From today's Financial Times:
Bear Stearns sought rescue financing from Temasek of Singapore in the days before its sale to JPMorgan Chase but was rebuffed, underscoring the growing reluctance of sovereign wealth funds to make high-profile investments.
Could it be Temasek thought Bear Stearns was a bad investment and not necessarily concerned about being "high-profile" or not? More...
...Sovereign wealth funds from the Middle East and Asia that were recently asked to provide capital for Wachovia - another US bank with a strong domestic orientation - but refused.
The FT seems to imply that SWFs are not going to be interested in US businesses that are large and/or have a domestic focus. I think the conclusion should be poorly managed investment banks are never a good investment, regardless of whether its my money or a SWFs.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
June 05, 2008
February 29, 2008
Taxi to the Dark Side
Of my Oscar predictions, I missed only two. Among a host of great movies and actors, the category for best supporting actress was destitute; so I won't spend too much time grieving that miss. However, I am deeply interested in documentaries. No End in Sight was a wonderful look at the Iraq war and examination of America's easily avoidable and drastically deleterious mistakes therein. Despite this, it was not the winner of Best Documentary. The winner was Taxi to the Dark Side. Therefore, Taxi is on my agenda for the weekend and hopefully a brief review on EO is as well.
February 28, 2008
William F. Buckley
I'll post some original content on here soon. However, I don't have the expertise or knowledge to comment on the death of William F. Buckley. There are plenty of tributes and obituaries worthy of your time, just not from me.
Despite this, Ezra Klein's comments resonated with my sense of a current conservative anti-intellectualism. I believe new media is slowly elevating our national discourse away from cable news and conservative radio, however we are far from a nation where being a political thinker "made you a cultural figure."
As a slightly more general point, in the last two or three years, a whole host of giants have passed away, men who were political thinkers at a time when that made you a cultural figure. John Kenneth Galbraith, Milton Friedman, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Norman Mailer, and now, William F. Buckley Jr. Gore Vidal is just about the last of their number left. And that's a shame. They would write serious books of political analysis and sell millions of copies -- they were the writers you had to read to call yourself an actual political junkie. Now, the space they inhabited in the discourse is held by the Coulters and O'Reilly's of the world. Where we once prized a tremendous facility for wit, we're now elevating those with a tremendous storehouse for anger. Run a search on quotes from Galbraith, Buckley, or Friedman, then do the same for O'Reilly and Coulter. We're really losing something here.
-- The American Prospect, February 27, 2008
Despite this, Ezra Klein's comments resonated with my sense of a current conservative anti-intellectualism. I believe new media is slowly elevating our national discourse away from cable news and conservative radio, however we are far from a nation where being a political thinker "made you a cultural figure."
As a slightly more general point, in the last two or three years, a whole host of giants have passed away, men who were political thinkers at a time when that made you a cultural figure. John Kenneth Galbraith, Milton Friedman, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Norman Mailer, and now, William F. Buckley Jr. Gore Vidal is just about the last of their number left. And that's a shame. They would write serious books of political analysis and sell millions of copies -- they were the writers you had to read to call yourself an actual political junkie. Now, the space they inhabited in the discourse is held by the Coulters and O'Reilly's of the world. Where we once prized a tremendous facility for wit, we're now elevating those with a tremendous storehouse for anger. Run a search on quotes from Galbraith, Buckley, or Friedman, then do the same for O'Reilly and Coulter. We're really losing something here.
-- The American Prospect, February 27, 2008
February 25, 2008
The Food Crisis Has Arrived
I pointed to talk of a "coming" food crisis a few days ago. Well... it's here.
The United Nation’s agency responsible for relieving hunger is drawing up plans to ration food aid in response to the spiralling cost of agricultural commodities...
WFP officials hope the cuts can be avoided, but warned that the agency’s budget requirements were rising by several million dollars a week because of climbing food prices.
The WFP crisis talks come as the body sees the emergence of a “new area of hunger” in developing countries where even middle-class, urban people are being “priced out of the food market” because of rising food prices.
The warning suggests that the price jump in agricultural commodities – such as wheat, corn, rice and soyabeans – is having a wider impact than thought, hitting countries that have previously largely escaped hunger.
--Financial Times, February 25, 2008
The United Nation’s agency responsible for relieving hunger is drawing up plans to ration food aid in response to the spiralling cost of agricultural commodities...
WFP officials hope the cuts can be avoided, but warned that the agency’s budget requirements were rising by several million dollars a week because of climbing food prices.
The WFP crisis talks come as the body sees the emergence of a “new area of hunger” in developing countries where even middle-class, urban people are being “priced out of the food market” because of rising food prices.
The warning suggests that the price jump in agricultural commodities – such as wheat, corn, rice and soyabeans – is having a wider impact than thought, hitting countries that have previously largely escaped hunger.
--Financial Times, February 25, 2008
February 15, 2008
The Coming Food Crisis
The rising costs of food and subsequent potential for crisis should not come as a surprise to anyone paying attention to commodity markets and policies.
From the New York Times:
The distortions in agricultural production are startling. Corn prices are up about 50 percent from last year, while soybean prices are projected to rise up to 30 percent in the coming year, as farmers have replaced soy with corn in their fields. The increasing cost of animal feed is raising the prices of dairy and poultry products.
--September 19, 2007
The general media is not paying much attention to this, as subprime related news continues to dominate most outlets. However, the situation demands a shift in focus to a problem that will likely have a much deeper impact on the world (i.e. famine and starvation).
Today's Financial Times points out a few more structural problems within the current market:
Rising food prices pack a powerful political punch in the developing (or partly-developed) world, to a degree that is sometimes underappreciated by the pampered west...
