Sunday, July 31
The Name of the Four Horsemen's Squire is Polygamy
"Dear Pundita:
I just read your Friday post about Oriana Fallaci's criticism of Islam. I understand that she is angry but will you please give Muslims a break? The Muslim community in America is as outraged as she is about the terrorists and their threats against Europe. I and every other Muslim I know condemns the terrorists. We're working very hard to counter the wrong impression that Islam is a religion of violence and to raise awareness in the community that Muslims need to take strong action to counter the hate-filled actions and speech of the terrorists.
Ameena in Brooklyn"
Dear Ameena:
While Pundita applauds all efforts by civilians to denounce terrorism, I think putting al Qaeda and similar crews out of business is principally a job for militaries. What I see as a civilian job, one that should be joined by leaders from all religions and governments, is unsticking our collective head from the sand and grappling with four huge problems now confronting humanity:
1. The developed democracies cannot keep footing the bill for people who practice polygamy unless the people submit to forced sterilization.
2. The developed democracies cannot continue to support people who follow practices that institutionalize misogyny and barbaric customs directed against women and female children.
3. The same democracies cannot continue to tolerate in their midst people who want all the benefits that come from living in a society of modern democratic laws but also want to follow tribal laws from ye olde country.
4. The peoples of the democratic nations cannot continue to deploy Orwellian language and a double standard just because they want cheap goods and labor or a coveted natural resource from a despotic regime. For example, democratic peoples need to stop referring to China as a "quasi-communist pro-free market authoritarian state." China is a military dictatorship and should be treated as such
From my reading of Oriana's essay, at least the portion I quoted, I'd say that to the extent she's angry, the anger comes from a sense of betrayal as a Catholic who is trying to follow the guidance laid down by the Vatican leadership. She perceives the leadership as applying a double standard, one that now helps place Italy in clear and present danger.
Religions practicing a double standard for pragmatic reasons is an old story. However, what greatly concerns me is that African men are playing Christians against Muslims so they can have as many wives as they want. If the Christians say you have accept monogamy to be a Christian, the Africans reply, "I'll just go be a Muslim where I can have four wives."
If the Muslims say you can't have unlimited wives the Africans reply, "I'll just go be a Christian where they're willing to look the other way." And if the Muslims protest, the Africans retort that many Muslims exceed the four-wives rule.
I do not know how widespread this playoff game has been during the past half century. One thing I know is that no person of decent heart should continue to support the game. Polygamy has created situations on the African continent that have led to horrific human suffering -- while leaving it to the developed countries to foot much of the bill in the attempt to save people who continue to breed like flies.
You have expressed great concern about the image of Islam. I too have great concerns:
One is that the United States has finite resources going into an era that is seeing climate shifts and vast populations unprepared to survive without help from the USA.
Two is that economically depressed regions in the USA are not getting enough help from federal government.
I am seeing these two situations rush at each other as the early part of this century unfolds.
(See Pundita post Paw, a Revenuer's at the door... for a brief discussion of how polygamy supports the clan business model in tribalized societies. Attempts to phase out polygamy in a society must be made in concert with modernizing business practices.)
I just read your Friday post about Oriana Fallaci's criticism of Islam. I understand that she is angry but will you please give Muslims a break? The Muslim community in America is as outraged as she is about the terrorists and their threats against Europe. I and every other Muslim I know condemns the terrorists. We're working very hard to counter the wrong impression that Islam is a religion of violence and to raise awareness in the community that Muslims need to take strong action to counter the hate-filled actions and speech of the terrorists.
Ameena in Brooklyn"
Dear Ameena:
While Pundita applauds all efforts by civilians to denounce terrorism, I think putting al Qaeda and similar crews out of business is principally a job for militaries. What I see as a civilian job, one that should be joined by leaders from all religions and governments, is unsticking our collective head from the sand and grappling with four huge problems now confronting humanity:
1. The developed democracies cannot keep footing the bill for people who practice polygamy unless the people submit to forced sterilization.
2. The developed democracies cannot continue to support people who follow practices that institutionalize misogyny and barbaric customs directed against women and female children.
3. The same democracies cannot continue to tolerate in their midst people who want all the benefits that come from living in a society of modern democratic laws but also want to follow tribal laws from ye olde country.
4. The peoples of the democratic nations cannot continue to deploy Orwellian language and a double standard just because they want cheap goods and labor or a coveted natural resource from a despotic regime. For example, democratic peoples need to stop referring to China as a "quasi-communist pro-free market authoritarian state." China is a military dictatorship and should be treated as such
From my reading of Oriana's essay, at least the portion I quoted, I'd say that to the extent she's angry, the anger comes from a sense of betrayal as a Catholic who is trying to follow the guidance laid down by the Vatican leadership. She perceives the leadership as applying a double standard, one that now helps place Italy in clear and present danger.
Religions practicing a double standard for pragmatic reasons is an old story. However, what greatly concerns me is that African men are playing Christians against Muslims so they can have as many wives as they want. If the Christians say you have accept monogamy to be a Christian, the Africans reply, "I'll just go be a Muslim where I can have four wives."
If the Muslims say you can't have unlimited wives the Africans reply, "I'll just go be a Christian where they're willing to look the other way." And if the Muslims protest, the Africans retort that many Muslims exceed the four-wives rule.
I do not know how widespread this playoff game has been during the past half century. One thing I know is that no person of decent heart should continue to support the game. Polygamy has created situations on the African continent that have led to horrific human suffering -- while leaving it to the developed countries to foot much of the bill in the attempt to save people who continue to breed like flies.
You have expressed great concern about the image of Islam. I too have great concerns:
One is that the United States has finite resources going into an era that is seeing climate shifts and vast populations unprepared to survive without help from the USA.
Two is that economically depressed regions in the USA are not getting enough help from federal government.
I am seeing these two situations rush at each other as the early part of this century unfolds.
(See Pundita post Paw, a Revenuer's at the door... for a brief discussion of how polygamy supports the clan business model in tribalized societies. Attempts to phase out polygamy in a society must be made in concert with modernizing business practices.)
Saturday, July 30
Wimpy Europeans? Hardly!
Below is a translation of an excerpt from Oriana Fallaci's The Enemy We Treat as a Friend, which I have cribbed from Belmont Club's July 25 essay titled Cassandra.
The Cassandra essay also publishes a link to the column in Italian, excerpts from the Economist and (UK) Guardian's predictably hysterical reactions to Fallaci's rant, and includes Bemont Club's thoughtful and elegant if somewhat ambiguous comments about the flap. Pundita's comments are less elegant and ambigious:
If you can't speak your mind when you're 76 years old and sick with cancer, when can you? Give 'em hell, Oriana!
It's time for Muslims worldwide to do some heavy-duty soul searching about a religion that has applauded wiring children with explosives and committing atrocities against females.
And while Pundita is bowled over with gratitude that some Muslim hardliners are now talking about cooperating with the war against terrorism (see second Pundita post for Friday), this about-face does not address Fallaci's central point. There are by all accounts a large number of Muslims who would still like to see their religion rule the world through force and by the destruction of all other religions. And many have given indication they're prepared to act on that wish.
Before turning over the floor to Oriana, I note one thing that bin Laden and his crew don't seem to understand about the Europeans: they have been trying hard to make nice during recent decades not because they are wimps but because they were so war-like for so many centuries. The terrorists should keep it up, if they want to learn what Europeans can be like on a really bad hair day.
Here are the quotes from The Enemy We Treat as a Friend:
"Yes, it's true: In newspapers that in the best of cases pharasaically opposed me with a conspiracy of silence now appear titles using my concepts and words. - "War Against the West."; "Cult of Death"; "The Suicide of Europe"; Wake up, Italy! Wake up!"
Yes, it's true: [Those] In speaking of Londonistan ... are now saying what I did when I wrote that in each one of our cities exists another city. A subterranean city; equal to Beirut when it was invaded by Arafat in the 70s. A foreign city that speaks its own language and observes its own customs; a Muslim city where terrorists go about their business undisturbed and, thus undisturbed, plan our deaths. ...
"Yes it's true: Now, even the fifth columnists and the imams express their hypocritical condemnations, their mendacious loathing, their false solidarity with the relatives of the victims. Yes, it's true: Now, thorough searches are being made in the cases of the accused Muslims; suspects are arrested; perhaps it will even be decided to expel them.
"But in substance, nothing has changed. ... I am also troubled because it goes along with, and thereby reinforces that which I consider the error committed by Papa Wojtyla: not to fight as much as he should have, in my opinion, against the illiberal and anti-democratic -- no, cruel -- essence of Islam.
During these last four years, I have done nothing but ask myself why a warrior like Wojtyla, a leader so singular who contributed more than anyone else to the downfall of the Soviet empire and, therefore, of Communism, showed himself to be so weak toward a disease worse than the Soviet empire or Communism.
"A disease that, above all, targets Christianity (and Judaism) for destruction. I have done nothing but ask myself why he did not inveigh openly against what was happening (and is happening), for example, in Sudan where the fundamentalist regime was practicing (and is practicing) slavery.
Where Christians were eliminated (are eliminated) by the millions. Why he was silent about Saudi Arabia where anyone with a Bible in hand or a cross around his neck was (and is) treated like a scum to be put to death.
"Still today, there is that silence I don't understand ...
"Will the massacre touch us too? -- will it really touch us the next time? Oh, yes. I haven't the slightest doubt. I've never had the slightest doubt. I've been saying this, too, for the last four years.
"And I add: They have not yet attacked us [only] because of their need for a landing zone, a bridgehead, a handy outpost named "Italy." ... But soon, they will go on a rampage. Bin Laden himself has promised it -- explicitly, clearly, precisely. ..."
No one can argue with that last observation. Darn tootin' he's promised it.
For more on Fallaci's column, one of Belmont Club's readers added a comment to the Cassandra essay that includes links to a complete English translation in two parts. The entire column is worth the read:
http://mysteryachievement.blogspot.com/2005/07/
enemy-we-treat-like-friend-part-i.html
http://mysteryachievement.blogspot.com/2005/07/
enemy-we-treat-like-friend-part-ii.html
The Cassandra essay also publishes a link to the column in Italian, excerpts from the Economist and (UK) Guardian's predictably hysterical reactions to Fallaci's rant, and includes Bemont Club's thoughtful and elegant if somewhat ambiguous comments about the flap. Pundita's comments are less elegant and ambigious:
If you can't speak your mind when you're 76 years old and sick with cancer, when can you? Give 'em hell, Oriana!
It's time for Muslims worldwide to do some heavy-duty soul searching about a religion that has applauded wiring children with explosives and committing atrocities against females.
And while Pundita is bowled over with gratitude that some Muslim hardliners are now talking about cooperating with the war against terrorism (see second Pundita post for Friday), this about-face does not address Fallaci's central point. There are by all accounts a large number of Muslims who would still like to see their religion rule the world through force and by the destruction of all other religions. And many have given indication they're prepared to act on that wish.
Before turning over the floor to Oriana, I note one thing that bin Laden and his crew don't seem to understand about the Europeans: they have been trying hard to make nice during recent decades not because they are wimps but because they were so war-like for so many centuries. The terrorists should keep it up, if they want to learn what Europeans can be like on a really bad hair day.
Here are the quotes from The Enemy We Treat as a Friend:
"Yes, it's true: In newspapers that in the best of cases pharasaically opposed me with a conspiracy of silence now appear titles using my concepts and words. - "War Against the West."; "Cult of Death"; "The Suicide of Europe"; Wake up, Italy! Wake up!"
Yes, it's true: [Those] In speaking of Londonistan ... are now saying what I did when I wrote that in each one of our cities exists another city. A subterranean city; equal to Beirut when it was invaded by Arafat in the 70s. A foreign city that speaks its own language and observes its own customs; a Muslim city where terrorists go about their business undisturbed and, thus undisturbed, plan our deaths. ...
"Yes it's true: Now, even the fifth columnists and the imams express their hypocritical condemnations, their mendacious loathing, their false solidarity with the relatives of the victims. Yes, it's true: Now, thorough searches are being made in the cases of the accused Muslims; suspects are arrested; perhaps it will even be decided to expel them.
"But in substance, nothing has changed. ... I am also troubled because it goes along with, and thereby reinforces that which I consider the error committed by Papa Wojtyla: not to fight as much as he should have, in my opinion, against the illiberal and anti-democratic -- no, cruel -- essence of Islam.
During these last four years, I have done nothing but ask myself why a warrior like Wojtyla, a leader so singular who contributed more than anyone else to the downfall of the Soviet empire and, therefore, of Communism, showed himself to be so weak toward a disease worse than the Soviet empire or Communism.
"A disease that, above all, targets Christianity (and Judaism) for destruction. I have done nothing but ask myself why he did not inveigh openly against what was happening (and is happening), for example, in Sudan where the fundamentalist regime was practicing (and is practicing) slavery.
Where Christians were eliminated (are eliminated) by the millions. Why he was silent about Saudi Arabia where anyone with a Bible in hand or a cross around his neck was (and is) treated like a scum to be put to death.
"Still today, there is that silence I don't understand ...
"Will the massacre touch us too? -- will it really touch us the next time? Oh, yes. I haven't the slightest doubt. I've never had the slightest doubt. I've been saying this, too, for the last four years.
"And I add: They have not yet attacked us [only] because of their need for a landing zone, a bridgehead, a handy outpost named "Italy." ... But soon, they will go on a rampage. Bin Laden himself has promised it -- explicitly, clearly, precisely. ..."
No one can argue with that last observation. Darn tootin' he's promised it.
For more on Fallaci's column, one of Belmont Club's readers added a comment to the Cassandra essay that includes links to a complete English translation in two parts. The entire column is worth the read:
http://mysteryachievement.blogspot.com/2005/07/
enemy-we-treat-like-friend-part-i.html
http://mysteryachievement.blogspot.com/2005/07/
enemy-we-treat-like-friend-part-ii.html
Friday, July 29
Turning tide in the war on terror
Max Boot has not exactly redeemed himself in Pundita's eyes with the following opinion piece but I thank him for bringing to a 'national' readership some very good news via the Los Angeles Times.
He cites various data, including a Pew poll, which suggests anti-Americanism is on the wane since the Iraq invasion and anti-al Qaeda sentiment, even among Muslim countries, is on the rise. The latter includes rising sentiment against suicide bombings.
One of the jaw-droppers in Boot's piece is the news that
I consider Boot's observations to be so important that I am breaking protocol and republishing the entire piece here (with major thanks to John Batchelor's website for printing the piece via TMS Reprints):
July 27, 2005
Our Extreme Makeover
Opinion by Max Boot
for latimes.com (Los Angeles Times)
Hat tip: John Batchelor Show website.
"Favorable impressions of the U.S. are being detected around the world, including inside Muslim countries.
"We interrupt the latest reports about terrorist atrocities with a news bulletin: Support for suicide bombings and Islamic extremism, along with hatred of the Great Satan, is actually waning in the Muslim world.
"If that comes as a surprise, it's because of the old adage that good news is no news. While the increase of anti-Americanism around the world and especially in Muslim countries has been exhaustively covered since 2001, not enough attention has been paid to an important survey released in the last month that found global opinion shifting in a more positive direction.
"The public opinion poll was conducted by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, hardly a bastion of neocon zealotry. (It's co-chaired by Madeleine Albright.) Over the last three years, Pew surveys have charted surging anti-Americanism in response to the invasion of Iraq and other actions of the Bush administration. But its most recent poll -- conducted in May, with 17,000 respondents in 17 countries -- also found evidence that widespread antipathy is abating.
"The percentage of people holding a favorable impression of the United States increased in Indonesia (+23 points), Lebanon (+15), Pakistan (+2) and Jordan (+16). It also went up in such non-Muslim nations as France, Germany, Russia and India.
"What accounts for this shift? The answer varies by country, but analysts point to waning public anger over the invasion of Iraq, gratitude for the massive U.S. tsunami relief effort and growing conviction that the U.S. is serious about promoting democracy.
"There is also increasing aversion to America's enemies, even in the Islamic world. The Pew poll found that "nearly three-quarters of Moroccans and roughly half of those in Pakistan, Turkey and Indonesia see Islamic extremism as a threat to their countries."
"Support for suicide bombing has declined dramatically in all the Muslim countries surveyed except Jordan, with its large anti-Israeli Palestinian population. The number of those saying that "violence against civilian targets is sometimes or often justified" has dropped by big margins in Lebanon (-34 points) and Indonesia (-12) since 2002, and in the last year in Pakistan (-16) and Morocco (-27).
"This has been accompanied by a cratering of support for Osama bin Laden everywhere except (unfortunately) Pakistan and Jordan. Since 2003, approval ratings for the world's No. 1 terrorist have slid in Indonesia (-23 points), Morocco (-23), Turkey (-8) and Lebanon (-12).
"What accounts for this decline? Primarily the actions of the terrorists themselves. Since 9/11, most of the atrocities carried out by Islamist groups have occurred in Muslim nations — the latest examples are the bombings in Sharm el Sheik, Egypt, and bombings too numerous to mention in Iraq — and most of the victims have been Muslims. Not surprisingly, this hasn't endeared the jihadists to a lot of their coreligionists.
"Yet even attacks on the West no longer win knee-jerk approval in the Muslim world. After the 7/7 London bombings, Islamic groups and intellectuals who have seldom had a cross word for suicide bombings were pretty unequivocal in their condemnation.
"To cite only one example of many, Jihad Al Khazen, a rabidly anti-American and anti-Israeli columnist for the Arabic daily Al-Hayat, wrote that "the Arabs and Muslims must help the U.S." in the war on terror. There are still plenty of Muslims who blame the victims for bringing terrorism upon themselves, but there is also a growing countervailing attitude.
"Muslim opinion also challenges jihadist orthodoxy that proclaims that giving power to the people, rather than to mullahs, is "un-Islamic." The latest Pew poll found "large and growing majorities in Morocco (83%), Lebanon (83%), Jordan (80%) and Indonesia (77%) — as well as pluralities in Turkey (48%) and Pakistan (43%) — [that] say democracy can work well and is not just for the West."
"That's exactly what President Bush has been saying. Though his actions and rhetoric have been denounced as "unrealistic" and "extremist" by his American and European critics, it turns out that Muslims welcome it. "Roughly half of respondents in Jordan and nearly two-thirds of Indonesians think the U.S. favors democracy in their countries," the new Pew study said. "About half of the public in Lebanon also takes that view." Imagine that: Bush's actions might actually be making Middle Easterners more pro-American!
"Of course, public opinion is fickle, and there is still a lot of hostility toward the U.S. out there.
"Even a small minority of extremists can cause mayhem similar to the London bombings. But at least there are some signs that the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world is far from hopeless."
Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times
He cites various data, including a Pew poll, which suggests anti-Americanism is on the wane since the Iraq invasion and anti-al Qaeda sentiment, even among Muslim countries, is on the rise. The latter includes rising sentiment against suicide bombings.
One of the jaw-droppers in Boot's piece is the news that
Jihad Al Khazen, a rabidly anti-American and anti-Israeli columnist for the Arabic daily Al-Hayat, wrote that "the Arabs and Muslims must help the U.S." in the war on terror.If the trend lasts, it's a vindication for President Bush and the other Coalition government leaders' unwavering stand against terrorism and the US administration's commitment to real democracy.
I consider Boot's observations to be so important that I am breaking protocol and republishing the entire piece here (with major thanks to John Batchelor's website for printing the piece via TMS Reprints):
July 27, 2005
Our Extreme Makeover
Opinion by Max Boot
for latimes.com (Los Angeles Times)
Hat tip: John Batchelor Show website.
"Favorable impressions of the U.S. are being detected around the world, including inside Muslim countries.
"We interrupt the latest reports about terrorist atrocities with a news bulletin: Support for suicide bombings and Islamic extremism, along with hatred of the Great Satan, is actually waning in the Muslim world.
"If that comes as a surprise, it's because of the old adage that good news is no news. While the increase of anti-Americanism around the world and especially in Muslim countries has been exhaustively covered since 2001, not enough attention has been paid to an important survey released in the last month that found global opinion shifting in a more positive direction.
"The public opinion poll was conducted by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, hardly a bastion of neocon zealotry. (It's co-chaired by Madeleine Albright.) Over the last three years, Pew surveys have charted surging anti-Americanism in response to the invasion of Iraq and other actions of the Bush administration. But its most recent poll -- conducted in May, with 17,000 respondents in 17 countries -- also found evidence that widespread antipathy is abating.
"The percentage of people holding a favorable impression of the United States increased in Indonesia (+23 points), Lebanon (+15), Pakistan (+2) and Jordan (+16). It also went up in such non-Muslim nations as France, Germany, Russia and India.
"What accounts for this shift? The answer varies by country, but analysts point to waning public anger over the invasion of Iraq, gratitude for the massive U.S. tsunami relief effort and growing conviction that the U.S. is serious about promoting democracy.
"There is also increasing aversion to America's enemies, even in the Islamic world. The Pew poll found that "nearly three-quarters of Moroccans and roughly half of those in Pakistan, Turkey and Indonesia see Islamic extremism as a threat to their countries."
"Support for suicide bombing has declined dramatically in all the Muslim countries surveyed except Jordan, with its large anti-Israeli Palestinian population. The number of those saying that "violence against civilian targets is sometimes or often justified" has dropped by big margins in Lebanon (-34 points) and Indonesia (-12) since 2002, and in the last year in Pakistan (-16) and Morocco (-27).
"This has been accompanied by a cratering of support for Osama bin Laden everywhere except (unfortunately) Pakistan and Jordan. Since 2003, approval ratings for the world's No. 1 terrorist have slid in Indonesia (-23 points), Morocco (-23), Turkey (-8) and Lebanon (-12).
"What accounts for this decline? Primarily the actions of the terrorists themselves. Since 9/11, most of the atrocities carried out by Islamist groups have occurred in Muslim nations — the latest examples are the bombings in Sharm el Sheik, Egypt, and bombings too numerous to mention in Iraq — and most of the victims have been Muslims. Not surprisingly, this hasn't endeared the jihadists to a lot of their coreligionists.
"Yet even attacks on the West no longer win knee-jerk approval in the Muslim world. After the 7/7 London bombings, Islamic groups and intellectuals who have seldom had a cross word for suicide bombings were pretty unequivocal in their condemnation.
"To cite only one example of many, Jihad Al Khazen, a rabidly anti-American and anti-Israeli columnist for the Arabic daily Al-Hayat, wrote that "the Arabs and Muslims must help the U.S." in the war on terror. There are still plenty of Muslims who blame the victims for bringing terrorism upon themselves, but there is also a growing countervailing attitude.
"Muslim opinion also challenges jihadist orthodoxy that proclaims that giving power to the people, rather than to mullahs, is "un-Islamic." The latest Pew poll found "large and growing majorities in Morocco (83%), Lebanon (83%), Jordan (80%) and Indonesia (77%) — as well as pluralities in Turkey (48%) and Pakistan (43%) — [that] say democracy can work well and is not just for the West."
"That's exactly what President Bush has been saying. Though his actions and rhetoric have been denounced as "unrealistic" and "extremist" by his American and European critics, it turns out that Muslims welcome it. "Roughly half of respondents in Jordan and nearly two-thirds of Indonesians think the U.S. favors democracy in their countries," the new Pew study said. "About half of the public in Lebanon also takes that view." Imagine that: Bush's actions might actually be making Middle Easterners more pro-American!
"Of course, public opinion is fickle, and there is still a lot of hostility toward the U.S. out there.
"Even a small minority of extremists can cause mayhem similar to the London bombings. But at least there are some signs that the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world is far from hopeless."
Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times
Liberal Democracy: Achieving balance between the civic person and the private person
"Hi Pundita,
I think you might enjoy my proposal for a "post-modern paternalism" as move towards a more holistic mindset of what it takes to create healthy government; I would certainly appreciate your critique. Basically, I am trying (in my own small way) to shift the development debate from institutions and confrontation to values and relationship. Does that align with what you see as being needed?
Dr. Ernie in California"
Dear Dr. Ernie:
With regard to your desire to shift the development debate from institutions and confrontation to values and relationship -- well, the entire concept of development in this context is G2G -- government to government. So it's really not possible to shift the debate away from institutions.
With regard to confrontation -- it's just because the US government spent more than a decade avoiding confrontations at the United Nations that we now find American values under literal fire.
The US government's desire to fit in with the group, to go along with NATO allies and support globalized business at any cost to American democracy, has put us in the position we are now: in a very hot global war.
So, for future reference, we should remember to confront situations before they require a military solution.
But Pundita gets your drift and appreciates it: as private citizens we should strive to create relationships that are based on our personal value system. Yet if 9/11 has taught us anything, we should also pay more attention to our civic duties.
If we can't serve in the military or National Guard, we should do what we can to support the troops, even if it's only sending an occasional letter of thanks. If we can't serve in the police or fire department, we can join neighborhood watch groups and donate what we can to organizations that support the fire and police organizations.
The United States of America has a society that allows citizens to do pretty much their own thing: pursue their private goals and follow the beat of their own drum. Yet not even the world's most powerful society can remain strong, unless there is a strong sense of civic duty that transcends politics and personal values. That's what it means to be a citizen.
We could all do with paying more attention to the meaning.
I suspect from reading your proposal that you are working at the micro-level or want to work at that level -- as you observed in "a small way." Pundita is a big fan of micro-level development projects. However, when I write about development I address the macro-level: the multilateral development concept and in particular the development bank 'model' and how it relates to US foreign policy and defense.
I've given considerable discussion to the topics simply because the American public is very poorly informed about them. Americans have not been on the receiving end of multilateral development projects and policies, so it's quite understandable that the topics have flown under the radar of the public's awareness.
Pundita has done everything but stand on her head to warn that actually America has been on the receiving end, only in ways that are not readily apparent until one is very familiar with the topics.
I've done the same in my writing about TOC (transnational organized crime) and corruption in government, which have also received little attention in the US media, and I've pointed out the link between these topics, multilateral aid and development, foreign policy and defense.
In short, there is a matrix of situations that critically impact US military defense and foreign policy but are not treated as such, either by the media or the US government.
I'm happy to report that since I started this blog in November 2004 there has been some progress at the government level in officially recognizing the matrix. And when Paul Wolfowitz came to the World Bank, he named government corruption as the greatest threat to democracy since the Soviet communist threat, which certainly helped back up my argument.
However, the World Bank is still refusing to allow an independent audit -- they claim they'd have to change their charter for this to happen. To my knowledge the same issue is not even on the table for USAID, the "America" desk at the State Department, and the US Congress.
So we are still a very long way from addressing in any meaningful way the issue of corruption, and its intersection with US-backed development lending and aid.
I appreciate your interest in the Pundita blog, which came about because of one essay I wrote about development issues. Many readers are initially drawn to the Pundita blog because they learn of a particular essay that deals with an area of their special interest, such as development, the democracy doctrine, terrorism, US-EU relations, and so on.
However, from letters I've received, it seems that most who visit this blog regularly learn by reading through the Pundita archives, or by browsing the Pundita 'theme' links posted on the sidebar, that I am dealing with a range of issues connected with US foreign policy in the 21st Century -- or what I think should be considered a vital part of foreign policy for this era.
In this I am following the direction laid down by America's president and commander-in-chief. President Bush has said this is to be Liberty's Century and that he wants the US government to take the lead in actualizing this ideal. In other words, he wants to see genuine democracy take root around the world. So I ask, "How to make this happen?" then I try to examine the obstacles and where we are now in relation to the goal.
This approach tends to neglect news about US relations with individual countries; I have given considerable attention to China, Russia and Mexico only because I see them as textbook illustrations of US foreign policy failures in dealing with less developed countries and/or emerging democracies.
And I've given almost no attention to news about trade issues because that aspect of US foreign policy is well known to the general public.
Also, I've given a huge amount of attention to a matrix of situations that are so outside the general public's awareness and media discussion as to be completely off the radar, but which profoundly affect US foreign relations.
I don't know how to term this matrix, except maybe to call it, "What Americans and especially Americans in big business, the news media, State Department, Pentagon, Congress and the White House need to know about peoples in really old cultures who are stuck in their ways and very proud, and who know they have to change their ways but who don't appreciate peoples from very young cultures who act like know-it-alls just because they're rich."
I sense from the wording of your proposal that this matrix is also of interest to you. If so, let it be known that we here in Pundita-land -- this would include even the squirrel member of Pundita's foreign policy team -- applaud all intelligent efforts to bridge the old-young gap in US foreign policy relations. It is this gap, rather than the communism/ capitalism, democracy/ despotism, WTO membership/ nonmembership gaps that is the most important one for American foreign relations to bridge.
I am also hugely interested in the connection between US news reporting and foreign policy; indeed, if I were two people I would have a blog that is dedicated to the topic. There is a tremendous amount of expertise in this country that can't connect with foreign policy situations because Americans with the expertise are simply unaware of the situations.
The truth is that a very small number of people have been running US foreign policy and a small number of academics have had a huge impact on foreign policy -- including the defense component.
These people and their actions are almost totally off the radar of American public awareness. They operate behind a screen of public unawareness, although since the rise of the blogosphere a little light has pierced the screen.
Much more light is needed; many more Americans need to get involved in monitoring the actions of these people and the organizations that employ them. I have been known to use the literary equivalent of a one-ton boom to get across this point.
As to how the few have gotten away with so much for so long, because the US news media has had a long-standing policy:
If it doesn't have to do with battles between Democrats and Republicans, then Americans should be focused on sports, entertainment, weather and the sleaziest crime stories.
That, I submit, is the true reason the vast majority of US news media outlets have trashed the US invasion of Iraq and hate the idea of a global war on terror: good coverage of international issues costs buckets of money unless you're real smart like John Batchelor, who clearly has no trouble doing good coverage on a virtual shoestring budget.
So while the majority of Americans can recount in minute detail the Scott Peterson and Michael Jackson trials they still can't find Damascus on a map, much less Basra.
How the American electorate is supposed to oversee foreign policy conducted by the government of the world's lone superpower nation under such circumstances -- I dunno, Dr. Ernie. I just don't know.
So that's the Pundita blog: we spend our time pushing peanuts across a sawdust floor with our nose. By sheer dint of effort, we direct our readers' attention to stuff that goes on behind the major media's white noise screen.
If I were three people, perhaps I would have a blog that deals solely with the multilateral development angle in US foreign policy. And if I were four, I'd surely have a blog that only tracks instances of government corruption and the moves of international crime syndicates.
But for now I am focused on sketching the big picture of foreign policy in what is a new century for the West.
I think you might enjoy my proposal for a "post-modern paternalism" as move towards a more holistic mindset of what it takes to create healthy government; I would certainly appreciate your critique. Basically, I am trying (in my own small way) to shift the development debate from institutions and confrontation to values and relationship. Does that align with what you see as being needed?
Dr. Ernie in California"
Dear Dr. Ernie:
With regard to your desire to shift the development debate from institutions and confrontation to values and relationship -- well, the entire concept of development in this context is G2G -- government to government. So it's really not possible to shift the debate away from institutions.
With regard to confrontation -- it's just because the US government spent more than a decade avoiding confrontations at the United Nations that we now find American values under literal fire.
The US government's desire to fit in with the group, to go along with NATO allies and support globalized business at any cost to American democracy, has put us in the position we are now: in a very hot global war.
So, for future reference, we should remember to confront situations before they require a military solution.
But Pundita gets your drift and appreciates it: as private citizens we should strive to create relationships that are based on our personal value system. Yet if 9/11 has taught us anything, we should also pay more attention to our civic duties.
If we can't serve in the military or National Guard, we should do what we can to support the troops, even if it's only sending an occasional letter of thanks. If we can't serve in the police or fire department, we can join neighborhood watch groups and donate what we can to organizations that support the fire and police organizations.
The United States of America has a society that allows citizens to do pretty much their own thing: pursue their private goals and follow the beat of their own drum. Yet not even the world's most powerful society can remain strong, unless there is a strong sense of civic duty that transcends politics and personal values. That's what it means to be a citizen.
We could all do with paying more attention to the meaning.
I suspect from reading your proposal that you are working at the micro-level or want to work at that level -- as you observed in "a small way." Pundita is a big fan of micro-level development projects. However, when I write about development I address the macro-level: the multilateral development concept and in particular the development bank 'model' and how it relates to US foreign policy and defense.
I've given considerable discussion to the topics simply because the American public is very poorly informed about them. Americans have not been on the receiving end of multilateral development projects and policies, so it's quite understandable that the topics have flown under the radar of the public's awareness.
Pundita has done everything but stand on her head to warn that actually America has been on the receiving end, only in ways that are not readily apparent until one is very familiar with the topics.
I've done the same in my writing about TOC (transnational organized crime) and corruption in government, which have also received little attention in the US media, and I've pointed out the link between these topics, multilateral aid and development, foreign policy and defense.
In short, there is a matrix of situations that critically impact US military defense and foreign policy but are not treated as such, either by the media or the US government.
I'm happy to report that since I started this blog in November 2004 there has been some progress at the government level in officially recognizing the matrix. And when Paul Wolfowitz came to the World Bank, he named government corruption as the greatest threat to democracy since the Soviet communist threat, which certainly helped back up my argument.
However, the World Bank is still refusing to allow an independent audit -- they claim they'd have to change their charter for this to happen. To my knowledge the same issue is not even on the table for USAID, the "America" desk at the State Department, and the US Congress.
So we are still a very long way from addressing in any meaningful way the issue of corruption, and its intersection with US-backed development lending and aid.
I appreciate your interest in the Pundita blog, which came about because of one essay I wrote about development issues. Many readers are initially drawn to the Pundita blog because they learn of a particular essay that deals with an area of their special interest, such as development, the democracy doctrine, terrorism, US-EU relations, and so on.
However, from letters I've received, it seems that most who visit this blog regularly learn by reading through the Pundita archives, or by browsing the Pundita 'theme' links posted on the sidebar, that I am dealing with a range of issues connected with US foreign policy in the 21st Century -- or what I think should be considered a vital part of foreign policy for this era.
In this I am following the direction laid down by America's president and commander-in-chief. President Bush has said this is to be Liberty's Century and that he wants the US government to take the lead in actualizing this ideal. In other words, he wants to see genuine democracy take root around the world. So I ask, "How to make this happen?" then I try to examine the obstacles and where we are now in relation to the goal.
This approach tends to neglect news about US relations with individual countries; I have given considerable attention to China, Russia and Mexico only because I see them as textbook illustrations of US foreign policy failures in dealing with less developed countries and/or emerging democracies.
And I've given almost no attention to news about trade issues because that aspect of US foreign policy is well known to the general public.
Also, I've given a huge amount of attention to a matrix of situations that are so outside the general public's awareness and media discussion as to be completely off the radar, but which profoundly affect US foreign relations.
I don't know how to term this matrix, except maybe to call it, "What Americans and especially Americans in big business, the news media, State Department, Pentagon, Congress and the White House need to know about peoples in really old cultures who are stuck in their ways and very proud, and who know they have to change their ways but who don't appreciate peoples from very young cultures who act like know-it-alls just because they're rich."
I sense from the wording of your proposal that this matrix is also of interest to you. If so, let it be known that we here in Pundita-land -- this would include even the squirrel member of Pundita's foreign policy team -- applaud all intelligent efforts to bridge the old-young gap in US foreign policy relations. It is this gap, rather than the communism/ capitalism, democracy/ despotism, WTO membership/ nonmembership gaps that is the most important one for American foreign relations to bridge.
I am also hugely interested in the connection between US news reporting and foreign policy; indeed, if I were two people I would have a blog that is dedicated to the topic. There is a tremendous amount of expertise in this country that can't connect with foreign policy situations because Americans with the expertise are simply unaware of the situations.
The truth is that a very small number of people have been running US foreign policy and a small number of academics have had a huge impact on foreign policy -- including the defense component.
These people and their actions are almost totally off the radar of American public awareness. They operate behind a screen of public unawareness, although since the rise of the blogosphere a little light has pierced the screen.
Much more light is needed; many more Americans need to get involved in monitoring the actions of these people and the organizations that employ them. I have been known to use the literary equivalent of a one-ton boom to get across this point.
As to how the few have gotten away with so much for so long, because the US news media has had a long-standing policy:
If it doesn't have to do with battles between Democrats and Republicans, then Americans should be focused on sports, entertainment, weather and the sleaziest crime stories.
That, I submit, is the true reason the vast majority of US news media outlets have trashed the US invasion of Iraq and hate the idea of a global war on terror: good coverage of international issues costs buckets of money unless you're real smart like John Batchelor, who clearly has no trouble doing good coverage on a virtual shoestring budget.
So while the majority of Americans can recount in minute detail the Scott Peterson and Michael Jackson trials they still can't find Damascus on a map, much less Basra.
How the American electorate is supposed to oversee foreign policy conducted by the government of the world's lone superpower nation under such circumstances -- I dunno, Dr. Ernie. I just don't know.
So that's the Pundita blog: we spend our time pushing peanuts across a sawdust floor with our nose. By sheer dint of effort, we direct our readers' attention to stuff that goes on behind the major media's white noise screen.
If I were three people, perhaps I would have a blog that deals solely with the multilateral development angle in US foreign policy. And if I were four, I'd surely have a blog that only tracks instances of government corruption and the moves of international crime syndicates.
But for now I am focused on sketching the big picture of foreign policy in what is a new century for the West.
Thursday, July 28
Mysteries of Democracy: Now you've got my goat
The following email arrived in my inbox with the title The Mysteries of Democracy.
"Greetings Pundita,
My question relates to how we can better understand democracy from the point of view of people who do not have a whole lot of experience with it.
