class frustration that gave rise to socialist leaning has found expression in anti-Americanism.

We must use the occasion of Saddam’s ouster to press the ideological battle. We must marginalize the hate ideologies that wrap themselves in the cloak of humanity. My first step in questioning morality of the opposition came in the aftermath of September 11th. For many others in America, this was also the turning point. But we are still fighting a defensive battle on the opposition’s terms. Let’s use the occasion of the liberation of Iraq to press the ideological confrontation and to de-Marxify this nation once and for all.

Epilogue

The methods to be used in the cultural counterattack must be ideological, the only appropriate weapons are words. The freedom of speech that is guaranteed by this nation’s Constitution must remain unmolested. There is no room for organs of government in this struggle, no laws passed, or congressional inquiries. However, the First Amendment does not ensure that the speaker is beyond moral judgement. We have morally marginalized the hate speech of the Nazis and racists. We must do the same thing to the hate speech from the Left.

2003-02-25T14:13:00.000-05:00

Mad as Hell

Have your heard the one about the boy who kills his parents and then begs mercy from the court because he's an orphan? Well, according to a front page story in the WSJ (subscription required), the Germans are now using Allied bombing of Germany as a anti-war argument. We are supposed to have sympathies for the German casualties of WWII. To hell with them, I say.

For most of the six decades since then, memories of the suffering that German civilians endured from Allied air bombardment were largely suppressed. Though some stories were passed on within families, few public discussions or commemorations took place. Published records barely exist of the collective destruction, which obliterated 161 German cities over just two and a half years and killed between 350,000 and 650,000 civilians. Feelings of guilt and shame for the Holocaust and for Germany's having started the war kept most Germans from publicly mourning their own losses.

Unfortunate, that the messy Holocaust has kept them from enjoying the great victimhood they richly deserve. They are even seeking sympathy for the battle at Stalingrad. That's right folks, the people who figured out the logistics of mass murder, who raped and pillaged their way across Russia, who worked to death the prisoners who were not designated for extermination want us to feel their pain. Now, I'm not the kind of guy who believes that one generation is responsible for the sins of an earlier one. But if we are going to bring up the past, then everything is open for consideration.

And to these Germans, I say -- "Fuck you!"

I lost countless relatives in WWII, my wife's grandparents were Auschwitz survivors and I lost my grandfather at that little battle on the Volga you have suddenly become so sentimental about. Gee, I'm sorry for your civilian losses, but those 600,000 thousand dead pale in comparison to the millions of the civilians killed in Eastern Europe. Now, here is the key difference -- those Germans who died from the Allied bombing they were what we call today "collateral damage", while the millions of those killed by the Axis were hunted down specifically because they did not fit into a perverted philosophy of Aryan superiority. So please spare me your moral equivalence.

"The world forgets too quickly what happened 60 years ago," said Erika Paar, who was 17 when a wave of British bombers leveled this city in a single devastating attack in 1943. "It forgets the suffering that comes from war."

No, it is you who is forgetting what happened 60 years ago. You are forgetting the suffering that a German tyrant unleashed on the continent and you are forgetting the painful lesson of that war: tyrants, like Saddam, must be stopped early!

2003-02-23T17:54:00.000-05:00

CounterRevolutionary in the Atlantic

I got a mention in this month’s issue of the Atlantic Monthly (via Instapundit). That’s right – in the real, honest to goodness printed press! Michael Kelly, the editor-at-large of the magazine discusses the claims of “stifled dissent” made by opponents of the liberation of Iraq (including one of my ex-favorite authors – John LeCarré). In his rebuttal of that claim, Kelly lists a number of political centers of discussion, including, yours truly – The CounterRevolutionary. I am very greateful for the mention.

I would also like to add to Kelly’s argument. Many hardened ideologues make the mistake of confusing the process of discussion with the result of the discussion. People like LeCarré believe that their side is so correct that all right-thinking people must come round to their way of thinking. If for some reason they don’t win the day, then the fault must be with the debate. The discussion must have been stifled or their voices must not have been loud enough – how else can you explain that people are not buying their stellar argument? When in a corner, these ideologues also begin to blame the people – calling them uneducated, simple or cowboyish.

These sorts of ideological blinders are especially common to the Left. For most of it’s history the ideology has had to deal with the inconsistency that a movement claiming to represent the people was never really supported by the people. Adding insult to injury, the proletariat never rebelled as the prophet Marx predicted. The need to maintain the façade of populism on the otherwise elitist and unpopular ideology forced the socialists to do some major intellectual pretzels. Their solution was to find fault in the debates or the “proletariat” itself, which failed to understand their superior vision. The nadir of this thought was Lenin’s “dictatorship of the proletariat” – which justified the bloody seizure of power from a democratic assembly by a group of elite radicals. Then, at the point of a gun, the proletariat finally saw the light. That’s what the Left considers a fair debate. Right, Comrade LeCarré?

2003-02-17T19:10:00.000-05:00

The Brussels Pact?

Jacques Chirac, fresh from emasculating the UN and NATO, is on his way to destroying any chances for EU expansion. Tonight he chastized the Eastern European countries which support the US on Iraq.