Goldman Sachs thinks this is just part of a much bigger problem of capital and resource misallocation. After all, Mr Currie argues, if the world today was a rational economic place, then regions such as the Gulf which are food-constrained ought to be investing heavily in agriculture. And since the US is the world's biggest agricultural supplier, this implies that the Saudi Arabians, say, should be snapping up farms in Wisconsin - as America secures oil in the most efficient manner by sending teams of Texans to Riyadh.
But in practice numerous investment controls prevent Saudi Arabians from buying Wisconsin farms and Americans owning Saudi oil wells. And these controls are not being dismantled now. On the contrary, mutual mistrust is now rising. Hence the fact that Gulf leaders are currently considering desalinating sea water to plant wheat in the desert - while the US and Europe are trying to turn corn into fuel. Such exercises might make sense in domestic political terms; but they are apt to be fiendishly expensive. Thus the upshot of this misallocation, Mr Currie would argue, is even more inflation - even if the world does experience some form of growth slowdown.
This campaign season, consider the issues facing the rest of the world and America's role in finding solutions. We need a leader who is informed, capable and willing to deal with situations unrelated to subprime or Iraq... immediately.
From the New York Times:
The distortions in agricultural production are startling. Corn prices are up about 50 percent from last year, while soybean prices are projected to rise up to 30 percent in the coming year, as farmers have replaced soy with corn in their fields. The increasing cost of animal feed is raising the prices of dairy and poultry products.
--September 19, 2007
The general media is not paying much attention to this, as subprime related news continues to dominate most outlets. However, the situation demands a shift in focus to a problem that will likely have a much deeper impact on the world (i.e. famine and starvation).
Today's Financial Times points out a few more structural problems within the current market:
Rising food prices pack a powerful political punch in the developing (or partly-developed) world, to a degree that is sometimes underappreciated by the pampered west...
Goldman Sachs thinks this is just part of a much bigger problem of capital and resource misallocation. After all, Mr Currie argues, if the world today was a rational economic place, then regions such as the Gulf which are food-constrained ought to be investing heavily in agriculture. And since the US is the world's biggest agricultural supplier, this implies that the Saudi Arabians, say, should be snapping up farms in Wisconsin - as America secures oil in the most efficient manner by sending teams of Texans to Riyadh.
But in practice numerous investment controls prevent Saudi Arabians from buying Wisconsin farms and Americans owning Saudi oil wells. And these controls are not being dismantled now. On the contrary, mutual mistrust is now rising. Hence the fact that Gulf leaders are currently considering desalinating sea water to plant wheat in the desert - while the US and Europe are trying to turn corn into fuel. Such exercises might make sense in domestic political terms; but they are apt to be fiendishly expensive. Thus the upshot of this misallocation, Mr Currie would argue, is even more inflation - even if the world does experience some form of growth slowdown.
This campaign season, consider the issues facing the rest of the world and America's role in finding solutions. We need a leader who is informed, capable and willing to deal with situations unrelated to subprime or Iraq... immediately.
January 16, 2008
Bush and Facts
Why do we even fund an intelligence service if the President dismisses what they say based on his wants? This administration, even after all its mistakes, continues to embrace arrogance and ignorance to guide policy.
We live in dangerous times and desperately need a pragmatic and truthful leader.
Disappointing news from today's New York Times:
On the question of Iran, Mr. Bush said he tried to explain his desire to intensify international pressure on Tehran over its nuclear program, despite a National Intelligence Estimate released in Washington in December that concluded that the Iranians had halted a covert nuclear weapons program in 2003.
He distanced himself from that finding more starkly than before, arguing that Iran’s continued enrichment of uranium was a threat because the knowledge used to master that process could be transferred to weapons research.
“I defended our intelligence services,” he said, “but made it clear that they’re an independent agency, that they come to conclusions separate from what I may or may not want.”
We live in dangerous times and desperately need a pragmatic and truthful leader.
Disappointing news from today's New York Times:
On the question of Iran, Mr. Bush said he tried to explain his desire to intensify international pressure on Tehran over its nuclear program, despite a National Intelligence Estimate released in Washington in December that concluded that the Iranians had halted a covert nuclear weapons program in 2003.
He distanced himself from that finding more starkly than before, arguing that Iran’s continued enrichment of uranium was a threat because the knowledge used to master that process could be transferred to weapons research.
“I defended our intelligence services,” he said, “but made it clear that they’re an independent agency, that they come to conclusions separate from what I may or may not want.”
January 08, 2008
Clintons and Values
If you had any doubt about what matters most in the Clinton household, look no further:
He [Bill Clinton] continued: "I actually tried to talk Hillary into leaving me when we were in law school, that's the God's truth. I told her, 'You have more talent for public service than anybody in my generation that I have met... I shouldn't stand in your way.' She looked at me and said, 'Oh, Bill, I'll never run for office.'"
--The Trail, January 7, 2008
Bill and Hillary have lived their entire lives in pursuit of power and influence. This blind ambition leads to policies and campaigns based on polls, a loss of values and purpose and ultimately a weak leader. As Hillary's campaign continues to unravel, realize the Clinton's willingness to elevate politics above marriage (and everything else) set her on this path long ago.
He [Bill Clinton] continued: "I actually tried to talk Hillary into leaving me when we were in law school, that's the God's truth. I told her, 'You have more talent for public service than anybody in my generation that I have met... I shouldn't stand in your way.' She looked at me and said, 'Oh, Bill, I'll never run for office.'"
--The Trail, January 7, 2008
Bill and Hillary have lived their entire lives in pursuit of power and influence. This blind ambition leads to policies and campaigns based on polls, a loss of values and purpose and ultimately a weak leader. As Hillary's campaign continues to unravel, realize the Clinton's willingness to elevate politics above marriage (and everything else) set her on this path long ago.
January 03, 2008
Hoping for Cautious Captains
From yesterday's Financial Times:
In politics, business and finance, as on the seas, the hero is the person who tackles a problem, rather than the person whose actions prevent the problem arising. The statesmen we need are those who avert wars and prevent depressions, but such individuals gain little credit.