Niels Bohr, one of the giants of 20th century physics, once said that anyone who is not shocked by the implications of quantum mechanics does not understand it. He said this because at its most basic level, reality, according to quantum mechanics, does not behave in a deterministic fashion like Newtonian mechanics. You can only determine the probability of events at the atomic level, such as the position of an electron. Einstein himself had deep reservations about this saying "God does not play dice with the universe."
So my question is can we say the same of democracy, that anyone who is not shocked by its implications does not truly understand it? When I think about it just as a practical matter it does not appear obvious why anyone would use a system for which there is a significant degree of randomness in the choosing of its leaders and crafting of its legislation.
Indeed most of Europe's ruling elite in the days of our Founding Founders assumed it would end in chaos as they hoped our Civil War would prove. How can we better understand this process ourselves and explain to others why and under what conditions democracies succeed?
Greg in Orlando"
Dear Greg:
Ah, but there is not randomness for humans. This was explained to me many moons ago by Guru David after I came across the very same comments by Bohr and Einstein that you mention. I was quite perturbed by the discussion and spent days pondering myself in circles until I recalled why there are gurus.
Guru David handed me a pile of computer printout pages that weighed several pounds and which contained nothing but row upon row of digits. He explained that the printout was the result of a random numbers generator software program. Then he asked me to study the pages to see if I could find any patterns among the randomly generated numbers. At first I saw none but within moments I reported in excitement that was finding all sorts of patterns.
Guru David replied, "The patterns you perceive are supplied by your mind, not the program. If you were a mathematician you could find many more patterns. So even if God is playing dice with the universe, humans can hunker down and study the rolls of the dice and from that find patterns, and from that find order in the universe."
Upon hearing of the Bush Democracy Doctrine, "Brother" Moammar Qaddafi, as he prefers to be called since getting more in touch with his African side, snapped, "Africans don't need democracy. They need food and medicine. Besides, Arabs invented democracy." He went on to say that the word 'democracy' has it roots in an Arab word meaning the people sitting together.
He's probably right because Arabs invented everything else. They had no choice, if you stop and think about it. In the old days, if your caravan got stuck in a sandstorm in the Kalahari you didn't tell an African chief, "Sorry, your shipment of dates has been rendered sandy goo due to circumstances beyond my control."
No. You invented the world's first miracle-ingredient exfoliating scrub, guaranteed to restore the glow of youth to even the most tired complexion.
I interject it's a pity that summary execution no longer accompanies failure to please the customer; this has diverted much human creativity into making excuses instead of inventions.
You are mystified because you're confusing a method of selection with the chore of assigning responsibility. The latter was never much of a problem in the old days because we could blame everything that went wrong on the gods, who were full of foibles and whose IQ was often in the idiot range.
Then came The Trouble, which generally we speak of only in whispers here in Pundita-land, but I will tell you a little about it. The Trouble started over a stolen goat; to be more precise, testimony about a stolen goat.
Incidentally this is where the expression, "Now you've got my goat" came from. And, more darkly, it explains how the mild mannered and frankly addle-brained goat came to be associated with the Devil.
In the old days the primary function of the chief was to be a judge -- to settle disputes that arose in the tribe. The Arabs hadn't gotten around yet to inventing fingerprinting so when it came to making a ruling on criminal matters the chief had to rely on oral testimony and brain sweat to determine guilt or innocence.
This duty wasn't so hard during the really old days because the life of a nomad was short and hard, which kept down the tribe's population. But once humans settled down and farmed our numbers greatly increased. What this meant for the chief is that instead of sitting through the testimony of say, five witnesses, he could hear from hundreds.
Thus, The Trouble started. It came to pass that the only respite chiefs got from ruling on cases from the bench was weddings, funerals, religious holidays and war.
However, there wasn't much war, and war in those days was rarely armed conflict. Instead, disputing tribes would paint themselves to look fierce then hop up and down and make screeching noises at each other. (I note this atavistic custom survives in the quaint ritual that anti-globalists perform outside the IMF and World Bank headquarters each Spring.) Whichever tribe managed to hop the highest and screech the loudest won the war.
Then one day, after weeks spent listening to 871 witnesses give testimony about a stolen goat, a chief turned to his court clerk and said, "Death in battle is preferable to this."
"Why not try adding another religious holiday?" whispered the clerk helpfully.
But as anyone who has visited old parts of the world can intuit, by that era chiefs desperate to get off the bench had already added so many religious holidays to the docket that tribal business moved at a snail's pace.
"No. I will gather the hotheads and travel far distant to fight a war."
This was unheard of. Wars, to the extent they occurred, were with neighbors. What else were neighbors for?
"On what grounds will you declare war on strangers?" asked the perplexed clerk.
"I don't know..." muttered the chief. "Maybe I'll find a strange tribe and call their gods stupid."
"But that is Taboo," gasped the clerk. "It is only allowed to call our own gods stupid!"
"Exactly," replied the chief grimly.
And so it began. All these millennia of bloody war and conquest -- all started by a goat who wandered off on his own accord to munch on some brambles.
This according to the possum member of my foreign policy team, whose accounts of her clan's recollections stretch back even long before the time of humans.
So here we are today. Having reasoned ourselves into a corner via the Bigger Fish Tale method, few are lucky enough to have the IQ of gods to blame for our troubles. The rest have an All Knowing, All Seeing God whose intelligence is so vast as to be immeasurable.
The downside is that we can't blame a know-it-all for any situation we consider to be a mess. No, we must find in the mess a divine plan. This still leaves us with the problem of assigning blame and responsibility for dealing with parts of the divine plan that are not pleasant for humans.
Here we come to another snag: there are now too many of us to allow for blaming a single person or small group for failure to adequately deal with a messy aspect of the divine plan. This means that today more of us must share in the responsibility for managing our societies.
This observation is so self-evident that one wonders why it's ignored in favor of hideously complex arguments for democracy. To understand this part, we would need to jump back a few chapters in history. But in one sentence, trust French philosophers to make something highly complex and abstract out of something childishly simple and concrete.
Thus, there is much mystery about the philosophy of democracy. But democracy is as old as tribes, as simple as people sitting around a fire and deciding between them how to handle problems that arise in their midst. Brother Qaddafi's remarks allude to this.
However, Brother Qaddafi does not take his argument far enough. It is true the Africans need food and medicine. Yet unless more of them take responsibility for governing themselves, the needs will be a bottomless pit while they go on looking for an elite or World Bank project to blame for the lack.
That is how to explain democracy to peoples who swear with their fingers crossed behind their back that they don't understand it. That is explanation, American-style.
Why is it so hard for Americans to come up with American-style explanations? Because American academia and think tanks are so steeped in European views that we don't even have an American lexicon for discussing foreign policy, much less democracy.
The Coen Brothers have made film after film in which they try to plumb the Mystery of America. This is in the attempt to explain how a bunch of farmers, tinkerers and salesmen created history's greatest nation.
Not by democracy alone did we do it. Our founding fathers worked their tails off. They were traders, farmers, accountants, inventors, soldiers; whatever they took from European philosophy, it was filtered through the American work ethic. So Americans arrived at the acceptance of democracy not through abstractions but through a "what works best" approach that was grounded in the experiential.
But Americans ignore their history, their own experiences, when they explain democracy to the rest of the world. Until we develop our own way of articulating things, we will keep finding ourselves sucked into philosophical debates that distract from our experience with democracy.
With regard to your observation about the randomness of choosing politicians in a democracy, I recall a true story about President George W. Bush's meeting with a constituent: When Bush inquired as to what he did for a living, the man replied that he sold compressed air. Bush shot back, "We're in the same business."
The system of American democratic government is not automatic -- it needs tending to -- but the system of checks and balances works well enough over time that individuals who represent the system are not as important as the gestalt.
We look for campaigning politicians to convey that they will give us what we want and be really good at explaining why they can't when they don't. That is an expectation of leaders that is as old as tribes. Thus, the order underlying the seeming randomness of democratic politics.
As for crafting legislation, those who closely follow doings on the Hill can tell you there is nothing random about reciprocity and the art of compromise. If you greatly familiarize yourself with the goals of a presidential administration and with the major congressional players and their pet projects, it is easy to perceive order behind the way legislation turns out.
"Greetings Pundita,
My question relates to how we can better understand democracy from the point of view of people who do not have a whole lot of experience with it.
Niels Bohr, one of the giants of 20th century physics, once said that anyone who is not shocked by the implications of quantum mechanics does not understand it. He said this because at its most basic level, reality, according to quantum mechanics, does not behave in a deterministic fashion like Newtonian mechanics. You can only determine the probability of events at the atomic level, such as the position of an electron. Einstein himself had deep reservations about this saying "God does not play dice with the universe."
So my question is can we say the same of democracy, that anyone who is not shocked by its implications does not truly understand it? When I think about it just as a practical matter it does not appear obvious why anyone would use a system for which there is a significant degree of randomness in the choosing of its leaders and crafting of its legislation.
Indeed most of Europe's ruling elite in the days of our Founding Founders assumed it would end in chaos as they hoped our Civil War would prove. How can we better understand this process ourselves and explain to others why and under what conditions democracies succeed?
Greg in Orlando"
Dear Greg:
Ah, but there is not randomness for humans. This was explained to me many moons ago by Guru David after I came across the very same comments by Bohr and Einstein that you mention. I was quite perturbed by the discussion and spent days pondering myself in circles until I recalled why there are gurus.
Guru David handed me a pile of computer printout pages that weighed several pounds and which contained nothing but row upon row of digits. He explained that the printout was the result of a random numbers generator software program. Then he asked me to study the pages to see if I could find any patterns among the randomly generated numbers. At first I saw none but within moments I reported in excitement that was finding all sorts of patterns.
Guru David replied, "The patterns you perceive are supplied by your mind, not the program. If you were a mathematician you could find many more patterns. So even if God is playing dice with the universe, humans can hunker down and study the rolls of the dice and from that find patterns, and from that find order in the universe."
Upon hearing of the Bush Democracy Doctrine, "Brother" Moammar Qaddafi, as he prefers to be called since getting more in touch with his African side, snapped, "Africans don't need democracy. They need food and medicine. Besides, Arabs invented democracy." He went on to say that the word 'democracy' has it roots in an Arab word meaning the people sitting together.
He's probably right because Arabs invented everything else. They had no choice, if you stop and think about it. In the old days, if your caravan got stuck in a sandstorm in the Kalahari you didn't tell an African chief, "Sorry, your shipment of dates has been rendered sandy goo due to circumstances beyond my control."
No. You invented the world's first miracle-ingredient exfoliating scrub, guaranteed to restore the glow of youth to even the most tired complexion.
I interject it's a pity that summary execution no longer accompanies failure to please the customer; this has diverted much human creativity into making excuses instead of inventions.
You are mystified because you're confusing a method of selection with the chore of assigning responsibility. The latter was never much of a problem in the old days because we could blame everything that went wrong on the gods, who were full of foibles and whose IQ was often in the idiot range.
Then came The Trouble, which generally we speak of only in whispers here in Pundita-land, but I will tell you a little about it. The Trouble started over a stolen goat; to be more precise, testimony about a stolen goat.
Incidentally this is where the expression, "Now you've got my goat" came from. And, more darkly, it explains how the mild mannered and frankly addle-brained goat came to be associated with the Devil.
In the old days the primary function of the chief was to be a judge -- to settle disputes that arose in the tribe. The Arabs hadn't gotten around yet to inventing fingerprinting so when it came to making a ruling on criminal matters the chief had to rely on oral testimony and brain sweat to determine guilt or innocence.
This duty wasn't so hard during the really old days because the life of a nomad was short and hard, which kept down the tribe's population. But once humans settled down and farmed our numbers greatly increased. What this meant for the chief is that instead of sitting through the testimony of say, five witnesses, he could hear from hundreds.
Thus, The Trouble started. It came to pass that the only respite chiefs got from ruling on cases from the bench was weddings, funerals, religious holidays and war.
However, there wasn't much war, and war in those days was rarely armed conflict. Instead, disputing tribes would paint themselves to look fierce then hop up and down and make screeching noises at each other. (I note this atavistic custom survives in the quaint ritual that anti-globalists perform outside the IMF and World Bank headquarters each Spring.) Whichever tribe managed to hop the highest and screech the loudest won the war.
Then one day, after weeks spent listening to 871 witnesses give testimony about a stolen goat, a chief turned to his court clerk and said, "Death in battle is preferable to this."
"Why not try adding another religious holiday?" whispered the clerk helpfully.
But as anyone who has visited old parts of the world can intuit, by that era chiefs desperate to get off the bench had already added so many religious holidays to the docket that tribal business moved at a snail's pace.
"No. I will gather the hotheads and travel far distant to fight a war."
This was unheard of. Wars, to the extent they occurred, were with neighbors. What else were neighbors for?
"On what grounds will you declare war on strangers?" asked the perplexed clerk.
"I don't know..." muttered the chief. "Maybe I'll find a strange tribe and call their gods stupid."
"But that is Taboo," gasped the clerk. "It is only allowed to call our own gods stupid!"
"Exactly," replied the chief grimly.
And so it began. All these millennia of bloody war and conquest -- all started by a goat who wandered off on his own accord to munch on some brambles.
This according to the possum member of my foreign policy team, whose accounts of her clan's recollections stretch back even long before the time of humans.
So here we are today. Having reasoned ourselves into a corner via the Bigger Fish Tale method, few are lucky enough to have the IQ of gods to blame for our troubles. The rest have an All Knowing, All Seeing God whose intelligence is so vast as to be immeasurable.
The downside is that we can't blame a know-it-all for any situation we consider to be a mess. No, we must find in the mess a divine plan. This still leaves us with the problem of assigning blame and responsibility for dealing with parts of the divine plan that are not pleasant for humans.
Here we come to another snag: there are now too many of us to allow for blaming a single person or small group for failure to adequately deal with a messy aspect of the divine plan. This means that today more of us must share in the responsibility for managing our societies.
This observation is so self-evident that one wonders why it's ignored in favor of hideously complex arguments for democracy. To understand this part, we would need to jump back a few chapters in history. But in one sentence, trust French philosophers to make something highly complex and abstract out of something childishly simple and concrete.
Thus, there is much mystery about the philosophy of democracy. But democracy is as old as tribes, as simple as people sitting around a fire and deciding between them how to handle problems that arise in their midst. Brother Qaddafi's remarks allude to this.
However, Brother Qaddafi does not take his argument far enough. It is true the Africans need food and medicine. Yet unless more of them take responsibility for governing themselves, the needs will be a bottomless pit while they go on looking for an elite or World Bank project to blame for the lack.
That is how to explain democracy to peoples who swear with their fingers crossed behind their back that they don't understand it. That is explanation, American-style.
Why is it so hard for Americans to come up with American-style explanations? Because American academia and think tanks are so steeped in European views that we don't even have an American lexicon for discussing foreign policy, much less democracy.
The Coen Brothers have made film after film in which they try to plumb the Mystery of America. This is in the attempt to explain how a bunch of farmers, tinkerers and salesmen created history's greatest nation.
Not by democracy alone did we do it. Our founding fathers worked their tails off. They were traders, farmers, accountants, inventors, soldiers; whatever they took from European philosophy, it was filtered through the American work ethic. So Americans arrived at the acceptance of democracy not through abstractions but through a "what works best" approach that was grounded in the experiential.
But Americans ignore their history, their own experiences, when they explain democracy to the rest of the world. Until we develop our own way of articulating things, we will keep finding ourselves sucked into philosophical debates that distract from our experience with democracy.
With regard to your observation about the randomness of choosing politicians in a democracy, I recall a true story about President George W. Bush's meeting with a constituent: When Bush inquired as to what he did for a living, the man replied that he sold compressed air. Bush shot back, "We're in the same business."
The system of American democratic government is not automatic -- it needs tending to -- but the system of checks and balances works well enough over time that individuals who represent the system are not as important as the gestalt.
We look for campaigning politicians to convey that they will give us what we want and be really good at explaining why they can't when they don't. That is an expectation of leaders that is as old as tribes. Thus, the order underlying the seeming randomness of democratic politics.
As for crafting legislation, those who closely follow doings on the Hill can tell you there is nothing random about reciprocity and the art of compromise. If you greatly familiarize yourself with the goals of a presidential administration and with the major congressional players and their pet projects, it is easy to perceive order behind the way legislation turns out.
Wednesday, July 27
Understanding state sponsors of terror: Northern Exposure is the best guide
"Pundita, I found your post, ...President Bush plays Sherlock Holmes about the possibility that most of the recent terrorist activity that we are seeing is state sponsored. It makes some sense as fairly large amounts of money and specialized expertise would be required to pull off these bombings and national governments are a good source.
My question, which you may have already answered, is what are these state sponsors hoping to accomplish? It seems that it needs to be more than "Leave us alone to do whatever we want."
It is obvious that Iran, North Korea, and Iraq before OIF [Operation Iraqi Freedom], are intent on developing nuclear weapons as well as biological and chemical. But I have never understood why. There is some blackmail value to having such weapons but that is very expensive saber rattling.
They can't believe that we would allow them to use such weapons to actually attack someone. I guess my question is what do they gain by sponsoring terrorism and further by developing WMD?
Dale in Minneapolis"
Dear Dale:
Your question, or rather the way you've set it up, actually represents a few questions and some wrong assumptions so we'll have to unpack your comments before we can arrive at the answer you're seeking.
First, it helps to make sense out of the broad situation if you get very precise in your definition when studying the governments that use terrorism. They are not so much "sponsoring terrorism" as waging war against other states using battle tactics that involve attacks on civilians.
That might sound like hairsplitting but when you're trying to understand something unfamiliar, it's important to be very precise with terminology.
I have written about the "Democracy Stage Show Kit" -- tactics that copycat genuine protest movements but which are used by governments to stage a bloodless coup to put their favored person/faction in power. What we've seen during the past 15 years or so is the refinement of the military equivalent of the DSSK: The Terrorism Stage Show Kit.
State militaries studied a classic warfare model used by oppressed groups under a powerful military state; i.e., "terrorism" and saw its usefulness for waging war against other states without mounting a military incursion. Voilà! The TSSK.
Red China's military did a lot of theoretical work in this area. If you want to learn something about it, News Max has published a translation of Unrestricted Warfare by Colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. You can buy the book from the News Max site, which publishes an overview of the book's contents. The basic concept behind unrestricted warfare is that a weak military can 'bleed' an enemy nation through a variety of tactics that fall outside classic battle strategy.
As to where it all began -- I doubt there is anything new under the sun when it comes to military tactics, and if I recall the Soviets deployed the strategy in some cases. But the modern approach I'm discussing probably took shape when the Iranian military got involved in driving the Israelis out of Lebanon. They saw the advantage in copying the classic insurgency model and applying it to waging indirect war against a more powerful military, which they couldn't beat in a head-on confrontation. The Iranians simply turned cars into bombs. We've seen the refinement of that tactic in Iraq. It's an Iranian military signature.
Second, you wrote that I'd posted on the "possibility" that most of the recent terrorist activity that we are seeing is state sponsored. If you go back over the essay, you'll see that I was not speaking in terms of "possibility." By the time President Bush gave the Axis of Evil Speech, he was referencing a tremendous amount of intelligence that had been gathered by US and other intelligence agencies the world over. Much of that intelligence was not new; it's just that it hadn't been integrated and studied as a distinct phenomenon.
However, proving in a court of law that most terrorism today is state sponsored would be not easy, even if all the related intelligence were declassified. This is due to the "Denial & Deception" tactics that governments have the power to deploy. In other words, going after governments that sponsor terrorism is not like Eliot Spitzer telling an American corporation to open its books. Yet at some point in intelligence gathering the pattern overwhelmingly favors government sponsorship behind a terrorist campaign.
On that basis Bush could confidently name Iraq, Iran and North Korea as state sponsors of terrorism -- meaning they were waging war against other governments using the model of terror insurgency as smokescreen. To name other governments would be difficult for various reasons; e.g., sometimes it's only a faction in a government that is sponsoring the terrorism.
To repeat a point I made in the earlier essay, this does not mean all terrorism is state sponsored. It means that this form of warfare defines a military threat that the US and other democracies face during this era. Until this concept was crystallized and articulated, it flew under the radar of US military defense policy simply because terrorism was defined as asymmetrical warfare against states.
Third, with regard to your comment, "They can't believe that we would allow them to use [WMD] weapons to actually attack someone." -- How, pray tell, would we stop them from using such weapons? I mislaid my notes so I can't tell you the exact depth of the tunnels, but Tehran is tunneling as close to the center of the earth as they can afford to pay contractors in order to relocate their nuke weapons facilities deep underground.
After the Israelis bombed Iraq's nuke facility, Saddam Hussein and every other nuke chasing despot got the message: If you want to have a nuke weapon facility, tunnel it so deep it's impregnable to conventional and bunker-busting bombs.
Hussein hooked up with Muammar Qaddafi and the Saudi faction that wanted The Bomb, and with help from several governments and private contractors blasted into a mountain in Libya then tunneled to build a nuke-bomb building factory that would be impregnable to conventional bombs.
That's why al Tuwaitha was abandoned; Hussein transferred the nuclear weapons material from Tuwaitha to the facility to Libya. That's why the US military was lobbying Congress a few years back for funds to build mini-nuke bunker busters. They were trying to find a way to put that mountain factory out of business.
That's also why the Bush administration demanded before the Iraq invasion that the IAEA interview Iraqi nuclear weapons scientists "outside Iraq." If you recall, this led to Iraqi nuke scientists huffily telling the international TV cameras that they didn't see why they had to be dragged outside their country to be interviewed.
So there's a nice example of the old AI "fruit flies" conundrum. The Bush administration was not demanding to interview the scientists working inside Iraq. They wanted the IAEA to interview the 40 or so Iraqi nuke scientists who were working outside Iraq -- specifically, working inside that mountain in Libya.
If you ask why the administration didn't clarify the semantics, because their demand was crystal clear to all the players, including Hussein and Qaddafi. When they heard that, they knew the US military was coming after them. Qaddafi rolled after the Iraq invasion but for a reason known only to himself, Hussein believed that the US invasion of Iraq could be blocked at the United Nations.
We got to Iraq just in time. How close we cut it, we won't know until considerably more military intelligence here and abroad is declassified. Qaddafi gave the US all the data he had on the nuke facility, which included the names of contractors and governments/factions that were involved with it, and which threw tremendous light on A.Q. Khan's 'nuke supermarket' network. But for obvious reasons much of that data remains classified.
Make no mistake, the only feasible quick way to shut down that factory in Libya was by putting Saddam Hussein out of business for good.
The current situation is one that emerged from many incremental steps over a period of a half century. So, part of the answer to your question is simply that despotic regimes believe they can get away with building WMD and sponsoring terrorism because they got away with it for a long time.
During the Cold War if you were a despot, you could get away with a lot if you told the Soviets, "I hate capitalists" or told the NATO bunch, "I hate commies." That's also how the despots got money and weapons expertise. During one period, the US military was ordered to give away to the PLA various weapons technologies. The Chinese didn't even have to steal them.
Today one asks, "Was the US government plumb loco?"
The answer can be found if you recall the old TV series, Northern Exposure. If you started watching the show during the second half of the first season, it was like seeing a documentary on a lunatic asylum. But if you were there from the first episode, the main characters did perfectly understandable things.
The Northern Exposure factor explains US policies that seem certifiably insane when you look at them from outside the context of the history. For example, if you know the constitution of the Islamic regime in Iran, you have to ask what lunatic in the US government decided it would be a great idea to use Iran as a 'Green Belt' against communism in the Middle East. Yet once you get into the swing of Cold War thinking, the concept of a Green Belt makes perfect sense. From that view, it was a great idea to use a government that had sworn to destroy America to offset another enemy government.
In like manner, to you it might sound insane that the Saudis are trying to build nukes so they can wire up their oil wells with them as a defense tactic against the House of Saud being overthrown. But once you get in the swing of the situation and its history, there's a certain logic to it. A logic that does not really reference what the United States would do if they caught the Saudis red-handed.
Ditto for Pyongyang's logic. You would have to know about North Korea's relationship with China to understand why Kim Jong-il, whose main interests are gourmet food and avoiding assassination, would start a nuke program. Because the Chinese military told him to, that's why. Beyond that, and as long as it brings in enough revenue, Kim really couldn't care less.
Kim's number is that he does not believe the United States or South Korea would step in and help him, if he told Beijing to go sit on a tack. The last time he tried standing up to Beijing, on his return from China there was a huge explosion near a train station where his train had passed not hours before. It was probably only a meth factory but Kim got the message: Don't double deal.
I tell you all this so you can understand that the people you're asking about, the governments in question, are not looking at their situation from an American point of view. Nor is America necessarily #1 on their list of reasons for building WMD and sponsoring a terror army or their only reason. This does not mean they have no interest in doing harm to the USA or find no profit in threatening the USA. But their reasons arise from the relationships that mean the most to them, the ones that trouble them the most. Often the USA belongs in neither category.
Again I return to Northern Exposure. The outsiders who somehow stumbled into that town in Alaska found themselves the star and victim of a plot involving the regular cast of characters. The outsiders were just foils, a means to highlight and further complicate the complicated relationships of the regular cast. But no matter how interesting the outsider and his situation, the denizens of Northern Exposure were greatly focused on each other. In like manner, the USA is often just an excuse or a foil, which allows the regimes to avoid outright threats against neighbors.
With all the above taken into consideration, we can return to your question: "...what do they gain by sponsoring terrorism and further by developing WMD?"
The answer is that "they" are not monolithic when we look at motives for sponsoring terror and developing WMD. They have varying reasons:
> Appeasement of a more powerful neighboring government,
>making unrestricted warfare against another government,
and
> staging what are essentially 'mob' wars with other governments that are also run by a crime syndicate or coalition of syndicates.
Yet there are unifying underlying factors:
> The governments in question are despotic and suppress democracy,
> docile/terrorized populations that accept despotic rule,
> a globalized black market in traditional weapons and WMD materials and technology,
> the willingness of many governments to allow the sale of dual-use technologies and materials to despotic regimes,
> sources of revenue from crime and state-controlled enterprises that allow the regimes to spend many billions USD on building WMD and sponsoring terror armies,
and
> the long-standing policy of the world's so-called leadership nations to studiously look the other way and in some cases tacitly encourage state-sponsored terrorism.
(An example of the former would be the US looking the other way about China's involvement in helping Pakistan wage terror war against Indian-controlled Kashmir. An example of the latter would be Britain giving a home to front organizations for the Iranian government that wage terror war against Israel.)
To put all this another way: On the morning of September 11, 2001, most of the world's governments could be divided into three categories:
1. Rascals.
2. Those who tolerated and encouraged rascals.
3. Those too poor to wage terror war and build WMD programs.
This is what happens when we allow business concerns to run the world. It was business concerns -- cost cutting, to be specific -- that made the World Trade Towers a tomb on 9/11 and led to their complete collapse. A more fitting metaphor can't be found to warn that security concerns and commitment to the principles of fair government must come prior to business, if democratic societies are not to collapse.
My question, which you may have already answered, is what are these state sponsors hoping to accomplish? It seems that it needs to be more than "Leave us alone to do whatever we want."
It is obvious that Iran, North Korea, and Iraq before OIF [Operation Iraqi Freedom], are intent on developing nuclear weapons as well as biological and chemical. But I have never understood why. There is some blackmail value to having such weapons but that is very expensive saber rattling.
They can't believe that we would allow them to use such weapons to actually attack someone. I guess my question is what do they gain by sponsoring terrorism and further by developing WMD?
Dale in Minneapolis"
Dear Dale:
Your question, or rather the way you've set it up, actually represents a few questions and some wrong assumptions so we'll have to unpack your comments before we can arrive at the answer you're seeking.
First, it helps to make sense out of the broad situation if you get very precise in your definition when studying the governments that use terrorism. They are not so much "sponsoring terrorism" as waging war against other states using battle tactics that involve attacks on civilians.
That might sound like hairsplitting but when you're trying to understand something unfamiliar, it's important to be very precise with terminology.
I have written about the "Democracy Stage Show Kit" -- tactics that copycat genuine protest movements but which are used by governments to stage a bloodless coup to put their favored person/faction in power. What we've seen during the past 15 years or so is the refinement of the military equivalent of the DSSK: The Terrorism Stage Show Kit.
State militaries studied a classic warfare model used by oppressed groups under a powerful military state; i.e., "terrorism" and saw its usefulness for waging war against other states without mounting a military incursion. Voilà! The TSSK.
Red China's military did a lot of theoretical work in this area. If you want to learn something about it, News Max has published a translation of Unrestricted Warfare by Colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. You can buy the book from the News Max site, which publishes an overview of the book's contents. The basic concept behind unrestricted warfare is that a weak military can 'bleed' an enemy nation through a variety of tactics that fall outside classic battle strategy.
As to where it all began -- I doubt there is anything new under the sun when it comes to military tactics, and if I recall the Soviets deployed the strategy in some cases. But the modern approach I'm discussing probably took shape when the Iranian military got involved in driving the Israelis out of Lebanon. They saw the advantage in copying the classic insurgency model and applying it to waging indirect war against a more powerful military, which they couldn't beat in a head-on confrontation. The Iranians simply turned cars into bombs. We've seen the refinement of that tactic in Iraq. It's an Iranian military signature.
Second, you wrote that I'd posted on the "possibility" that most of the recent terrorist activity that we are seeing is state sponsored. If you go back over the essay, you'll see that I was not speaking in terms of "possibility." By the time President Bush gave the Axis of Evil Speech, he was referencing a tremendous amount of intelligence that had been gathered by US and other intelligence agencies the world over. Much of that intelligence was not new; it's just that it hadn't been integrated and studied as a distinct phenomenon.
However, proving in a court of law that most terrorism today is state sponsored would be not easy, even if all the related intelligence were declassified. This is due to the "Denial & Deception" tactics that governments have the power to deploy. In other words, going after governments that sponsor terrorism is not like Eliot Spitzer telling an American corporation to open its books. Yet at some point in intelligence gathering the pattern overwhelmingly favors government sponsorship behind a terrorist campaign.
On that basis Bush could confidently name Iraq, Iran and North Korea as state sponsors of terrorism -- meaning they were waging war against other governments using the model of terror insurgency as smokescreen. To name other governments would be difficult for various reasons; e.g., sometimes it's only a faction in a government that is sponsoring the terrorism.
To repeat a point I made in the earlier essay, this does not mean all terrorism is state sponsored. It means that this form of warfare defines a military threat that the US and other democracies face during this era. Until this concept was crystallized and articulated, it flew under the radar of US military defense policy simply because terrorism was defined as asymmetrical warfare against states.
Third, with regard to your comment, "They can't believe that we would allow them to use [WMD] weapons to actually attack someone." -- How, pray tell, would we stop them from using such weapons? I mislaid my notes so I can't tell you the exact depth of the tunnels, but Tehran is tunneling as close to the center of the earth as they can afford to pay contractors in order to relocate their nuke weapons facilities deep underground.
After the Israelis bombed Iraq's nuke facility, Saddam Hussein and every other nuke chasing despot got the message: If you want to have a nuke weapon facility, tunnel it so deep it's impregnable to conventional and bunker-busting bombs.
Hussein hooked up with Muammar Qaddafi and the Saudi faction that wanted The Bomb, and with help from several governments and private contractors blasted into a mountain in Libya then tunneled to build a nuke-bomb building factory that would be impregnable to conventional bombs.
That's why al Tuwaitha was abandoned; Hussein transferred the nuclear weapons material from Tuwaitha to the facility to Libya. That's why the US military was lobbying Congress a few years back for funds to build mini-nuke bunker busters. They were trying to find a way to put that mountain factory out of business.
That's also why the Bush administration demanded before the Iraq invasion that the IAEA interview Iraqi nuclear weapons scientists "outside Iraq." If you recall, this led to Iraqi nuke scientists huffily telling the international TV cameras that they didn't see why they had to be dragged outside their country to be interviewed.
So there's a nice example of the old AI "fruit flies" conundrum. The Bush administration was not demanding to interview the scientists working inside Iraq. They wanted the IAEA to interview the 40 or so Iraqi nuke scientists who were working outside Iraq -- specifically, working inside that mountain in Libya.
If you ask why the administration didn't clarify the semantics, because their demand was crystal clear to all the players, including Hussein and Qaddafi. When they heard that, they knew the US military was coming after them. Qaddafi rolled after the Iraq invasion but for a reason known only to himself, Hussein believed that the US invasion of Iraq could be blocked at the United Nations.
We got to Iraq just in time. How close we cut it, we won't know until considerably more military intelligence here and abroad is declassified. Qaddafi gave the US all the data he had on the nuke facility, which included the names of contractors and governments/factions that were involved with it, and which threw tremendous light on A.Q. Khan's 'nuke supermarket' network. But for obvious reasons much of that data remains classified.
Make no mistake, the only feasible quick way to shut down that factory in Libya was by putting Saddam Hussein out of business for good.
The current situation is one that emerged from many incremental steps over a period of a half century. So, part of the answer to your question is simply that despotic regimes believe they can get away with building WMD and sponsoring terrorism because they got away with it for a long time.
During the Cold War if you were a despot, you could get away with a lot if you told the Soviets, "I hate capitalists" or told the NATO bunch, "I hate commies." That's also how the despots got money and weapons expertise. During one period, the US military was ordered to give away to the PLA various weapons technologies. The Chinese didn't even have to steal them.
Today one asks, "Was the US government plumb loco?"
The answer can be found if you recall the old TV series, Northern Exposure. If you started watching the show during the second half of the first season, it was like seeing a documentary on a lunatic asylum. But if you were there from the first episode, the main characters did perfectly understandable things.
The Northern Exposure factor explains US policies that seem certifiably insane when you look at them from outside the context of the history. For example, if you know the constitution of the Islamic regime in Iran, you have to ask what lunatic in the US government decided it would be a great idea to use Iran as a 'Green Belt' against communism in the Middle East. Yet once you get into the swing of Cold War thinking, the concept of a Green Belt makes perfect sense. From that view, it was a great idea to use a government that had sworn to destroy America to offset another enemy government.
In like manner, to you it might sound insane that the Saudis are trying to build nukes so they can wire up their oil wells with them as a defense tactic against the House of Saud being overthrown. But once you get in the swing of the situation and its history, there's a certain logic to it. A logic that does not really reference what the United States would do if they caught the Saudis red-handed.
Ditto for Pyongyang's logic. You would have to know about North Korea's relationship with China to understand why Kim Jong-il, whose main interests are gourmet food and avoiding assassination, would start a nuke program. Because the Chinese military told him to, that's why. Beyond that, and as long as it brings in enough revenue, Kim really couldn't care less.
Kim's number is that he does not believe the United States or South Korea would step in and help him, if he told Beijing to go sit on a tack. The last time he tried standing up to Beijing, on his return from China there was a huge explosion near a train station where his train had passed not hours before. It was probably only a meth factory but Kim got the message: Don't double deal.
I tell you all this so you can understand that the people you're asking about, the governments in question, are not looking at their situation from an American point of view. Nor is America necessarily #1 on their list of reasons for building WMD and sponsoring a terror army or their only reason. This does not mean they have no interest in doing harm to the USA or find no profit in threatening the USA. But their reasons arise from the relationships that mean the most to them, the ones that trouble them the most. Often the USA belongs in neither category.
Again I return to Northern Exposure. The outsiders who somehow stumbled into that town in Alaska found themselves the star and victim of a plot involving the regular cast of characters. The outsiders were just foils, a means to highlight and further complicate the complicated relationships of the regular cast. But no matter how interesting the outsider and his situation, the denizens of Northern Exposure were greatly focused on each other. In like manner, the USA is often just an excuse or a foil, which allows the regimes to avoid outright threats against neighbors.
With all the above taken into consideration, we can return to your question: "...what do they gain by sponsoring terrorism and further by developing WMD?"
The answer is that "they" are not monolithic when we look at motives for sponsoring terror and developing WMD. They have varying reasons:
> Appeasement of a more powerful neighboring government,
>making unrestricted warfare against another government,
and
> staging what are essentially 'mob' wars with other governments that are also run by a crime syndicate or coalition of syndicates.
Yet there are unifying underlying factors:
> The governments in question are despotic and suppress democracy,
> docile/terrorized populations that accept despotic rule,
> a globalized black market in traditional weapons and WMD materials and technology,
> the willingness of many governments to allow the sale of dual-use technologies and materials to despotic regimes,
> sources of revenue from crime and state-controlled enterprises that allow the regimes to spend many billions USD on building WMD and sponsoring terror armies,
and
> the long-standing policy of the world's so-called leadership nations to studiously look the other way and in some cases tacitly encourage state-sponsored terrorism.
(An example of the former would be the US looking the other way about China's involvement in helping Pakistan wage terror war against Indian-controlled Kashmir. An example of the latter would be Britain giving a home to front organizations for the Iranian government that wage terror war against Israel.)
To put all this another way: On the morning of September 11, 2001, most of the world's governments could be divided into three categories:
1. Rascals.
2. Those who tolerated and encouraged rascals.
3. Those too poor to wage terror war and build WMD programs.
This is what happens when we allow business concerns to run the world. It was business concerns -- cost cutting, to be specific -- that made the World Trade Towers a tomb on 9/11 and led to their complete collapse. A more fitting metaphor can't be found to warn that security concerns and commitment to the principles of fair government must come prior to business, if democratic societies are not to collapse.