``It is not really responsible behavior,'' he told a news conference. ``It is not well brought-up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet.''
...
``Concerning the candidate countries, honestly I felt they acted frivolously because entry into the European Union implies a minimum of understanding for the others,'' Chirac told reporters after an emergency EU summit on Iraq.
...
``Romania and Bulgaria were particularly irresponsible to (sign the letter) when their position is really delicate,'' Chirac said. ``If they wanted to diminish their chances of joining Europe they could not have found a better way.''

Once again, Chirac's ego is getting in the way of clear thinking and his knowledge of history (if any). If he thinks that the Eastern Europeans are looking to acquire a Big Brother only years after freeing themselves from the Soviet yoke, he's been sniffing too much bad cheese. The former Warsaw Pact states probably thought that they were joining an economic alliance, not enslaving themselves to a parent-state which requires adherence to Right Thought and Right Action. Many of these countries will probably be rethinking their future with the EU after this statement. The US should sponsor an alternative Eastern European Free Trade Association.

2003-02-17T13:14:00.000-05:00

Another Marxist Perversity

Recently, people have said that if the Iraqis really wanted regime change they would have already revolted. This assumes that if the Iraqis were unhappy with their lives under Saddam, there would be visible signs of rebellion. This assumption is a direct result of Marxism. It is one of those socialist fantasies that is now commonly accepted by most people, even those on the right.

One of the fundamental teachings of Marxism is that there is a direct relationship between oppression and revolutionary violence. The more oppressed or desperate a people are, the more likely they are to revolt. Once, this relationship was established in the popular mind, its converse has also become accepted. To wit, people who are oppressed revolt, people who are not revolting are not oppressed. This logic leads to perverse conclusions.

In reality, people who have revolted are the ones who were in a relatively strong position vis-a-vis their "oppressor". This is the case for all Western revolutions. The governments that were overthrown were weak. The English of the American Revolution were busy fighting in Europe, Louis XVI of France was debt-ridden, and the Russian czar was busy losing World War One. The examples go on and on.

At the same time, the truly oppressed people have not been able to revolt because they are too weak. They are oppressed because their oppressor is strong and they have no ability to change their fate. There were very few revolts by American slaves not because they liked being slaves, but because they did not have the strength. The Soviets did not like their system of socialist hell, but they could do nothing about it because any expression of dissent meant death or jail. Germans who did not agree with Nazi ideology didn’t make much of fuss because doing so would mean the same fate as the Jews and the other undesirables.

Furthermore, this notion creates perverse consequences. Consider the difference between the plights of two Muslim peoples -- the Iraqis and Palestinians. The Iraqi people suffer under one of the most cruel dictatorships since the death of Stalin, while the Palestinians live with limited self-government and with welfare provided by a special UN agency. Yet, the Palestinians are considered the most oppressed by the prosperous West. Following this perverse logic, since the Palestinians have taken up arms in revolt and kill Israelis they must be oppressed. On the other hand, the Iraqis show nothing but “love” for their dictator. His pictures are everywhere and he won a recent election with 100 percent of the vote. Because the Iraqis are not revolting they're not oppressed and don't need our help.

This perversity does not end with the plight of the Iraqis. All the truly weak people of the world are ignored because they're too weak to revolt. This is the fate of the North Koreans, who we only mourn when their Dear Leader threatens us with nuclear arms. We ignore the Sudanese slave trade because the cries of the black slaves are too weak to reach our Western ears and their pleas are over-shouted by petrodollars.

But what makes this perversity popular in the West? Marxism is the start, but it is the psychology of early and contemporary revolutionaries that is the answer. Despite their own foundation mythologies, most revolutionaries lived and live in relatively free societies. This was the case for Marx, and the rest of the socialist gang, as well as the modern masses who march in support of the dictator Saddam. They have a difficult time comprehending true oppression. The upper middle-class Marx could not understand the plight of the poor – all he knew about were his own troubles and grievances. They are incapable of understanding what it is like to live in a society where freedoms are few, and self-expression impossible. It is laughable to someone who has lived in a closed society to see privileged Americans pretending that they are oppressed while marching in mass demonstrations. As a result, they can relate to the Palestinian call for "dignity", but are ambivalent when appeals are made with regards to actual human life, as is the case with the Iraqis.

Hence, the most oppressed people in the world are not accorded any sympathy and are left to their fate. Take it from someone who has lived in a closed society – the oppressed don’t get a chance to march or revolt. They are too busy trying to stay alive.

2003-02-15T10:06:00.000-05:00

The Peace Marchers

In the 1930s they marched for peace with Hitler. Result: 40,000,000 dead.

They also marched for peace with the Soviet Union. Result: 30,000,000 dead.

Now they march for peace with Saddam. Result: Almost 1,000,000 and counting.

How much "peace" can this planet take?

2003-02-11T21:52:00.000-05:00

Great Commentary

From the London Times about the "peace" marchers.

2003-02-09T23:42:00.000-05:00

New Blog

E.nough, a fellow who gained notoriety on the comment section of the LGF blog, started his own. He is really funny and an excellent writer. I look forward to reading his blog.