I thought about posting the entire article written by John Kay. It raises questions about politics and the leaders we choose, businesses and the compensation and stature afforded top executives and even challenges the integrity of modern capitalism and the pursuit of a career therein.
I have not conducted a detailed study, however, it seems that many of the problems in business and politics are faced by the very leaders who created them. President Bush and the Iraq war and bank CEOs and the subprime financial crisis are the most obvious recent examples. The public often praises fortitude and resolve during these events, rather than the intelligence to avoid the situation altogether. (However, in these two events, the failure has been so widespread and pronounced the public has lost its willingness to watch in awe as the leaders charge ever onward. "Stay the course" as a slogan has lost its appeal.)
In business and politics, praise is often directly related to compensation and success. The cautious manager is in danger of producing average results, but will rarely lead a company or country to ruin. Whereas the "bold" leader will more likely achieve stellar results or massive failures. These failures not only affect their reputation and legacy, but also have lasting effects on the citizens and employees who count on their judgement and expertise.
Steady growth and progress in business and politics are admirable goals. However, steady usually isn't associated with fame, fortune and unfettered praise. Consider the potential inverse relationship between these desires and a future leaders results.
In politics, business and finance, as on the seas, the hero is the person who tackles a problem, rather than the person whose actions prevent the problem arising. The statesmen we need are those who avert wars and prevent depressions, but such individuals gain little credit.
I thought about posting the entire article written by John Kay. It raises questions about politics and the leaders we choose, businesses and the compensation and stature afforded top executives and even challenges the integrity of modern capitalism and the pursuit of a career therein.
I have not conducted a detailed study, however, it seems that many of the problems in business and politics are faced by the very leaders who created them. President Bush and the Iraq war and bank CEOs and the subprime financial crisis are the most obvious recent examples. The public often praises fortitude and resolve during these events, rather than the intelligence to avoid the situation altogether. (However, in these two events, the failure has been so widespread and pronounced the public has lost its willingness to watch in awe as the leaders charge ever onward. "Stay the course" as a slogan has lost its appeal.)
In business and politics, praise is often directly related to compensation and success. The cautious manager is in danger of producing average results, but will rarely lead a company or country to ruin. Whereas the "bold" leader will more likely achieve stellar results or massive failures. These failures not only affect their reputation and legacy, but also have lasting effects on the citizens and employees who count on their judgement and expertise.
Steady growth and progress in business and politics are admirable goals. However, steady usually isn't associated with fame, fortune and unfettered praise. Consider the potential inverse relationship between these desires and a future leaders results.
December 12, 2007
Mayor Bloomberg and Education
Mayor Michael Bloomberg in today's Financial Times:
I have made public education reform a top priority in New York City and the progress we have begun making - substantial gains on math and English scores and graduation rates at 20-year highs - offers hope that by injecting acountability and standards into schools, we can aim for excellence, rather than settle for mediocrity.
This appears in an editorial by the Mayor discussing globalization and the threat of protectionism. Mayor Bloomberg recognizes the vital role of education in dealing with such issues. Instead of making threats against China for currency manipulation or lead paint on toys, the Mayor redirects our attention inward to a growing threat to American leadership. Further evidence of the Mayor's committment to education:
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced yesterday that the city's Department of Education will require all schools to maintain arts programs, and that principals will be rated in annual reviews on how well they run those programs.
--New York Times, July 24, 2007
Presidential campaigns have not given enough time or energy to this country's education problem. My hope is that more candidates will address the issues therein and begin to offer solutions.
I have made public education reform a top priority in New York City and the progress we have begun making - substantial gains on math and English scores and graduation rates at 20-year highs - offers hope that by injecting acountability and standards into schools, we can aim for excellence, rather than settle for mediocrity.
This appears in an editorial by the Mayor discussing globalization and the threat of protectionism. Mayor Bloomberg recognizes the vital role of education in dealing with such issues. Instead of making threats against China for currency manipulation or lead paint on toys, the Mayor redirects our attention inward to a growing threat to American leadership. Further evidence of the Mayor's committment to education:
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced yesterday that the city's Department of Education will require all schools to maintain arts programs, and that principals will be rated in annual reviews on how well they run those programs.
--New York Times, July 24, 2007
Presidential campaigns have not given enough time or energy to this country's education problem. My hope is that more candidates will address the issues therein and begin to offer solutions.
November 09, 2007
Waitress 1 - "Journalism" 0
After all the pundits and indiscriminate blogs have had their say, a voice of reason is heard.
Ms. Esterday, waitress at a Maid-Rite diner in Iowa, regarding the accusation that Hillary Clinton failed to leave her co-workers a tip:
“You people are really nuts,” she told a reporter during a phone interview. “There’s kids dying in the war, the price of oil right now — there’s better things in this world to be thinking about than who served Hillary Clinton at Maid-Rite and who got a tip and who didn’t get a tip.”
--The New York Times
Via Eunomia
Ms. Esterday, waitress at a Maid-Rite diner in Iowa, regarding the accusation that Hillary Clinton failed to leave her co-workers a tip:
“You people are really nuts,” she told a reporter during a phone interview. “There’s kids dying in the war, the price of oil right now — there’s better things in this world to be thinking about than who served Hillary Clinton at Maid-Rite and who got a tip and who didn’t get a tip.”
--The New York Times
Via Eunomia
November 08, 2007
A-space
From The Atlantic's December calendar section:
December 21--
Spooks join the social-networking craze this month when the director of national intelligence launches “A-space,” a Facebook of sorts for the top-secret set. The spies’ new tools—blogs, wikis, and Amazon-style recommendation engines—aim to spread information and surmount the intelligence agencies’ “need to know” culture.
See a previous post for some of my concerns with this new system.