Tuesday, July 26
Watchmen always hear the bell first
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.*I have noted before that Pundita readers are very smart but every once in a while a Pundita reader exclaims, "Say, I wonder what I'd be like if I had cheese tostitos for brains!"
I interject that Pundita understands the source of this burning curiosity because I have studied the phenomenon. This was years ago when I noticed that two coworkers had an odd habit of briefly transforming into aliens from outer space.
At first I tried to ascertain whether the behavior correlated with phases of the moon but soon I rejected that hypothesis. Then came a day I was with them in an elevator as they headed for lunch.
One turned to the other and said, "I feel like moo shu pork today. What about you?"
The other replied, "We did Chinese last week. I feel like chicken quesadilla."
By the time the elevator door opened I was standing next to aliens.
From this I've concluded that some brains pay too much attention to what their human says. Happily the phenomenon is short-lived -- I suppose the brain quickly tires of trying to imagine what it feels like to be Chinese, Italian, Mexican or Thai food or a burger with fries.
Here the alert reader might ask how I know some readers wish to have cheese tostitos for brains. Actually I don't know, except when they make such a wish then exclaim, "Say, I think I'll write Pundita a letter today!"
Because I know the phenomenon is transient I have decided not to publish two letters which arrived in response to my Quackenspiegel post. This on the assumption that by now the authors of the emails have been restored to their normal brain function. So I will simply reply to the authors' comments and leave the content of the letters to the reader's imagination:
The number of articles published in Germany about al Qaeda-Iran links is not the burning question. What we're trying to nail down is whether the Germans understand that the regime in Iran is threatening to blow them to Kingdom Come if they crack down on terror mongers and get tough at the nuke discussions. Now how can we find an answer this question? Let's take a quiz:
To learn whether Germans understand the AQ-Iran link and what it means, I:
A) Ask Pundita to chip her nails while typing at various search engines to discover the answer.
B) (If I live in Washington, DC) Hope that Pundita will hie herself to the Washington National Mall then holler, "Are there any German tourists around who wouldn't mind answering questions about al Qaeda and Iran?" so I don't have to spend my lunch hour on the Mall.
C) (If I live in Germany) Write Pundita to tell her I live in Germany and give her the name of a blog she might spend an evening reading if she wants to know whether any Germans are aware of an al-Qaeda-Iran link. This is so she can have the fun of spending an evening discovering for herself whether the blogger has any fresh data directly related to the question.
E) Find some Germans, put the question to them, then report the answers to Pundita.
* * * * * * *
Good news is that the brain of one author momentarily cleared while writing his letter. While in a lucid state of mind he provided valuable data:
I believe I was the first American to write about [Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi] Zarkawi -- although Newsweek's Mark Hosenball wrote something similar at about the same time -- who had set up a European terror network.Dear Michael:
Various agents, terrorists and couriers were arrested and sentenced to jail; all this was covered in the German and Italian press. They cited court documents that included intercepts between Zarkawi (in Tehran, talking on a satellite phone) and his agents in Italy and Germany.
Notice, by the way, that the stories out in the last couple of days -- alleging that Zarkawi has now "taken control" of al Qaeda in Europe, never refer to the key fact about Zarkawi: namely, that he created this network in the first place. How's that for selective memory?
Michael Ledeen"
Your account about reporting in Europe on Zarqawi that far back is deeply troubling. It implies almost a Twilight Zone situation in Europe.
Surely, if it was widely known in Europe that Z set up the Euro network -- it would imply the Europeans knew that large sums of money and a sophisticated C3 apparatus were involved. So they had to know he was not the pastoral Ghazi warrior leading a ragtag band that the media portrayed by the time he surfaced as the leader of the insurgency in Iraq.
Something is screwy somewhere. Either the Europeans are zoned out -- or (as John Terrett's 'Person in the Pub' report suggests) what many Europeans really think about the al Qaeda threat has not shown up in Euro polls and their media during the past three years.
Pundita
"Dear Pundita
I don't think it's hard to understand the Europeans; they have been in denial for many years now. Basically the Europeans have traded freedom for comfort, and as part of that deal, they rarely challenge their government unless they think their comforts are threatened. They want "out" of the real world; they want vacation and doctors and money and and and...
And when the real world kills them, as in Madrid, say, then they get angry at their government and vote in a new one that promises to shield them from reality. They are exposed to the facts -- as in this case, the Germans had all the information they needed, actually they had more than we had -- but they block out those facts they don't want to know about. Denial.
It's not unusual, historically speaking. We [Americans] only passed the Draft bill in the summer of 1941 by a single vote. If the Japanese hadn't attacked us, and then the Germans declared war on us, I doubt we would have entered a two-front war in time to save England and the Soviet Union.
Michael"
* * * * * *
That's a harsh indictment and I wonder whether it represents the situation on the ground in Europe at this time. Most of all, I wonder whether the German media have conveyed an accurate view to Germans about what a majority of their countrymen are thinking.
This said, I learned from a few moments at Google and Front Page Magazine that Michael Ledeen is qualified to hold forth on the Europeans and the situation with Zarqawi, al Qaeda and Iran.
Dr Ledeen informed me that over the years he has written hundreds of articles for the National Review Online about the threat from the Iranian regime. Interested readers might want to visit the site and use the search engine.
I found it unsettling to glance through Ledeen's old writings. Reminds me of Rick Rescorla and John P. O'Neill: watchmen; people who clearly saw the al Qaeda threat while many others refused to see anything at all.
Well, Pundita is loath to end on such a grim note so I will return to needling the helpful reader in Germany. Kindly try to be a little more helpful. Is there a wine bar within walking distance? Can you perhaps spend an hour chatting up the patrons to learn what they know about the Iranian-al Qaeda connection?
But so as not to discourage a well meaning effort:
"For more background on Germany, I recommend Aspen Institute Berlin, Jeff Gedmin's Corner (linked on Davids Medienkritik). He writes regularly for Die Welt, and many of his columns are archived in English as well as German. If you go back over a few years, you will get a good overview of Jeff's experiences in Germany. It is worth an evening's reading.
Vickie"
* From For Whom the Bell Tolls by John Donne
Monday, July 25
On the importance of being earnest and doubtful
Two posts today, "Epoch Times vs Xinhua News Agency" and "Medienkritik vs Der Quackenspiegel," expand on my observations in Saturday's post about the difficulty the public faces in trying to obtain a reasonably accurate account of the day's news. Yet both posts relate heartening evidence that the earnestness that nourishes good journalism is very much alive and well.
Also, I received advice from a very wise media guru that I pass on to you:
Doubt all information, then eliminate what must be impossible; keep all information that you cannot eliminate as outside the laws of physics.
Also, I received advice from a very wise media guru that I pass on to you:
Doubt all information, then eliminate what must be impossible; keep all information that you cannot eliminate as outside the laws of physics.
Epoch Times vs Xinhua News Agency
On Thursday last week in the early hours I was tired and rushing to get a post up; I had one eye on the clock, knowing I would only have a few hours sleep that day. Within minutes of the post's publication, which I'd titled Strange Days in China: return to the Mao Zedong era..., I received a comment from a reader whose opinion I'd solicited:
"...beware of using Epoch Times [as a source]. It's owned by the Falun Gong and virulently anti-Communist, to the point they can bend the truth to their cause."
I already knew the paper was strongly anti-communist and I had a vague recollection of hearing before of an association between the newspaper and Falun Gong, so I hastily added a footnote to post:
"The Epoch Times is owned by the Falun Gong, which with some understatement is not very fond of the CCP."
Then I republished the post, switched off the computer and fell into bed. Just before sleep overtook me I remembered I'd broken my cardinal rule: Always check Wikipedia first. I told myself I'd do that later in the day. But "later" was a round of meetings and the news of the second attack in London....
Wikipedia itself is controversial; some consider it anarchist and decry the lack of footnotes in many articles. But the encyclopedia, which has overtaken Encylopedia Brittanica as a reference source, carries information about many more subjects than traditional encyclopedias -- information that can be constantly updated. And because it's interactive, it relies on interested scholars and citizen journalists to correct or flag articles that are cause for dispute. Thus, Wikipedia is the force of democracy meeting with a field that was always the province of academia.
If you know nothing about a topic and don't know where to start looking for a summary Wikipedia is the first place to try. At least you'll be oriented for research at traditional search engines with a basic Wiki article as your guide.
According to Wikipedia, the Chinese Communist Party has accused The Epoch Times of being owned by the Falun Gong. That is not saying the paper is owned by the Falun Gong.
As to whether The Epoch Times reporting can "bend the truth to their cause" -- that's a very interesting question, which the Wiki article deals with at some length.
So, in penance for my hasty footnote (which I am deleting today), I have decided to publish the entire Wikipedia article about The Epoch Times. And for good measure I have tossed in the Wikipedia introduction about The Epoch Times' archenemy -- the huge, CCP-controlled Xinhua News Agency, which is the Chinese government's official press agency.
(You'll have to visit the Wikipedia pages in question to follow the many links provided in the articles, which I have not highlighted here.)
I note that one of the most fascinating points in a fascinating article is that The Epoch Times editorial board, which represents a conservative Chinese view, interprets communism as an evil force from the West and specifically from Europe.
Another point of note: The Epoch Times claims there have been 3 million Internet-published defections from the CCP in direct response to Chinese reading the "Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party" published by their paper. And the paper has reported "severe unrest" in China from Chinese learning what the commentaries have to say about the CCP.
The latter comment is particularly interesting in light of the severe recent unrest in China that the government has not been able to tamp down. The unrest has been portrayed to the Western media as anger against businesses (often, Western businesses) that are polluting, forcing Chinese off their land, and so on. That is surely the case with regard to specific news items that have surfaced in recent weeks. However, The Epoch Times claim may point to a contributing factor in at least some of the riots.
In any case, it's no wonder the CCP is gunning for The Epoch Times and cracking down on the Internet! That's one scrappy newspaper.
WIKIPEDIA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch_Times
"The Epoch Times is a conservative Chinese newspaper, which is freely distributed in eight languages and in roughly 30 countries worldwide. Its frequency of publishing depends on the city and the language in which it is published.
Contents
1 History
2 Focus
3 Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party
4 Criticism
5 External links
History
The Epoch Times was founded by a small circle of journalists in China in 2000. The journalists relayed stories overseas of human rights abuses, infringements on civil liberties, and alleged corruption in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), among other things.
In the summer of 2000, it was discovered that all twenty journalists had been arrested and detained, their offices raided. Some have allegedly died in prison (the Epoch Times says that 90 of their Chinese journalists remain in prison today).
However, the Chinese authorities claim that The Epoch Times was founded and controlled by Falun Gong, which China banned and labelled an "evil cult" in 1999, and accuses it of political propaganda to overseas Chinese in order to gain their support of Falun Gong and create distrust of the Chinese Government.
Despite crackdowns by authorities inside China, the Epoch Times continued to grow overseas and has since become one of the largest Chinese newspapers serving the Chinese diaspora. It also claims to be the only major Chinese newspaper that is not directly or indirectly controlled by China's communist party, and was the first newspaper to carry in-depth coverage of SARS well before the Chinese government publicly admitted that there was an epidemic that went on to cause some three hundred and fifty deaths.
It now has a weekly print distribution of over 1 million copies in 30 countries worldwide.
In August 2004, an English-language edition of the Epoch Times was launched in Manhattan. It has since grown to be distributed in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Chicago, Boston, Washington D.C., Houston, Vancouver, Toronto, Edmonton, Regina and Ottawa, as well as in the UK and Australia. German and French editions were launched in late 2004, and more recently Russian, Spanish and Japanese editions have started up in print.[edit]
Focus
The Epoch Times was originally created for Chinese readers living abroad in order to report the alleged persecutions, abuses, and inner workings of the CCP. It has since grown to report on civil rights issues worldwide in a conservative view, and now appeals to a somewhat wider audience.
The English edition represents itself as a general-interest newspaper that, although it maintains a large amount of China-related content, offers 12 other sections, including travel, science, sports, and regional and international news.
Its reports on China are highly critical, focusing on human rights abuses and sometimes using language such as 'Evil Spirit from the West' or 'Anti-universal Force' in reference to Communism. Reports on other nations such as Taiwan or other democratic countries are generally more positive.
Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party
In November 2004, the Chinese version of the Epoch Times published a series of editorials entitled "Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party" ("Jiuping" in Chinese).
The editorials give an alternate, if conservative, view of the CCP through its history, from its ascent to power under Mao Zedong to its present-day form, as well as a condemnation of the moral and social philosophy of Communism in all of its forms.
Portions of the history given by the Commentaries are difficult to support using traditionally respected texts of 20th century Chinese history, a difficulty supporters often attribute to the CCP's need for control and tendency to try to cover up its more embarrassing actions.
This, they say, results in a wealth of information that is often hard to come by and difficult to report on. The prevailing tone of the editorials is solidly anti-communist with no consideration given to other viewpoints. This attitude is intended for the audience of Chinese readers who already know the other side of the story and do not need to be reminded.
Readers of the English version often find the Commentaries to be rather one-sided, and its language, over-blown and unbelievable, making the Commentaries difficult to take seriously and leading to much of the current criticism against it.
Much of this is the result of a more literal translation from the original Chinese text [emphasis mine].
The editorial uses many strong words to condemn the CCP, calling it 'an anti-universal force' and 'an evil spirit from Europe', and that the CCP is 'an evil cult' itself, comparable to the very image in which the CCP try to portray Falun Gong.
The tone is said to be geared towards the communication style to which mainland Chinese readers would be accustomed, and it was said that such readers have usually been exposed to years of government propaganda, rarely gaining access to alternative information about their government, although that is not corrobated by actual readers from mainland China, as the Epoch Times is not widely circulated in China itself.
While praised by some Chinese dissidents as 'the book that is breaking up the CCP', its contents are somewhat controversial and disputed, and has been accused of historical revisionism by other Chinese.
The Epoch Times has made the "Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party" a primary focus of the newspaper; almost every issue contains an article relating to the "Commentaries" or its reception in China.
The Epoch Times claims that the publication of the "Commentaries," in presenting what they believe to be a truthful exposé of the Chinese Communist Party, has caused over 3 million Chinese citizens to quit from the CCP via anonymous, unchecked online signatures and public declarations (for people inside Mainland China unable to access the online website due to censorship. See: Internet censorship in mainland China), and reports of severe unrest in China as a direct result of the publication of the "Commentaries".
An article in the French version of the Epoch Times of a talk given by Michel Wu notes that an original Nine Commentaries was printed in 1963-64 during a theoretical review of government policies, although the effects were apparently not as profound as those many supporters say today's commentaries are having.
While many of the articles in the Epoch Times are corroborated by the mainstream media, few major news outlets have verified Epoch Times articles concerning the "Commentaries."
Criticism
In the Chinese community, where The Epoch Times is widely distributed, reactions were mixed. While some Chinese commend it for providing alternative views of the China and the Communist government, others condemn it for its conservative pro-Falun Gong bias, and casting Chinese people, even overseas ones, in a negative light.
One of the biggest criticisms of The Epoch Times is that the paper always try to cast news stories from mainland China in a negative light, even the most positive ones, by using selective evidence and opinionated commentaries.
It should be noted that although a concentration of these articles may be published in the Epoch Times, many of these negative reports can also be found in neutral overseas Chinese newspapers.
In defence to this criticism, The Epoch Times claimed that pro-China articles need not to be reported, as they are not subject to censorship by China's state-owned media.
Other criticisms include that the paper's news reports are always mixed with conservative opinions, of which the paper deemed necessary to provide alternative views. [Pundita wonders what exactly is meant by 'conservative' in this context]
The Epoch Times is very vocal in supporting dissidents, Falun Gong practioners and pro-independence Taiwanese, and their opinions can often be seen in the opinion page.
The paper rarely publishes letters and opinions that do not suit its cause, such as pro-communist and anti-Falun Gong comments, which the paper deems unnecessary. The Times argues that most, if not all government-censored Chinese news sources already contain opinions in agreement with Chinese governmental policies.
External links
The Epoch Times Website (English)
The Epoch Times Website (Chinese)
The Epoch Times Website (French)
Text of "Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party"
"
WIKIPEDIA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinhua_News_Agency
"The Xinhua News Agency [...] or NCNA (New China News Agency), is the official press agency of the government of the People's Republic of China and the biggest center for collecting information and press conferences in the PRC.
It is one of the two news agencies in mainland China, the other being the China News Service, and is among the premier world news agencies.Xinhua is an institution of the State Council of China.
Critics of Xinhua therefore consider it to be an instrument of state-sponsored Communist propaganda.
In many ways, Xinhua is the fuel propelling China's print media. Perhaps unique in the world because of its role, size, and reach, Xinhua reports directly to the Chinese Communist Party's Propaganda Department; employs more than 10,000 people — as compared to about 1,300 for Reuters; has 107 bureaus worldwide both collecting information on other countries and dispensing information about China; and maintains 31 bureaus in China — one for each province plus a military bureau.
Inasmuch as most of the newspapers in China cannot afford to station correspondents abroad, or even in every Chinese province, they rely on Xinhua feeds to fill their pages. People's Daily, for example, uses Xinhua material for approximately 25 percent of its stories.
Xinhua is a publisher as well as a news agency — it owns more than 20 newspapers and a dozen magazines, and it prints in Chinese, English, and four other languages.
Like other government entities, Xinhua is feeling the pinch of reduced state financial subsidies. Beijing has been cutting funding to the news agency by an average of seven percent per year over the past three years, and state funds currently cover only about 40 percent of Xinhua's costs. As a result, the agency is raising revenues through involvement in public relations, construction, and information service businesses.
In the past, Xinhua was able to attract the top young journalists emerging from the universities or otherwise newly entering the field, but it can no longer do so as easily because of the appeal and resources of other newspapers and periodicals and the greater glamour of television and radio jobs.
For example, midlevel reporters for the Xinmin Evening News in Shanghai often are given an apartment, whereas at Xinhua and People's Daily this benefit is reserved for the most senior journalists.
Contents
1 History
2 Xinhua and the internal media
3 Xinhua in Hong Kong
3.1 Previous directors of Hong Kong Xinhua
4 Xinhua in Macau
5 Xinhua online
6 See also
7 External links
[...]
"...beware of using Epoch Times [as a source]. It's owned by the Falun Gong and virulently anti-Communist, to the point they can bend the truth to their cause."
I already knew the paper was strongly anti-communist and I had a vague recollection of hearing before of an association between the newspaper and Falun Gong, so I hastily added a footnote to post:
"The Epoch Times is owned by the Falun Gong, which with some understatement is not very fond of the CCP."
Then I republished the post, switched off the computer and fell into bed. Just before sleep overtook me I remembered I'd broken my cardinal rule: Always check Wikipedia first. I told myself I'd do that later in the day. But "later" was a round of meetings and the news of the second attack in London....
Wikipedia itself is controversial; some consider it anarchist and decry the lack of footnotes in many articles. But the encyclopedia, which has overtaken Encylopedia Brittanica as a reference source, carries information about many more subjects than traditional encyclopedias -- information that can be constantly updated. And because it's interactive, it relies on interested scholars and citizen journalists to correct or flag articles that are cause for dispute. Thus, Wikipedia is the force of democracy meeting with a field that was always the province of academia.
If you know nothing about a topic and don't know where to start looking for a summary Wikipedia is the first place to try. At least you'll be oriented for research at traditional search engines with a basic Wiki article as your guide.
According to Wikipedia, the Chinese Communist Party has accused The Epoch Times of being owned by the Falun Gong. That is not saying the paper is owned by the Falun Gong.
As to whether The Epoch Times reporting can "bend the truth to their cause" -- that's a very interesting question, which the Wiki article deals with at some length.
So, in penance for my hasty footnote (which I am deleting today), I have decided to publish the entire Wikipedia article about The Epoch Times. And for good measure I have tossed in the Wikipedia introduction about The Epoch Times' archenemy -- the huge, CCP-controlled Xinhua News Agency, which is the Chinese government's official press agency.
(You'll have to visit the Wikipedia pages in question to follow the many links provided in the articles, which I have not highlighted here.)
I note that one of the most fascinating points in a fascinating article is that The Epoch Times editorial board, which represents a conservative Chinese view, interprets communism as an evil force from the West and specifically from Europe.
Another point of note: The Epoch Times claims there have been 3 million Internet-published defections from the CCP in direct response to Chinese reading the "Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party" published by their paper. And the paper has reported "severe unrest" in China from Chinese learning what the commentaries have to say about the CCP.
The latter comment is particularly interesting in light of the severe recent unrest in China that the government has not been able to tamp down. The unrest has been portrayed to the Western media as anger against businesses (often, Western businesses) that are polluting, forcing Chinese off their land, and so on. That is surely the case with regard to specific news items that have surfaced in recent weeks. However, The Epoch Times claim may point to a contributing factor in at least some of the riots.
In any case, it's no wonder the CCP is gunning for The Epoch Times and cracking down on the Internet! That's one scrappy newspaper.
WIKIPEDIA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch_Times
"The Epoch Times is a conservative Chinese newspaper, which is freely distributed in eight languages and in roughly 30 countries worldwide. Its frequency of publishing depends on the city and the language in which it is published.
Contents
1 History
2 Focus
3 Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party
4 Criticism
5 External links
History
The Epoch Times was founded by a small circle of journalists in China in 2000. The journalists relayed stories overseas of human rights abuses, infringements on civil liberties, and alleged corruption in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), among other things.
In the summer of 2000, it was discovered that all twenty journalists had been arrested and detained, their offices raided. Some have allegedly died in prison (the Epoch Times says that 90 of their Chinese journalists remain in prison today).
However, the Chinese authorities claim that The Epoch Times was founded and controlled by Falun Gong, which China banned and labelled an "evil cult" in 1999, and accuses it of political propaganda to overseas Chinese in order to gain their support of Falun Gong and create distrust of the Chinese Government.
Despite crackdowns by authorities inside China, the Epoch Times continued to grow overseas and has since become one of the largest Chinese newspapers serving the Chinese diaspora. It also claims to be the only major Chinese newspaper that is not directly or indirectly controlled by China's communist party, and was the first newspaper to carry in-depth coverage of SARS well before the Chinese government publicly admitted that there was an epidemic that went on to cause some three hundred and fifty deaths.
It now has a weekly print distribution of over 1 million copies in 30 countries worldwide.
In August 2004, an English-language edition of the Epoch Times was launched in Manhattan. It has since grown to be distributed in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Chicago, Boston, Washington D.C., Houston, Vancouver, Toronto, Edmonton, Regina and Ottawa, as well as in the UK and Australia. German and French editions were launched in late 2004, and more recently Russian, Spanish and Japanese editions have started up in print.[edit]
Focus
The Epoch Times was originally created for Chinese readers living abroad in order to report the alleged persecutions, abuses, and inner workings of the CCP. It has since grown to report on civil rights issues worldwide in a conservative view, and now appeals to a somewhat wider audience.
The English edition represents itself as a general-interest newspaper that, although it maintains a large amount of China-related content, offers 12 other sections, including travel, science, sports, and regional and international news.
Its reports on China are highly critical, focusing on human rights abuses and sometimes using language such as 'Evil Spirit from the West' or 'Anti-universal Force' in reference to Communism. Reports on other nations such as Taiwan or other democratic countries are generally more positive.
Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party
In November 2004, the Chinese version of the Epoch Times published a series of editorials entitled "Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party" ("Jiuping" in Chinese).
The editorials give an alternate, if conservative, view of the CCP through its history, from its ascent to power under Mao Zedong to its present-day form, as well as a condemnation of the moral and social philosophy of Communism in all of its forms.
Portions of the history given by the Commentaries are difficult to support using traditionally respected texts of 20th century Chinese history, a difficulty supporters often attribute to the CCP's need for control and tendency to try to cover up its more embarrassing actions.
This, they say, results in a wealth of information that is often hard to come by and difficult to report on. The prevailing tone of the editorials is solidly anti-communist with no consideration given to other viewpoints. This attitude is intended for the audience of Chinese readers who already know the other side of the story and do not need to be reminded.
Readers of the English version often find the Commentaries to be rather one-sided, and its language, over-blown and unbelievable, making the Commentaries difficult to take seriously and leading to much of the current criticism against it.
Much of this is the result of a more literal translation from the original Chinese text [emphasis mine].
The editorial uses many strong words to condemn the CCP, calling it 'an anti-universal force' and 'an evil spirit from Europe', and that the CCP is 'an evil cult' itself, comparable to the very image in which the CCP try to portray Falun Gong.
The tone is said to be geared towards the communication style to which mainland Chinese readers would be accustomed, and it was said that such readers have usually been exposed to years of government propaganda, rarely gaining access to alternative information about their government, although that is not corrobated by actual readers from mainland China, as the Epoch Times is not widely circulated in China itself.
While praised by some Chinese dissidents as 'the book that is breaking up the CCP', its contents are somewhat controversial and disputed, and has been accused of historical revisionism by other Chinese.
The Epoch Times has made the "Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party" a primary focus of the newspaper; almost every issue contains an article relating to the "Commentaries" or its reception in China.
The Epoch Times claims that the publication of the "Commentaries," in presenting what they believe to be a truthful exposé of the Chinese Communist Party, has caused over 3 million Chinese citizens to quit from the CCP via anonymous, unchecked online signatures and public declarations (for people inside Mainland China unable to access the online website due to censorship. See: Internet censorship in mainland China), and reports of severe unrest in China as a direct result of the publication of the "Commentaries".
An article in the French version of the Epoch Times of a talk given by Michel Wu notes that an original Nine Commentaries was printed in 1963-64 during a theoretical review of government policies, although the effects were apparently not as profound as those many supporters say today's commentaries are having.
While many of the articles in the Epoch Times are corroborated by the mainstream media, few major news outlets have verified Epoch Times articles concerning the "Commentaries."
Criticism
In the Chinese community, where The Epoch Times is widely distributed, reactions were mixed. While some Chinese commend it for providing alternative views of the China and the Communist government, others condemn it for its conservative pro-Falun Gong bias, and casting Chinese people, even overseas ones, in a negative light.
One of the biggest criticisms of The Epoch Times is that the paper always try to cast news stories from mainland China in a negative light, even the most positive ones, by using selective evidence and opinionated commentaries.
It should be noted that although a concentration of these articles may be published in the Epoch Times, many of these negative reports can also be found in neutral overseas Chinese newspapers.
In defence to this criticism, The Epoch Times claimed that pro-China articles need not to be reported, as they are not subject to censorship by China's state-owned media.
Other criticisms include that the paper's news reports are always mixed with conservative opinions, of which the paper deemed necessary to provide alternative views. [Pundita wonders what exactly is meant by 'conservative' in this context]
The Epoch Times is very vocal in supporting dissidents, Falun Gong practioners and pro-independence Taiwanese, and their opinions can often be seen in the opinion page.
The paper rarely publishes letters and opinions that do not suit its cause, such as pro-communist and anti-Falun Gong comments, which the paper deems unnecessary. The Times argues that most, if not all government-censored Chinese news sources already contain opinions in agreement with Chinese governmental policies.
External links
The Epoch Times Website (English)
The Epoch Times Website (Chinese)
The Epoch Times Website (French)
Text of "Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party"
"
WIKIPEDIA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinhua_News_Agency
"The Xinhua News Agency [...] or NCNA (New China News Agency), is the official press agency of the government of the People's Republic of China and the biggest center for collecting information and press conferences in the PRC.
It is one of the two news agencies in mainland China, the other being the China News Service, and is among the premier world news agencies.Xinhua is an institution of the State Council of China.
Critics of Xinhua therefore consider it to be an instrument of state-sponsored Communist propaganda.
In many ways, Xinhua is the fuel propelling China's print media. Perhaps unique in the world because of its role, size, and reach, Xinhua reports directly to the Chinese Communist Party's Propaganda Department; employs more than 10,000 people — as compared to about 1,300 for Reuters; has 107 bureaus worldwide both collecting information on other countries and dispensing information about China; and maintains 31 bureaus in China — one for each province plus a military bureau.
Inasmuch as most of the newspapers in China cannot afford to station correspondents abroad, or even in every Chinese province, they rely on Xinhua feeds to fill their pages. People's Daily, for example, uses Xinhua material for approximately 25 percent of its stories.
Xinhua is a publisher as well as a news agency — it owns more than 20 newspapers and a dozen magazines, and it prints in Chinese, English, and four other languages.
Like other government entities, Xinhua is feeling the pinch of reduced state financial subsidies. Beijing has been cutting funding to the news agency by an average of seven percent per year over the past three years, and state funds currently cover only about 40 percent of Xinhua's costs. As a result, the agency is raising revenues through involvement in public relations, construction, and information service businesses.
In the past, Xinhua was able to attract the top young journalists emerging from the universities or otherwise newly entering the field, but it can no longer do so as easily because of the appeal and resources of other newspapers and periodicals and the greater glamour of television and radio jobs.
For example, midlevel reporters for the Xinmin Evening News in Shanghai often are given an apartment, whereas at Xinhua and People's Daily this benefit is reserved for the most senior journalists.
Contents
1 History
2 Xinhua and the internal media
3 Xinhua in Hong Kong
3.1 Previous directors of Hong Kong Xinhua
4 Xinhua in Macau
5 Xinhua online
6 See also
7 External links
[...]
Medienkritik vs Der Quackenspiegel
"Pundita, Re your Schroeder essay: Actually I believe the German public is quite well informed about al Qaeda/Iran linkages. The German popular press, surprisingly including Der Spiegel (which has an English language web site, very helpful), has done extensive reporting on this.
And remember that Zarqawi's name first surfaced in the German and Italian press, as his couriers/associates/fellow terrorists were convicted in German and Italian courts.
Michael in USA"
Dear Michael:
If the German and Italian press beat John Batchelor to the punch about Zarqawi I'd doubt whether it was by many hours. But we're always happy to hear of an instance that suggests the European media are not preserved in formaldehyde.
The question is whether we can apply this bit of happy news to Der Spiegel or their online English version, and whether we can infer that the German public is well informed about al Qaeda's link to Tehran.
I have been aware of Spiegel Online since its launch. I don't closely follow the site but I could not recall seeing an article that addressed links between al Qaeda and Iran. This is not saying much; the site hasn't been around long and their search engine is in German, a language Pundita does not know. The few archived English language articles the search presented, after I typed in different spellings of al Qaeda and expanded to include Osama bin Laden, did not turn up a reference to Tehran's support of al Qaeda. Perhaps if I'd stuck at it another hour I might have had success but a 15 minute search at Google for Der Spiegel articles on the topic came up dry.
As for other German media, the acid test for good coverage of Tehran's doings is the Ten Days of Dawn terror confab in Tehran in 2004; if the announcement of the intended conference was carried in the European media, either my search at Google was too brief or the language barrier prevented my finding it.
This said, I wouldn't doubt that various media outlets in Germany have mentioned reports about links between al Qaeda and the Iranian government. However, I venture that to the extent the German public is aware of links, this mirrors the American public's awareness of the same.
The mainstream media in this country has tended to fall in line with the 9/11 Commission's decision about links between al Qaeda and Tehran, which Rachel Ehrenfeld summarized in a July 2004 article for Front Page Magazine titled Iran's growing threat:
I haven't made a foray into Germany but from my Tourist Season walkabouts in Washington, DC, during which I randomly ask tourists to hold forth on their opinions, I have not encountered a German who is well informed about GWOT to include the Tehran connection.
I know this observation does not apply to all Germans. I have German readers and I periodically send my readers to good sources on GWOT, and I know there are German blogs that do a good job of reporting on the war.
I'm also aware that the popular David's Medienkritik blog follows the German media and pays close attention to German media reports on the war. The blog's opinion of Spiegel mirrors in part of my opinion about the online English version:
None of the above necessarily contradicts your observation that Spiegel is a helpful source. If one thinks in terms of data rather than news, one can mine valuable information from just about any source -- although it's not always worth the time.
However, it's fair to observe that Germans who rely on their mainstream media outlets for news would be hard-pressed to comprehend why Medienkritik invoked the Battle of the Bulge. The German public, as with most publics around the world, was carefully entrained by their mainstream media to view the concept of GWOT as a Bush (and/or Israeli) invention and the Iraq campaign as a war that is quite distinct from the US war on terror.
(Indeed, without the scrappy alternate media outlets in the USA, the American public as a whole would be in virtual lockstep with the German view of the Iraq campaign.)
I think that situation should be kept in mind when attempting to intuit how the German public and most publics view reports about links between Iran and al Qaeda. Many major news outlets, the world over, have been so adroit at suppressing key data about the Iraq campaign and distorting the WMD rationale for invading Iraq that I think publics are weighted to dismiss intelligence suggesting Tehran sponsors "terrorism" as distinct from aiding "Palestinian insurgency" against Israel.
So successful have major media been at shaping the global public's view of the Iraq invasion that I think it could be argued it's the most successful propaganda effort in history.
The question is whether it qualifies as technical propaganda; i.e., state sponsored. From all I've noted about the news media since 2002, I think that outside closed societies it represents in part factions within governments that have used their expertise and access to major media outlets to shape the public's perception.
I don't see this as a conspiracy although I wouldn't be surprised to find coordination between factions during certain news cycles. I got some support for my view last year when John Loftus gave Batchelor's audience a 'Cheat Sheet' on which major news outlets were favored as a channel by which agencies. He went down a list: the DIA favors The Washington Times, the CIA favors The New York Times, State favors the Washington Post, and so on.
Of course one doesn't need to take Loftus' word for it; although it is time consuming, one can figure out which agencies favor which media outlets by noting the number and type of Unnamed Official Sources, Sources Who Did Not Wish to Be Named, and so on.
I also note that Loftus mentioned that reportedly MI6 favors the Guardian as a leak outlet. I passed that gossip to my readers in November 2004 to warn that it's getting tangled up to categorize influential media here and abroad simply as "left" or "right." The (UK) Guardian is left of center in their domestic editorial policy. However their international outlook is best characterized as Natoist. That would be the same for The New York Times.
The factions in the CIA and MI6 that were most bitterly opposed to the Bush preemption doctrine and the Iraq invasion were to their mind defending the Nato alliance. And their view was shared by factions on the Republican right in the US.
This doesn't mean I think all opposition to Bush from serial CIA leakers in the 2002-2004 period excluded Democrats who just wanted to see a Democrat in the White House. Yet I think the serial leaks from factions in the State Department and CIA and from ex-CIA employees signal a new era in propaganda, or mini-propaganda shall we term it.
There are now so many media outlets, and so many government employees (here and abroad) who are trained in using media access that now many factions within governments can use the media to shape public opinion. This has led to balkanization of propaganda. We no longer have only Government leaking to the media. We also have duchies and principalities leaking all over the place.
1)
http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/
2005/07/joschka_fischer.html#more
2)
http://medienkritik.typepad.com/
blog/2004/10/spiegel_online__4.html
And remember that Zarqawi's name first surfaced in the German and Italian press, as his couriers/associates/fellow terrorists were convicted in German and Italian courts.
Michael in USA"
Dear Michael:
If the German and Italian press beat John Batchelor to the punch about Zarqawi I'd doubt whether it was by many hours. But we're always happy to hear of an instance that suggests the European media are not preserved in formaldehyde.
The question is whether we can apply this bit of happy news to Der Spiegel or their online English version, and whether we can infer that the German public is well informed about al Qaeda's link to Tehran.
I have been aware of Spiegel Online since its launch. I don't closely follow the site but I could not recall seeing an article that addressed links between al Qaeda and Iran. This is not saying much; the site hasn't been around long and their search engine is in German, a language Pundita does not know. The few archived English language articles the search presented, after I typed in different spellings of al Qaeda and expanded to include Osama bin Laden, did not turn up a reference to Tehran's support of al Qaeda. Perhaps if I'd stuck at it another hour I might have had success but a 15 minute search at Google for Der Spiegel articles on the topic came up dry.
As for other German media, the acid test for good coverage of Tehran's doings is the Ten Days of Dawn terror confab in Tehran in 2004; if the announcement of the intended conference was carried in the European media, either my search at Google was too brief or the language barrier prevented my finding it.
This said, I wouldn't doubt that various media outlets in Germany have mentioned reports about links between al Qaeda and the Iranian government. However, I venture that to the extent the German public is aware of links, this mirrors the American public's awareness of the same.
The mainstream media in this country has tended to fall in line with the 9/11 Commission's decision about links between al Qaeda and Tehran, which Rachel Ehrenfeld summarized in a July 2004 article for Front Page Magazine titled Iran's growing threat:
According to the just-released 9/11 Commission Report, Iran’s support of al-Qaeda dates back to 1991, when operatives from both sides met in Sudan and agreed “to cooperate in providing support -- even if only training -- for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States.”I'd say the general publics on both sides of the Pond are aware that there are reports claiming links between Tehran and al Qaeda. But I think that only the most dedicated news followers are reasonably convinced that at least since 2003 there is more than a link between al Qaeda's top command and the Iranian military. There is a partnership or -- if you want to run the entire nine yards with intelligence mosaics -- a contractor/subcontractor relationship.
By 1993, “al-Qaeda received advice and training from Hezbollah” in intelligence, security and explosives, especially in “how to use truck bombs.” The training took place in the Bekaa Valley, Hezbollah’s stronghold in Lebanon.
The commission further reports that “at least 8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi ‘muscle’ operatives traveled into and out of Iran between October 2000 and February 2001,” and that Iran facilitated “the travel of al-Qaeda members through Iran on their way to and from Afghanistan.” Yet in an ostrich-like move, the commission refrained from accusing Iran of supporting al-Qaeda.