2003-02-09T20:34:00.000-05:00

First Things First

This morning, I was listening to Madeleine "I like to toast dictators" Albright talk about the Iraqi situation. She said that we should not liberate Iraq until we find Osama bin Laden. She's right!

But, immediately, I had another, even more frightening thought. We haven't found Hitler either! After the siege of Berlin, his remains were never recovered. I was taught to believe that we won World War Two, but now I see it was all a lie. Sure, we defeated Germany on the battlefield and rid the world of many Nazi leaders, but the job is not done until we find Hitler! For all we know, Hitler could be living in France and being kept alive by a generous diet of non-genetically modified, subsidized produce.

Since its commonly known the that the Americans are capable of focusing on only one issue, we must immediately stop all of our foreign and domestic programs and concentrate on finding Hitler. No more Iraq or terrorism, AIDS for Africa, welfare or extended unemployment benefits until the task is completed. First we find Hitler, then we find bin Laden, then Jimmy Hoffa, then the Lost Ark and only then can we think about Iraq.

2003-02-07T10:33:00.000-05:00

When Good Propaganda Goes Bad and Fast

You can't blame the New York TImes for trying to push the Demoratic platform, at least when compared to the paper's efforts to support Saddam. But sometimes you get caught red handed manufacturing news. Case in point:

U.S. Economy in Worst Hiring Slump in 20 Years -- New York Times headline, December 5th, 2003.

Unemployment Rate Drops to 5.7 Percent as U.S. Economy Adds 143,000 Jobs -- Bloomberg headline December 7th, 2003.

Here is the historical graph of unemployment rates. Set it for 20 years and take a look for yourself.

The New York Times -- "All The News That Fits Our Agenda"

UPDATE: The date should read February -- this is what happens when you blog at work. Thanks for the comment!

2003-02-01T11:05:00.000-05:00

Damn! Damn! Damn!

The shuttle Columbia seems to have broken up on landing. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of the astronauts.

UPDATE: I am very upset by this. For many years of my life I wanted to be an astronaut. My undergraduate degree is in aerospace engineering. Alas, reality intervened and I became a financial analyst. Nevertheless, I hope that this does not cause our country to lose interest in space. One of the things that I've always dreamed about is going to Mars. First as an astronaut, but lately as a tourist. I hope that I live to the day when that is possible. Again, my prayers to the families.

2003-01-30T00:15:00.000-05:00

France, Reeling

If last week was good for the French foreign policy ego -- this week is horrible:

First, as posted below, the letter from the eight European leaders is backlash for French presumption that she speaks for all of Europe on foreign policy.

In a calculated rebuff to France and Germany — denounced by America last week as “old Europe” — the leaders of Britain, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Denmark and the Czech Republic have combined to make an unprecedented plea in The Times for unity and cohesion. They say the transatlantic relationship must not become a casualty of President Saddam Hussein’s threats to world security.

This has been building for the past few weeks -- the two countries have been making back room deals for the future of the EU.

Second, their "peace" plan in the Cote D'Ivoire has been a massive failure. In this summary from the International Herald Tribune (via Instapundit) you can see that French foreign policy "sophistication" is nothing more than idealism that doesn't last for 5 minutes in the real world.

When [foreing minister] de Villepin called on the Ivory Coast parties to respect the French accord, it was pointed out by the RTL interviewer that the government side had declared it nonexistent. Then de Villepin replied, "But they both signed it!"

"But they both signed it!" -- you can imagine this coming from the mouth of an eight year old as he discovers for the first time that the real world can be cruel. By this logic Arafat can't be a terrorist -- he signed Olso didn't he?

Finally, France wants to invite Zimbabwe's Mugabe to some EU-Africa lovefest.

In a rebuke to France, which has been dragging its feet on tough action, Britain, Spain, The Netherlands and Denmark said it was time to stop bending the EU sanctions to accommodate the Mugabe regime.

All in one week -- imagine how much discontent they can generate in a month...

2003-01-29T23:14:00.000-05:00

Thank You, New Europe

The following letter from 7 European Prime Ministers and one President (José María Aznar, Spain; José Manuel Durão Barroso, Portugal; Silvio Berlusconi, Italy; Tony Blair, United Kingdom; Václav Havel, Czech Republic; Peter Medgyessy, Hungary; Leszek Miller, Poland; Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark) was printed in the Times today:

Europe has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Indeed, they are the first victims of Iraq’s current brutal regime. Our goal is to safeguard world peace and security by ensuring that this regime gives up its weapons of mass destruction. Our governments have a common responsibility to face this threat. Failure to do so would be nothing less than negligent to our own citizens and to the wider world.

The United Nations Charter charges the Security Council with the task of preserving international peace and security. To do so, the Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those Resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result.

We are confident that the Security Council will face up to its responsibilities.

Bravo and Thank you!

2003-01-28T22:48:00.000-05:00

Brilliant Speech

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

Amen!

I also liked the hydrogen power proposal.

2003-01-23T22:13:00.000-05:00

The Axis of Weasel

I know that I said I wasn't going to post any more and I'm no artist, but Scrappleface's Axis of Weasel really inspired me.

PS: It's a crest.