December 21--
Spooks join the social-networking craze this month when the director of national intelligence launches “A-space,” a Facebook of sorts for the top-secret set. The spies’ new tools—blogs, wikis, and Amazon-style recommendation engines—aim to spread information and surmount the intelligence agencies’ “need to know” culture.
See a previous post for some of my concerns with this new system.
Judges vs. Jihadis
I have a strange feeling David Rivkin and Lee Casey did not put too much thought into today's Wall Street Journal op-ed. The piece swerved its way to a conclusion regarding a law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism, criss-crossing an irrelevant and dated issue.
As the great Italian legal scholar and reformer Beccaria wrote in the 1760s, to prevent crime, "make sure that men fear the laws and only the laws." Where respect fails, of course, there also is fear of punishment under the law -- deterrence. The system breaks down, however, when the criminals neither have respect for the law nor fear its potential punishments.
My first suggestion is to stay off Quoteland.com if you aren't going to find something that supports your argument. The quote is admirable and hopefully applicable to the U.S. court system, however we are to believe this standard won't suffice in the current state.
The followers of violent jihad do not respect the laws of democratic governments, but claim a superior legitimacy in the form of their own interpretation of Islam's Quran and Shariah law. Many of them also do not fear punishment.
This is the point where we are expected to celebrate the policy of the U.S. vs. that of many European countries. If al-Qaeda doesn't respect laws or fear punishment, what are we supposed to do? Apparently the most logical solution is military attacks in which we kill all terrorists. This is as empty a policy as any. Anyone who believes it is possible to eradicate terrorism and/or the ideals driving it is delusional. In fact, I believe our latest efforts will in fact backlash in spades. The world is a big place and has citizens gripping twisted ideas of Islam throughout. Committing considerable time, effort, resources and lives to one country that was initially only tangentially involved is irresponsible. Continuing such a policy, bolstered by the use of torture and violating treaties, is obscene.
Although the Civil Law system is marginally better suited than the Common Law system for antiterror prosecutions -- permitting more closed proceedings and less technically demanding evidentiary standards -- both are built upon the assumption that it is better to let the guilty go free than to convict the innocent.
That is an appropriate balance when a society is dealing with its own reprobates. It is not so obviously correct when the threat is a foreign movement whose purpose is to cause death and destruction on a grand scale...
...Only the law of armed conflict permits the flexibility needed to disrupt al Qaeda's operations on an international level.
Finally, the authors reach their conclusion that an individuals rights and the applicability of American values is safe and acceptable when dealing with American murderers and rapists. However, when a foreign movement is involved (are we are still arresting people or have we started taking foreign movements to our prisons?) we must lower our standards and invoke war. This contradiction within American policies belittles the effort to bring democracy and stability to Iraq and beyond.
As the great Italian legal scholar and reformer Beccaria wrote in the 1760s, to prevent crime, "make sure that men fear the laws and only the laws." Where respect fails, of course, there also is fear of punishment under the law -- deterrence. The system breaks down, however, when the criminals neither have respect for the law nor fear its potential punishments.
My first suggestion is to stay off Quoteland.com if you aren't going to find something that supports your argument. The quote is admirable and hopefully applicable to the U.S. court system, however we are to believe this standard won't suffice in the current state.
The followers of violent jihad do not respect the laws of democratic governments, but claim a superior legitimacy in the form of their own interpretation of Islam's Quran and Shariah law. Many of them also do not fear punishment.
This is the point where we are expected to celebrate the policy of the U.S. vs. that of many European countries. If al-Qaeda doesn't respect laws or fear punishment, what are we supposed to do? Apparently the most logical solution is military attacks in which we kill all terrorists. This is as empty a policy as any. Anyone who believes it is possible to eradicate terrorism and/or the ideals driving it is delusional. In fact, I believe our latest efforts will in fact backlash in spades. The world is a big place and has citizens gripping twisted ideas of Islam throughout. Committing considerable time, effort, resources and lives to one country that was initially only tangentially involved is irresponsible. Continuing such a policy, bolstered by the use of torture and violating treaties, is obscene.
Although the Civil Law system is marginally better suited than the Common Law system for antiterror prosecutions -- permitting more closed proceedings and less technically demanding evidentiary standards -- both are built upon the assumption that it is better to let the guilty go free than to convict the innocent.
That is an appropriate balance when a society is dealing with its own reprobates. It is not so obviously correct when the threat is a foreign movement whose purpose is to cause death and destruction on a grand scale...
...Only the law of armed conflict permits the flexibility needed to disrupt al Qaeda's operations on an international level.
Finally, the authors reach their conclusion that an individuals rights and the applicability of American values is safe and acceptable when dealing with American murderers and rapists. However, when a foreign movement is involved (are we are still arresting people or have we started taking foreign movements to our prisons?) we must lower our standards and invoke war. This contradiction within American policies belittles the effort to bring democracy and stability to Iraq and beyond.
August 14, 2007
American Revolutions
I wrote the following in November of 2006. It was a difficult time for me as I struggled to make sense of the war in Iraq. I took to reading as much as possible about the situation and the complex role of the United States. Very characteristically, I choose to express myself through words. What resulted is not another fact book about Iraq, but rather my personal thoughts about the war set against the events surrounding the American Revolution.
In the coming weeks, I will elaborate on my current stance regarding the war and strategic options therein.
INTRODUCTION
I have been reading Joseph Ellis' book Founding Brothers, which recounts a few of the major events coinciding with the formation of our country. While I am fully aware that every successful revolution in history has secured victory through disparate methods, I am compelled to believe each movement has shared similar characteristics that enabled the victor. From a macro perspective and at the risk of missing some of the finer details, I recognized two of these characteristics in Founding Brothers. These are obvious in the American Revolution and owe their existence to the charismatic leaders and pure vision for the new country. My fears as I have read about our nation's success, however, are the vast differences that permeate any comparison to the modern day "revolution" occurring in Iraq. I will share some of the passages from the book that have caused me to make my own comparisons to Iraq and question the probability of success considering the current situation and strategy.