This is how the commission phrased it: “There is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9-11 hijackers…however, we cannot rule out the possibility of a remarkable coincidence...[and] we found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack.”
I haven't made a foray into Germany but from my Tourist Season walkabouts in Washington, DC, during which I randomly ask tourists to hold forth on their opinions, I have not encountered a German who is well informed about GWOT to include the Tehran connection.
I know this observation does not apply to all Germans. I have German readers and I periodically send my readers to good sources on GWOT, and I know there are German blogs that do a good job of reporting on the war.
I'm also aware that the popular David's Medienkritik blog follows the German media and pays close attention to German media reports on the war. The blog's opinion of Spiegel mirrors in part of my opinion about the online English version:
For over two years -- virtually without end -- the German media have been almost exclusively negative on Iraq, repeatedly calling the war a disaster, a debacle and a quagmire. Iraq has been compared to Vietnam so many times that one could easily lose count.I add that David's Medienkritik is such a popular blog, both here and in Europe, that it might have managed to perform a watchdog function with regard to what might be Spiegel's somewhat elastic concept of polling.(2)
Just in SPIEGEL publications alone, the words "debacle", "disaster", "quagmire" and "Vietnam" have already been used scores of times to describe the conflict. But by what standards is Iraq a debacle? To date the United States has lost nearly 1800 soldiers in the Iraq conflict. The Battle of the Bulge alone cost the lives of ten times as many Americans. Does that make the Battle of the Bulge a debacle times ten? During the course of World War II, tens of millions of civilians died or were killed. Does that make the liberation of Germany and Japan in 1945 a debacle times a thousand and beyond?
And positive developments in Iraq, such as the reconstruction of schools, hospitals and power plants, dramatic improvements in women's rights and the strengthening economy have been almost totally ignored in Germany
Even when reporting on good news that is impossible to ignore, like the January elections, major sectors of the German media were so negative that a respected media research institute concluded that Arab networks like Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabia provided more upbeat coverage.
Furthermore, the German media have crassly underreported the suffering of the Iraqi people under Saddam Hussein. The mass graves, the use of chemical weapons to murder thousands of innocents in Halabja, the torture, the rape-rooms, the mass exodus of millions out of Iraq, the theft of billions by the Hussein regime from the starving Iraqi people to build palaces.
These topics all seem to be of little interest to the German press. So is it any wonder, with this type of reporting, that most Germans think the Iraq war was, is and will continue to be a total disaster?
Is it any wonder that Joschka Fischer can confidently sit back and talk about how he feels "confirmed" about his worries over Iraq. Of course he feels confirmed! His ideological lapdogs in the German media have provided him all the cover he could ever need with their profoundly biased news coverage over the past several years!
Not surprisingly, SPIEGEL ONLINE has already published a handful of articles, including a recent piece entitled "Uncle Sam wants Merkel", about how absolutely delighted Bush and other American conservatives would supposedly be if Schroeder and Fischer lost the next election.
It is becoming increasingly evident that the editors at SPON are attempting to cheaply exploit readers' dislike of the Bush administration and disdain for the Iraq war to dampen support for the CDU.
Few other German media publications have seized so vehemently and critically on the issue of the CDU's support of closer transatlantic relations than SPIEGEL ONLINE. [...] (1)
None of the above necessarily contradicts your observation that Spiegel is a helpful source. If one thinks in terms of data rather than news, one can mine valuable information from just about any source -- although it's not always worth the time.
However, it's fair to observe that Germans who rely on their mainstream media outlets for news would be hard-pressed to comprehend why Medienkritik invoked the Battle of the Bulge. The German public, as with most publics around the world, was carefully entrained by their mainstream media to view the concept of GWOT as a Bush (and/or Israeli) invention and the Iraq campaign as a war that is quite distinct from the US war on terror.
(Indeed, without the scrappy alternate media outlets in the USA, the American public as a whole would be in virtual lockstep with the German view of the Iraq campaign.)
I think that situation should be kept in mind when attempting to intuit how the German public and most publics view reports about links between Iran and al Qaeda. Many major news outlets, the world over, have been so adroit at suppressing key data about the Iraq campaign and distorting the WMD rationale for invading Iraq that I think publics are weighted to dismiss intelligence suggesting Tehran sponsors "terrorism" as distinct from aiding "Palestinian insurgency" against Israel.
So successful have major media been at shaping the global public's view of the Iraq invasion that I think it could be argued it's the most successful propaganda effort in history.
The question is whether it qualifies as technical propaganda; i.e., state sponsored. From all I've noted about the news media since 2002, I think that outside closed societies it represents in part factions within governments that have used their expertise and access to major media outlets to shape the public's perception.
I don't see this as a conspiracy although I wouldn't be surprised to find coordination between factions during certain news cycles. I got some support for my view last year when John Loftus gave Batchelor's audience a 'Cheat Sheet' on which major news outlets were favored as a channel by which agencies. He went down a list: the DIA favors The Washington Times, the CIA favors The New York Times, State favors the Washington Post, and so on.
Of course one doesn't need to take Loftus' word for it; although it is time consuming, one can figure out which agencies favor which media outlets by noting the number and type of Unnamed Official Sources, Sources Who Did Not Wish to Be Named, and so on.
I also note that Loftus mentioned that reportedly MI6 favors the Guardian as a leak outlet. I passed that gossip to my readers in November 2004 to warn that it's getting tangled up to categorize influential media here and abroad simply as "left" or "right." The (UK) Guardian is left of center in their domestic editorial policy. However their international outlook is best characterized as Natoist. That would be the same for The New York Times.
The factions in the CIA and MI6 that were most bitterly opposed to the Bush preemption doctrine and the Iraq invasion were to their mind defending the Nato alliance. And their view was shared by factions on the Republican right in the US.
This doesn't mean I think all opposition to Bush from serial CIA leakers in the 2002-2004 period excluded Democrats who just wanted to see a Democrat in the White House. Yet I think the serial leaks from factions in the State Department and CIA and from ex-CIA employees signal a new era in propaganda, or mini-propaganda shall we term it.
There are now so many media outlets, and so many government employees (here and abroad) who are trained in using media access that now many factions within governments can use the media to shape public opinion. This has led to balkanization of propaganda. We no longer have only Government leaking to the media. We also have duchies and principalities leaking all over the place.
1)
http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/
2005/07/joschka_fischer.html#more
2)
http://medienkritik.typepad.com/
blog/2004/10/spiegel_online__4.html
Saturday, July 23
Schroeder, al Qaeda, and accurate reporting on GWOT: let us eat cake
I received a letter in response to my post Schroeder making it easy for al Qaeda and Tehran. The reader asked about Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's motive for sticking to bashing the US invasion of Iraq after the 7/7 massacre: was he doing it out of pure political expediency or did he have some sympathy for al Qaeda's position? Here is my fix on the situation:
He might have sympathy for al Qaeda's stand on Israel and their desire to evict American forces from the Middle East. But there is much to suggest that any such sympathy is not a determining or even contributing factor in this case. There's also much to suggest that political expediency is not the sole factor in Schröder's continued harping on the Iraq war.
As I see it, the key situation is that the 7/7 London massacre landed Schröder's political party between the devil and the deep blue sea.
I believe AQ planners and their advisors in Tehran misread the situation in Germany. They were thinking along the lines of Spain -- the Madrid massacre helping to tip the voters. There is indeed a tipping going on in Germany in the wake of 7/7 -- but it's tipping in Oskar Lafontaine's direction.
That's the guy whose platform includes telling foreigners to think of immigrating anywhere else but Germany and calling for immigrants now in Germany to be fully assimilated; e.g., speak German.
Lafontaine has the same chance that Ralph Nader had to win the 2000 US presidential election but in the wake of 7/7, he's surely having to restrain himself from taking out full-page ads that say, "I told you so." (Although I wouldn't be surprised if he did this.)
The Germans don't need such remarks to know that Lafontaine's 'fringe' appeal struck a deep chord after 7/7. He now stands to peel even more votes from Schröder's party if the snap election occurs in September.
There are still some legal hurdles to be cleared for the election to take place, but right now it seems almost guaranteed of occurring -- unless Schröder's party realizes that his bold move to call for an early election has backfired in the wake of 7/7.
At this point Angela Merkel seems a shoo-in, if the election takes place. But I do not underestimate Schröder, his party or his business backers. The bottom line is Germany's balance of trade figures. Germany has outpaced Near and Middle Eastern countries among Iran's trading partners.
Bilateral trade between Germany and Iran is booming and growing at a fast pace. In 2004 German exports to Iran totaled 3.6 billion euros ($4.31 billion), 33.4 percent more than in 2003.
Top sales from Germany are machines, cars and electronics. Germany's expertise at installing oilwells is also heavily exported. From the Iranian side, sales (mostly oil, pistachios and rugs) to Germany rose 35% in 2004 to 391 million euros ($468 million).
And less than a month before 2005 the 'election' in Iran, a 25-member group of German business owners was preparing to visit Iran to study opportunities for investing in Iran's tourism trade. The Iranian military's coup against the clerics might have put a small brake on German investor interest but the investors are scrambling to compete with Spanish counterparts for lucrative deals at Iran tourist spots.
Meanwhile, China is Germany's top export partner. German industrialists know that Beijing is unwilling to do anything to offend the Tehran regime because of China's trade with Iran.
The Joker card has always been information flow, so it's played a huge factor in the war on terror and Europe's response. Schröder reads many of the same intelligence reports Bush does, so he's got to know of the connection between AQ and Tehran.
However, he also knows the German public is unaware of the connection. They are very poorly informed about GWOT and related issues, such as the UN Oil for Food investigation. Their local media has very little coverage of such issues.
And globalized media that the German public can easily access; e.g, CNN International and the BBC, mirror the US Democrat-leaning media in their depiction of war issues. That's to say much information about war related issues, and the AQ-Iraq/Iran connections, has been treated by the mainstream media only in the attempt to downplay or dismiss it.
It helped him in his last election, so Schröder's view was that if he had to call for a snap election in a last-ditch attempt to keep his job -- why not remind German voters that he'd saved them from putting troops in Iraq?
Yet this time around, bashing the Iraq war was met with yawns from the German public and Germany's chattering class. They saw it as a desperate attempt to revive old glory for a public that was now focused on domestic concerns.
However, Schröder's 'manifesto,' which included bashing the US operation in Iraq, was announced on July 1st. Then came the July 7 massacre in London. So then he was in a pickle. If he suddenly shut up about Iraq, that would raise eyebrows.
The last thing Schröder needs right now is the German public asking for a review of his government's position on the AQ-Iraq connection. Such questions would lead straight to questions about Tehran.
People aren't stupid. If you give them enough reliable data, they can put two-and-two together. So from the beginning, which we'll count as Schröder's break with Bush over Iraq, the name of the game has been Control of Information Flow. That's been the same for Germany as it's been in the USA.
However, the Germans were weighted to believe Schröder's line on Iraq. There are sound reasons for this:
Bush's 'go out and meet the enemy' approach to al Qaeda combined with the preemption doctrine understandably traumatized the majority of Germans, as it did the majority of Japanese. Then came the Axis of Evil speech, with its obvious reference to the Nazis. Then came the rising tide in America of comparisons between Osama bin Laden and Hitler and the Muslim terrorists and Nazi fascism.
So put yourself in the place of a German. From that view, the Americans were irresponsibly raking up Germany's past mistakes in order to justify an invasion of Iraq.
And even many Americans were (and remain) a tough sell when it came to drawing connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime. This would include the most powerful factions in the CIA and State Department at that time.
As for connections between Tehran and al Qaeda, the question was not even on the table for the US mainstream media in 2003.
The truth about both connections will eventually out in Germany, as it will everywhere else. But for Schröder to fall on his sword would be useless at this stage. The German public might appreciate such an act of courage but the majority would still want to vote him out "yesterday" if they get the chance.
If you ask whether the German focus on domestic concerns isn't dangerously shortsighted -- my guess it that Lafontaine's famously known position about immigrants would tend to brake attempts in Germany to portray 7/7 as the fault of George W. Bush for invading Iraq.
However, I suspect the German people are trying reason blind -- or half-blind -- about what everyone else in Germany is thinking. I say this because of a situation that John Terrett (a British journalist) reported to John Batchelor a few nights ago about the reaction in the UK to 7/7:
Terrett recounted that the 'Brit in The Pub' (the Person in the Street) is asking, "Maybe we've been too soft with our Muslim immigrants, maybe we've gone overboard with liberalism" -- but that this view was not being reported in the British media.
Money says the 'German in the Wine Bar' is now asking the same questions with regard to their country and that the major German media are not leaping to report this.
So we could see an echo of the reaction to the Non vote. People on this side of the Pond were surprised as the poll numbers in France turned against the EU Constitution. Then they were stunned at the thumping French rejection of the Constitution and all that it said about their view of the European Union.
Why the shock? Because the French media and the entire Brussels-leaning media in Europe were not providing an accurate picture of how the majority in France were really thinking during the year running up to the vote.
If that sounds familiar -- the public in the USA was stunned by the appearance of the Red Map after Bush won reelection and Europe was stunned. Even the Republicans were stunned. That's because the US mainstream media and global media such as CNN International and BBC were not doing their job.
They were not even trying to accurately report how the majority of Americans were thinking during the runup to the election. They too busy trying to block Bush's election to remember what the term "news reporting" means. So of course Europe nearly fainted from shock at Bush's reelection and the sight of that Red Map.
Once again, the Joker Card is on the table. Yet whenever they are called out on their utter lack of responsibility, the guardians of America's news media take the Marie Antoinette approach to dealing with complaints from the rabble. Ditto for the guardians of Europe's news media.
So, yeah, it's dangerous for the German public not to realize that right now the most important issue is going after the state sponsors of terrorism. That's if they want to have domestic issues to worry about down the line. But to berate them for not seeing the critical issue would be akin to berating Americans for not thinking like intelligence analysts when they consume American news reports.
I deleted some paragraphs from yesterday's essay because while I considered them relevant, they took away from the central point. I will include them here in closing because the observations are central to what's happening now in Germany.
The news consuming publics in democratic countries are aware of the issue of bias in news reporting. Yet bias is just one facet of the problems that news consumers face today, if they want to be reasonably well informed. I have written about this issue many times since starting Pundita blog.
I wish there was a Magic Source -- one newspaper, one website, journal, broadcast or cable program, search engine or subscription service that would relieve the public of the chore of thinking like an intelligence analyst. But here is the choice we face today:
The journalism profession is in such disrepair that either we learn to think like an intelligence analyst when approaching news stories, or risk being so misled that our understanding of critical international situations is badly skewed or just plain wrong.
That is the way things are at this time. This shouldn't be cause for despair -- or paranoia. What we're seeing today in the news reporting profession is a train wreck situation: many factors that converged with the modern era of communications and the post-Soviet era, and which the news media didn't properly address.
To see the problems is to work toward a solution. So a new day in news reporting is slowly forming but until it crystallizes, a pioneering spirit is required of news consumers, and a willingness to invest time and brain sweat in analyzing news stories as data.
That shouldn't have to be our job, but to leave the job in the hands of today's journalism profession is asking not to understand the modern era, including the threat from state sponsors of terrorism.
The tragedy is that there are many ethical reporters and investigative journalists the world over who are very good at their job. But often their reports are edited out of recognition -- or filed but never published or aired. The hope, and the goal, is that by the end of this decade we'll see major news media outlets emerge that appreciate the value of such professionals.
He might have sympathy for al Qaeda's stand on Israel and their desire to evict American forces from the Middle East. But there is much to suggest that any such sympathy is not a determining or even contributing factor in this case. There's also much to suggest that political expediency is not the sole factor in Schröder's continued harping on the Iraq war.
As I see it, the key situation is that the 7/7 London massacre landed Schröder's political party between the devil and the deep blue sea.
I believe AQ planners and their advisors in Tehran misread the situation in Germany. They were thinking along the lines of Spain -- the Madrid massacre helping to tip the voters. There is indeed a tipping going on in Germany in the wake of 7/7 -- but it's tipping in Oskar Lafontaine's direction.
That's the guy whose platform includes telling foreigners to think of immigrating anywhere else but Germany and calling for immigrants now in Germany to be fully assimilated; e.g., speak German.
Lafontaine has the same chance that Ralph Nader had to win the 2000 US presidential election but in the wake of 7/7, he's surely having to restrain himself from taking out full-page ads that say, "I told you so." (Although I wouldn't be surprised if he did this.)
The Germans don't need such remarks to know that Lafontaine's 'fringe' appeal struck a deep chord after 7/7. He now stands to peel even more votes from Schröder's party if the snap election occurs in September.
There are still some legal hurdles to be cleared for the election to take place, but right now it seems almost guaranteed of occurring -- unless Schröder's party realizes that his bold move to call for an early election has backfired in the wake of 7/7.
At this point Angela Merkel seems a shoo-in, if the election takes place. But I do not underestimate Schröder, his party or his business backers. The bottom line is Germany's balance of trade figures. Germany has outpaced Near and Middle Eastern countries among Iran's trading partners.
Bilateral trade between Germany and Iran is booming and growing at a fast pace. In 2004 German exports to Iran totaled 3.6 billion euros ($4.31 billion), 33.4 percent more than in 2003.
Top sales from Germany are machines, cars and electronics. Germany's expertise at installing oilwells is also heavily exported. From the Iranian side, sales (mostly oil, pistachios and rugs) to Germany rose 35% in 2004 to 391 million euros ($468 million).
And less than a month before 2005 the 'election' in Iran, a 25-member group of German business owners was preparing to visit Iran to study opportunities for investing in Iran's tourism trade. The Iranian military's coup against the clerics might have put a small brake on German investor interest but the investors are scrambling to compete with Spanish counterparts for lucrative deals at Iran tourist spots.
Meanwhile, China is Germany's top export partner. German industrialists know that Beijing is unwilling to do anything to offend the Tehran regime because of China's trade with Iran.
The Joker card has always been information flow, so it's played a huge factor in the war on terror and Europe's response. Schröder reads many of the same intelligence reports Bush does, so he's got to know of the connection between AQ and Tehran.
However, he also knows the German public is unaware of the connection. They are very poorly informed about GWOT and related issues, such as the UN Oil for Food investigation. Their local media has very little coverage of such issues.
And globalized media that the German public can easily access; e.g, CNN International and the BBC, mirror the US Democrat-leaning media in their depiction of war issues. That's to say much information about war related issues, and the AQ-Iraq/Iran connections, has been treated by the mainstream media only in the attempt to downplay or dismiss it.
It helped him in his last election, so Schröder's view was that if he had to call for a snap election in a last-ditch attempt to keep his job -- why not remind German voters that he'd saved them from putting troops in Iraq?
Yet this time around, bashing the Iraq war was met with yawns from the German public and Germany's chattering class. They saw it as a desperate attempt to revive old glory for a public that was now focused on domestic concerns.
However, Schröder's 'manifesto,' which included bashing the US operation in Iraq, was announced on July 1st. Then came the July 7 massacre in London. So then he was in a pickle. If he suddenly shut up about Iraq, that would raise eyebrows.
The last thing Schröder needs right now is the German public asking for a review of his government's position on the AQ-Iraq connection. Such questions would lead straight to questions about Tehran.
People aren't stupid. If you give them enough reliable data, they can put two-and-two together. So from the beginning, which we'll count as Schröder's break with Bush over Iraq, the name of the game has been Control of Information Flow. That's been the same for Germany as it's been in the USA.
However, the Germans were weighted to believe Schröder's line on Iraq. There are sound reasons for this:
Bush's 'go out and meet the enemy' approach to al Qaeda combined with the preemption doctrine understandably traumatized the majority of Germans, as it did the majority of Japanese. Then came the Axis of Evil speech, with its obvious reference to the Nazis. Then came the rising tide in America of comparisons between Osama bin Laden and Hitler and the Muslim terrorists and Nazi fascism.
So put yourself in the place of a German. From that view, the Americans were irresponsibly raking up Germany's past mistakes in order to justify an invasion of Iraq.
And even many Americans were (and remain) a tough sell when it came to drawing connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime. This would include the most powerful factions in the CIA and State Department at that time.
As for connections between Tehran and al Qaeda, the question was not even on the table for the US mainstream media in 2003.
The truth about both connections will eventually out in Germany, as it will everywhere else. But for Schröder to fall on his sword would be useless at this stage. The German public might appreciate such an act of courage but the majority would still want to vote him out "yesterday" if they get the chance.
If you ask whether the German focus on domestic concerns isn't dangerously shortsighted -- my guess it that Lafontaine's famously known position about immigrants would tend to brake attempts in Germany to portray 7/7 as the fault of George W. Bush for invading Iraq.
However, I suspect the German people are trying reason blind -- or half-blind -- about what everyone else in Germany is thinking. I say this because of a situation that John Terrett (a British journalist) reported to John Batchelor a few nights ago about the reaction in the UK to 7/7:
Terrett recounted that the 'Brit in The Pub' (the Person in the Street) is asking, "Maybe we've been too soft with our Muslim immigrants, maybe we've gone overboard with liberalism" -- but that this view was not being reported in the British media.
Money says the 'German in the Wine Bar' is now asking the same questions with regard to their country and that the major German media are not leaping to report this.
So we could see an echo of the reaction to the Non vote. People on this side of the Pond were surprised as the poll numbers in France turned against the EU Constitution. Then they were stunned at the thumping French rejection of the Constitution and all that it said about their view of the European Union.
Why the shock? Because the French media and the entire Brussels-leaning media in Europe were not providing an accurate picture of how the majority in France were really thinking during the year running up to the vote.
If that sounds familiar -- the public in the USA was stunned by the appearance of the Red Map after Bush won reelection and Europe was stunned. Even the Republicans were stunned. That's because the US mainstream media and global media such as CNN International and BBC were not doing their job.
They were not even trying to accurately report how the majority of Americans were thinking during the runup to the election. They too busy trying to block Bush's election to remember what the term "news reporting" means. So of course Europe nearly fainted from shock at Bush's reelection and the sight of that Red Map.
Once again, the Joker Card is on the table. Yet whenever they are called out on their utter lack of responsibility, the guardians of America's news media take the Marie Antoinette approach to dealing with complaints from the rabble. Ditto for the guardians of Europe's news media.
So, yeah, it's dangerous for the German public not to realize that right now the most important issue is going after the state sponsors of terrorism. That's if they want to have domestic issues to worry about down the line. But to berate them for not seeing the critical issue would be akin to berating Americans for not thinking like intelligence analysts when they consume American news reports.
I deleted some paragraphs from yesterday's essay because while I considered them relevant, they took away from the central point. I will include them here in closing because the observations are central to what's happening now in Germany.
The news consuming publics in democratic countries are aware of the issue of bias in news reporting. Yet bias is just one facet of the problems that news consumers face today, if they want to be reasonably well informed. I have written about this issue many times since starting Pundita blog.
I wish there was a Magic Source -- one newspaper, one website, journal, broadcast or cable program, search engine or subscription service that would relieve the public of the chore of thinking like an intelligence analyst. But here is the choice we face today:
The journalism profession is in such disrepair that either we learn to think like an intelligence analyst when approaching news stories, or risk being so misled that our understanding of critical international situations is badly skewed or just plain wrong.
That is the way things are at this time. This shouldn't be cause for despair -- or paranoia. What we're seeing today in the news reporting profession is a train wreck situation: many factors that converged with the modern era of communications and the post-Soviet era, and which the news media didn't properly address.
To see the problems is to work toward a solution. So a new day in news reporting is slowly forming but until it crystallizes, a pioneering spirit is required of news consumers, and a willingness to invest time and brain sweat in analyzing news stories as data.
That shouldn't have to be our job, but to leave the job in the hands of today's journalism profession is asking not to understand the modern era, including the threat from state sponsors of terrorism.
The tragedy is that there are many ethical reporters and investigative journalists the world over who are very good at their job. But often their reports are edited out of recognition -- or filed but never published or aired. The hope, and the goal, is that by the end of this decade we'll see major news media outlets emerge that appreciate the value of such professionals.
Friday, July 22
The devil is in the details: getting the story straight about al Qaeda operations in Europe
Here are rough notes taken by a reader with regard to Yossef Bodansky's 7/20 report to John Batchelor's audience on the "Thirty Day Warning." Clearly, yesterday's terrorist attack does not respect the 'grace period' of 30 days. I stress that the notes are incomplete and typed during the broadcast; i.e., made without checking them against any record of the conversation. But for those who missed the report, they are helpful. Thanks, MP, for your efforts:
The Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigade is a group of Muslim leaders oriented toward incitement who have prepared threats against Europe and the US and issued the thirty-day ultimatum against Europe; these are also for the consumption of the younger intellectual Muslims in Western Europe, who by now constitute the most important population to join the jihadist movement in Europe and Iraq as operations move forward.
Al Qaeda is telling European leaders what it will do; European leaders are listening. Concurrent activities in Milan and other cities. Proximity to Bosnia: reinforcement of al Q cadres in Italy from Bosnia.
Earlier messages stressed that Italy was next in line after Spain and the UK. The Italians are taking a lot of precautions.
Europe is now awash in separate cells, redundant networks. It's up to the bosses of the terrorist groups to decide which cell is next to be activated. The level of terrorist cell activity in Italy shows that someone has been listening to the instructions that led to the ultimatum against the Europeans, is getting ready for the next phase in the jihad against the West.
The current threat is specifically to Western capitals, unless they pull all troops out of the entire ummah, including Afghanistan. The Europeans have thirty days in which to comply.
The attacks on Europe are a major component of the new strategic Plan 2020: to establish a new caliphate by the year 2020. To implement this grand strategic plan of the jihadist movement, al-Zawahiri has set up a new, forward-based command center (in Iran?) from which he can better control activities in the West, and which will allow greater safety to Osama bin Laden and the theological leadership of the movement.
As they increasingly strike into the heart of the West, there's a greater likelihood of Western reaction; the West's reactive attacks are a component of the al Q plan.
The al Q apparatus throughout the ummah and now into Europe is confident, strong, well financed, ruthless, well organized, and extremely prepared with their plan for the next fifteen years. They probably have all the cadres and networks they believe they need.
Goal is to win in the political drama: Al Q goal is to separate the European peoples from their governments, put Europe on the defensive, to induce the leaders to make unacceptable deals with Islamic communities in their midst. Jihadists are convinced that these will lead to a dominance of Islam over Europe.
Blair's new laws cracking down on terrorist activities -- rounding up imams, closing websites -- will tend to strengthen al Q. They'll also create an irreconcilable confrontation between Muslims in the West and their secular, democratic local governments; by this means, Muslims will be persuaded to flock to the ranks of jihadist networks.
European deals to appease al Q will thus lead to Islamic dominance over Europe. In the short run, government crackdowns will disrupt al Q communications, but in the long run, the crackdowns will strengthen al Q. They'll be able to resurrect their networks outside of Europe and continue the traffic.
* * * * *
It's come to my attention that many people have fallen under the impression that the bombs used in the 7/7 London massacre are "homemade" -- made from materials that could be found in a chemist's shop. To the best of my understanding, the most reliable unclassified data currently available, and which has been presented repeatedly over a period of several days on the John Batchelor show, indicates that it is almost certain this could not be the case with regard to the stabilizer used in the bombs. The stabilizer is almost certain to be of East European manufacture.
Yet making this argument and understanding it completely would require knowledge of bombs and bomb making techniques, as anyone who has tried to follow the technical aspects of the discussions on Batchelor knows.
It's also come to my attention that many people are unaware of the role that Bosnia plays as a major terrorist training ground. Perhaps that's because Bosnia's role puts the NATO operations in Yugoslavia in a poor light. Whatever the reason the major media have ignored the story, it helps to understand al Qaeda present operations in Europe if you familiarize yourself a little with the history of Bosnia's development as a major base of terrorist operations.
Toward this end, I recommend you click on this link to the Global Terror Alert website (also shown on Pundita blogroll under GWOT) to learn about Evan F. Kohlmann's exhaustively researched book, Al-Qaida's Jihad in Europe: the Afghan-Bosnian Network.
There's no use trying to go forward with our eyes closed. Time to learn some things the enemy knows.
The Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigade is a group of Muslim leaders oriented toward incitement who have prepared threats against Europe and the US and issued the thirty-day ultimatum against Europe; these are also for the consumption of the younger intellectual Muslims in Western Europe, who by now constitute the most important population to join the jihadist movement in Europe and Iraq as operations move forward.
Al Qaeda is telling European leaders what it will do; European leaders are listening. Concurrent activities in Milan and other cities. Proximity to Bosnia: reinforcement of al Q cadres in Italy from Bosnia.
Earlier messages stressed that Italy was next in line after Spain and the UK. The Italians are taking a lot of precautions.
Europe is now awash in separate cells, redundant networks. It's up to the bosses of the terrorist groups to decide which cell is next to be activated. The level of terrorist cell activity in Italy shows that someone has been listening to the instructions that led to the ultimatum against the Europeans, is getting ready for the next phase in the jihad against the West.
The current threat is specifically to Western capitals, unless they pull all troops out of the entire ummah, including Afghanistan. The Europeans have thirty days in which to comply.
The attacks on Europe are a major component of the new strategic Plan 2020: to establish a new caliphate by the year 2020. To implement this grand strategic plan of the jihadist movement, al-Zawahiri has set up a new, forward-based command center (in Iran?) from which he can better control activities in the West, and which will allow greater safety to Osama bin Laden and the theological leadership of the movement.
As they increasingly strike into the heart of the West, there's a greater likelihood of Western reaction; the West's reactive attacks are a component of the al Q plan.
The al Q apparatus throughout the ummah and now into Europe is confident, strong, well financed, ruthless, well organized, and extremely prepared with their plan for the next fifteen years. They probably have all the cadres and networks they believe they need.
Goal is to win in the political drama: Al Q goal is to separate the European peoples from their governments, put Europe on the defensive, to induce the leaders to make unacceptable deals with Islamic communities in their midst. Jihadists are convinced that these will lead to a dominance of Islam over Europe.
Blair's new laws cracking down on terrorist activities -- rounding up imams, closing websites -- will tend to strengthen al Q. They'll also create an irreconcilable confrontation between Muslims in the West and their secular, democratic local governments; by this means, Muslims will be persuaded to flock to the ranks of jihadist networks.
European deals to appease al Q will thus lead to Islamic dominance over Europe. In the short run, government crackdowns will disrupt al Q communications, but in the long run, the crackdowns will strengthen al Q. They'll be able to resurrect their networks outside of Europe and continue the traffic.
* * * * *
It's come to my attention that many people have fallen under the impression that the bombs used in the 7/7 London massacre are "homemade" -- made from materials that could be found in a chemist's shop. To the best of my understanding, the most reliable unclassified data currently available, and which has been presented repeatedly over a period of several days on the John Batchelor show, indicates that it is almost certain this could not be the case with regard to the stabilizer used in the bombs. The stabilizer is almost certain to be of East European manufacture.
Yet making this argument and understanding it completely would require knowledge of bombs and bomb making techniques, as anyone who has tried to follow the technical aspects of the discussions on Batchelor knows.
It's also come to my attention that many people are unaware of the role that Bosnia plays as a major terrorist training ground. Perhaps that's because Bosnia's role puts the NATO operations in Yugoslavia in a poor light. Whatever the reason the major media have ignored the story, it helps to understand al Qaeda present operations in Europe if you familiarize yourself a little with the history of Bosnia's development as a major base of terrorist operations.
Toward this end, I recommend you click on this link to the Global Terror Alert website (also shown on Pundita blogroll under GWOT) to learn about Evan F. Kohlmann's exhaustively researched book, Al-Qaida's Jihad in Europe: the Afghan-Bosnian Network.
There's no use trying to go forward with our eyes closed. Time to learn some things the enemy knows.
Thursday, July 21
Schroeder making it easy for al Qaeda and Tehran
An alert reader just sent me this, in response to my earlier post in which I mentioned my view that Tehran is trying to boost Gerhard Schroeder's bid for reelection. Why doesn't the chancellor stop clowning around? Invite al Qaeda to tea and offer to sign the terms of surrender.
Reuters news alert:Trailing badly, Schroeder plays Iraq card again
Reuters news alert:Trailing badly, Schroeder plays Iraq card again
Facing an uphill battle for re-election, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has turned once again to the issue that vaulted him to a dramatic victory in 2002 -- Iraq.
Iraq no longer has the resonance with voters that it did three years ago, when Washington was gearing up for a war that three in four Germans opposed.
And Schroeder, who trails Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU) by 15-19 points in opinion polls before a planned September election, is more vulnerable than he was then.
But with violence in Iraq prominent in the German media and terror attacks in London this month raising fears that backers of the U.S.-led invasion have become targets, Schroeder appears to have sensed an opportunity.
His party's election programme highlights the Chancellor's staunch opposition to the war and warns voters that German troops would now be in Iraq if it had been up to Merkel.
Since the manifesto was unveiled at the beginning of the month, Schroeder has sent the message to voters that a vote for Merkel is a vote for the Iraq war. [...]
Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigade passes along al Qaeda's 30 day ultimatum to Europe
Two posts up today -- one a news blurb on the revaluation of the yuan, the other an essay about signs that China's leadership (or at least one faction) is turning back toward the Mao Zedong era. I don't have time today to get up much of an essay about an ostensible al Qaeda 30 day ultimatum, and I am still waiting for an okay to publish notes that a reader took on Yossef Bodansky's report on John Batchelor's show last night about the warning. I will try to put up more information tomorrow. I emphasize that I didn't catch all of Bodansky's report and thus, a caveat applies to the following summary:
The warning was passed along by the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigade -- I tentatively assume on their website or a related one. An ultimatum was addressed to all governments that have troops stationed in Afghanistan and other 'Muslim lands.' If the governments do not pull out their troops from the countries in question within 30 days, there will be more terrorist strikes after the 30 day deadline has passed. Italy is high on the list for the next target.
Readers unused to intelligence-based news reporting need to keep in mind that Dr Bodansky is a counterterrorism expert, so he is simply passing along the brigade's announcement.
My view of the timing for the ultimatum is that it has more to do with the upcoming election in Germany than anything else. Tehran is sweating bullets because Angela Merkel (the opposition who is very likely at this time to unseat Schröder) and Nicolas Sarkozy, the French presidential hopeful, have gotten friendly. *
So my guess is that Tehran is pulling out all the stops in a last-ditch attempt to save Gerhard Schroeder's bid. Of course Schröder does not want such help, any more than Spain's opposition did. But the 3/11 Madrid train bombings were so successful at giving the win to the opposition in Spain that Tehran would be a fool not try it again.
As to why they put Italy on the top of the list rather than Germany, I'd guess three major reasons. First, Germany is a harder target than Italy. Second, they wouldn't want to screw up Tariq Ramadan's planned visit to speak in Germany. There is already some strong opposition to allowing him entry. Third, and most importantly, they probably have a cell in Italy that they think has the best chance at this time to pull off a strike.
So the warning should be taken seriously. If Europe's governments don't kowtow, Tehran will order al Qaeda to strike wherever they have the best chance of succeeding. Tehran is desperate; the last thing they need is a get-tough attitude from a new German administration during negotiations about Tehran's nuke program.
I went to considerable effort in recent essays to get across that now is the time for those fighting evil to keep their wits about them and not allow themselves to be spooked. I hope Europe's leaders arrive at the same conclusion.
* See London Financial Times story at:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/4a661d36-f891-
11d9-8fc8-00000e2511c8.html
The warning was passed along by the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigade -- I tentatively assume on their website or a related one. An ultimatum was addressed to all governments that have troops stationed in Afghanistan and other 'Muslim lands.' If the governments do not pull out their troops from the countries in question within 30 days, there will be more terrorist strikes after the 30 day deadline has passed. Italy is high on the list for the next target.
Readers unused to intelligence-based news reporting need to keep in mind that Dr Bodansky is a counterterrorism expert, so he is simply passing along the brigade's announcement.
My view of the timing for the ultimatum is that it has more to do with the upcoming election in Germany than anything else. Tehran is sweating bullets because Angela Merkel (the opposition who is very likely at this time to unseat Schröder) and Nicolas Sarkozy, the French presidential hopeful, have gotten friendly. *
So my guess is that Tehran is pulling out all the stops in a last-ditch attempt to save Gerhard Schroeder's bid. Of course Schröder does not want such help, any more than Spain's opposition did. But the 3/11 Madrid train bombings were so successful at giving the win to the opposition in Spain that Tehran would be a fool not try it again.
As to why they put Italy on the top of the list rather than Germany, I'd guess three major reasons. First, Germany is a harder target than Italy. Second, they wouldn't want to screw up Tariq Ramadan's planned visit to speak in Germany. There is already some strong opposition to allowing him entry. Third, and most importantly, they probably have a cell in Italy that they think has the best chance at this time to pull off a strike.
So the warning should be taken seriously. If Europe's governments don't kowtow, Tehran will order al Qaeda to strike wherever they have the best chance of succeeding. Tehran is desperate; the last thing they need is a get-tough attitude from a new German administration during negotiations about Tehran's nuke program.
I went to considerable effort in recent essays to get across that now is the time for those fighting evil to keep their wits about them and not allow themselves to be spooked. I hope Europe's leaders arrive at the same conclusion.
* See London Financial Times story at:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/4a661d36-f891-
11d9-8fc8-00000e2511c8.html
Strange days in China: return to the Mao Zedong era and a remarkable televised address to the mainland
"During the class struggle in the Mao Zedong era, particularly in the ideology field, there was at least tension followed by slackening; but now, there is only tension followed by tension, and every policy is an act of force. (1)
Two very different reports, two very different pictures of media control and the attitude of the Chinese Communist Party regarding expression of human rights in mainland China. On some issues, a very strict crackdown on the media and human rights issues. But on the matter of the riots inside China, at least one prominent Western journalist (Howard W. French) is given great access, and a CCP official goes on national television to virtually express open sympathy with the rioters.
We'll begin with the crackdown part of the story:
"The “Color Revolutions” occurring in Central Asian countries have caused panic within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). In late May, Hu Jintao, CCP General Secretary, issued an internal order to implement policies aimed at preventing the U.S. and Europe from starting Color Revolutions in regions surrounding China. The report, disseminated all the way down to the county-level, ordered strict controls over the media, strengthening of the monitoring and control of dissidents and civil rights advocates, and a complete review and closure of all companies printing dissident materials. (1)
Background
"In the beginning of this year, the CCP’s Central Committee issued the book How the Reagan Government Destroyed the Soviet Union to all cadre members. In early May, Robert Zoellick, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, visited six countries in East Asia.
"In Vietnam, one of the countries he visited, two thousand political prisoners were released the day before Zoellick arrived. Zoellick discussed democracy and religious freedom with Vietnamese Premier Phan Van Khai, and officially invited the Vietnamese leader, on behalf of President Bush, to visit the U.S. in June.
"Meetings between China’s neighbors and the U.S. have put Chinese officials on high alert. The CCP Politburo discussed the Vietnamese situation for an entire evening. The political revolutions and the internal economic problems have made the Hu regime extremely nervous; however the recent sharp rise in petroleum prices was very alarming, especially after being advised by a special interest group that had ulterior motives.
"The special interest group reported to Hu Jintao that the current sharp rise in petroleum prices was orchestrated by the U.S., the world’s Number 1 oil consumer, and was aimed directly at China; the action was compared to the lesson learned from Reagan’s policy of intentionally depressing oil prices in the 80s to break down the Russian economy.
"On top of this, the U.S. assisted Indonesia, Singapore, and Malaysia to jointly form the Malacca Strait Security Center to stop piracy in their shipping lanes, which was also viewed as exerting international pressure on China and threatening the petroleum shipping lanes to China. A decision by the U.S. Congress to prevent China from buying UNOCC would spell further problems ahead.
"While under this extreme pressure, and suspecting danger around every corner, Hu Jintao presented the Fighting the People’s War Without Gunsmoke report to the internal conference. It was said that many of the CCP cadres who read the report exclaimed in surprise that the Mao Zedong era was back. [...]" (1)
Now to the second story, as reported June 20 by Howard W. French for The New York Times via the International Herald Tribune:
"Protesters in China get angrier and bolder
XINCHANG, China
After three nights of increasingly heavy rioting, the police were taking no chances, deploying dozens of busloads of officers and blocking every road leading to the factory.
"The police began deploying in large numbers before dusk Monday, but the angry villagers had already made their moves. They had learned their lessons after studying reports of riots that had swept rural China in recent months. Sneaking over mountain paths and wading through rice paddies, they made their way to a pharmaceuticals plant, they said, for a showdown over the environmental threat they say it poses.
"As many as 15,000 people massed here on Sunday night and fought with the authorities, overturning police cars and throwing stones, undeterred by thick clouds of tear gas.
"Fewer people turned out on Monday evening under rainy skies, but residents of this factory town in China's wealthy Zhejiang Province vow they will keep demonstrating until they have forced the 10-year-old plant to relocate.
"This is the only way to solve problems like ours," said one protester, 22, whose house sits near the smashed gates of the factory, where the police were massed. "If you go to see the mayor or some city official, they just take your money and do nothing."
"The riots in Xinchang are part of a rising tide of discontent in China, with the number of mass protests like these reaching 74,000 last year from about 10,000 a decade earlier, according to government figures.
"The details have varied from incident to incident, but the recent wave of protests shares a foundation of accumulated anger over the failure of China's political system to respond to legitimate grievances and defiance of the local authorities, who are often seen as corrupt.
"A sign of the leadership's concern over the turbulence can be seen in a proliferation of high-level statements.
"In a nationally televised news conference this month, Li Jingtian, deputy director of the Communist Party's organization bureau, complained that "with regard to our grass-roots cadres, some of them are probably less competent, and they are not able to dissipate these conflicts or problems."
"In another widely remarked statement, Chen Xiwen, an economics vice minister who oversees agricultural affairs, saluted the Internet's role [emphasis mine] in allowing the central government to learn of unrest more quickly and praised demonstrating farmers for "knowing how to protect their rights."
"The people of Xinchang were reluctant to speak openly about the uprising because they would be subject to immediate arrest if identified. But from conversations with numerous residents, many of whom took part in the demonstrations, it was possible to put together a detailed picture of the events.
"In Xinchang, as with many of the recent protests, the spark involved claims of environmental degradation. [...]
"In many of China's other recent riots, word has spread fast among organizers and protesters by way of cellphone messages, allowing crowds to mass quickly and helping demonstrators coordinate tactics and slogans.
"In Xinchang, however, residents say new technology, like the cellphone, has played little part. Instead, many residents say they were moved to action after years of unhappiness about industrial pollution by copies of newspaper headlines from Dongyang. That city, a mere 80 kilometers, or 50 miles, away, was the scene this spring of one of China's biggest riots, in which more than 10,000 residents routed the police in a riot over pollution from a pesticide factory.
"Despite tight controls on news coverage of the incident, the riot in Dongyang, where the chemical factory remains closed months later, has entered Chinese folklore as proof that determined citizens acting en masse can force the authorities to reverse course and address their needs. [...]" (2)
Pardon Pundita's cynicism, but I wonder how a newspaper in Dongyang was allowed to carry such incendiary news. And the "years of unhappiness" about industrial pollution and all the other abuses that caused riots during the past year have been going on for decades in China and complaints have been very brutally suppressed.
Yet within less than a year of Jiang Zemin stepping down, not only are riots skyrocketing all over China, but also certain authorities are loosening the reins on the rioters and even showing sympathy for them.
Something is not quite adding up, in light of the first story. It is early days for speculation, but Pundita wonders whether Jiang Zemin's faction is somehow in the mix.
One would like to think that Jiang's departure has simply made a climate in which it's a little easier for abused Chinese to demand their rights. Yet there is possibly another explanation: that Jiang's faction didn't take their loss of power sitting down and that they've used connections with local party bosses and sympathetic factions in the PLA to encourage a less draconian response to the rioting.
Speaking of two very different stories, there are two very different versions of Jiang Zemin's early standing down from leadership of China's military. One, the official version as reported by the BBC. The story there is that Jiang decided to stand down for the good of the party, the state and the armed forces.
Two, the unofficial version, which is that Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan 'asked' Jiang Zemin to stand down.
The second version is a window on a struggle between two factions that's as much about class as power, and which had been growing for years before Jiang's departure.
As I noted, it's early days for speculation. But in light of Hu Jintao's planned visit to Washington this September, it's helpful to review, or learn about the two factions:
The BBC version.
The unofficial version (via The Epoch Times).
1) CCP pulls out stops to block Color Revolution (The Epoch Times).
2) Protestors in China get angrier and bolder (The New York Times via International Herald Tribune).
Two very different reports, two very different pictures of media control and the attitude of the Chinese Communist Party regarding expression of human rights in mainland China. On some issues, a very strict crackdown on the media and human rights issues. But on the matter of the riots inside China, at least one prominent Western journalist (Howard W. French) is given great access, and a CCP official goes on national television to virtually express open sympathy with the rioters.
We'll begin with the crackdown part of the story:
"The “Color Revolutions” occurring in Central Asian countries have caused panic within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). In late May, Hu Jintao, CCP General Secretary, issued an internal order to implement policies aimed at preventing the U.S. and Europe from starting Color Revolutions in regions surrounding China. The report, disseminated all the way down to the county-level, ordered strict controls over the media, strengthening of the monitoring and control of dissidents and civil rights advocates, and a complete review and closure of all companies printing dissident materials. (1)
Background
"In the beginning of this year, the CCP’s Central Committee issued the book How the Reagan Government Destroyed the Soviet Union to all cadre members. In early May, Robert Zoellick, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, visited six countries in East Asia.
"In Vietnam, one of the countries he visited, two thousand political prisoners were released the day before Zoellick arrived. Zoellick discussed democracy and religious freedom with Vietnamese Premier Phan Van Khai, and officially invited the Vietnamese leader, on behalf of President Bush, to visit the U.S. in June.
"Meetings between China’s neighbors and the U.S. have put Chinese officials on high alert. The CCP Politburo discussed the Vietnamese situation for an entire evening. The political revolutions and the internal economic problems have made the Hu regime extremely nervous; however the recent sharp rise in petroleum prices was very alarming, especially after being advised by a special interest group that had ulterior motives.
"The special interest group reported to Hu Jintao that the current sharp rise in petroleum prices was orchestrated by the U.S., the world’s Number 1 oil consumer, and was aimed directly at China; the action was compared to the lesson learned from Reagan’s policy of intentionally depressing oil prices in the 80s to break down the Russian economy.
"On top of this, the U.S. assisted Indonesia, Singapore, and Malaysia to jointly form the Malacca Strait Security Center to stop piracy in their shipping lanes, which was also viewed as exerting international pressure on China and threatening the petroleum shipping lanes to China. A decision by the U.S. Congress to prevent China from buying UNOCC would spell further problems ahead.
"While under this extreme pressure, and suspecting danger around every corner, Hu Jintao presented the Fighting the People’s War Without Gunsmoke report to the internal conference. It was said that many of the CCP cadres who read the report exclaimed in surprise that the Mao Zedong era was back. [...]" (1)
Now to the second story, as reported June 20 by Howard W. French for The New York Times via the International Herald Tribune:
"Protesters in China get angrier and bolder
XINCHANG, China
After three nights of increasingly heavy rioting, the police were taking no chances, deploying dozens of busloads of officers and blocking every road leading to the factory.
"The police began deploying in large numbers before dusk Monday, but the angry villagers had already made their moves. They had learned their lessons after studying reports of riots that had swept rural China in recent months. Sneaking over mountain paths and wading through rice paddies, they made their way to a pharmaceuticals plant, they said, for a showdown over the environmental threat they say it poses.
"As many as 15,000 people massed here on Sunday night and fought with the authorities, overturning police cars and throwing stones, undeterred by thick clouds of tear gas.
"Fewer people turned out on Monday evening under rainy skies, but residents of this factory town in China's wealthy Zhejiang Province vow they will keep demonstrating until they have forced the 10-year-old plant to relocate.
"This is the only way to solve problems like ours," said one protester, 22, whose house sits near the smashed gates of the factory, where the police were massed. "If you go to see the mayor or some city official, they just take your money and do nothing."
"The riots in Xinchang are part of a rising tide of discontent in China, with the number of mass protests like these reaching 74,000 last year from about 10,000 a decade earlier, according to government figures.
"The details have varied from incident to incident, but the recent wave of protests shares a foundation of accumulated anger over the failure of China's political system to respond to legitimate grievances and defiance of the local authorities, who are often seen as corrupt.
"A sign of the leadership's concern over the turbulence can be seen in a proliferation of high-level statements.
"In a nationally televised news conference this month, Li Jingtian, deputy director of the Communist Party's organization bureau, complained that "with regard to our grass-roots cadres, some of them are probably less competent, and they are not able to dissipate these conflicts or problems."
"In another widely remarked statement, Chen Xiwen, an economics vice minister who oversees agricultural affairs, saluted the Internet's role [emphasis mine] in allowing the central government to learn of unrest more quickly and praised demonstrating farmers for "knowing how to protect their rights."
"The people of Xinchang were reluctant to speak openly about the uprising because they would be subject to immediate arrest if identified. But from conversations with numerous residents, many of whom took part in the demonstrations, it was possible to put together a detailed picture of the events.
"In Xinchang, as with many of the recent protests, the spark involved claims of environmental degradation. [...]
"In many of China's other recent riots, word has spread fast among organizers and protesters by way of cellphone messages, allowing crowds to mass quickly and helping demonstrators coordinate tactics and slogans.
"In Xinchang, however, residents say new technology, like the cellphone, has played little part. Instead, many residents say they were moved to action after years of unhappiness about industrial pollution by copies of newspaper headlines from Dongyang. That city, a mere 80 kilometers, or 50 miles, away, was the scene this spring of one of China's biggest riots, in which more than 10,000 residents routed the police in a riot over pollution from a pesticide factory.
"Despite tight controls on news coverage of the incident, the riot in Dongyang, where the chemical factory remains closed months later, has entered Chinese folklore as proof that determined citizens acting en masse can force the authorities to reverse course and address their needs. [...]" (2)
Pardon Pundita's cynicism, but I wonder how a newspaper in Dongyang was allowed to carry such incendiary news. And the "years of unhappiness" about industrial pollution and all the other abuses that caused riots during the past year have been going on for decades in China and complaints have been very brutally suppressed.
Yet within less than a year of Jiang Zemin stepping down, not only are riots skyrocketing all over China, but also certain authorities are loosening the reins on the rioters and even showing sympathy for them.
Something is not quite adding up, in light of the first story. It is early days for speculation, but Pundita wonders whether Jiang Zemin's faction is somehow in the mix.
One would like to think that Jiang's departure has simply made a climate in which it's a little easier for abused Chinese to demand their rights. Yet there is possibly another explanation: that Jiang's faction didn't take their loss of power sitting down and that they've used connections with local party bosses and sympathetic factions in the PLA to encourage a less draconian response to the rioting.
Speaking of two very different stories, there are two very different versions of Jiang Zemin's early standing down from leadership of China's military. One, the official version as reported by the BBC. The story there is that Jiang decided to stand down for the good of the party, the state and the armed forces.
Two, the unofficial version, which is that Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan 'asked' Jiang Zemin to stand down.
The second version is a window on a struggle between two factions that's as much about class as power, and which had been growing for years before Jiang's departure.
As I noted, it's early days for speculation. But in light of Hu Jintao's planned visit to Washington this September, it's helpful to review, or learn about the two factions:
The BBC version.
The unofficial version (via The Epoch Times).
1) CCP pulls out stops to block Color Revolution (The Epoch Times).
2) Protestors in China get angrier and bolder (The New York Times via International Herald Tribune).
Wednesday, July 20
US-India: Mr Singh goes to Washington
India's raucous Communist Party is gearing up to do battle with Wal-Mart's onslaught. "Let's see how tough they are when they have to deal with real communists instead of those Chinese imitations!"
India's trade unions, which make the AFL-CIO even in its heyday look like the Des Moines Quilting Circle, are also donning battle garb.
India's stock market, currency traders and central bank nervously await August, when China is supposed to revalue the yuan. If it goes off, this will put pressure on India to loosen up on the very tightly controlled rupee float, which could lead to an upwards revaluation of the rupee by as much as 40% or even higher.
The Bangalore version of Silicon Valley moguls have round-the-clock sentries posted outside Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's home, where he can't step foot outside or even walk near a window without hearing, "So how are we supposed to run 21st Century business without electricity? Or should we schedule all meetings for full moon nights and corner the world market in candle wax?"
Meanwhile the Indian military has been receiving anonymous letters written on paper with a Made in China watermark. "Those who are not very nice to dear neighbors do not get invited to Shanghai Cooperative picnics. By the way, how are things going in Kashmir these days?"
Through it all, and throughout the shift in power in New Delhi from the BJP to the Congress Party, the Bush administration and hundreds of high level officials in India have quietly and carefully worked at mending fences between India's largest trading partner and the world's most populous democracy.
The fruit of their labors, which began as soon as President Bush came to office, were evident when Washington rolled out the Full Monte welcome for Prime Minister Singh on Monday.
Mr Singh's 40 minute address to Congress on Tuesday, which included a very careful, measured summary of India's long term goals and views about the United States, should be seen in its proper light. Let the dour members of the US Congress and their counterparts in Brussels parse Singh's statements about nuclear energy and pose koan-like questions about the direction of the NPT. Let the sophisticates in Washington and New Delhi policy circles warn that the US would be naive to read too much into Singh's words about common interests.
All that won't change the fact that when Mr Singh stood up to address the US Congress an important new chapter in history was officially begun.
From India Daily:
US expects Chinese currency revaluation in a month -- will India follow suit with Manmohan Singh’s visit?
Wal-Mart assault: India may be forced to open its protected retail sector, but Wal-Mart for the first time will face real communists in India
India's trade unions, which make the AFL-CIO even in its heyday look like the Des Moines Quilting Circle, are also donning battle garb.
India's stock market, currency traders and central bank nervously await August, when China is supposed to revalue the yuan. If it goes off, this will put pressure on India to loosen up on the very tightly controlled rupee float, which could lead to an upwards revaluation of the rupee by as much as 40% or even higher.
The Bangalore version of Silicon Valley moguls have round-the-clock sentries posted outside Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's home, where he can't step foot outside or even walk near a window without hearing, "So how are we supposed to run 21st Century business without electricity? Or should we schedule all meetings for full moon nights and corner the world market in candle wax?"
Meanwhile the Indian military has been receiving anonymous letters written on paper with a Made in China watermark. "Those who are not very nice to dear neighbors do not get invited to Shanghai Cooperative picnics. By the way, how are things going in Kashmir these days?"
Through it all, and throughout the shift in power in New Delhi from the BJP to the Congress Party, the Bush administration and hundreds of high level officials in India have quietly and carefully worked at mending fences between India's largest trading partner and the world's most populous democracy.
The fruit of their labors, which began as soon as President Bush came to office, were evident when Washington rolled out the Full Monte welcome for Prime Minister Singh on Monday.
Mr Singh's 40 minute address to Congress on Tuesday, which included a very careful, measured summary of India's long term goals and views about the United States, should be seen in its proper light. Let the dour members of the US Congress and their counterparts in Brussels parse Singh's statements about nuclear energy and pose koan-like questions about the direction of the NPT. Let the sophisticates in Washington and New Delhi policy circles warn that the US would be naive to read too much into Singh's words about common interests.
All that won't change the fact that when Mr Singh stood up to address the US Congress an important new chapter in history was officially begun.
From India Daily:
US expects Chinese currency revaluation in a month -- will India follow suit with Manmohan Singh’s visit?
Wal-Mart assault: India may be forced to open its protected retail sector, but Wal-Mart for the first time will face real communists in India
Tuesday, July 19
Orleans Rumor and footsteps in the dark
"Pundita! I'm not going to get to sleep tonight unless you explain why you told that ghost critter story or whatever it is. If I don't sleep I'll end up listening to Coast to Coast then I'll end up going off my diet. If the story is true did you ever ask yourself, 'Why me?' I mean, do you think you might be an exorcist or something?
Sleepless Again in St. Louis"
Dear Sleepless:
This a really good reason not to read Pundita while you're trying to do ten other things plus talk on the cellphone. Any seasoned police detective or attorney skilled at interrogating witnesses who read my account of the attack would have many questions. For example, I'd mentioned that the attack took place in "full view of thousands" in an auditorium. But the seating arrangement in any conceivable type of auditorium would mean that not everyone would necessarily be able to see every part of the auditorium.
There are many other questions in the same vein that could be asked. But the #1 question is whether I might have unconsciously reordered my recollection of the event after hearing the warning that Nicks passed on to me.
This reordering is such a common phenomenon that on arriving at the scene of an accident or crime, police will immediately separate the witnesses so that their accounts cannot influence each other.
Police have learned that often the person who is most certain about what he witnessed can be faulty in his recollection of key details. However, his attitude of certainty (e.g., "I'm positive the fleeing suspect was well over 6 feet tall") can cause other witnesses to reorder their recollection to jibe with his -- even if their initial recollection greatly conflicts with his account.
The reordering phenomenon also played a significant role in a series of events in Orleans, France in 1969 that sociologists refer to as "the Orleans Rumor." Humankind owes a great debt to the French team of sociologists headed by Edgar Morin, which painstakingly reconstructed and analyzed the events.
The tragedy is that what they learned is still not part of common knowledge. Thus, entire societies are bound to continue to fall prey to a blip in the human brain -- or at least a blip in intuitive reasoning -- that has probably been the cause of many mass tragedies down through history. So while the events that occurred in Orleans seem utterly bizarre in the telling, they are by no means an isolated phenomenon.
A group of schoolgirls started a rumor that young women were being kidnapped from clothing boutiques in Orleans. Under ordinary circumstances the rumor would have been quashed by the simple fact that no kidnappings of young women or anyone else had been reported to the police. But the rumor converged with an unusual set of circumstances:
> A period of great uncertainty about the future and fear in France about an upcoming election and the Soviet threat,
> fears that the miniskirt and other newly fashionable female attire (e.g., jeans) signaled a moral decline,
> fears that the new boutiques, which sold ready-made clothing (a new thing in France; dressmakers had always made female clothing), were contributing to the moral decline,
> pervasive anti-Semitism in the town, and
> common knowledge that Jews owned the clothing stores in question.
If the schoolgirls had placed the rumor of kidnappings in say, restaurants or parks, the Orleans Rumor would have died a quick death. But the children unwittingly gave locus to all the fear and uncertainty by placing the kidnappings in clothing stores. Thus, the rumor took off like a rocket.
We haven't gotten to the bizarre part yet but here I must pause to caution the reader that what happened in Orleans was not an instance of mass hysteria, which is a panic reaction.
What happened in Orleans is that every type of pseudo-logic known to humans was applied to fleshing out the rumor in the attempt to explain why and how the kidnappings were taking place. The residents of Orleans were caught up in a curious inverse of the panic reaction, which foregoes "thinking." They attempted to wrest a sense of order out of uncertainty by giving it a coherence.
A complex edifice of 'data' completely unsupported by facts was constructed, with each person who passed along the rumor adding more data, until everyone had --
(a) a satisfying explanation as to how people could be kidnapped in broad daylight in public places without anyone noticing it;
(b) knowledge of how the kidnap victims could be spirited out of Orleans without anyone noticing.
The President of the Jewish Committee of Orleans unwittingly added to the edifice when he sarcastically observed that clearly the victims were spirited away by submarine.
Indeed, there is suggestion that the schoolgirls who started the rumor did so as a sarcastic jibe at their scandalized parents and teachers because of their shopping for miniskirts at the boutiques.
Once the townspeople had figured out that the kidnap victims were drugged by means of hypodermic needles in shoes they tried on in the boutiques or drugged in the store dressing rooms, then spirited out of trap doors in the dressing rooms, taken through subterranean passages then transported via submarine to be sold into slavery, they demanded to know what the police were doing to stop the kidnappings.
Attempts by the police to explain that there were no kidnappings only added to the edifice. Thus, the police became part of the kidnapping ring. That meant the townspeople also had to figure out how the police worked with the kidnappers, what their 'cut' of the slavery profits was, and so on.
What separates the Orleans Rumor phenomenon from simple rumor-mongering is the elaborate belief system it generates and the fact that every attempt to deny the rumor only reinforces it by adding to it. Every denial becomes data that makes more bricks for the edifice.
In Orleans cool heads began to prevail with the realization that a very dangerous situation was building. Civic and church leaders joined with the police to deny the rumor and the schoolgirls confessed to their prank. And after the election was held, which relieved much uncertainty, people came forward to admit that they had imagined details and passed them on.
Here the reordering phenomenon emerged; people realized that after hearing the rumor they had reordered their recollection of situations to fit with the rumor (e.g., not recalling seeing a young woman again after she had entered a dressing room at a boutique).
And with the restoration of sounder reasoning supported by facts, the townspeople confronted the anti-Semitism that helped fuel the rumor.
The bad news is that the majority could not consider abandoning the edifice until the high level of uncertainty had been reduced, which in this case happened after the election results.
Thus, once the Orleans Rumor phenomenon gets underway, it seems virtually impossible to stop it by staying within its circuit. Indeed, as I pointed out, all attempts from within the circuit to break it only reinforce it.
This said, a striking feature of the Orleans Rumor is that the police unwittingly made things worse by attempting to counter the rumor with a recitation of statistics and other trappings of authoritative persuasion.
Readers who are students of tyrannies, and who studied the account of Stanley Milgram's research (linked in my Parrots of Heaven essay) might find much food for thought in the above observation. The Orleans Rumor makes it clear that only up to a certain point does the power of governing authority have the upper hand.
Once a certain threshold is crossed, the governing authority quickly becomes the victim and in real danger of attack from the masses. One has but to think of Mussolini's body dragged through the streets and French royalty marched to the guillotine to appreciate that tyrannies live in fear of that threshold.
While the type of events that occurred in Orleans has been isolated and studied as a distinct phenomenon only very recently in history, certainly all governing bodies down through time have been aware of the potentially deadly power of rumor directed against the state.
In 2003 I cited the Orleans Rumor to explain why all recitation of facts had failed to convince large numbers of people in Europe that neither the US government nor the Israeli government, nor those governments working together, had conspired to bring about 9/11. I pointed out that the same basic situations that fed the Orleans Rumor were present in Europe after the 9/11 attack.
I also cited the Orleans Rumor to warn that unless the US government reined in the academics and counter terrorism "experts" who fed pap to the US military, the policymakers and the media about the nature of the terrorist threat, we could see the demonizing of entire peoples, not to mention a religion.
George Gurdjieff stumbled across the same phenomenon -- noted it as a distinct phenomenon -- and studied it. This led to his thesis that most humans function in a state of literal sleep, which led to his pessimistic view of humanity's chances to mentally evolve much beyond our present state. Pity he died before the research of the French sociologists.
He also came up with a wonderfully insane explanation to account for why entire societies could fall prey to the kind of thinking characterized by the Orleans Rumor and then hurl themselves into perfectly insane wars: humans are food for the moon. Anyone who is familiar with G's sardonic sense of humor will be able to translate what he meant. Yet it's as good an insane explanation as any.
Yes I asked "Why me?" I thought of that angle immediately because my dad was a seance buster. In his youth he and a brother broke up a vicious gang that preyed on the bereaved. The gang took even poor people for everything they had by using tricks to convince the bereaved that they were in touch with the Dear Departed.
Although I did other things as well, it was twelve years before I found the answer and another seven to understand it. But today the bastard is serving a life prison sentence with no possibility of parole.
So you see I ignored the warning that Nicks passed on to me. I did so at great personal cost, which is why I term myself an idiot. As to whether I would have taken the warning knowing what I know today -- I have no answer, any more than I can answer the question left hanging by The Usual Suspects.
Yet here I recall another piece of advice given by my friend on the NYPD. He told me that many people have a tendency not to look back if they think they're being followed on the street. He said that encourages the perpetrator to the idea that the intended victim is afraid to put up a fight.
He added, "Always stop, look and listen if you think you're being followed. Turn around and confront the footsteps in the dark."
I'd say that's good advice for governments as well as individuals.
My description of the Orleans Rumor is based on an account of the research by Edgar Morin et al in How Real is Real? by Paul Watzlawick, Vintage Books USA; 1977. Dr. Watzlawick is is one of the world's leading theoreticians in Communication Theory and Radical Constructivism.
How Real is Real is still one of the best introductions to communications theory for the general reader and a huge help for news followers/analysts trying to sift fact from disinformation and propaganda. Watzlawick illustrates complex themes via fascinating ancedotes; the book is a model of clear communication.
Sleepless Again in St. Louis"
Dear Sleepless:
This a really good reason not to read Pundita while you're trying to do ten other things plus talk on the cellphone. Any seasoned police detective or attorney skilled at interrogating witnesses who read my account of the attack would have many questions. For example, I'd mentioned that the attack took place in "full view of thousands" in an auditorium. But the seating arrangement in any conceivable type of auditorium would mean that not everyone would necessarily be able to see every part of the auditorium.
There are many other questions in the same vein that could be asked. But the #1 question is whether I might have unconsciously reordered my recollection of the event after hearing the warning that Nicks passed on to me.
This reordering is such a common phenomenon that on arriving at the scene of an accident or crime, police will immediately separate the witnesses so that their accounts cannot influence each other.
Police have learned that often the person who is most certain about what he witnessed can be faulty in his recollection of key details. However, his attitude of certainty (e.g., "I'm positive the fleeing suspect was well over 6 feet tall") can cause other witnesses to reorder their recollection to jibe with his -- even if their initial recollection greatly conflicts with his account.
The reordering phenomenon also played a significant role in a series of events in Orleans, France in 1969 that sociologists refer to as "the Orleans Rumor." Humankind owes a great debt to the French team of sociologists headed by Edgar Morin, which painstakingly reconstructed and analyzed the events.
The tragedy is that what they learned is still not part of common knowledge. Thus, entire societies are bound to continue to fall prey to a blip in the human brain -- or at least a blip in intuitive reasoning -- that has probably been the cause of many mass tragedies down through history. So while the events that occurred in Orleans seem utterly bizarre in the telling, they are by no means an isolated phenomenon.
A group of schoolgirls started a rumor that young women were being kidnapped from clothing boutiques in Orleans. Under ordinary circumstances the rumor would have been quashed by the simple fact that no kidnappings of young women or anyone else had been reported to the police. But the rumor converged with an unusual set of circumstances:
> A period of great uncertainty about the future and fear in France about an upcoming election and the Soviet threat,
> fears that the miniskirt and other newly fashionable female attire (e.g., jeans) signaled a moral decline,
> fears that the new boutiques, which sold ready-made clothing (a new thing in France; dressmakers had always made female clothing), were contributing to the moral decline,
> pervasive anti-Semitism in the town, and
> common knowledge that Jews owned the clothing stores in question.
If the schoolgirls had placed the rumor of kidnappings in say, restaurants or parks, the Orleans Rumor would have died a quick death. But the children unwittingly gave locus to all the fear and uncertainty by placing the kidnappings in clothing stores. Thus, the rumor took off like a rocket.
We haven't gotten to the bizarre part yet but here I must pause to caution the reader that what happened in Orleans was not an instance of mass hysteria, which is a panic reaction.
What happened in Orleans is that every type of pseudo-logic known to humans was applied to fleshing out the rumor in the attempt to explain why and how the kidnappings were taking place. The residents of Orleans were caught up in a curious inverse of the panic reaction, which foregoes "thinking." They attempted to wrest a sense of order out of uncertainty by giving it a coherence.
A complex edifice of 'data' completely unsupported by facts was constructed, with each person who passed along the rumor adding more data, until everyone had --
(a) a satisfying explanation as to how people could be kidnapped in broad daylight in public places without anyone noticing it;
(b) knowledge of how the kidnap victims could be spirited out of Orleans without anyone noticing.
The President of the Jewish Committee of Orleans unwittingly added to the edifice when he sarcastically observed that clearly the victims were spirited away by submarine.
Indeed, there is suggestion that the schoolgirls who started the rumor did so as a sarcastic jibe at their scandalized parents and teachers because of their shopping for miniskirts at the boutiques.
Once the townspeople had figured out that the kidnap victims were drugged by means of hypodermic needles in shoes they tried on in the boutiques or drugged in the store dressing rooms, then spirited out of trap doors in the dressing rooms, taken through subterranean passages then transported via submarine to be sold into slavery, they demanded to know what the police were doing to stop the kidnappings.
Attempts by the police to explain that there were no kidnappings only added to the edifice. Thus, the police became part of the kidnapping ring. That meant the townspeople also had to figure out how the police worked with the kidnappers, what their 'cut' of the slavery profits was, and so on.
What separates the Orleans Rumor phenomenon from simple rumor-mongering is the elaborate belief system it generates and the fact that every attempt to deny the rumor only reinforces it by adding to it. Every denial becomes data that makes more bricks for the edifice.
In Orleans cool heads began to prevail with the realization that a very dangerous situation was building. Civic and church leaders joined with the police to deny the rumor and the schoolgirls confessed to their prank. And after the election was held, which relieved much uncertainty, people came forward to admit that they had imagined details and passed them on.
Here the reordering phenomenon emerged; people realized that after hearing the rumor they had reordered their recollection of situations to fit with the rumor (e.g., not recalling seeing a young woman again after she had entered a dressing room at a boutique).
And with the restoration of sounder reasoning supported by facts, the townspeople confronted the anti-Semitism that helped fuel the rumor.
The bad news is that the majority could not consider abandoning the edifice until the high level of uncertainty had been reduced, which in this case happened after the election results.
Thus, once the Orleans Rumor phenomenon gets underway, it seems virtually impossible to stop it by staying within its circuit. Indeed, as I pointed out, all attempts from within the circuit to break it only reinforce it.
This said, a striking feature of the Orleans Rumor is that the police unwittingly made things worse by attempting to counter the rumor with a recitation of statistics and other trappings of authoritative persuasion.
Readers who are students of tyrannies, and who studied the account of Stanley Milgram's research (linked in my Parrots of Heaven essay) might find much food for thought in the above observation. The Orleans Rumor makes it clear that only up to a certain point does the power of governing authority have the upper hand.
Once a certain threshold is crossed, the governing authority quickly becomes the victim and in real danger of attack from the masses. One has but to think of Mussolini's body dragged through the streets and French royalty marched to the guillotine to appreciate that tyrannies live in fear of that threshold.
While the type of events that occurred in Orleans has been isolated and studied as a distinct phenomenon only very recently in history, certainly all governing bodies down through time have been aware of the potentially deadly power of rumor directed against the state.
In 2003 I cited the Orleans Rumor to explain why all recitation of facts had failed to convince large numbers of people in Europe that neither the US government nor the Israeli government, nor those governments working together, had conspired to bring about 9/11. I pointed out that the same basic situations that fed the Orleans Rumor were present in Europe after the 9/11 attack.
I also cited the Orleans Rumor to warn that unless the US government reined in the academics and counter terrorism "experts" who fed pap to the US military, the policymakers and the media about the nature of the terrorist threat, we could see the demonizing of entire peoples, not to mention a religion.
George Gurdjieff stumbled across the same phenomenon -- noted it as a distinct phenomenon -- and studied it. This led to his thesis that most humans function in a state of literal sleep, which led to his pessimistic view of humanity's chances to mentally evolve much beyond our present state. Pity he died before the research of the French sociologists.
He also came up with a wonderfully insane explanation to account for why entire societies could fall prey to the kind of thinking characterized by the Orleans Rumor and then hurl themselves into perfectly insane wars: humans are food for the moon. Anyone who is familiar with G's sardonic sense of humor will be able to translate what he meant. Yet it's as good an insane explanation as any.
Yes I asked "Why me?" I thought of that angle immediately because my dad was a seance buster. In his youth he and a brother broke up a vicious gang that preyed on the bereaved. The gang took even poor people for everything they had by using tricks to convince the bereaved that they were in touch with the Dear Departed.
Although I did other things as well, it was twelve years before I found the answer and another seven to understand it. But today the bastard is serving a life prison sentence with no possibility of parole.
So you see I ignored the warning that Nicks passed on to me. I did so at great personal cost, which is why I term myself an idiot. As to whether I would have taken the warning knowing what I know today -- I have no answer, any more than I can answer the question left hanging by The Usual Suspects.
Yet here I recall another piece of advice given by my friend on the NYPD. He told me that many people have a tendency not to look back if they think they're being followed on the street. He said that encourages the perpetrator to the idea that the intended victim is afraid to put up a fight.
He added, "Always stop, look and listen if you think you're being followed. Turn around and confront the footsteps in the dark."
I'd say that's good advice for governments as well as individuals.
My description of the Orleans Rumor is based on an account of the research by Edgar Morin et al in How Real is Real? by Paul Watzlawick, Vintage Books USA; 1977. Dr. Watzlawick is is one of the world's leading theoreticians in Communication Theory and Radical Constructivism.
How Real is Real is still one of the best introductions to communications theory for the general reader and a huge help for news followers/analysts trying to sift fact from disinformation and propaganda. Watzlawick illustrates complex themes via fascinating ancedotes; the book is a model of clear communication.
Bill and Ted vs Kaiser Soze: does freedom from stochastic reasoning give an edge against the devil?
On reviewing my achives for July I got a start when I saw the entry for July 6, which of course was a day before what's now known as "7/7" -- the date of the London massacre. For readers who missed Marc Schulman's letter I republish it below. This time I supply an answer to his question.
"Pundita:
I'm curious about something. Ever since I was a teen-ager, I've been absolutely fascinated by the 1930s. While I've read numerous books on the subject, I still can't understand how the western democracies could allow Hitler to have his way in Europe. After all, he made no secret of his ambitions and intentions -- they were all in Mein Kampf.
Yes, there are plenty of explanations, such as perceiving Nazi Germany as the bulwark against communism. Be that as it may, the blindness of Europe's statesmen (with the notable exception of Churchill) remains incomprehensible to me.
My knowledge of the 1930s is the prism through which I view our current situation. Like Hitler, bin Laden and his ilk have made it crystal clear, in their spoken words and writings, that they seek the destruction of Western civilization.
And, as in the 1930s, numerous statesmen (again in Europe!) and millions of ordinary citizens have chosen to bury their heads in the sand, notwithstanding 9/11. Further, the United Nations is as ineffective and toothless now as the League of Nations was then.
The parallels between now and that sorry decade seem so obvious to me that I am again finding it to be impossible to truly understand those who do not see what I see and instead are irate because [America's] behavior is less than perfect.
So here's my question: is your prism the same as mine and, if not, what is it?"
Dear Marc:
Our prism is not the same. Yet when I received your letter I wrote a reply that tried to look at the situation from your prism and I answered from that view. I'm used to doing that sort of thing; it's automatic with me -- it's the consultant's way.
I was about to send the reply then I thought, 'This guy has been haunted by the situation and era he wrote about; he's given a great deal of thought to it over many years. He's asking you on a personal level what you really think.' So then I couldn't send the reply. I gave up for a time, simply published your letter and asked others to comment.