PUBLIC SENTIMENT
Ellis in Founding Brothers: "Bound together in solidarity against the imperialistic enemy, the leadership fragments when the common enemy disappears and the different agenda for the new nation must confront its differences. Securing a revolution has proven to be a much more daunting assignment than winning one."
Focusing on the first part of this quote, the American Revolution was based around the pervasive hatred of Britain and its imperial rule. American citizens were “bound together in solidarity” and were determined to win the war to gain their independence. Our countrymen experienced several years of fighting side by side to achieve a common goal that had been brought about through the citizen’s unanimous initiative (Declaration of Independence).
Iraq has no such common thread. The citizens were not the impetus for the beginning of the revolution. This was spurred by the invasion of Iraq by an American led force to expel Saddam Hussein from power. To our credit, we are highly skilled at modern day warfare (winning a war, not to be confused with winning the peace) and it was not long before we declared military victory from the deck of a naval carrier. Operation Iraqi Freedom began on March 20, 2003 and the announcement that major combat operations in Iraq had ended was made by President Bush on May 1, 2003, a mere matter of weeks. Iraq did not experience a unifying war for freedom and democracy initiated and fought by its own citizens. Essentially a revolution had been thrust upon the nation, despite the incompetence of its people to engage it. American and coalition forces had faced our equivalent of Britain based on a fear of weapons of mass destruction and a tyrant in power that would likely use them.
While I believe the fear of Saddam Hussein was supported by the intelligence we had and the invasion was justified based on these fears, was there no prophecy of the unique problems that would arise once the ruling government was displaced? Additionally, if there was some forethought concerning the need for a new government, was the consensus that the Iraqi people would cast aside their inveterate differences for a stable, Western-style nation to emerge? The Iraqi nation has been freed from a fascist leader, yet subsequently verges on anarchy. From the beginning of this conflict to today, the resonating theme has been success through military tactics and persistence. Therefore, while the composition of the nation has changed, the strategy for success has not. American soldiers increasingly face an indefinable enemy and support a increasingly divided government.
Current American desires to dictate a particular type of government for Iraq are simply "sentimental attachments or fleeting ideological enthusiasms." A country divided by religious factions and thousands of years of conflict face separate and much more challenging obstacles to a unified society than a young American nation. To assume we can win the peace in Iraq through American military force with American motives and methods while being led by American backed politicians is a vision that can be supported only by the most imaginative minds. Until the Iraqi people develop a unified, peaceful vision for the country and commit their efforts to attaining this, they will continue to be embroiled in an increasingly fragmented civil war.
An article from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a nonpartisan resource for information and analysis, on October 26 emphasizes the lack of unity and outlines society's limited choices of anarchy or militia allegiance:
"The presence of militias and death squads in Iraq threatens to drive a wedge between U.S. officials and the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. The U.S. military and Iraq's government blame militias for the recent bout of mass kidnappings and sectarian killings. The prime minister has dismissed calls from Washington for a timetable or ultimatum for the Iraqi government to disband the militias... There are a growing number of small, homegrown, paramilitary-style brigades being formed by local tribes, religious leaders, and political parties. Many have taken up arms against Iraq's Sunni insurgents since the February 2006 bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra. Larger, more established militias, such as the Badr Brigade and the peshmerga, are tied to Iraq's leading political parties, organized along sectarian lines, and in existence to enforce order in their respective regions... Whereas in 2004 and 2005, these militia groups primarily targeted ex-Baathists, rival militia groups, or U.S. troops, now they target everyday Iraqis based on their ethno-religious sect."
One important reminder for strategic planners concerning Iraq is the slavery issue facing the nascent American nation. This was such a divisive issue that a compromise was reached at the Constitutional Convention to prevent legislators from addressing it for twenty years. The American leadership understood that society was not capable of agreeing on every issue and without compromise, they would jeopardize the stability of the country. Without the agreement, southern states might have chosen succession and thereby ruined the grand vision for the country. Additionally, even when the abolition of slavery was discussed, leaders agreed that it would be necessary to relocate the freed African-Americans, as white and black could not coexist in that society. Those making assumptions that Iraq is capable of immediately securing a homogeneous republic should reevaluate the situation. If splitting the country into provinces, with equal political representation, oil rights, etc., would mitigate the divisive militia violence and lead to a renewed democratic effort, this option should not be ruled out.
Militias simply reinforce and incite the inveterate beliefs of the Sunni and Shi'a alike. An environment where they are clashing not only ideologically, but also violently, has facilitated a growing variance between each group in their society. Iraq does not currently fit the requirement for a successful revolution in the area of unified public sentiment. To assume that American influence can ameliorate this deficiency would be highly speculative and unrealistic.
LEADERSHIP
Ellis in Founding Brothers: "To secure the Revolution and stabilize its legacy on a national level required a dominant leader who focused the energies of the national government in one "singular character." Washington had committed himself to that cause, and in so doing, he had become the beneficiary of its political imperatives, effectively being cast in the role of a "republican king" who embodied national authority more potently and more visibly than any collective body like Congress could possibly convey."
Founding Brothers: "Throughout the first half of the 1790s, the closest approximation to a self-evident truth in American politics was George Washington. A legend in his own time, Americans had been describing Washington as "the Father of the Country" since 1776 - which is to say, before there even was a country."
In order for historical perspective and in an effort to continue my comparison to the American Revolution, I would like to look at George Washington's progression to the presidency. According to Wikipedia, Washington led the Continental Army to victory over Britain in the American Revolutionary War from 1775 to 1783. Instead of installing himself as king of the newly independent nation, which is widely believed to have been attainable, he retired for a short time to his home at Mount Vernon. He returned from retirement to preside over the Constitution Convention in 1787. The founding fathers were drafting the Constitution in order to replace the weaker Articles of Confederation. Finally in 1789, fourteen years after he began leading the Continental Army, Washington became the first president of the United States. His commitment to our country and its success was grounded in the sacrifice of his own blood and an unrivalled vision for the newly formed republic. He took the helm of the youngest national government in the world and was required to collaborate with his fellow American leaders, not foreign powers, to fulfill its destiny. During this time, Washington was praised for his ability to remain independent and his influence rose above any political infighting. His unsolicited withdrawal from consideration for the presidential election of 1796 contributed to the formation of a less centralized national government and eliminated the possibility of America becoming a monarchy. Does a modern day revolution demand a leader of Washington's preeminence? If so, we should examine the current leader of the Iraqi government for any resemblance.
The leading politician in Iraq is the current Prime Minister Maliki. It goes without saying that Maliki has never been compared to George Washington. It also goes without saying that Maliki has not been afforded the same opportunity to develop the reputation, respect and aura of omnipotence that Washington wielded as the first political leader of the United States. However, despite these deficiencies, Maliki compounds these problems by failing to maintain personal and national independence from the sectarian militia groups.
In two recent articles from the CFR, Maliki and his relationship with militia/religious/political leaders is discussed. These reports provide more than sufficient evidence to question his competence and ability to lead and "focus the energies of the national government in one "singular character.'"
From the CFR: "Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has come under fire from U.S. officials for his refusal, or at least inability, to disband the militia of Muqtada al-Sadr. Sadr's militia, known as the Madhi Army, is accused of carrying out a number of attacks against Sunni insurgents, coalition forces, and rival militias like the Badr Brigade. Maliki relies on Sadr, who controls a large bloc of parliamentary seats, for political support and can ill afford to alienate his religious and conservative base. Experts say the alliance between the two poses a serious threat to American efforts to hand over security duties to the four-month-old government and begin scaling back U.S. forces."
Additional evidence demonstrating a lack of independence and influence by Maliki in Iraqi politics from the CFR: "'The problem is that ultimately Maliki is completely dependent on Muqtada al-Sadr and Hakim (leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq) and a variety of other groups out there who, quite frankly, have no interest in doing the right thing," says Kenneth M. Pollack, a Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution, in an interview with CFR.org. As he grows increasingly isolated from his American benefactors, says Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Research Service, Maliki is reaching out more to clerics like Sadr and the Supreme Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani to seek support in curbing the violence." (Sadr who ironically leads a militia group, the Madhi Army. Sistani who in September, according to Wikipedia, "announced that he had abandoned attempts to restrain his followers, admitting that there is nothing he can do to prevent the country from sliding towards civil war, and would in the future advise only on religious matters.)
Speaking of Maliki, the CFR continues to say "his temperament is not suited to strong decision making." This characterization hints at the balancing act he has perpetuated between the various other leaders in Iraq.
The article goes on to suggests that I should not have even bothered to compare him to Washington in the first place: "Most experts say Maliki lacks sufficient power to properly rein in Iraq's militias and reach a power-sharing agreement. "He doesn't even have control over his own branch or government, let alone the activities of al-Qaeda, the Kurdish militias, and Sunnis," Abbas Kadhim says, assistant professor of Islamic studies at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. Some say it is not Maliki's personality but his post that is to blame. "Maliki is not a weak person per se but he is in charge of a very weak institution, the premiership, which does not really have any teeth," Kadhim says. Adds Nasr, CFR Adjunct Senior Fellow: "He faces the dilemma of a prime minister who relies on powerful factions and is hamstrung by a constitution that requires an overwhelming majority [of parliamentary] to vote and be able to do anything.'"
For the time being, I think we can assume that a singular, dominant political leader is no where to be seen on the Iraqi revolutionary horizon. America was blessed with a generation of men who were destined and capable of leading our nascent nation. Despite any action taken by the United States, Iraq maintains no such men.
CONCLUSION
My reason for writing this paper and primary concern is the lack of influence that America has over these two characteristics of a successful revolution. The Iraqi people have failed to demonstrate a unified initiative to transform their nation into a functioning republic. While the American military can attempt to enforce a general level of security within the country, our presence does not inherently bestow the United States’ democratic ideals upon the Iraqi population. It will take something other than troops and elections for this society to embrace a peaceful way of life.
The current rhetoric expressed by the Bush Administration uses phrases like “finishing the job” and “winning the war” to describe our purpose in Iraq. I find both of these phrases flawed due to the context in which they presented. Each one has been used to define not only our mission in Iraq, but also our strategy. I no longer find it acceptable to say we will win the war by finishing the job, or vice versa. "Finishing the job" infers that our current methods and resources will be effective if given enough time and effort. "Winning the war" construes there is a defined enemy capable of being defeated. It is unacceptable that the same tactics that were applied to the situation three years ago seem to remain in existence today. Our role has shifted to that of a mediator over an increasingly expanded civil war and it necessitates an original approach toward strategy. I am hopeful the Iraq Study Group and Dr. Robert Gates will provide this in collaboration with the current administration. For America’s own public sentiment regarding this conflict, it is imperative that our leaders produce a progressive strategy after clearly defining success in Iraq.
A senior military official recently said to me, “We must get back to the point where, when people saw the American flag on the trucks rolling into town, they knew everything was going to be alright.” Going forward, our position in the world will be strengthened by focusing our efforts on genuine humanitarian aid and a willingness to combat terrorism in a manner that is appropriate to vanquishing the illusive enemies of the United States.
In the coming weeks, I will elaborate on my current stance regarding the war and strategic options therein.