The really interesting thing about the storyline for the film, The Usual Suspects, is that came it to the author in almost a random or accidental way -- or maybe serendipitous is the best word. Anyhow, he didn't start out to write a study of evil. He was just casting around for a good story, and he looked at his surroundings, and in the manner of the stunning end of the story, he picked up the idea from things he saw at the time.
But this made the film no less a work of art. What you're left with, after the shock wears off and you've had time to think about it, is whether the story Verbal told about Kaiser Soze is true. If so, that would make evil comprehensible. Because everything else he told was a distortion or a lie the question is left hanging in the air.
I once witnessed an assassination attempt on a revered public figure. It happened in full view of thousands of people. I was sitting not three yards from where it happened. A man jumped out of the seated throng -- a completely unremarkable man -- and began squeezing the life out of the intended victim.
There were several strong men sitting not even a foot from where it happened, men who would have given their life without a thought to save the public figure. They didn't make a move to intervene, even though they were looking straight at the death battle.
It flashed into my mind, "Maybe they think the man's hugging him." I screamed a warning but the scream did not emerge. I tried to jump up to help the victim. I was unable to move my limbs. The more I struggled to scream and move my limbs, the more I was overcome by a feeling of lassitude, a desire to close my eyes and sleep.
I had never lacked physical courage. My mind raced frantically, trying to find a way to overcome the lassitude. The words of a friend on the NYPD flashed to mind from a long time before: "If you're ever attacked don't yell help, yell fire."
Summoning every iota of willpower I had, and every bit of compassion I could muster, I screamed at the struggling victim, whose face was contorted with agony and revulsion, "Don't hit him!"
It came out more of a squeak than a scream, but it was as if a spell had been broken. I was able to move my limbs again, but the men sitting nearby suddenly leaped into action. It took five of them -- all around 6' tall -- to peel off the attacker, who was maybe 90 pounds and 4'9. It took 12 strong men to wrestle and half-carry the thrashing attacker out of the auditorium. Meanwhile, the event continued as if nothing had happened.
I was so shaken by the incident that all I could do at first was sit there shivering. Finally I turned to the woman sitting next to me and commented, "My God! Did you see what happened!"
The woman asked mildly what had happened. Startled, I described what had taken place. No, she hadn't seen the incident. "I must have dozed off for a time."
I turned to the person behind me and put the same question. No, had no recollection of anything like that happening.
After the event I went from person to person in the dispersing crowd, asking the same question with a growing sense of horror and disbelief. One person mentioned seeing what looked to be someone with an epileptic seizure carried out of the auditorium but no, he had not seen any disturbance around the public figure, no attack.
Finally I found an old acquaintance. She had entered the event late and stood at the back of the auditorium. After pouring out the story I added, "Nicks, I'm almost beginning to doubt the incident happened. Understand I'm not hearing contradictory accounts of what I saw happen. I'm hearing that people saw nothing happen."
She replied thoughtfully, "Perhaps it was just one of those moments when everyone was looking the other way."
Her observation set me to shivering again. It hit that my struggle to regain my physical functions, which had seemed to drag on for hours, probably occurred in a matter of a few seconds. The entire incident could have been just one moment in time.
The next day Nicks -- an extremely bright Oxford grad -- wangled her way into speaking with someone who was very close to the public figure. Instead of relating my account and asking whether it had occurred as I'd described, she made small talk. Then she casually asked what had happened to the man who attacked the public figure the day before.
He studied her in silence for a time. Then he replied, "Do not trouble yourself about that man. The most one can ever do with evil is give it a good thrashing and send it on its way."
The little band of young St. Petersburg intellectuals and artists that George Gurdjieff guided through the Russian revolution to Georgia and eventual safety in France understood so little about the rigors of the journey at the onset that the women set off in high heels.
Russia had descended into chaos, into madness. One day the Red army would be in control, the next day the White. Both sides had descended into savagery. The group that Gurdjieff wended through the horrors didn't know there was no going back, that things in Russia would not return to normal. Gurdjieff knew, and he knew of the fresh horrors to come.
Gurdjieff had been raised at the intersection of the modern and ancient worlds; he'd been exposed to many languages, many peoples from incredibly diverse backgrounds. And he'd been exposed to much horror. If I recall he was half Armenian; anyhow, it's said he became a member of the Armenian underground after a series of massacres carried out on the Armenians.
The extraordinary experiences of his youth, his extraordinary journeys to find and study with 'remarkable men,' coupled with his intelligence, allowed him to see many things that were quite invisible to most others.
This led him to the idea that humans exist in a state of sleep that only the most arduous training can overcome. He dedicated much of his life to finding ways to shake people out of habitual thinking patterns that he believed reinforced the tendency to sleep.
But he came to a pessimistic view, or perhaps a very pragmatic one: that the river of daily life, the demands of the socialization process and fitting into society, make it impossible for all but a very few to awaken from a mental state he considered sleep.
Is the kind of evil I witnessed a blind, almost mechanical force? A byproduct of processes, as with carbon monoxide? I don't know, any more than I can guess the answer to the question left hanging by The Usual Suspects. I do know from experience that evil has a way of convincing us that we can't win, thereby landing us in a mental trap.
It's been observed by researchers that humans are natural odds players, even though we're pretty lousy at intuiting how the law of chance actually works. We have a tendency to fight hardest if we think we have a chance at victory -- the High Noon phenomenon. If people think they're up against something too big for them, they tend to mentally shut down although I won't go so far as to call it literal sleep, as Gurdjieff did.
By the time I landed in that auditorium, I'd been in so many scrapes that I didn't think in terms of winning and losing. I'd learned to act with no hope about outcome. If my reverse psychology ploy hadn't worked to unfreeze my limbs, I would have tried to think up something else. And something else and something else....
That means I don't entirely agree with the person who advised Nicks. I'd say the most we can ever do with evil is just keep trying to keep our wits about us. Hey, it's something to do while waiting for God, or the gods, or saints, or Ancestors, or angels, or Whatnots, or all of 'em to put down their newspaper and notice some fool humans are in a tight bind again.
But that's just my experience, my temperament. Others, provided they managed to see what was going on, might have spent the time praying rather than struggling to think up a way to outsmart the devil. I guess that makes me a fool, or maybe even an idiot. Indeed, I've always felt a great kinship with the idiots in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure (I & II).
Of course outwitting death is not the same as outwitting evil. So we are left with the ponderous question: Would Bill and Ted be a match for Kaiser Soze? My money's on yes. Provided the idiots remembered to hedge with prayer.
(For more on the strange incident recounted in this essay and the themes under discussion see the July 20 post, The Orleans Rumor and footsteps in the dark.)
"Pundita:
I'm curious about something. Ever since I was a teen-ager, I've been absolutely fascinated by the 1930s. While I've read numerous books on the subject, I still can't understand how the western democracies could allow Hitler to have his way in Europe. After all, he made no secret of his ambitions and intentions -- they were all in Mein Kampf.
Yes, there are plenty of explanations, such as perceiving Nazi Germany as the bulwark against communism. Be that as it may, the blindness of Europe's statesmen (with the notable exception of Churchill) remains incomprehensible to me.
My knowledge of the 1930s is the prism through which I view our current situation. Like Hitler, bin Laden and his ilk have made it crystal clear, in their spoken words and writings, that they seek the destruction of Western civilization.
And, as in the 1930s, numerous statesmen (again in Europe!) and millions of ordinary citizens have chosen to bury their heads in the sand, notwithstanding 9/11. Further, the United Nations is as ineffective and toothless now as the League of Nations was then.
The parallels between now and that sorry decade seem so obvious to me that I am again finding it to be impossible to truly understand those who do not see what I see and instead are irate because [America's] behavior is less than perfect.
So here's my question: is your prism the same as mine and, if not, what is it?"
Dear Marc:
Our prism is not the same. Yet when I received your letter I wrote a reply that tried to look at the situation from your prism and I answered from that view. I'm used to doing that sort of thing; it's automatic with me -- it's the consultant's way.
I was about to send the reply then I thought, 'This guy has been haunted by the situation and era he wrote about; he's given a great deal of thought to it over many years. He's asking you on a personal level what you really think.' So then I couldn't send the reply. I gave up for a time, simply published your letter and asked others to comment.
The really interesting thing about the storyline for the film, The Usual Suspects, is that came it to the author in almost a random or accidental way -- or maybe serendipitous is the best word. Anyhow, he didn't start out to write a study of evil. He was just casting around for a good story, and he looked at his surroundings, and in the manner of the stunning end of the story, he picked up the idea from things he saw at the time.
But this made the film no less a work of art. What you're left with, after the shock wears off and you've had time to think about it, is whether the story Verbal told about Kaiser Soze is true. If so, that would make evil comprehensible. Because everything else he told was a distortion or a lie the question is left hanging in the air.
I once witnessed an assassination attempt on a revered public figure. It happened in full view of thousands of people. I was sitting not three yards from where it happened. A man jumped out of the seated throng -- a completely unremarkable man -- and began squeezing the life out of the intended victim.
There were several strong men sitting not even a foot from where it happened, men who would have given their life without a thought to save the public figure. They didn't make a move to intervene, even though they were looking straight at the death battle.
It flashed into my mind, "Maybe they think the man's hugging him." I screamed a warning but the scream did not emerge. I tried to jump up to help the victim. I was unable to move my limbs. The more I struggled to scream and move my limbs, the more I was overcome by a feeling of lassitude, a desire to close my eyes and sleep.
I had never lacked physical courage. My mind raced frantically, trying to find a way to overcome the lassitude. The words of a friend on the NYPD flashed to mind from a long time before: "If you're ever attacked don't yell help, yell fire."
Summoning every iota of willpower I had, and every bit of compassion I could muster, I screamed at the struggling victim, whose face was contorted with agony and revulsion, "Don't hit him!"
It came out more of a squeak than a scream, but it was as if a spell had been broken. I was able to move my limbs again, but the men sitting nearby suddenly leaped into action. It took five of them -- all around 6' tall -- to peel off the attacker, who was maybe 90 pounds and 4'9. It took 12 strong men to wrestle and half-carry the thrashing attacker out of the auditorium. Meanwhile, the event continued as if nothing had happened.
I was so shaken by the incident that all I could do at first was sit there shivering. Finally I turned to the woman sitting next to me and commented, "My God! Did you see what happened!"
The woman asked mildly what had happened. Startled, I described what had taken place. No, she hadn't seen the incident. "I must have dozed off for a time."
I turned to the person behind me and put the same question. No, had no recollection of anything like that happening.
After the event I went from person to person in the dispersing crowd, asking the same question with a growing sense of horror and disbelief. One person mentioned seeing what looked to be someone with an epileptic seizure carried out of the auditorium but no, he had not seen any disturbance around the public figure, no attack.
Finally I found an old acquaintance. She had entered the event late and stood at the back of the auditorium. After pouring out the story I added, "Nicks, I'm almost beginning to doubt the incident happened. Understand I'm not hearing contradictory accounts of what I saw happen. I'm hearing that people saw nothing happen."
She replied thoughtfully, "Perhaps it was just one of those moments when everyone was looking the other way."
Her observation set me to shivering again. It hit that my struggle to regain my physical functions, which had seemed to drag on for hours, probably occurred in a matter of a few seconds. The entire incident could have been just one moment in time.
The next day Nicks -- an extremely bright Oxford grad -- wangled her way into speaking with someone who was very close to the public figure. Instead of relating my account and asking whether it had occurred as I'd described, she made small talk. Then she casually asked what had happened to the man who attacked the public figure the day before.
He studied her in silence for a time. Then he replied, "Do not trouble yourself about that man. The most one can ever do with evil is give it a good thrashing and send it on its way."
The little band of young St. Petersburg intellectuals and artists that George Gurdjieff guided through the Russian revolution to Georgia and eventual safety in France understood so little about the rigors of the journey at the onset that the women set off in high heels.
Russia had descended into chaos, into madness. One day the Red army would be in control, the next day the White. Both sides had descended into savagery. The group that Gurdjieff wended through the horrors didn't know there was no going back, that things in Russia would not return to normal. Gurdjieff knew, and he knew of the fresh horrors to come.
Gurdjieff had been raised at the intersection of the modern and ancient worlds; he'd been exposed to many languages, many peoples from incredibly diverse backgrounds. And he'd been exposed to much horror. If I recall he was half Armenian; anyhow, it's said he became a member of the Armenian underground after a series of massacres carried out on the Armenians.
The extraordinary experiences of his youth, his extraordinary journeys to find and study with 'remarkable men,' coupled with his intelligence, allowed him to see many things that were quite invisible to most others.
This led him to the idea that humans exist in a state of sleep that only the most arduous training can overcome. He dedicated much of his life to finding ways to shake people out of habitual thinking patterns that he believed reinforced the tendency to sleep.
But he came to a pessimistic view, or perhaps a very pragmatic one: that the river of daily life, the demands of the socialization process and fitting into society, make it impossible for all but a very few to awaken from a mental state he considered sleep.
Is the kind of evil I witnessed a blind, almost mechanical force? A byproduct of processes, as with carbon monoxide? I don't know, any more than I can guess the answer to the question left hanging by The Usual Suspects. I do know from experience that evil has a way of convincing us that we can't win, thereby landing us in a mental trap.
It's been observed by researchers that humans are natural odds players, even though we're pretty lousy at intuiting how the law of chance actually works. We have a tendency to fight hardest if we think we have a chance at victory -- the High Noon phenomenon. If people think they're up against something too big for them, they tend to mentally shut down although I won't go so far as to call it literal sleep, as Gurdjieff did.
By the time I landed in that auditorium, I'd been in so many scrapes that I didn't think in terms of winning and losing. I'd learned to act with no hope about outcome. If my reverse psychology ploy hadn't worked to unfreeze my limbs, I would have tried to think up something else. And something else and something else....
That means I don't entirely agree with the person who advised Nicks. I'd say the most we can ever do with evil is just keep trying to keep our wits about us. Hey, it's something to do while waiting for God, or the gods, or saints, or Ancestors, or angels, or Whatnots, or all of 'em to put down their newspaper and notice some fool humans are in a tight bind again.
But that's just my experience, my temperament. Others, provided they managed to see what was going on, might have spent the time praying rather than struggling to think up a way to outsmart the devil. I guess that makes me a fool, or maybe even an idiot. Indeed, I've always felt a great kinship with the idiots in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure (I & II).
Of course outwitting death is not the same as outwitting evil. So we are left with the ponderous question: Would Bill and Ted be a match for Kaiser Soze? My money's on yes. Provided the idiots remembered to hedge with prayer.
(For more on the strange incident recounted in this essay and the themes under discussion see the July 20 post, The Orleans Rumor and footsteps in the dark.)
Monday, July 18
Democracy and ICT revisited, and China uses communications technology to help Mugabe suppress democracy in Zimbabwe
I received the following letter from Beth (at Beth's Contradictory Brain blog) in response to the Fire up the cell phone... post.
I immediately sent a reply that was somewhat critical of what I considered to be her naive or at least very limited understanding of development issues. But after rereading her letter and yesterday I realized that I had looked at the task of spreading democracy solely from the viewpoint of rural development and specifically from the angle of development bank projects. Thus, the dour warnings in my essay. (Perhaps a reason for Barber's dour warnings, as well!) I now think I over-applied Dey's arguments, which were purely concerned with rural development.
So with hindsight I think that in general Beth's comments point up a flaw in my argument. They also serve as a good warning to check against over-reliance on one's knowledge base while studying an unfamiliar situation.
I'd say her comments underscore that this is not a perfect world; the best technological means for spreading/supporting genuine democracy are not affordable or technologically feasible in many instances. Yet while "half a bridge is better than none" can make for really bad development loan policy, I think Beth's point is that many small half measures to spread democracy can add up to big returns.
Also included in this post is a letter from "Liz" in response to the same essay; her comments about ICT are more technical but also very interesting as applied to democracy and information flow; she points up how this flow can work against democracy as much as support it. I support the last point with grim news from Zimbabwe.
"Howdy!
Regarding the comments by Atanu Dey you quoted:
"Basic functional literacy is a prerequisite to pretty much anything that one does. The use of high-tech depends on literacy and therefore if the population is illiterate, even gifting them with free hardware will not make a difference. The pre-condition for bridging the digital divide is therefore the bridging of the literacy divide. ...I grant that illiterate idiots can use a cell phone, but that is not what I would call the effective use of high technology."
I'm not so sure about this. The examples from North Korea show (at least to me) that even the basic technology of a cell phone allows the people in NK access to conversations with people outside NK, which in turns allows them a glimpse into life outside a strictly controlled country. And even that small glimpse can start a chain of change. I would never argue that literacy shouldn't be a top priority goal, just that it might not be as necessary as is being argued.
Re your comments:
"The literates control the information flow."
I again think conversations between people limit this -- especially if technology makes conversations easier to have among many people, literate or not. [...]
"As the African cell phone story indicates, ICT is critical to helping the rural poor stay connected about issues such as market conditions for their produce. But you don't want to assume that kind of connectivity automatically translates to more informed participation in the political process."
But why assume it doesn't?
"Pundita suspects that a lot of outmoded computers -- sold for a song by companies eager to dump them -- will find their way into the world's rural villages."
Probably so. One of my favorite parts of the North Korea story was the old VCR's making their way to NK and the people soaking up the soap operas. It's not as lofty as our classic American film idea,* but whatever helps oppressed people see (in this case literally) that there are much better alternatives, I think is a good thing.
Beth in the Midwest
* In an earlier published email exchange, Beth and I had discussed showing films about America's hardship days to peoples who were struggling to get their democracies off the ground.
* * * * *
Re: cellphones, democracy and information flow
Pundita,
Good points re the DPRK [North Korea] and cellphone signals from the north as well as the south (could we get some floating platforms offshore east and west? A little power management does wonderful things for signal dispersion...).
However, there are two major caveats to remember about cellphones and information dissemination:
1. It's a tool like any other -- anyone can use an axe, for purposes which suit his needs. When it's a big enough threat, the threatened government may well respond in kind, with misinformation. Likewise, a threatened government can always jam/overpower a bootleg signal -- it is, after all, radio waves -- unless we want to engage in a "hot" info war, which I doubt at this point.
In a similar vein, Wretchard mentioned at Belmont Club (about a year ago, maybe)that jihadi camp followers/wannabes passed decapitation videos around via their cellphone multimedia services (report from the London Times -- by the time I tried to track it back, the archives weren't accessible to me, but I'll take Wretchard's word that he saw the report).
2. Text messages use the voice system (typically) while data connections use a separate-but-connected data network which (typically) is supported by a set of servers providing web pages customized for very small screens, etc., and which is connected to regular data networks including the Internet (depending on national and carrier connectivity).
Text messages are stored on servers in the voice system (just ask the boys in Aruba, or Paris Hilton) -- and may be retrieved later. Data networking may be filtered and and/or tracked for billing purposes. Billing, of course, is the sine qua non for the telephony world, because they charge by the call/time/bytes -- and the ability to bill more granularly (more for some bytes than others, depending on where the bytes came from -- think premium services) and to restrict access to certain sites on some accounts (a business wireless connection can access corporate sites and partner sites, but not sports sites) are both currently available.
Tracking and storage, accessible to the oppressing government, or to another government in opposition (implying treason, if it leaks and you're caught) are not trivial matters.
All that said, the simple availability of another channel of information dissemination is a force multiplier -- permutations of information paths become a larger set, and it becomes much more complex to block them all.
But don't expect too much out of cellphone systems -- simple voice connectivity outside the immediate control of the oppressing government is a great help. Asian cellphones are often much smaller than the "candy bar" models we see in the US (Nokia, e.g.) or even a typical American clamshell model. And smaller is easier to conceal....
"Liz"
* * * * *
Pundita comments: Re your remark that the oppressing government can always jam the signals -- this is just what the Zimbabwe government has done with help from China. What the following report does not mention is that not only did the government receive jamming equipment from China but the PLA (China's military) flew Zimbabwean military to China for training on how to use the signal jammers. This training came in handy for suppressing news about the dis-homing of an estimated 300,000 Zimbabweans.
For latest news on the situation in Zimbabwe also visit SW Radio Africa.
For background on the dis-homing, see the Christian Science Monitor report Systematic Cleansing in Zimbabwe.
I immediately sent a reply that was somewhat critical of what I considered to be her naive or at least very limited understanding of development issues. But after rereading her letter and yesterday I realized that I had looked at the task of spreading democracy solely from the viewpoint of rural development and specifically from the angle of development bank projects. Thus, the dour warnings in my essay. (Perhaps a reason for Barber's dour warnings, as well!) I now think I over-applied Dey's arguments, which were purely concerned with rural development.
So with hindsight I think that in general Beth's comments point up a flaw in my argument. They also serve as a good warning to check against over-reliance on one's knowledge base while studying an unfamiliar situation.
I'd say her comments underscore that this is not a perfect world; the best technological means for spreading/supporting genuine democracy are not affordable or technologically feasible in many instances. Yet while "half a bridge is better than none" can make for really bad development loan policy, I think Beth's point is that many small half measures to spread democracy can add up to big returns.
Also included in this post is a letter from "Liz" in response to the same essay; her comments about ICT are more technical but also very interesting as applied to democracy and information flow; she points up how this flow can work against democracy as much as support it. I support the last point with grim news from Zimbabwe.
"Howdy!
Regarding the comments by Atanu Dey you quoted:
"Basic functional literacy is a prerequisite to pretty much anything that one does. The use of high-tech depends on literacy and therefore if the population is illiterate, even gifting them with free hardware will not make a difference. The pre-condition for bridging the digital divide is therefore the bridging of the literacy divide. ...I grant that illiterate idiots can use a cell phone, but that is not what I would call the effective use of high technology."
I'm not so sure about this. The examples from North Korea show (at least to me) that even the basic technology of a cell phone allows the people in NK access to conversations with people outside NK, which in turns allows them a glimpse into life outside a strictly controlled country. And even that small glimpse can start a chain of change. I would never argue that literacy shouldn't be a top priority goal, just that it might not be as necessary as is being argued.
Re your comments:
"The literates control the information flow."
I again think conversations between people limit this -- especially if technology makes conversations easier to have among many people, literate or not. [...]
"As the African cell phone story indicates, ICT is critical to helping the rural poor stay connected about issues such as market conditions for their produce. But you don't want to assume that kind of connectivity automatically translates to more informed participation in the political process."
But why assume it doesn't?
"Pundita suspects that a lot of outmoded computers -- sold for a song by companies eager to dump them -- will find their way into the world's rural villages."
Probably so. One of my favorite parts of the North Korea story was the old VCR's making their way to NK and the people soaking up the soap operas. It's not as lofty as our classic American film idea,* but whatever helps oppressed people see (in this case literally) that there are much better alternatives, I think is a good thing.
Beth in the Midwest
* In an earlier published email exchange, Beth and I had discussed showing films about America's hardship days to peoples who were struggling to get their democracies off the ground.
* * * * *
Re: cellphones, democracy and information flow
Pundita,
Good points re the DPRK [North Korea] and cellphone signals from the north as well as the south (could we get some floating platforms offshore east and west? A little power management does wonderful things for signal dispersion...).
However, there are two major caveats to remember about cellphones and information dissemination:
1. It's a tool like any other -- anyone can use an axe, for purposes which suit his needs. When it's a big enough threat, the threatened government may well respond in kind, with misinformation. Likewise, a threatened government can always jam/overpower a bootleg signal -- it is, after all, radio waves -- unless we want to engage in a "hot" info war, which I doubt at this point.
In a similar vein, Wretchard mentioned at Belmont Club (about a year ago, maybe)that jihadi camp followers/wannabes passed decapitation videos around via their cellphone multimedia services (report from the London Times -- by the time I tried to track it back, the archives weren't accessible to me, but I'll take Wretchard's word that he saw the report).
2. Text messages use the voice system (typically) while data connections use a separate-but-connected data network which (typically) is supported by a set of servers providing web pages customized for very small screens, etc., and which is connected to regular data networks including the Internet (depending on national and carrier connectivity).
Text messages are stored on servers in the voice system (just ask the boys in Aruba, or Paris Hilton) -- and may be retrieved later. Data networking may be filtered and and/or tracked for billing purposes. Billing, of course, is the sine qua non for the telephony world, because they charge by the call/time/bytes -- and the ability to bill more granularly (more for some bytes than others, depending on where the bytes came from -- think premium services) and to restrict access to certain sites on some accounts (a business wireless connection can access corporate sites and partner sites, but not sports sites) are both currently available.
Tracking and storage, accessible to the oppressing government, or to another government in opposition (implying treason, if it leaks and you're caught) are not trivial matters.
All that said, the simple availability of another channel of information dissemination is a force multiplier -- permutations of information paths become a larger set, and it becomes much more complex to block them all.
But don't expect too much out of cellphone systems -- simple voice connectivity outside the immediate control of the oppressing government is a great help. Asian cellphones are often much smaller than the "candy bar" models we see in the US (Nokia, e.g.) or even a typical American clamshell model. And smaller is easier to conceal....
"Liz"
* * * * *
Pundita comments: Re your remark that the oppressing government can always jam the signals -- this is just what the Zimbabwe government has done with help from China. What the following report does not mention is that not only did the government receive jamming equipment from China but the PLA (China's military) flew Zimbabwean military to China for training on how to use the signal jammers. This training came in handy for suppressing news about the dis-homing of an estimated 300,000 Zimbabweans.
Although government has denied jamming SW Radio Africa’s broadcasts, investigations have revealed that the jamming appears to emanate from Thornhill in Gweru, using Chinese equipment.For the rest of the report, which includes instructions on how to get around the jamming, see The Zimbabwean.
It appears three jammers are being used to jam the three short wave frequencies used by SW Radio Africa. One kHz tone is used to jam the broadcasts; and is continued till the transmitters become too hot; then ‘noise’ is used to avoid over driving the jamming transmitters. The BBC Monitoring Services also confirmed the jamming saying “the interfering signals were present only for the period of the SW Radio Africa programming”.
Zimbabwe’s Media Monitoring Programme has condemned in the strongest terms this latest deliberate assault on freedom of expression.
“This act of sabotage against SW Radio Africa’s broadcasts, particularly in the run up to the March 2005 general elections, is a cynical attempt to deny the public their right to access information sources of their choice. It also demonstrates a blatant intolerance for the free flow of information, which is the cornerstone of every participatory democracy,” it said. [...]
For latest news on the situation in Zimbabwe also visit SW Radio Africa.
For background on the dis-homing, see the Christian Science Monitor report Systematic Cleansing in Zimbabwe.
Sunday, July 17
Life in a dog pack: lessons for dog owners and people who need more structure in their life
Dear Pundita:
You wrote: "Notice how people who are owned by a dog always conceive of it in democratic terms; i.e., 'I'm a member of a dog pack'."
That's quite true but I'm actually a member of a dog pack. As I noted in the first post of my series Life in a dog pack:
"When you have one dog the dog becomes a member of your family. When you have two dogs the dogs become members of your family. But when you have three or more dogs you have become a member of a dog pack.
Dog packs live by rules. The maintenance of order and keeping to a routine are very high values. And that order and routine pertains to you just as much as it does to the other dogs."
The canine members of our pack are:
Qila
Jenny
Tally
Mira
Dave Schuler
The Glittering Eye
* * * * *
Pundita's comment: Dave's engaging stories gently remind that dogs are not toys, nor are the adult ones four-legged versions of human toddlers. Man's best friend is a hard worker who needs responsibility to stay happy and off anti-depressants.
The commitment of time that Dave and his wife have given to the canine members of their family can't always be matched but it's an ideal all dog owners should strive for.
You wrote: "Notice how people who are owned by a dog always conceive of it in democratic terms; i.e., 'I'm a member of a dog pack'."
That's quite true but I'm actually a member of a dog pack. As I noted in the first post of my series Life in a dog pack:
"When you have one dog the dog becomes a member of your family. When you have two dogs the dogs become members of your family. But when you have three or more dogs you have become a member of a dog pack.
Dog packs live by rules. The maintenance of order and keeping to a routine are very high values. And that order and routine pertains to you just as much as it does to the other dogs."
The canine members of our pack are:
Qila
Jenny
Tally
Mira
Dave Schuler
The Glittering Eye
* * * * *
Pundita's comment: Dave's engaging stories gently remind that dogs are not toys, nor are the adult ones four-legged versions of human toddlers. Man's best friend is a hard worker who needs responsibility to stay happy and off anti-depressants.
The commitment of time that Dave and his wife have given to the canine members of their family can't always be matched but it's an ideal all dog owners should strive for.
Strike up the band: Pundita talks about Canada
50 Terror Groups Believed to Be in Canada
By BETH DUFF-BROWN, Associated Press Writer
Mon Jul 4 via Yahoo News (Hat tip: Winds of War briefing):
I don't want any letters about the French and the Quebec Problem. I understand if you start down the road that al Qaeda and other terror groups will hook up with Canadians of French ancestry who want to break off from Canada, if they haven't done so already.
But it is past time to confront where pandering to the ethnic background of a nation's citizens leads. It leads to balkanization. It leads to the weakening of national laws. It leads to the weakening of the concepts of democracy and nationhood. It leads to abandoning the concept of citizenship. From there, it's a hop and skip back to the era that saw human tribes living in the trees.
Do you think our ancestors clawed their way of the trees, battled their way out of the caves, poured oceans of their blood into creating civilization, to see their descendants return to square one?
Get it straight: the way is forward not back. If the immigrants to your country and those of French ancestry have only the haziest grasp of the concept of "citizenship," it is your responsibility to educate them.
Nothing about humanity's achievements is written in stone. Nothing is guaranteed about what we've achieved via nationhood, which made possible liberal democracy. These are processes, which must be constantly tended to, if they are not to vanish.
However, snapping at the Canadians about pandering to the ethhic background of their citizens is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. We have done a great deal of pandering right here in the USA. As to where this has led, consider the following quotes from a report by Rachel Ehrenfeld and Shawn Macomber published in October 2004 in Front Page Magazine.*
As to how Soros got his American citizenship while immigrants who gave up everything to come here patiently waited in line for many years, go ask the US Department of State. Yet the Soros Frankenstein and the foreign business interests he represents have simply taken advantage of the fact that many Americans are asleep at the wheel.
* The Soros-Kerry Nexus
By BETH DUFF-BROWN, Associated Press Writer
Mon Jul 4 via Yahoo News (Hat tip: Winds of War briefing):
TORONTO - Though many view Canada as an unassuming neutral nation that has skirted terrorist attacks, it has suffered its share of aggression, and intelligence officials believe at least 50 terror groups now have some presence here.I do not know, and I am absolutely certain I do not want to know, whether Canadians are as confused as the British when it comes to the concepts of 'democracy' and 'the law of the land.' (See my earlier post today.) But if by chance Canadians have been encouraging their Muslim community to think of itself as Muslim first, Asian second and Canadian dead last, my message to Canadian readers is that you'd better reorder those priorities fast.
They are from Sri Lanka, Kurdistan and points between and include supporters of some of the best-known Mideast groups, including al-Qaida, authorities say.
Osama bin Laden named Canada one of five so-called Christian nations that should be targeted for acts of terror. The others, reaffirmed last year by his al-Qaida network, were the United States, Britain, Spain and Australia.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, [Canadian] counterpart of the CIA, said terrorist representatives are actively raising money, procuring weapons, "manipulating immigrant communities" and facilitating travel to and from the United States and other countries.
Besides al-Qaida, those groups include Islamic Jihad; Hezbollah and other Shiite groups; Hamas, the Palestinian Force 17, Egyptian Al Jihad and various other Sunni groups from across the Middle East, CSIS [(US) Center for Strategic and International Studies] said. [...]
I don't want any letters about the French and the Quebec Problem. I understand if you start down the road that al Qaeda and other terror groups will hook up with Canadians of French ancestry who want to break off from Canada, if they haven't done so already.
But it is past time to confront where pandering to the ethnic background of a nation's citizens leads. It leads to balkanization. It leads to the weakening of national laws. It leads to the weakening of the concepts of democracy and nationhood. It leads to abandoning the concept of citizenship. From there, it's a hop and skip back to the era that saw human tribes living in the trees.
Do you think our ancestors clawed their way of the trees, battled their way out of the caves, poured oceans of their blood into creating civilization, to see their descendants return to square one?
Get it straight: the way is forward not back. If the immigrants to your country and those of French ancestry have only the haziest grasp of the concept of "citizenship," it is your responsibility to educate them.
Nothing about humanity's achievements is written in stone. Nothing is guaranteed about what we've achieved via nationhood, which made possible liberal democracy. These are processes, which must be constantly tended to, if they are not to vanish.
However, snapping at the Canadians about pandering to the ethhic background of their citizens is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. We have done a great deal of pandering right here in the USA. As to where this has led, consider the following quotes from a report by Rachel Ehrenfeld and Shawn Macomber published in October 2004 in Front Page Magazine.*
[...] Long term, if Soros has his way, the United States won’t even remain territorially intact. He funds both the National Council of La Raza and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, two groups that want to essentially eliminate America’s borders.Actually, it is George Soros who is an anachronism. His view that it's perfectly fine to break "the rules;" e.g., sovereign laws, in order to bring about regime change is part of the Cold War model that set in place one phony democractic government after another, with diastrous results for genuine democracy. Now it's a new day, much to Soros' confusion. Of course he can always try to sell his services to Beijing.
In a much hailed 1997 speech to the National Council of La Raza, former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo said that he “proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory” enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important a very important part of this.
OSI has likewise contributed $65,000 to the Malcolm X Grassroots movement, which wants to establish an all-black homeland in the Southeastern United States, from South Carolina to Louisiana. It would be communist, of course.
“Most disturbing, the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement’s website lionizes a group of ‘political prisoners,’ all of whom were convicted of killing policemen,” writes FrontPage Magazine editor Ben Johnson. “Sundiata Acoli, Robert Seth Hayes, Jalil Muntaquin, Herman Bell and Russell Maroon Shoats were all radical black revolutionaries, serving with the Black Panthers and/or Black Liberation Army.”
These murders, according to the group’s website, were perfectly acceptable: “In 1970, along with 5 others, Maroon was accused of attacking a police station, which resulted in an officer being killed. This attack was said to have been carried out in response to the rampant police brutality in the Black community.”
Soros has funded legal defense for illegal immigrants, helping them to stay in the country and…stay on welfare, too. His Emma Lazarus Fund (named after the poet whose words grace the Statue of Liberty) was initiated after Soros became infuriated with a new federal law restricting food stamps and Supplemental Security Income Benefits to non-citizens. Soros called this modest roadblock in the way of the expansion of the bloated welfare state as “a clear-cut case of injustice.”
In September 2003 Soros was invited to speak at one of the State Department’s Open Forums, where he laid out his hyper-internationalist aspirations for American society, including his proposed “modification of the concept of sovereignty” which is needed because “sovereignty is basically somewhat anachronistic.”
As to how Soros got his American citizenship while immigrants who gave up everything to come here patiently waited in line for many years, go ask the US Department of State. Yet the Soros Frankenstein and the foreign business interests he represents have simply taken advantage of the fact that many Americans are asleep at the wheel.
* The Soros-Kerry Nexus
United Kingdom and Sharia: British confusion about a fundamental aspect of democracy and nationhood
I deleted the following paragraph from my essay about the Pentagon's New Map because it was not central to my point, and yet was important enough to merit a separate blog, particularly in light of the 7/7 London massacre. The paragraph generated an exchange with a reader from England, which I also publish here.
"While the British have not yet devolved to the body paint-and-feathers level of human social organization, they now have only the most tenuous grasp of the concept of a nation-state. If you think I'm pulling your leg -- Britain recognizes two bodies of law, British and Sharia. That is why polygamy among Muslims living in Britain is legal. Thus, technically, if a fatwa was issued in accordance with Sharia law, the London bombings massacre was not illegal in Britain. Nobody write Pundita in horror to tell me no no that's not true. Yes yes it is true; it's just that the British are clearly unaware that a nation run according to two sets of law is a contradiction in terms. Body paint and feathers are not far behind."
"Dear Pundita:
Sharia has no standing in statute or common law that I am aware of. For instance, the status under sharia of the (still standing) fatwa against Salman Rushdie would not protect anyone attempting to carry it out from prosecution by the Crown.
Though there is a worrying tendency for courts to be "understanding" of foreign residents familial and property arrangements arrived at under their home states legal systems, this does not apply to citizens. Polygamous relationships have the legal status of cohabitees (i.e. not even common law, rather than civil marriage.)
Judgements made by sharia "lawyers" do have a limited standing; that of voluntary arbitration between consenting parties. So long as the parties remain free to dissent from the process or any outcome thereof, and resort to law, this has limited implications. Jewish law is regarded on the same basis.
See:
The Reception of Muslim Family Law in Western Liberal States
author: Pascale Fournier
for: The Canadian Council of Muslim Women
http://www.ccmw.com/Position%
20Papers/Pascale%20paper.doc.
Though in a way Britain does recognise two bodies of law: technically there's no such thing as British Law, there's either Scottish or English (and Northern Irish if you're talking UK rather than GB). [...]
Regards,
John in Worcestershire"
Dear John:
I hope you realize I was stretching a point to pound one home but it does seem that many British Muslims are under the impression that Britain legally recognizes Sharia. I will dig up a reference to support this statement as soon as enough caffeine courses through my veins. For now, a Times (UK) poll taken after 9/11 revealed that 80% of Britain's Muslims consider themselves Muslims first and British second. That situation must be changed "yesterday."