INTRODUCTION
I have been reading Joseph Ellis' book Founding Brothers, which recounts a few of the major events coinciding with the formation of our country. While I am fully aware that every successful revolution in history has secured victory through disparate methods, I am compelled to believe each movement has shared similar characteristics that enabled the victor. From a macro perspective and at the risk of missing some of the finer details, I recognized two of these characteristics in Founding Brothers. These are obvious in the American Revolution and owe their existence to the charismatic leaders and pure vision for the new country. My fears as I have read about our nation's success, however, are the vast differences that permeate any comparison to the modern day "revolution" occurring in Iraq. I will share some of the passages from the book that have caused me to make my own comparisons to Iraq and question the probability of success considering the current situation and strategy.
PUBLIC SENTIMENT
Ellis in Founding Brothers: "Bound together in solidarity against the imperialistic enemy, the leadership fragments when the common enemy disappears and the different agenda for the new nation must confront its differences. Securing a revolution has proven to be a much more daunting assignment than winning one."
Focusing on the first part of this quote, the American Revolution was based around the pervasive hatred of Britain and its imperial rule. American citizens were “bound together in solidarity” and were determined to win the war to gain their independence. Our countrymen experienced several years of fighting side by side to achieve a common goal that had been brought about through the citizen’s unanimous initiative (Declaration of Independence).
Iraq has no such common thread. The citizens were not the impetus for the beginning of the revolution. This was spurred by the invasion of Iraq by an American led force to expel Saddam Hussein from power. To our credit, we are highly skilled at modern day warfare (winning a war, not to be confused with winning the peace) and it was not long before we declared military victory from the deck of a naval carrier. Operation Iraqi Freedom began on March 20, 2003 and the announcement that major combat operations in Iraq had ended was made by President Bush on May 1, 2003, a mere matter of weeks. Iraq did not experience a unifying war for freedom and democracy initiated and fought by its own citizens. Essentially a revolution had been thrust upon the nation, despite the incompetence of its people to engage it. American and coalition forces had faced our equivalent of Britain based on a fear of weapons of mass destruction and a tyrant in power that would likely use them.
While I believe the fear of Saddam Hussein was supported by the intelligence we had and the invasion was justified based on these fears, was there no prophecy of the unique problems that would arise once the ruling government was displaced? Additionally, if there was some forethought concerning the need for a new government, was the consensus that the Iraqi people would cast aside their inveterate differences for a stable, Western-style nation to emerge? The Iraqi nation has been freed from a fascist leader, yet subsequently verges on anarchy. From the beginning of this conflict to today, the resonating theme has been success through military tactics and persistence. Therefore, while the composition of the nation has changed, the strategy for success has not. American soldiers increasingly face an indefinable enemy and support a increasingly divided government.
Current American desires to dictate a particular type of government for Iraq are simply "sentimental attachments or fleeting ideological enthusiasms." A country divided by religious factions and thousands of years of conflict face separate and much more challenging obstacles to a unified society than a young American nation. To assume we can win the peace in Iraq through American military force with American motives and methods while being led by American backed politicians is a vision that can be supported only by the most imaginative minds. Until the Iraqi people develop a unified, peaceful vision for the country and commit their efforts to attaining this, they will continue to be embroiled in an increasingly fragmented civil war.
An article from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a nonpartisan resource for information and analysis, on October 26 emphasizes the lack of unity and outlines society's limited choices of anarchy or militia allegiance:
"The presence of militias and death squads in Iraq threatens to drive a wedge between U.S. officials and the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. The U.S. military and Iraq's government blame militias for the recent bout of mass kidnappings and sectarian killings. The prime minister has dismissed calls from Washington for a timetable or ultimatum for the Iraqi government to disband the militias... There are a growing number of small, homegrown, paramilitary-style brigades being formed by local tribes, religious leaders, and political parties. Many have taken up arms against Iraq's Sunni insurgents since the February 2006 bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra. Larger, more established militias, such as the Badr Brigade and the peshmerga, are tied to Iraq's leading political parties, organized along sectarian lines, and in existence to enforce order in their respective regions... Whereas in 2004 and 2005, these militia groups primarily targeted ex-Baathists, rival militia groups, or U.S. troops, now they target everyday Iraqis based on their ethno-religious sect."
One important reminder for strategic planners concerning Iraq is the slavery issue facing the nascent American nation. This was such a divisive issue that a compromise was reached at the Constitutional Convention to prevent legislators from addressing it for twenty years. The American leadership understood that society was not capable of agreeing on every issue and without compromise, they would jeopardize the stability of the country. Without the agreement, southern states might have chosen succession and thereby ruined the grand vision for the country. Additionally, even when the abolition of slavery was discussed, leaders agreed that it would be necessary to relocate the freed African-Americans, as white and black could not coexist in that society. Those making assumptions that Iraq is capable of immediately securing a homogeneous republic should reevaluate the situation. If splitting the country into provinces, with equal political representation, oil rights, etc., would mitigate the divisive militia violence and lead to a renewed democratic effort, this option should not be ruled out.
Militias simply reinforce and incite the inveterate beliefs of the Sunni and Shi'a alike. An environment where they are clashing not only ideologically, but also violently, has facilitated a growing variance between each group in their society. Iraq does not currently fit the requirement for a successful revolution in the area of unified public sentiment. To assume that American influence can ameliorate this deficiency would be highly speculative and unrealistic.
LEADERSHIP
Ellis in Founding Brothers: "To secure the Revolution and stabilize its legacy on a national level required a dominant leader who focused the energies of the national government in one "singular character." Washington had committed himself to that cause, and in so doing, he had become the beneficiary of its political imperatives, effectively being cast in the role of a "republican king" who embodied national authority more potently and more visibly than any collective body like Congress could possibly convey."
Founding Brothers: "Throughout the first half of the 1790s, the closest approximation to a self-evident truth in American politics was George Washington. A legend in his own time, Americans had been describing Washington as "the Father of the Country" since 1776 - which is to say, before there even was a country."