* * * * *
John replies:
"You're spot-on about the need to assert the overriding claims of the British nation-state to the primary loyalty of its citizens. If the recent appalling events have any upside, it would be if a shift of public consensus and government policy takes place. There are some signs this may happen, but not near enough to be happy.
For one worrying item about "integrating" Sharia, have a look at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point
/special/islam/3198285.stm
John in Worcestershire"
* * * * * *
Pundita comments:
I pulled the following blurbs from an old issue of British Muslims Monthly Survey. (March 1996 Vol. IV, No. 3). Americans trying to understand the decline of European/Anglo societies might want to spend time someday browsing back copies of the journal.
Even if that were the case, however, clearly many British Muslims do not draw the distinction between a liberal democracy's tolerance for religious sensibilities and the law of the land.
The lack of clarity on the issue has definitely extended to British governing, social welfare and policing authorities, which is why the Muslim practice of female genital mutilation has been tolerated for so long by these authorities.
The same lack of clarity would be evident if British welfare agencies give financial aid to children born of multiple female "cohabitees" residing in the same domicile with one father whose name is recorded on the birth certificate for all children born to the cohabitees; i.e., wives under Muslim law.
To put all this another way, British government has long been crystal clear on the fact that they have done everything possible to encourage Muslims to the belief that Britain is governed by two [radically] different sets of law.
The point of my criticism directed at the British is that such encouragement could not have happened unless the majority of British were very unclear on the meaning of "a nation." Thus, my jibe about body paint and feathers.
If the British are unclear, well, that is not a violation of international law. My warning is directed to the US government and to thinkers such as Thomas Barnett who are trying to modernize US defense/foreign policy.
There is much talk about bringing Western values to those who live in non-democratic countries. It seems to me that getting clear on these values needs to start in the West -- including right here in the USA. One could make out a good case that US tax-funded educational efforts would have the best results if they were directed to our oldest NATO allies and the US public school system.
What the British don't seem to grasp is that there is nothing democratic about the Muslim faith -- indeed, about any faith. Thus, one simply cannot have a modern democratic nation if religious precepts are tacitly given precedence over national law. On paper, we should strive to obey the moral precepts of our religion. Yet this observation, when translated by a national governing authority into an unclear reading of the law of the land, is a slippery slope that weakens and even destroys civilization.
That is why today, in Britain -- the bastion of civilized ideals -- ritual human sacrifice is carried out by followers of an African faith. This is sacrifice of children who have been kidnapped and shipped to Britain for the express purpose of being tortured to death for a religious ritual.
Of course the British authorities consider this a crime. But once you establish a climate of moral parity between national law and religious law, it becomes extremely hard for the government to argue against religious practices that conflict with national law.
That is the corner into which British society has painted itself.
You might also wish to read Mark Silverberg's summary of the Islamization of Europe, which unhappily he terms "Eurabia." However, all the facts Silverberg cites overlook the point I strive to make in my earlier reply. To observe that the Europeans (including Anglos) bent over backwards to accommodate the Muslims because of the 1970s oil embargo avoids asking how such bending could include abandoning (or ignoring) of fundamental principles undergirding modern democratic government!
This is a vital issue, which seems to have been ignored or suppressed by Europeans in the push to establish and extend the European Union.
Silverberg also tends overlook (as does Bat Ye'or) that it is Muslims -- often with no linguistic or no (or little) cultural ties to the Arabs, whatever their DNA -- that have made such an impact on Europe during the past three decades.
The Muslim immigrants from many lands are being conditioned by Muslim radicals to think of themselves first and foremost as part of a transcendent "Muslim Nation" whose laws supersede all international laws and all national laws -- and to act according to that belief. That, rather than Arab ancestry, is the central issue.
Nevertheless, Mark Silverberg's piece is a valuable overview and compendium of facts, so I provide the link here: The Coming of Eurabia.
"While the British have not yet devolved to the body paint-and-feathers level of human social organization, they now have only the most tenuous grasp of the concept of a nation-state. If you think I'm pulling your leg -- Britain recognizes two bodies of law, British and Sharia. That is why polygamy among Muslims living in Britain is legal. Thus, technically, if a fatwa was issued in accordance with Sharia law, the London bombings massacre was not illegal in Britain. Nobody write Pundita in horror to tell me no no that's not true. Yes yes it is true; it's just that the British are clearly unaware that a nation run according to two sets of law is a contradiction in terms. Body paint and feathers are not far behind."
"Dear Pundita:
Sharia has no standing in statute or common law that I am aware of. For instance, the status under sharia of the (still standing) fatwa against Salman Rushdie would not protect anyone attempting to carry it out from prosecution by the Crown.
Though there is a worrying tendency for courts to be "understanding" of foreign residents familial and property arrangements arrived at under their home states legal systems, this does not apply to citizens. Polygamous relationships have the legal status of cohabitees (i.e. not even common law, rather than civil marriage.)
Judgements made by sharia "lawyers" do have a limited standing; that of voluntary arbitration between consenting parties. So long as the parties remain free to dissent from the process or any outcome thereof, and resort to law, this has limited implications. Jewish law is regarded on the same basis.
See:
The Reception of Muslim Family Law in Western Liberal States
author: Pascale Fournier
for: The Canadian Council of Muslim Women
http://www.ccmw.com/Position%
20Papers/Pascale%20paper.doc.
Though in a way Britain does recognise two bodies of law: technically there's no such thing as British Law, there's either Scottish or English (and Northern Irish if you're talking UK rather than GB). [...]
Regards,
John in Worcestershire"
Dear John:
I hope you realize I was stretching a point to pound one home but it does seem that many British Muslims are under the impression that Britain legally recognizes Sharia. I will dig up a reference to support this statement as soon as enough caffeine courses through my veins. For now, a Times (UK) poll taken after 9/11 revealed that 80% of Britain's Muslims consider themselves Muslims first and British second. That situation must be changed "yesterday."
* * * * *
John replies:
"You're spot-on about the need to assert the overriding claims of the British nation-state to the primary loyalty of its citizens. If the recent appalling events have any upside, it would be if a shift of public consensus and government policy takes place. There are some signs this may happen, but not near enough to be happy.
For one worrying item about "integrating" Sharia, have a look at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point
/special/islam/3198285.stm
John in Worcestershire"
* * * * * *
Pundita comments:
I pulled the following blurbs from an old issue of British Muslims Monthly Survey. (March 1996 Vol. IV, No. 3). Americans trying to understand the decline of European/Anglo societies might want to spend time someday browsing back copies of the journal.
Rushdie fatwa statementIt might be that the full British press reports quoted in the blurbs make it clear that the "Muslim Parliament" has no legal governing status in Britain and that "Islamic Law" in Britain cannot contravene Scottish and English (and Northern Ireland) law.
The fatwa, or religious decision, issued against Salman Rushdie by the late Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989 remains in force, according to Dr Kalim Siddiqui of the Muslim Parliament (The Times, 30.03.96). The relevant section of Dr Siddiqui’s press released speech said:
"The Muslim Parliament was conceived in the heat of the conflict generated by the insult and abuse heaped upon Islam in The Satanic Verses. The fatwa of the late Imam Khomeini, sentencing Salman Rushdie to death...was and remains an order that must be carried out" (Yorkshire Evening Post, 30.03.96). [...]
Multiple marriage
When Medi Siadatan’s third wife, Sarah, gave birth to their daughter Ayesha in Kidderminster Hospital, his two other wives, Stefania and Cinzia were there to help her (Wolverhampton Express & Star, 04.03.96). This is the fifth child born to the family. Mr Siadatan is not committing any offence because the women are not married to him under British law, but under Islamic law (Daily Mail, 07.03.96).[...]
Even if that were the case, however, clearly many British Muslims do not draw the distinction between a liberal democracy's tolerance for religious sensibilities and the law of the land.
The lack of clarity on the issue has definitely extended to British governing, social welfare and policing authorities, which is why the Muslim practice of female genital mutilation has been tolerated for so long by these authorities.
The same lack of clarity would be evident if British welfare agencies give financial aid to children born of multiple female "cohabitees" residing in the same domicile with one father whose name is recorded on the birth certificate for all children born to the cohabitees; i.e., wives under Muslim law.
To put all this another way, British government has long been crystal clear on the fact that they have done everything possible to encourage Muslims to the belief that Britain is governed by two [radically] different sets of law.
The point of my criticism directed at the British is that such encouragement could not have happened unless the majority of British were very unclear on the meaning of "a nation." Thus, my jibe about body paint and feathers.
If the British are unclear, well, that is not a violation of international law. My warning is directed to the US government and to thinkers such as Thomas Barnett who are trying to modernize US defense/foreign policy.
There is much talk about bringing Western values to those who live in non-democratic countries. It seems to me that getting clear on these values needs to start in the West -- including right here in the USA. One could make out a good case that US tax-funded educational efforts would have the best results if they were directed to our oldest NATO allies and the US public school system.
What the British don't seem to grasp is that there is nothing democratic about the Muslim faith -- indeed, about any faith. Thus, one simply cannot have a modern democratic nation if religious precepts are tacitly given precedence over national law. On paper, we should strive to obey the moral precepts of our religion. Yet this observation, when translated by a national governing authority into an unclear reading of the law of the land, is a slippery slope that weakens and even destroys civilization.
That is why today, in Britain -- the bastion of civilized ideals -- ritual human sacrifice is carried out by followers of an African faith. This is sacrifice of children who have been kidnapped and shipped to Britain for the express purpose of being tortured to death for a religious ritual.
Of course the British authorities consider this a crime. But once you establish a climate of moral parity between national law and religious law, it becomes extremely hard for the government to argue against religious practices that conflict with national law.
That is the corner into which British society has painted itself.
You might also wish to read Mark Silverberg's summary of the Islamization of Europe, which unhappily he terms "Eurabia." However, all the facts Silverberg cites overlook the point I strive to make in my earlier reply. To observe that the Europeans (including Anglos) bent over backwards to accommodate the Muslims because of the 1970s oil embargo avoids asking how such bending could include abandoning (or ignoring) of fundamental principles undergirding modern democratic government!
This is a vital issue, which seems to have been ignored or suppressed by Europeans in the push to establish and extend the European Union.
Silverberg also tends overlook (as does Bat Ye'or) that it is Muslims -- often with no linguistic or no (or little) cultural ties to the Arabs, whatever their DNA -- that have made such an impact on Europe during the past three decades.
The Muslim immigrants from many lands are being conditioned by Muslim radicals to think of themselves first and foremost as part of a transcendent "Muslim Nation" whose laws supersede all international laws and all national laws -- and to act according to that belief. That, rather than Arab ancestry, is the central issue.
Nevertheless, Mark Silverberg's piece is a valuable overview and compendium of facts, so I provide the link here: The Coming of Eurabia.
Friday, July 15
While you're at it, take out the garbage
(Note: Don't miss the upcoming Pundita essay, "How to blame everyone for your problems except yourself." Pundita gives handy tips for how to shift blame, evade personal responsibility and find endless excuses!)
This post is in response to two readers, one from the Middle East and one from South Asia, who asked that I not publish their letters and who had essentially the same question.
Pundita does not hate the Europeans; I don't have an ax to grind with them. What I have is a deep understanding of the devastating psychological effect of European colonialism on the Europeans and the peoples they ruled, and how this continues to warp thinking on both sides.
Enter the Americans. The American government was traumatized by Anwar Sadat's assassination. After that, they virtually retreated behind enclave walls in the Middle East. This situation only got more entrenched after Lebanon. The American government allowed post-colonial governments to guide how they should interact with the peoples of the Middle East.
Add to this the State Department's 'clientitis' -- the tendency to pander to the European NATO allies and the Gulf Oil Arabs. Add to this American academia, which had such an influence in Washington for decades, was long dominated by European views. What do you get when you put together the walking wounded and the blind? Crummy US policy in the Middle East.
So Pundita has taken the position of a Dutch Aunt. This to wise up readers about situations that are very important to policy but which fly under the radar of American perceptions. I've discussed Sahibism, the Pasha and Enclave mentality, Going Native, the Oriental Stranger syndrome and how tribal and clan thinking affects societies in 'old world' countries.
And in several essays I've conveyed almost a parody of the "American-style" way of dealing with situations. This is to pound home that Americans must learn to rely on their own instincts, their own experience and history rather than the guidance of European gurus. The frank talk to an Iranian expat reader in Still waiting for Pasha is an example of Pundita at her most American style.
To put this another way: Americans have a good recollection of the slavery experience and conquering 'indigenous' peoples in this land because we never stopped talking about it. But none of this is living under the experience of colonial rule.
The earliest settlers from Europe suffered under that experience but they got rid of the colonial masters, and so long ago that we stopped talking about it. It passed from our cultural referents. Thus, few modern Americans who didn't immigrate here from a post-colonial land can understand that experience in their gut, where it needs to be understood.
My position is don't try to understand by listening to the Europeans. The French went on and on about their experience in Algeria to explain why they were against the US invasion of Iraq. Hello, we're not the French.
Americans need to learn to just 'be yourself' in dealings with peoples who lived under Western colonialism and still carry the psychological baggage that went with it. Americans should take cheer from the thought that they can't do any worse than the Europeans did. A big advantage Americans have is that we are free of the complex dependency relationship and guilt that still influence European attitudes toward Africans and Middle Easterners in particular.
And don't allow academics and well-meaning Europeans to terrorize us into thinking we require a scholarly grasp of the situation in the Middle East before we can formulate a correct approach.
How much scholarship does it require, to grasp that you're dealing with a bunch of slicks when they pour mega-billions into nuke weapons programs while their people go hungry?
So how much do you need to know about the history of that part of the world to know what you're dealing with? How much of the Persian language do you need to master in order to call a spade a spade?
We also need to keep in mind that for the first time America is mounting a serious challenge to British and French influence in the region. The French in particular are very jealous, very possessive, of their special role in the Middle East. And they have diverted criticism of their colonial era by encouraging anti-American views. Yet when you look at the mess they made you have to wonder how big a masochistic streak the Middle Easterners have, to keep turning to the French for advice.
To understand look to your own experience. There is the kid who does a great job of mowing your lawn but half the time he doesn't show up. So you end up with the kid who does a lousy job but at least he gets to your house every week like clockwork during the summer.
In the same manner the Americans are considered very successful so we must know something but we're also considered undependable. We swoop in and swoop out, and you just never know how long we'll be around. So don't rock the boat because you can't assume the Americans will be at your back.
On the other hand the French, and the British, are always there. So no matter how crummy their advice has been, no matter how much mess their policies have made, at least you know they'll always answer the phone.
This said, our greatest adversary in the Middle East and other post-colonial lands isn't the Europeans -- or the terror sponsoring regimes. It's the Pasha mentality, which has a cancerous effect on a society.
The Pasha mindset boils down to thinking that you climb the ladder of success by getting others to do everything for you. Many Americans would be amazed if they knew the extent of that mindset in post-colonial countries. It's because servant labor remained so cheap.
I have sat and listened to women whose families are not well off, but whose dinner conversation revolves around the hard day they had ordering the servants around. It's the culture. Living under colonial rule supported and encouraged it; it was reinforcement for the Pasha mindset.
This translates to a very passive attitude that one doesn't find in say, Japan or China, where hard labor is lionized. Their attitude makes for a healthy competitive response when they see a successful society. They say, "I can have that too if I work hard enough."
Whereas in Pasha cultures they say, "These people from a successful society can serve us."
What drove many Americans up a wall after the Iraqi insurgency got underway was TV footage of Iraqis complaining that they couldn't go outside their house because of the violence. I knew Americans who yelled at the TV, "Then get off your butt and fight!"
The irony is that the terrorists have the same complaint. "We work, we slave to blow up Americans and the lazy bums ask us to take out the garbage while we're at it."
It's not laziness. It's the Pasha mindset. It's the real reason the Jewish settlers were looked down on in that part of the world. Only peasants find nothing to sneer at about a life of hard physical labor.
As to where the Middle Easterners got the 'peasant' idea, go ask the French. It's said they resent America's superpower status. What they resent is that a land of peasants became history's most successful nation.
The French and other Westerners who were heavily invested in the colonial enterprise need to get over it. They need to put their sins in context to the sweep of history and the march of civilization. A lot of those old-world tribes would have killed each other off without the intervention of the Western colonizers.
If not for the British there would be no House of Saud; the Turks had already started genocide against that tribe when the British stepped in. All you have to do is read the Old Testament to see that war, genocide and slave-taking were the way of life in oldest parts of the world by the time the Greeks showed up.
My advice to get over it goes double for peoples with the Pasha mindset who lived under Western colonial rule. One of Gadhafi's sons spent time in China. He returned to Libya and told his father, Pop those Chinese know how to work; our people have to change their ways.
That's right. Yet you can't move forward unless you turn your head in the forward direction.
.
This post is in response to two readers, one from the Middle East and one from South Asia, who asked that I not publish their letters and who had essentially the same question.
Pundita does not hate the Europeans; I don't have an ax to grind with them. What I have is a deep understanding of the devastating psychological effect of European colonialism on the Europeans and the peoples they ruled, and how this continues to warp thinking on both sides.
Enter the Americans. The American government was traumatized by Anwar Sadat's assassination. After that, they virtually retreated behind enclave walls in the Middle East. This situation only got more entrenched after Lebanon. The American government allowed post-colonial governments to guide how they should interact with the peoples of the Middle East.
Add to this the State Department's 'clientitis' -- the tendency to pander to the European NATO allies and the Gulf Oil Arabs. Add to this American academia, which had such an influence in Washington for decades, was long dominated by European views. What do you get when you put together the walking wounded and the blind? Crummy US policy in the Middle East.
So Pundita has taken the position of a Dutch Aunt. This to wise up readers about situations that are very important to policy but which fly under the radar of American perceptions. I've discussed Sahibism, the Pasha and Enclave mentality, Going Native, the Oriental Stranger syndrome and how tribal and clan thinking affects societies in 'old world' countries.
And in several essays I've conveyed almost a parody of the "American-style" way of dealing with situations. This is to pound home that Americans must learn to rely on their own instincts, their own experience and history rather than the guidance of European gurus. The frank talk to an Iranian expat reader in Still waiting for Pasha is an example of Pundita at her most American style.
To put this another way: Americans have a good recollection of the slavery experience and conquering 'indigenous' peoples in this land because we never stopped talking about it. But none of this is living under the experience of colonial rule.
The earliest settlers from Europe suffered under that experience but they got rid of the colonial masters, and so long ago that we stopped talking about it. It passed from our cultural referents. Thus, few modern Americans who didn't immigrate here from a post-colonial land can understand that experience in their gut, where it needs to be understood.
My position is don't try to understand by listening to the Europeans. The French went on and on about their experience in Algeria to explain why they were against the US invasion of Iraq. Hello, we're not the French.
Americans need to learn to just 'be yourself' in dealings with peoples who lived under Western colonialism and still carry the psychological baggage that went with it. Americans should take cheer from the thought that they can't do any worse than the Europeans did. A big advantage Americans have is that we are free of the complex dependency relationship and guilt that still influence European attitudes toward Africans and Middle Easterners in particular.
And don't allow academics and well-meaning Europeans to terrorize us into thinking we require a scholarly grasp of the situation in the Middle East before we can formulate a correct approach.
How much scholarship does it require, to grasp that you're dealing with a bunch of slicks when they pour mega-billions into nuke weapons programs while their people go hungry?
So how much do you need to know about the history of that part of the world to know what you're dealing with? How much of the Persian language do you need to master in order to call a spade a spade?
We also need to keep in mind that for the first time America is mounting a serious challenge to British and French influence in the region. The French in particular are very jealous, very possessive, of their special role in the Middle East. And they have diverted criticism of their colonial era by encouraging anti-American views. Yet when you look at the mess they made you have to wonder how big a masochistic streak the Middle Easterners have, to keep turning to the French for advice.
To understand look to your own experience. There is the kid who does a great job of mowing your lawn but half the time he doesn't show up. So you end up with the kid who does a lousy job but at least he gets to your house every week like clockwork during the summer.
In the same manner the Americans are considered very successful so we must know something but we're also considered undependable. We swoop in and swoop out, and you just never know how long we'll be around. So don't rock the boat because you can't assume the Americans will be at your back.
On the other hand the French, and the British, are always there. So no matter how crummy their advice has been, no matter how much mess their policies have made, at least you know they'll always answer the phone.
This said, our greatest adversary in the Middle East and other post-colonial lands isn't the Europeans -- or the terror sponsoring regimes. It's the Pasha mentality, which has a cancerous effect on a society.
The Pasha mindset boils down to thinking that you climb the ladder of success by getting others to do everything for you. Many Americans would be amazed if they knew the extent of that mindset in post-colonial countries. It's because servant labor remained so cheap.
I have sat and listened to women whose families are not well off, but whose dinner conversation revolves around the hard day they had ordering the servants around. It's the culture. Living under colonial rule supported and encouraged it; it was reinforcement for the Pasha mindset.
This translates to a very passive attitude that one doesn't find in say, Japan or China, where hard labor is lionized. Their attitude makes for a healthy competitive response when they see a successful society. They say, "I can have that too if I work hard enough."
Whereas in Pasha cultures they say, "These people from a successful society can serve us."
What drove many Americans up a wall after the Iraqi insurgency got underway was TV footage of Iraqis complaining that they couldn't go outside their house because of the violence. I knew Americans who yelled at the TV, "Then get off your butt and fight!"
The irony is that the terrorists have the same complaint. "We work, we slave to blow up Americans and the lazy bums ask us to take out the garbage while we're at it."
It's not laziness. It's the Pasha mindset. It's the real reason the Jewish settlers were looked down on in that part of the world. Only peasants find nothing to sneer at about a life of hard physical labor.
As to where the Middle Easterners got the 'peasant' idea, go ask the French. It's said they resent America's superpower status. What they resent is that a land of peasants became history's most successful nation.
The French and other Westerners who were heavily invested in the colonial enterprise need to get over it. They need to put their sins in context to the sweep of history and the march of civilization. A lot of those old-world tribes would have killed each other off without the intervention of the Western colonizers.
If not for the British there would be no House of Saud; the Turks had already started genocide against that tribe when the British stepped in. All you have to do is read the Old Testament to see that war, genocide and slave-taking were the way of life in oldest parts of the world by the time the Greeks showed up.
My advice to get over it goes double for peoples with the Pasha mindset who lived under Western colonial rule. One of Gadhafi's sons spent time in China. He returned to Libya and told his father, Pop those Chinese know how to work; our people have to change their ways.
That's right. Yet you can't move forward unless you turn your head in the forward direction.
.
Thursday, July 14
Pentagon's New Map: Struggling toward a modern American defense policy
In late June Dave Schuler at The Glittering Eye sent me his critique of Thomas M. Barnett's Pentagon's New Map. The book is an elaboration of Barnett's 2003 article of the same name for Esquire Magazine.
I promised Dave I'd find time to study his critique and make comments about Barnett's thesis. I did this in the manner of promising myself I would organize my closets and file cabinets.
Much of Dave's discussion, which is made from great familiarity with Barnett's New Map, is outside my understanding. However, I have enough acquaintance with Barnett's Core-Seam-Gap model to be struck by Dave's comments about connectivity; I find he makes excellent points. My problem is with the entire model, which I consider a train wreck. Yet the basic concept underlying the model is sound.
Dr Barnett has taken the view that the US military cannot compartmentalize when it comes to analyzing enemy threats. He's saying that one can't confine threat analysis to another country's military and weapons arsenal. And one can't confine a study of US weakness to analyzing US reliance on strategic resources such as petroleum.
Thus, Barnett is making a serious attempt to modernize US defense policy, which has not undergone any fundamental updating since the concept of establishing US naval superiority in order to be ready to meet threats before they come to US shores. This is because US defense policy got swallowed up by the Cold War and the attendant NATO policy.
Barnett is attempting to think in holistic terms about US defense -- to look at all broad types of possible threats within the paradigm of military response. I have not read Barnett's book but my understanding is that Barnett has long argued that a country's economy must be factored into US threat analysis.
I interject that I am sure this argument has made Barnett hugely unpopular with economists, who defend their turf with the zeal of -- well, the Zealots. An easy way in Washington to get darts thrown at your picture is to step outside your scholarly or wonkish bounds. That observation goes double for military types who step a micron over the Battlefield Defense line in their analysis.
And the same deep suspicion holds true in reverse: From within the Pentagon there is a band that zealously guards the sacred cow of American democracy, which is that the US military must carefully confine itself to purely military matters.
Thus any common-sense observation that matters beyond armaments and troop deployments can have a military implication tends to be viewed from certain quarters in the Pentagon as a Trotskyite plot meant to weaken the fabric of American society.
Luckily (or perhaps through design) Barnett has escaped tar and feathers because of his sexy model: the Core, the Seam and Non-Integrating Gap. Because there is not one department of the US military that cannot find argument for budget requests by referencing the model, it has its supporters at the Pentagon.
Thus, Pundita's conundrum when it comes to discussing Barnett's ideas. Until receiving Dave's post, I dealt with the impasse by taking an executive decision not to discuss the ideas, except to repeat the honest assessment that came flying out of my mouth the first time I encountered Barnett's model:
Pundita's outburst placed America and Arctic penguins in the Non-Integrating Gap, and all those countries that know about the workings of the World Bank in the Core.
(The Seam would be West European countries, which were the recipient of early Bank loans, but which today have only a hazy idea of how Bank policies have affected the 'underdeveloped' world.)
However, Pundita belongs to the radical school of thought that maintains the United States of America is currently engaged in a hot war. Thus, my answer to many defense-related questions is, "Whatever makes CENTCOM happy."
The Pentagon was forced into a very complex war after the US military and the CIA spent years hamstrung by the US Department of State, the Congress, the White House, and the US news media. Whatever helps the US military fight the war from that far behind, Pundita is all for it.
This said, I think that by organizing his thesis around the Core-Gap-Seam model, Barnett has leaped over groundwork that is required to make sense of the model and address its inadequacies.
Here I might be unfair to Barnett's earlier writings, which I have not read, and his book, which I've not read. However, I venture that Dr. Barnett and his disciples need to lay groundwork by:
> Clearly arguing that the enduring doctrine of US defense (US naval superiority=keeping the enemy from US shores) needs fundamental revision.
> Clearly articulating the issue of the control that the civilian academia gained over US defense policy after WW2 and how this works against coherent defense policy.
> Clearly explaining the need for the military to develop a defense paradigm that includes threats generally excluded from military analysis.
Now here all good Barnett disciples will ask, "What means that word 'clearly'?"
Clearly means:
> No arcane language that can only be intuited by scholars specializing in the history of secret societies or World War Two code breaking.
> No attempts at creating an algebra.
> No more listening to radio signals from outer space for inspiration on how to frame a concept in writing.
> Remembering that in Washington it all comes down to budget, which means learning to write one syllable dumbed-down abstracts that even a senator with no military experience can comprehend.
Thomas Barnett made an intelligent, bold move by taking his case straight to the public via Esquire magazine. Yet his thesis has gotten bogged down partly because of the arcane language and references attached to it. This has prevented people from a variety of fields from examining the model. And it has cut off whatever public support he might have gotten for his thesis, to the extent he articulated it in the Esquire article.
Once the groundwork is laid, then is the time to conjure a working hypothesis, in the form of a tentative model for how a holistic defense policy might look.
In one sentence, Barnett's current model divides the world into countries in various stages of integration with the WTO-democratic paradigm -- the Core countries representing the most integrated. Yet this paradigm is highly illusory, even mythic, in key aspects. Here are but a few examples to explain the mythic aspect:
> The United States is the biggest transit area for transnational organized crime syndicates, with the European Union coming in around second. Why? Open borders; a great deal of freedom; EU integration making checkpoints, different passports, etc. unnecessary across a large body of land, and so on.
As to how much foreign exchange from crime related industries is washed through the EU and the US, and how much the respective banking systems depend on it -- what we know for certain is "a great deal."
> The governing party in France is so corrupt that as soon as Jacques Chirac leaves office he most probably will face criminal charges.
> England does not have a free press -- any publication deemed an affront to the British royal family can be censored by the government. Those Americans who think Britons can get around the law by importing censored publications are unaware that Britain does not provide anywhere near the protection of free speech that is found in the USA.
Britain is known as the "libel capital of the world." Even foreign authors whose books are ordered over the Internet for reading by the British are a target for a libel suit launched in Britain. A recent suit brought against Rachel Enrenfeld for examining a connection between terror funding and a Saudi national underscores Britain's affront to the US First Amendment. Dr. Enrhenfeld was sued in Britain (and the case found in favor of the plaintiff) because less than 30 copies of the book in question were ordered on the Internet for reading in Britain.
That's enough examples to get across that Barnett's idea of "Core" countries rests on shaky criteria, if one is trying to identify nations that make up the 'least threat' to the USA and each other.
I would consider Britain's approach to dealing with Arafat and Tehran, and terrorists in general, to be a considerable security threat to the US. As I would consider the post-invasion conduct of the British military in southern Iraq, which saw the British insisting that anyone coming across the border from Iran should not be challenged.
The Israeli military was so upset with the situation -- and with the US military for going along with it -- that at one point they said to hell with it, might as well break up the country because it's now overrun with terrorists. The Iraqi Governing Council was equally upset with the situation.
For that reason and many others that have come to light during the past decade, Washington, and evidentially Dr. Barnett, are still in the grip of the "He Ain't Heavy He's My Ally" school of defense thinking. Or what Pundita calls the Thelma and Louise school.
In summary, Barnett's model needs considerable refinement -- as in going back to the drawing board and starting over again. Yet to repeat, the thinking that led to the model is on the right track.
.
I promised Dave I'd find time to study his critique and make comments about Barnett's thesis. I did this in the manner of promising myself I would organize my closets and file cabinets.
Much of Dave's discussion, which is made from great familiarity with Barnett's New Map, is outside my understanding. However, I have enough acquaintance with Barnett's Core-Seam-Gap model to be struck by Dave's comments about connectivity; I find he makes excellent points. My problem is with the entire model, which I consider a train wreck. Yet the basic concept underlying the model is sound.
Dr Barnett has taken the view that the US military cannot compartmentalize when it comes to analyzing enemy threats. He's saying that one can't confine threat analysis to another country's military and weapons arsenal. And one can't confine a study of US weakness to analyzing US reliance on strategic resources such as petroleum.
Thus, Barnett is making a serious attempt to modernize US defense policy, which has not undergone any fundamental updating since the concept of establishing US naval superiority in order to be ready to meet threats before they come to US shores. This is because US defense policy got swallowed up by the Cold War and the attendant NATO policy.
Barnett is attempting to think in holistic terms about US defense -- to look at all broad types of possible threats within the paradigm of military response. I have not read Barnett's book but my understanding is that Barnett has long argued that a country's economy must be factored into US threat analysis.
I interject that I am sure this argument has made Barnett hugely unpopular with economists, who defend their turf with the zeal of -- well, the Zealots. An easy way in Washington to get darts thrown at your picture is to step outside your scholarly or wonkish bounds. That observation goes double for military types who step a micron over the Battlefield Defense line in their analysis.
And the same deep suspicion holds true in reverse: From within the Pentagon there is a band that zealously guards the sacred cow of American democracy, which is that the US military must carefully confine itself to purely military matters.
Thus any common-sense observation that matters beyond armaments and troop deployments can have a military implication tends to be viewed from certain quarters in the Pentagon as a Trotskyite plot meant to weaken the fabric of American society.
Luckily (or perhaps through design) Barnett has escaped tar and feathers because of his sexy model: the Core, the Seam and Non-Integrating Gap. Because there is not one department of the US military that cannot find argument for budget requests by referencing the model, it has its supporters at the Pentagon.
Thus, Pundita's conundrum when it comes to discussing Barnett's ideas. Until receiving Dave's post, I dealt with the impasse by taking an executive decision not to discuss the ideas, except to repeat the honest assessment that came flying out of my mouth the first time I encountered Barnett's model:
Pundita's outburst placed America and Arctic penguins in the Non-Integrating Gap, and all those countries that know about the workings of the World Bank in the Core.
(The Seam would be West European countries, which were the recipient of early Bank loans, but which today have only a hazy idea of how Bank policies have affected the 'underdeveloped' world.)
However, Pundita belongs to the radical school of thought that maintains the United States of America is currently engaged in a hot war. Thus, my answer to many defense-related questions is, "Whatever makes CENTCOM happy."
The Pentagon was forced into a very complex war after the US military and the CIA spent years hamstrung by the US Department of State, the Congress, the White House, and the US news media. Whatever helps the US military fight the war from that far behind, Pundita is all for it.
This said, I think that by organizing his thesis around the Core-Gap-Seam model, Barnett has leaped over groundwork that is required to make sense of the model and address its inadequacies.
Here I might be unfair to Barnett's earlier writings, which I have not read, and his book, which I've not read. However, I venture that Dr. Barnett and his disciples need to lay groundwork by:
> Clearly arguing that the enduring doctrine of US defense (US naval superiority=keeping the enemy from US shores) needs fundamental revision.
> Clearly articulating the issue of the control that the civilian academia gained over US defense policy after WW2 and how this works against coherent defense policy.
> Clearly explaining the need for the military to develop a defense paradigm that includes threats generally excluded from military analysis.
Now here all good Barnett disciples will ask, "What means that word 'clearly'?"
Clearly means:
> No arcane language that can only be intuited by scholars specializing in the history of secret societies or World War Two code breaking.
> No attempts at creating an algebra.
> No more listening to radio signals from outer space for inspiration on how to frame a concept in writing.
> Remembering that in Washington it all comes down to budget, which means learning to write one syllable dumbed-down abstracts that even a senator with no military experience can comprehend.
Thomas Barnett made an intelligent, bold move by taking his case straight to the public via Esquire magazine. Yet his thesis has gotten bogged down partly because of the arcane language and references attached to it. This has prevented people from a variety of fields from examining the model. And it has cut off whatever public support he might have gotten for his thesis, to the extent he articulated it in the Esquire article.
Once the groundwork is laid, then is the time to conjure a working hypothesis, in the form of a tentative model for how a holistic defense policy might look.
In one sentence, Barnett's current model divides the world into countries in various stages of integration with the WTO-democratic paradigm -- the Core countries representing the most integrated. Yet this paradigm is highly illusory, even mythic, in key aspects. Here are but a few examples to explain the mythic aspect:
> The United States is the biggest transit area for transnational organized crime syndicates, with the European Union coming in around second. Why? Open borders; a great deal of freedom; EU integration making checkpoints, different passports, etc. unnecessary across a large body of land, and so on.
As to how much foreign exchange from crime related industries is washed through the EU and the US, and how much the respective banking systems depend on it -- what we know for certain is "a great deal."
> The governing party in France is so corrupt that as soon as Jacques Chirac leaves office he most probably will face criminal charges.
> England does not have a free press -- any publication deemed an affront to the British royal family can be censored by the government. Those Americans who think Britons can get around the law by importing censored publications are unaware that Britain does not provide anywhere near the protection of free speech that is found in the USA.
Britain is known as the "libel capital of the world." Even foreign authors whose books are ordered over the Internet for reading by the British are a target for a libel suit launched in Britain. A recent suit brought against Rachel Enrenfeld for examining a connection between terror funding and a Saudi national underscores Britain's affront to the US First Amendment. Dr. Enrhenfeld was sued in Britain (and the case found in favor of the plaintiff) because less than 30 copies of the book in question were ordered on the Internet for reading in Britain.
That's enough examples to get across that Barnett's idea of "Core" countries rests on shaky criteria, if one is trying to identify nations that make up the 'least threat' to the USA and each other.
I would consider Britain's approach to dealing with Arafat and Tehran, and terrorists in general, to be a considerable security threat to the US. As I would consider the post-invasion conduct of the British military in southern Iraq, which saw the British insisting that anyone coming across the border from Iran should not be challenged.
The Israeli military was so upset with the situation -- and with the US military for going along with it -- that at one point they said to hell with it, might as well break up the country because it's now overrun with terrorists. The Iraqi Governing Council was equally upset with the situation.
For that reason and many others that have come to light during the past decade, Washington, and evidentially Dr. Barnett, are still in the grip of the "He Ain't Heavy He's My Ally" school of defense thinking. Or what Pundita calls the Thelma and Louise school.
In summary, Barnett's model needs considerable refinement -- as in going back to the drawing board and starting over again. Yet to repeat, the thinking that led to the model is on the right track.
.
Wednesday, July 13
Dial 311: Getting unstuck from the intersection of government incompetence and the Mass Age
The US government has embarked on a long-range policy to promote genuine democracy in regions of the world that have no history with it -- and in the rural areas at least, only the most tenuous acquaintance with Western values. This policy will outlast the Bush administration.
Yesterday I reported that Atanu Dey had written about the difficulty of trying to leapfrog the evolutionary process of rural development in poor countries. What the US government envisions is leapfrogging the evolutionary process of democracy in Western countries.
When people speak of the success stories of Germany and Japan, they tend to overlook that Germany and Japan were Westernized, advanced industrial nations at the start of World War Two. So while genuine democracy was not in their history, it was relatively easy for the United States to transpose the basic US democratic model onto those conquered nations after the war. And of course, those countries were under US martial law during the transition period.
Now we're trying something that's never been tried before, which is to transpose mature, genuine democracy to nations where there is very little "infrastructure" in place to support genuine democracy.
Is this is a fool's quest? Absolutely not, if you believe in human potential; if you consider that a nation's greatest resource is its people. It is no cause for surprise that if given half a chance and guidelines on how to 'do' democracy, peoples the world figure out the ropes very quickly.