In order for historical perspective and in an effort to continue my comparison to the American Revolution, I would like to look at George Washington's progression to the presidency. According to Wikipedia, Washington led the Continental Army to victory over Britain in the American Revolutionary War from 1775 to 1783. Instead of installing himself as king of the newly independent nation, which is widely believed to have been attainable, he retired for a short time to his home at Mount Vernon. He returned from retirement to preside over the Constitution Convention in 1787. The founding fathers were drafting the Constitution in order to replace the weaker Articles of Confederation. Finally in 1789, fourteen years after he began leading the Continental Army, Washington became the first president of the United States. His commitment to our country and its success was grounded in the sacrifice of his own blood and an unrivalled vision for the newly formed republic. He took the helm of the youngest national government in the world and was required to collaborate with his fellow American leaders, not foreign powers, to fulfill its destiny. During this time, Washington was praised for his ability to remain independent and his influence rose above any political infighting. His unsolicited withdrawal from consideration for the presidential election of 1796 contributed to the formation of a less centralized national government and eliminated the possibility of America becoming a monarchy. Does a modern day revolution demand a leader of Washington's preeminence? If so, we should examine the current leader of the Iraqi government for any resemblance.
The leading politician in Iraq is the current Prime Minister Maliki. It goes without saying that Maliki has never been compared to George Washington. It also goes without saying that Maliki has not been afforded the same opportunity to develop the reputation, respect and aura of omnipotence that Washington wielded as the first political leader of the United States. However, despite these deficiencies, Maliki compounds these problems by failing to maintain personal and national independence from the sectarian militia groups.
In two recent articles from the CFR, Maliki and his relationship with militia/religious/political leaders is discussed. These reports provide more than sufficient evidence to question his competence and ability to lead and "focus the energies of the national government in one "singular character.'"
From the CFR: "Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has come under fire from U.S. officials for his refusal, or at least inability, to disband the militia of Muqtada al-Sadr. Sadr's militia, known as the Madhi Army, is accused of carrying out a number of attacks against Sunni insurgents, coalition forces, and rival militias like the Badr Brigade. Maliki relies on Sadr, who controls a large bloc of parliamentary seats, for political support and can ill afford to alienate his religious and conservative base. Experts say the alliance between the two poses a serious threat to American efforts to hand over security duties to the four-month-old government and begin scaling back U.S. forces."
Additional evidence demonstrating a lack of independence and influence by Maliki in Iraqi politics from the CFR: "'The problem is that ultimately Maliki is completely dependent on Muqtada al-Sadr and Hakim (leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq) and a variety of other groups out there who, quite frankly, have no interest in doing the right thing," says Kenneth M. Pollack, a Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution, in an interview with CFR.org. As he grows increasingly isolated from his American benefactors, says Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Research Service, Maliki is reaching out more to clerics like Sadr and the Supreme Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani to seek support in curbing the violence." (Sadr who ironically leads a militia group, the Madhi Army. Sistani who in September, according to Wikipedia, "announced that he had abandoned attempts to restrain his followers, admitting that there is nothing he can do to prevent the country from sliding towards civil war, and would in the future advise only on religious matters.)
Speaking of Maliki, the CFR continues to say "his temperament is not suited to strong decision making." This characterization hints at the balancing act he has perpetuated between the various other leaders in Iraq.
The article goes on to suggests that I should not have even bothered to compare him to Washington in the first place: "Most experts say Maliki lacks sufficient power to properly rein in Iraq's militias and reach a power-sharing agreement. "He doesn't even have control over his own branch or government, let alone the activities of al-Qaeda, the Kurdish militias, and Sunnis," Abbas Kadhim says, assistant professor of Islamic studies at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. Some say it is not Maliki's personality but his post that is to blame. "Maliki is not a weak person per se but he is in charge of a very weak institution, the premiership, which does not really have any teeth," Kadhim says. Adds Nasr, CFR Adjunct Senior Fellow: "He faces the dilemma of a prime minister who relies on powerful factions and is hamstrung by a constitution that requires an overwhelming majority [of parliamentary] to vote and be able to do anything.'"
For the time being, I think we can assume that a singular, dominant political leader is no where to be seen on the Iraqi revolutionary horizon. America was blessed with a generation of men who were destined and capable of leading our nascent nation. Despite any action taken by the United States, Iraq maintains no such men.
CONCLUSION
My reason for writing this paper and primary concern is the lack of influence that America has over these two characteristics of a successful revolution. The Iraqi people have failed to demonstrate a unified initiative to transform their nation into a functioning republic. While the American military can attempt to enforce a general level of security within the country, our presence does not inherently bestow the United States’ democratic ideals upon the Iraqi population. It will take something other than troops and elections for this society to embrace a peaceful way of life.
The current rhetoric expressed by the Bush Administration uses phrases like “finishing the job” and “winning the war” to describe our purpose in Iraq. I find both of these phrases flawed due to the context in which they presented. Each one has been used to define not only our mission in Iraq, but also our strategy. I no longer find it acceptable to say we will win the war by finishing the job, or vice versa. "Finishing the job" infers that our current methods and resources will be effective if given enough time and effort. "Winning the war" construes there is a defined enemy capable of being defeated. It is unacceptable that the same tactics that were applied to the situation three years ago seem to remain in existence today. Our role has shifted to that of a mediator over an increasingly expanded civil war and it necessitates an original approach toward strategy. I am hopeful the Iraq Study Group and Dr. Robert Gates will provide this in collaboration with the current administration. For America’s own public sentiment regarding this conflict, it is imperative that our leaders produce a progressive strategy after clearly defining success in Iraq.
A senior military official recently said to me, “We must get back to the point where, when people saw the American flag on the trucks rolling into town, they knew everything was going to be alright.” Going forward, our position in the world will be strengthened by focusing our efforts on genuine humanitarian aid and a willingness to combat terrorism in a manner that is appropriate to vanquishing the illusive enemies of the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