What's not easy to figure out is how to efficiently and humanely govern megapopulations in this highly complex era. For that, you need a big and very sophisticated knowledge base because the logistics of serving megapopulations are mind-boggling. If you've ever seen a traffic control center for even a medium-sized city, you get a hint of the complexity of making modern society work smoothly.
When things break down in a modern industrialized democracy, the voters demand a fix and get at least an approximation. When the same happens in a nascent democracy in a developing country, the knee-jerk tendency of their governments is to suppress the demands. Part of this suppression is inevitably a sacrifice of the democratic process.
To put this another way, the first victim of gross government incompetence in a nascent democracy is the democratic process. That, rather than revolutionary or anarchist political movements, is today the greatest obstacle to transposing genuine democracy to nations with little or no history of that form of government.
To understand this, remember that the flip side of happy free people casting their votes is hopping mad free people asking their elected officials why the hell nothing works.
The latter experience is very traumatic for governments that were always used to solving citizen complaints by throwing the citizens in jail. And which don't have a clue about how to manage the logistics of serving megapopulations.
Many such governments are not rich enough to do what the Saudis and other Gulf oil governments do when they don't have a clue, which is pick up the phone and ask Bechtel to fix it for them.
Bechtel and other Western companies like them build entire cities, entire transit systems, and so on. But if you can't write $20 billion checks without fainting dead away then you have a problem. Particularly if development and commercial banks are acting childish and demanding you start paying on the last $5 billion they lent you before they'll send back the project engineers to analyze your problem.
So it's not just a matter of plopping in democratic government. If you want the democracy to take root, you need strategies for helping a new democracy deal with the logistics of governing in the Mass Age. The strategies do not come cheap but their most important component, which is knowledge transfer, is not out of any central government's reach. That's provided they clean up the worst corruption and go after the biggest tax cheats.
In many cases, the revenue these governments waste in trying to cover up a problem is more than adequate for solving the problem or at least throwing together a quick fix -- provided they have expert knowledge on how to do the fix. Once you have the fix in place, you can kick the can down the road for the next elected officials to deal with. The democratic way.
Now where do you get the expert knowledge from? Ideally from a database published on the Internet, of the kind that serves scientists, attorneys and medical doctors who, from anywhere in the globe where there's computer access, can look up case studies.
A similar database needs to be created (or pulled together from existing databases) for government workers seeking cutting-edge solutions to municipal and interstate problems. Worldwide, there are millions of retired engineers and government workers who between them have solved just about any municipal works or infrastructure problem you can think of. The task is to get that knowledge base somehow organized and integrated and online. Or at least cross-referenced.
I'll bet there are thousands of computer sites that are essentially message boards for engineers who share information about problems they've solved. So, create a directory of those sites and send it gift-wrapped to every young democratic government.
The other side of the database coin is "Dial 311." If governments can't quickly isolate patterns that suggest trouble in municipalities, they can't deal with the trouble until the works completely break down. So, zeroing in on problems before they reach the breakdown stage is more than half the battle for modern government.
How do you zero in? In the USA, every city has a non-emergency police phone number that takes citizen complaints about everything from excessive noise to traffic jams to a broken fire hydrant.
One day some bright soul said, "Hey! You know all these complaints? If we plugged them into a software program, they could yield patterns that if studied would be an early warning about breakdowns in municipal systems."
The dream has gotten off the ground with 311 technology. The 311 number is set up along the lines of 911 but it's for requests for city services. It's still early days but in 2002 an outbreak of West Nile virus in Chicago gave a spectacular illustration of the utility of the 311 concept.
After 22 Chicago residents had died from the disease, public health officials got the idea to review 311 records for requests to remove dead crows, which are known carriers of West Nile. They cross-matched the caller complaints with neighborhoods were residents had died from the virus. They found that the West Nile virus outbreaks were localized in the neighborhoods where the dead crows had been reported.
That was how the city government learned the hard way that seemingly random resident complaints about even the smallest discomfits of city life can reveal a pattern that if addressed quickly can save lives and millions of tax dollars.
Time magazine, which reported on the 311 technology in an article titled, The Magic Number, noted, “311 has become a direct line into the urban consciousness -- a way of harnessing the collective needs of an entire population to make a city work better. That is urban reform at its most elegant.”
Time's observation barely addresses the implications. The 311 technology is making it a reality for large populations in democracies to bring their knowledge base directly to the government for the betterment of the society.
The technology reverses the trend that has been building for more than a century, which has seen a relatively small number of government workers in charge of handling the problems of megapopulations.
This said, the key to connecting citizens with government in the Mass Age is not 311 on its own. As the EMA website notes:
Before Paul Wolfowitz took up his duties as World Bank President, the scuttlebutt was that the Bank was reviewing their sins under the Wolfensohn "Small and scattered is beautiful" approach to lending to Third World countries. This view considers that the Bank should return to its strength, which is lending for infrastructure projects.
I think that returning to the fire from the frying pan is not the way for the largest development banks -- particularly if the institutions want to encourage democratic reforms, more efficient governments, and help governments deal with vertical corruption* in government bureaucracies. The way is to set up means for citizens in the poorest countries to directly help their governments manage their societies, which today are at great distance from central government.
US government aid and development policy, including the Millennium Challenge Account, should also pay attention to the vital connection between 311 technology and encouraging democratic government. While micro-projects such as helping banks modernize are based on sound thinking, the focus of US tax dollars for aid to developing nations should be to help citizens in the poorest countries connect directly with their local and federal bureaucracies.
None of this is a pipe dream and all of it can be accomplished quickly, if enough people confront the bald fact that government incompetence is the greatest obstacle to making democracy work in the developing world.
I realize that's a scandalous idea to people who can only think about government in terms of political and economic philosophy. It might get Pundita labeled a wild-eyed anarchist. But the truth is that gross incompetence at the government level and democracy are not supposed to go hand-in-hand. This is on the theory that the collective wisdom represented by the electorate is better at solving problems than a relative handful of elected and appointed officials.
This is not to denigrate representative democracy, which is perfectly fine for setting long-range agendas for how to spend tax money. But in the daily grind of life -- the grind that sees potholes, dead crows, electrical outages and broken fire hydrants -- people expect government to work. If it doesn't, they won't hesitate to reject the philosophy that informs their method of government.
* See To the ramparts, fellow billionaires! Save Russian democracy! for a link to a discussion about vertical corruption.
Yesterday I reported that Atanu Dey had written about the difficulty of trying to leapfrog the evolutionary process of rural development in poor countries. What the US government envisions is leapfrogging the evolutionary process of democracy in Western countries.
When people speak of the success stories of Germany and Japan, they tend to overlook that Germany and Japan were Westernized, advanced industrial nations at the start of World War Two. So while genuine democracy was not in their history, it was relatively easy for the United States to transpose the basic US democratic model onto those conquered nations after the war. And of course, those countries were under US martial law during the transition period.
Now we're trying something that's never been tried before, which is to transpose mature, genuine democracy to nations where there is very little "infrastructure" in place to support genuine democracy.
Is this is a fool's quest? Absolutely not, if you believe in human potential; if you consider that a nation's greatest resource is its people. It is no cause for surprise that if given half a chance and guidelines on how to 'do' democracy, peoples the world figure out the ropes very quickly.
What's not easy to figure out is how to efficiently and humanely govern megapopulations in this highly complex era. For that, you need a big and very sophisticated knowledge base because the logistics of serving megapopulations are mind-boggling. If you've ever seen a traffic control center for even a medium-sized city, you get a hint of the complexity of making modern society work smoothly.
When things break down in a modern industrialized democracy, the voters demand a fix and get at least an approximation. When the same happens in a nascent democracy in a developing country, the knee-jerk tendency of their governments is to suppress the demands. Part of this suppression is inevitably a sacrifice of the democratic process.
To put this another way, the first victim of gross government incompetence in a nascent democracy is the democratic process. That, rather than revolutionary or anarchist political movements, is today the greatest obstacle to transposing genuine democracy to nations with little or no history of that form of government.
To understand this, remember that the flip side of happy free people casting their votes is hopping mad free people asking their elected officials why the hell nothing works.
The latter experience is very traumatic for governments that were always used to solving citizen complaints by throwing the citizens in jail. And which don't have a clue about how to manage the logistics of serving megapopulations.
Many such governments are not rich enough to do what the Saudis and other Gulf oil governments do when they don't have a clue, which is pick up the phone and ask Bechtel to fix it for them.
Bechtel and other Western companies like them build entire cities, entire transit systems, and so on. But if you can't write $20 billion checks without fainting dead away then you have a problem. Particularly if development and commercial banks are acting childish and demanding you start paying on the last $5 billion they lent you before they'll send back the project engineers to analyze your problem.
So it's not just a matter of plopping in democratic government. If you want the democracy to take root, you need strategies for helping a new democracy deal with the logistics of governing in the Mass Age. The strategies do not come cheap but their most important component, which is knowledge transfer, is not out of any central government's reach. That's provided they clean up the worst corruption and go after the biggest tax cheats.
In many cases, the revenue these governments waste in trying to cover up a problem is more than adequate for solving the problem or at least throwing together a quick fix -- provided they have expert knowledge on how to do the fix. Once you have the fix in place, you can kick the can down the road for the next elected officials to deal with. The democratic way.
Now where do you get the expert knowledge from? Ideally from a database published on the Internet, of the kind that serves scientists, attorneys and medical doctors who, from anywhere in the globe where there's computer access, can look up case studies.
A similar database needs to be created (or pulled together from existing databases) for government workers seeking cutting-edge solutions to municipal and interstate problems. Worldwide, there are millions of retired engineers and government workers who between them have solved just about any municipal works or infrastructure problem you can think of. The task is to get that knowledge base somehow organized and integrated and online. Or at least cross-referenced.
I'll bet there are thousands of computer sites that are essentially message boards for engineers who share information about problems they've solved. So, create a directory of those sites and send it gift-wrapped to every young democratic government.
The other side of the database coin is "Dial 311." If governments can't quickly isolate patterns that suggest trouble in municipalities, they can't deal with the trouble until the works completely break down. So, zeroing in on problems before they reach the breakdown stage is more than half the battle for modern government.
How do you zero in? In the USA, every city has a non-emergency police phone number that takes citizen complaints about everything from excessive noise to traffic jams to a broken fire hydrant.
One day some bright soul said, "Hey! You know all these complaints? If we plugged them into a software program, they could yield patterns that if studied would be an early warning about breakdowns in municipal systems."
The dream has gotten off the ground with 311 technology. The 311 number is set up along the lines of 911 but it's for requests for city services. It's still early days but in 2002 an outbreak of West Nile virus in Chicago gave a spectacular illustration of the utility of the 311 concept.
After 22 Chicago residents had died from the disease, public health officials got the idea to review 311 records for requests to remove dead crows, which are known carriers of West Nile. They cross-matched the caller complaints with neighborhoods were residents had died from the virus. They found that the West Nile virus outbreaks were localized in the neighborhoods where the dead crows had been reported.
That was how the city government learned the hard way that seemingly random resident complaints about even the smallest discomfits of city life can reveal a pattern that if addressed quickly can save lives and millions of tax dollars.
Time magazine, which reported on the 311 technology in an article titled, The Magic Number, noted, “311 has become a direct line into the urban consciousness -- a way of harnessing the collective needs of an entire population to make a city work better. That is urban reform at its most elegant.”
Time's observation barely addresses the implications. The 311 technology is making it a reality for large populations in democracies to bring their knowledge base directly to the government for the betterment of the society.
The technology reverses the trend that has been building for more than a century, which has seen a relatively small number of government workers in charge of handling the problems of megapopulations.
This said, the key to connecting citizens with government in the Mass Age is not 311 on its own. As the EMA website notes:
Outmoded service delivery models simply aren't equipped to deal with contemporary demands. As customer [citizen] expectations soar and resources shrink, many jurisdictions see 311 as the savior.Yet a means for citizens in emerging democracies to directly connect with their government via 311 technology is crucial. It is the key to helping governments at the local and federal levels to coordinate tax-funded programs and head off just the kind of breakdowns in government services that create citizen frustration with the democratic process.
The solution, however, is not about technology and 311 is more than just a telephone number. In fact, most cities already have the technological capacity to implement one-call service delivery. What they lack is an understanding of the organizational changes necessary to support the initiative and the “back-end” systems and processes to carry it out. Get it right and a call center with an accompanying Internet presence becomes a one-stop shop for customer inquiries, online payment options, work order status reports, and new work requests for every city department.
However, decision makers must grasp the implications of this approach before diving in head-first. Only then can government proceed to responsibly implement 311 in a way that leverages existing technology and invests in organizational and practice improvement.
By adopting best practices, standardizing operations and technology across departmental boundaries, and implementing the best available technology, the city can respond quickly to citizen requests, communicate better internally and externally, and reduce costs.
Before Paul Wolfowitz took up his duties as World Bank President, the scuttlebutt was that the Bank was reviewing their sins under the Wolfensohn "Small and scattered is beautiful" approach to lending to Third World countries. This view considers that the Bank should return to its strength, which is lending for infrastructure projects.
I think that returning to the fire from the frying pan is not the way for the largest development banks -- particularly if the institutions want to encourage democratic reforms, more efficient governments, and help governments deal with vertical corruption* in government bureaucracies. The way is to set up means for citizens in the poorest countries to directly help their governments manage their societies, which today are at great distance from central government.
US government aid and development policy, including the Millennium Challenge Account, should also pay attention to the vital connection between 311 technology and encouraging democratic government. While micro-projects such as helping banks modernize are based on sound thinking, the focus of US tax dollars for aid to developing nations should be to help citizens in the poorest countries connect directly with their local and federal bureaucracies.
None of this is a pipe dream and all of it can be accomplished quickly, if enough people confront the bald fact that government incompetence is the greatest obstacle to making democracy work in the developing world.
I realize that's a scandalous idea to people who can only think about government in terms of political and economic philosophy. It might get Pundita labeled a wild-eyed anarchist. But the truth is that gross incompetence at the government level and democracy are not supposed to go hand-in-hand. This is on the theory that the collective wisdom represented by the electorate is better at solving problems than a relative handful of elected and appointed officials.
This is not to denigrate representative democracy, which is perfectly fine for setting long-range agendas for how to spend tax money. But in the daily grind of life -- the grind that sees potholes, dead crows, electrical outages and broken fire hydrants -- people expect government to work. If it doesn't, they won't hesitate to reject the philosophy that informs their method of government.
* See To the ramparts, fellow billionaires! Save Russian democracy! for a link to a discussion about vertical corruption.
Tuesday, July 12
Dave Schuler defends!
One post up today (Fire up the cellphone...). Also, two readers responded to yesterday's Parrots of Heaven... post with good points, which I inserted along with my reply at the end of essay. And now, Pundita dives for the bunker while Dave defends against criticism I launched against him in the same essay...
"Dear Pundita:
Loved your Parrots of Heaven post!
It's not that I particularly admire academics, but I tend to be an integrative thinker--I try to hook ideas together in interesting ways. Ong's book came along LONG after I was in school or studying such things actively. I just happened
to stumble across it somewhere or other.
And about the furry friends. My twelve-times great-grandfather, who drafted the Swiss articles of confederation and is now the patron saint of Switzerland, is reputed to have lived in a cave with only a bear for companionship (after leaving his wife and 12 children).
If you've checked my archives you'll have learned that I'm a member of a dog pack. My constant companions are a group of quite wolfy dogs, one of whom is my familiar (or spirit guide). His name is Qila, Kendara's Spirit Guide, WSXM. "Qila" is Inuit for a shaman's familiar.
Dave Schuler
The Glittering Eye"
Pundita's whispered aside to the reader:
Notice how people who are owned by a dog always conceive of it in democratic terms; e.g., "I'm a member of a dog pack."
"Dear Pundita:
Loved your Parrots of Heaven post!
It's not that I particularly admire academics, but I tend to be an integrative thinker--I try to hook ideas together in interesting ways. Ong's book came along LONG after I was in school or studying such things actively. I just happened
to stumble across it somewhere or other.
And about the furry friends. My twelve-times great-grandfather, who drafted the Swiss articles of confederation and is now the patron saint of Switzerland, is reputed to have lived in a cave with only a bear for companionship (after leaving his wife and 12 children).
If you've checked my archives you'll have learned that I'm a member of a dog pack. My constant companions are a group of quite wolfy dogs, one of whom is my familiar (or spirit guide). His name is Qila, Kendara's Spirit Guide, WSXM. "Qila" is Inuit for a shaman's familiar.
Dave Schuler
The Glittering Eye"
Pundita's whispered aside to the reader:
Notice how people who are owned by a dog always conceive of it in democratic terms; e.g., "I'm a member of a dog pack."
Fire up the cell phone, gather round the radio: Not by any one way does democracy come to the rural developing world
June 28
Howdy, Pundita!
About technology and democracy, your essay mentioning Sumedh Mungee's post is great! Back in March after attending a screening of a documentary about North Korea I wrote this post, which talks about how cell phones are slowly helping to change perceptions of the government in North Korea. I found a post for you by Rebecca MacKinnon about cell phones and North Korea. If it's not the one I originally quoted it has most of the same information. I was reminded of it again in Mungee's post about computers not being automatically connected to the internet.
If I'm not mistaken cell phones are "always connected" if they have web access. I see a skipping of hardware, i.e., computers, to cell phones for information -- both receiving and sharing.
PS: Here's another interesting post on the same theme from Textually.
Beth in the Midwest.
Dear Beth:
Thank you for forwarding me your essay and the URLs. I love the Textually site; it's amazing to me how cell phones have evolved a huge global industry/culture -- like the Internet -- but in ways it would have been hard to imagine a decade ago.
Today, while stopping off at Textually, I learned to my astonishment that cell phones are being used as mosquito repellents! One company, SK Telecom, is "providing an anti-mosquito sound wave service to Southeast Asian nations including Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia. The service generates anti-mosquito sound waves ranging from 300Hz to 600Hz to repel mosquitoes within a range of one meter."
Provided the technology is available to support cell phones with Internet access I think your idea is great. Given the history of development banks helping the world's poorest, Pundita suspects that a lot of outmoded computers -- sold for a song by companies eager to dump them -- will find their way into the world's rural villages.
In essence you're asking, Why not start with the most advanced technologies if the idea is that connectivity promotes democracy? That's a good question. Cell phones are already transforming business in rural regions in African nations.* But note the discussion about literacy and IT connectivity in the Deesha (rural development) archive at Emergic:
Leapfrogging and Development -- Atanu Dey writes:
Leapfrogging is possible but mostly it is restricted to technologies. Unlike technology, you cannot leapfrog the various stages of development. A century ago, to be educated, one had to be literate and numerate. Same holds for today even though we have digital gizmos and computers.
Indeed, to be able to effectively use the products of high-technology, literacy is an absolute necessity. Functional skills required for using high-tech all involve the ability to read and reason. I grant that illiterate idiots can use a cell phone, but that is not what I would call the effective use of high technology.
The so-called "digital divide" cannot be bridged by simply installing lots of PCs in areas where they don’t exist and connecting them up to the internet. If the people are unable to use them, they serve no purpose other than to enrich the peddlers of hardware and software. Furthermore, there is the opportunity cost of spending limited resources on useless high-tech gizmos.
You cannot leapfrog development. It cannot be done at an individual level. And it cannot be done at a societal level. Although development paths may differ, the sequencing within a path cannot be radically altered because there are strict dependencies.
Basic functional literacy is a prerequisite to pretty much anything that one does. The use of high-tech depends on literacy and therefore if the population is illiterate, even gifting them with free hardware will not make a difference. The pre-condition for bridging the digital divide is therefore the bridging of the literacy divide."
Dey brings out an important point. Internet access, whether it's via the most sophisticated cell phones or "old-fashioned" computers, requires literacy. In many rural villages you might find one or two people who are literate. They read the daily or weekly newspaper delivery to others in the village. They also function as the scribe. Villagers who want to send letters or fill out government forms pay them a small amount of money or equivalent to do the writing.
So if you are thinking of ICT (information communications technology) in terms of promoting genuine democracy in the least developed regions, there is a caution. If you bring ICT into a village that has only a couple literate people you end up with another type of fiefdom. The literates control the information flow.
So instead of the political machines bringing bags of rice to the chief (who might not be literate) and saying, "You village is voting for X," you get the same bags delivered to the Village ICT Oracle with the words, "Inform your village they should vote for X."
Not to dump more bad news on you but Benjamin R. Barber, who has famously studied democracy for decades, has cautions about the idea that connectivity automatically equates to stronger democracy. In his wonderful blog about Africa, technology and the media, My Heart's in Accra, Ethan Zuckerman notes:
If an important goal for US policy is to spread genuine democracy, then development and aid policymakers should look at regions in terms of their literacy quotient and adjust the type of aid accordingly. Radio doesn't help increase literacy. But if oral communications about political issues do not accompany computerized voting machines in regions with low literacy you're still stuck with Fiefdom Democracy, which is a democracy stage show.
Now before throwing up your hands, consider America's development as a democracy. If you think of the ward heelers and union bosses delivering huge blocs of votes that were not exactly votes, you realize that the widescale genuine democratic voting process we enjoy today is a rather recent phenomenon.
So we had our own Fiefdom Democracy right here in the USA. And there are still charges of ballot stuffing and other illegal tactics after every big election, which indicates the democratic ideal has not yet been met even here in the bastion of democracy.
In other words, by any which way do peoples move toward self government. The idea is to keep moving, keep trying. The good news is that a great many people the world over are waking up to this.
But here we come to a snag, which is the greatest obstacle to young democracies. Nope, the obstacle ain't greedy despots or nasty tyrants. Nupe, it ain't the clan system or tribes that wish for the return of 5,000 BCE. It ain't the ruling classes or power-mad generals. It ain't poverty, AIDS, global warming, solar flares or transnational organized crime. And this is one we can't blame on The 900 Lazy Bastards or the World Bank. It's -- Pundita will tell tomorrow.
From a report at Mobile Africa:
Cell phones help African farmers trade crops
"I check the prices for the day on my phone and when it's a good price I sell," explained Daniel Mashva from his village in the remote northeast of South Africa. "I can even try to ask for a higher price if I see there are lots of buyers."
Mashva is one of around 100 farmers in Makuleke testing cell phone technology that gives small rural farmers access to national markets via the Internet, putting them on a footing with bigger players and boosting profits by at least 30 percent.
"Mainstream farmers have access to market information so they can negotiate better prices. This cell phone enables poor rural farmers to get that same information," said Mthobi Tyamzashe, from cell phone operator Vodacom.
Cell phone use has rocketed 100% in Africa since 2000, and the Makuleke scheme is one of many ways the technology is being used to tackle poverty.
Senegalese company Manobi, which operates on-line systems for businesses in the developing world, first launched the trading platform for farmers and fishermen in the west African nation. "It's a trading platform and a business space," said Daniel Annerose from Manobi. "Small Senegalese farmers even linked up with the French army (on the platform) last year and agreed to supply one of their ships when it docked in Dakar."
In Senegal, Manobi employees collect 80,000 data from 10 markets per day and get it on line within a few seconds, while in the more mature market of South Africa the company simply uploads existing information onto their system. Farmers can access the information on a web-based trading platform via Internet-enabled phones, or can request prices and make trades via SMS. [...]
Howdy, Pundita!
About technology and democracy, your essay mentioning Sumedh Mungee's post is great! Back in March after attending a screening of a documentary about North Korea I wrote this post, which talks about how cell phones are slowly helping to change perceptions of the government in North Korea. I found a post for you by Rebecca MacKinnon about cell phones and North Korea. If it's not the one I originally quoted it has most of the same information. I was reminded of it again in Mungee's post about computers not being automatically connected to the internet.
If I'm not mistaken cell phones are "always connected" if they have web access. I see a skipping of hardware, i.e., computers, to cell phones for information -- both receiving and sharing.
PS: Here's another interesting post on the same theme from Textually.
Beth in the Midwest.
Dear Beth:
Thank you for forwarding me your essay and the URLs. I love the Textually site; it's amazing to me how cell phones have evolved a huge global industry/culture -- like the Internet -- but in ways it would have been hard to imagine a decade ago.
Today, while stopping off at Textually, I learned to my astonishment that cell phones are being used as mosquito repellents! One company, SK Telecom, is "providing an anti-mosquito sound wave service to Southeast Asian nations including Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia. The service generates anti-mosquito sound waves ranging from 300Hz to 600Hz to repel mosquitoes within a range of one meter."
Provided the technology is available to support cell phones with Internet access I think your idea is great. Given the history of development banks helping the world's poorest, Pundita suspects that a lot of outmoded computers -- sold for a song by companies eager to dump them -- will find their way into the world's rural villages.
In essence you're asking, Why not start with the most advanced technologies if the idea is that connectivity promotes democracy? That's a good question. Cell phones are already transforming business in rural regions in African nations.* But note the discussion about literacy and IT connectivity in the Deesha (rural development) archive at Emergic:
Leapfrogging and Development -- Atanu Dey writes:
Leapfrogging is possible but mostly it is restricted to technologies. Unlike technology, you cannot leapfrog the various stages of development. A century ago, to be educated, one had to be literate and numerate. Same holds for today even though we have digital gizmos and computers.
Indeed, to be able to effectively use the products of high-technology, literacy is an absolute necessity. Functional skills required for using high-tech all involve the ability to read and reason. I grant that illiterate idiots can use a cell phone, but that is not what I would call the effective use of high technology.
The so-called "digital divide" cannot be bridged by simply installing lots of PCs in areas where they don’t exist and connecting them up to the internet. If the people are unable to use them, they serve no purpose other than to enrich the peddlers of hardware and software. Furthermore, there is the opportunity cost of spending limited resources on useless high-tech gizmos.
You cannot leapfrog development. It cannot be done at an individual level. And it cannot be done at a societal level. Although development paths may differ, the sequencing within a path cannot be radically altered because there are strict dependencies.
Basic functional literacy is a prerequisite to pretty much anything that one does. The use of high-tech depends on literacy and therefore if the population is illiterate, even gifting them with free hardware will not make a difference. The pre-condition for bridging the digital divide is therefore the bridging of the literacy divide."
Dey brings out an important point. Internet access, whether it's via the most sophisticated cell phones or "old-fashioned" computers, requires literacy. In many rural villages you might find one or two people who are literate. They read the daily or weekly newspaper delivery to others in the village. They also function as the scribe. Villagers who want to send letters or fill out government forms pay them a small amount of money or equivalent to do the writing.
So if you are thinking of ICT (information communications technology) in terms of promoting genuine democracy in the least developed regions, there is a caution. If you bring ICT into a village that has only a couple literate people you end up with another type of fiefdom. The literates control the information flow.
So instead of the political machines bringing bags of rice to the chief (who might not be literate) and saying, "You village is voting for X," you get the same bags delivered to the Village ICT Oracle with the words, "Inform your village they should vote for X."
Not to dump more bad news on you but Benjamin R. Barber, who has famously studied democracy for decades, has cautions about the idea that connectivity automatically equates to stronger democracy. In his wonderful blog about Africa, technology and the media, My Heart's in Accra, Ethan Zuckerman notes:
Barber puts forward three ways technologies might work to strengthen or weaken democracies: the Panglossian, Pandorian and Jeffersonian options.Zuckerman also reports on research by Mike Best that suggests Barber's pessimism is overdone.
In the Panglossian scenario, citizens are primarily consumers and they blindly respond to the ideas put forward by stronger actors -- most likely corporations, who keep them from political power by keeping them sufficiently entertained.
In the Pandorian model, information tools become Orwellian tools for obervation and liberating technologies become tools for repression.
Only in the most optimistic, Jeffersonian scenario do information tools reach their potential of allowing open, participatory democracy. (When Barber yelled at us a few weeks back, he seemed to be suggesting that the Internet was following the Panglossian path.) [...]
Mike has decided to test a theory put forth by Kedzie, that "multidirectional, reciprocal communication technology like email" are conducive to democracy.However, the success of Radio Ujjima, which mirrors the success of American talk radio at using an oral tradition to inform people about social/political issues, tends to shore Barber's cautions. As the African cell phone story indicates, ICT is critical to helping the rural poor stay connected about issues such as market conditions for their produce. But you don't want to assume that kind of connectivity automatically translates to more informed participation in the political process.
Kedzie argues that a 1% increase in this sort of network connectivity leads to a 4 point rise on a 100-point democratization scale (adapted from Freedom House's 7/14 point scale).
Analyzing correlations between changes in the Freedom House scale and other independent factors -- connectivity, schooling, per capita GDP, life expectancy -- Mike sees a strong correlation between connectivity and high levels of democratization. The correlation is stronger between connectivity and democratization than schooling or life expectancy -- only the GDP to democratization correlation is stronger. Controlling for GDP, Mike still sees a meaningful correlation between connectivity and democratization. [...]
If an important goal for US policy is to spread genuine democracy, then development and aid policymakers should look at regions in terms of their literacy quotient and adjust the type of aid accordingly. Radio doesn't help increase literacy. But if oral communications about political issues do not accompany computerized voting machines in regions with low literacy you're still stuck with Fiefdom Democracy, which is a democracy stage show.
Now before throwing up your hands, consider America's development as a democracy. If you think of the ward heelers and union bosses delivering huge blocs of votes that were not exactly votes, you realize that the widescale genuine democratic voting process we enjoy today is a rather recent phenomenon.
So we had our own Fiefdom Democracy right here in the USA. And there are still charges of ballot stuffing and other illegal tactics after every big election, which indicates the democratic ideal has not yet been met even here in the bastion of democracy.
In other words, by any which way do peoples move toward self government. The idea is to keep moving, keep trying. The good news is that a great many people the world over are waking up to this.
But here we come to a snag, which is the greatest obstacle to young democracies. Nope, the obstacle ain't greedy despots or nasty tyrants. Nupe, it ain't the clan system or tribes that wish for the return of 5,000 BCE. It ain't the ruling classes or power-mad generals. It ain't poverty, AIDS, global warming, solar flares or transnational organized crime. And this is one we can't blame on The 900 Lazy Bastards or the World Bank. It's -- Pundita will tell tomorrow.
From a report at Mobile Africa:
Cell phones help African farmers trade crops
"I check the prices for the day on my phone and when it's a good price I sell," explained Daniel Mashva from his village in the remote northeast of South Africa. "I can even try to ask for a higher price if I see there are lots of buyers."
Mashva is one of around 100 farmers in Makuleke testing cell phone technology that gives small rural farmers access to national markets via the Internet, putting them on a footing with bigger players and boosting profits by at least 30 percent.
"Mainstream farmers have access to market information so they can negotiate better prices. This cell phone enables poor rural farmers to get that same information," said Mthobi Tyamzashe, from cell phone operator Vodacom.
Cell phone use has rocketed 100% in Africa since 2000, and the Makuleke scheme is one of many ways the technology is being used to tackle poverty.
Senegalese company Manobi, which operates on-line systems for businesses in the developing world, first launched the trading platform for farmers and fishermen in the west African nation. "It's a trading platform and a business space," said Daniel Annerose from Manobi. "Small Senegalese farmers even linked up with the French army (on the platform) last year and agreed to supply one of their ships when it docked in Dakar."
In Senegal, Manobi employees collect 80,000 data from 10 markets per day and get it on line within a few seconds, while in the more mature market of South Africa the company simply uploads existing information onto their system. Farmers can access the information on a web-based trading platform via Internet-enabled phones, or can request prices and make trades via SMS. [...]
Monday, July 11
Setting free the Parrots of Heaven: How to talk democracy to minds that have only known despotic rule
"Dear Pundita:
Inspired (if that's the right word for it) by your Law of Leaving post I've written something you might want to take a look at: Orality and Iraq
Dave Schuler
The Glittering Eye"
Dear Dave:
To orient the reader, "orality" is a term coined by Reverend Walter J. Ong for his famous book Orality and Literacy, which you reference in your essay. Orality is another way of saying illiteracy or to be more precise, the kind of thinking that arises from illiteracy.
As to the list of orality characteristics your essay provides, and which I assume is a summary of Rev Ong's conclusions, I have noticed something quite odd about it. First we'll let the readers in on the discussion by asking them to glance through the nine items on the list:
"Orally-based thought and expression are:
1. Additive rather than subordinative. Complex constructions are avoided in favor of simple conjoining of ideas.
2. Aggregative rather than analytic. Standard expressions, stock phrases, and cliches are preferred over novel descriptions.
3. Redundant or "copious." Repetition is an aid to memorization.
4. Conservative or traditionalist. Knowledge is hard to come by and traditional ways should be conserved.
5. Close to the human lifeworld. Knowledge of skills is passed person-to-person rather than through manuals or books.
6. Agonistically toned. [confrontational]
7. Empathetic and participatory rather than objectively distanced. (Gaining knowledge is an empathetic and participatory process: don't expect objectivity.)
8. Homeostatic. Memories without relevance are discarded.
9. Situational rather than abstract. Objects are grouped pragmatically rather than in abstract categories."
I will exclude #5 in particular because illiterates have means other than oral of encoding information and passing it down; e.g., arts and crafts, but of course knowledge is harder to preserve and transmit without writing.
But I'd like you to look down the list and tell me if the majority of points could apply to the thinking of a group of literate peoples. What about Germans under Nazi rule? What about members of the Jim Jones cult? What about North Korea's ruling class? What about the Catholic priesthood in Spain during the Inquisition?
Dave, the list you provide does not identify exclusive characteristics of illiterate thinking patterns. It's a summary of psycho-epistemological traits that humans, both literate and illiterate, demonstrate when trained by a governing force to suppress reliance on the discursive aspect of intellect.
It's a list of what happens to the human mind when the state or other ruling force demands that indoctrination be the primary purpose of education.
I suspect I would find Reverend Ong's work on illiteracy to be a study in Western cultural bias, sloppy research and sweeping generalizations. Yet it seems he unwittingly isolates factors that typify the thinking of peoples conditioned to adopt a posture of unquestioning obedience to a governing authority. Whether they are literate or illiterate.
You noted in your essay, "This post is based on ideas that occurred to me nearly two years ago and I've been researching them ever since. The more I researched the more I realized that this was not a post or even a series of posts but a book and to do the topic justice I'd need to master skills that, themselves, would require years. That's simply not going to happen so I'm putting these ideas out there and what you see is what you get. Nearly everything in this post is disputed or controversial and a lot may be just plain wrong."
Have I taught you nothing? Or have you not noticed that my learned colleagues are furred and feathered? Pardon my being instructive but you have an irritating habit of linking very interesting results of your own cogitation with those of academics you admire. You should think about breaking the habit.
The advice* your essay gives to the Bush administration is sound, although I doubt it could be defended by any argument in Ong's work. However, it can be defended by an exercise of reason. Consider Peter Lavelle's Lost in Translation: A Russian Political Lexicon. The essay, which explains how differently Russians interpret abstract political terms dear to the hearts of Americans, is a crash course in how Americans can be sensible when talking to people of another culture -- particularly those who do not have a long history of democracy or are new to it. His points, by implication, support your advice.
My quibble is that your advice should not be limited to talking to Iraqis -- literate or illiterate. Americans must learn that the referents they carry around in their heads are not necessarily present in the heads of those who live outside America.
In this way we might avoid a replay of the situation that saw American soldiers helpfully putting up a sign in English, "Radioactive: Keep Out" outside the abandoned Iraqi al Tuwaitha facility, which was so radioactive Vladimir Putin had to call George Bush and warn, "For God's sake don't bomb anywhere near the place or you'll light up the entire Middle East and half of Central Asia!"
Yes, this is the same al Tuwaitha that Mohamed ElBaradei walked through blindfolded then reported to the IAEA, "Nuclear weapons grade stuff? We don't see no stuff."
But I digress -- or maybe not. The above sentence contains a cultural referent; specifically, a reference to the banditos in the classic American film, Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Alfonso Bedoya's sneering retort ("Badges? We ain't got no badges.") has worked its way into the American culture, so that variations on the retort are code for a sardonic reference to any scoundrel blustering it out.
Yet outside North America virtually no one but a film buff would find anything but awful grammar in my reference to ElBaradei's rubber-stamp inspection of a nuclear facility. The Bedoya reference is highly abstract, as with many cultural referents.
That observation is the best argument for following your advice when Americans strike out to promote democracy.
Now to return to your two years of wandering in the desert with your idea. It would not require years more study and mastery of special skills to develop your advice into a handbook for how to talk with people who are living under, or emerging from, totalitarian or extremely authoritarian rule. It wouldn't need to be a scholarly work; businesslike bulleted points for Americans to remember would be just fine.
But for this, I venture you would need to de-couple from Ong's ideas about illiteracy and hook up with research in areas such as cultic behavior, brainwashing techniques, and similar topics.
If you are interested in this approach, I can suggest the best place to start: An account of what is the most horrifying behavioral experiment known to be conducted on American shores. The research is famously summarized in a 1970 Esquire magazine piece by Philip Meyer titled If Hitler Asked you to Electrocute a Stranger, Would You?.
For readers who don't know about Stanley Milgram's experiment, I'm tempted not to give anything away in order to preserve the full shock value, if you'll pardon the expression. But I will mention this much before you embark on the reading:
The kind of experiment Milgram conducted in the 1960s could not happen today; it's been banned from American science because it is unethical.
Yet it is an enormously valuable experiment because it explains, as no work of literature or account of war crimes can do, that unquestioning obedience to authority is rather easy to bring about, even without use of lethal force or brainwashing.
And the research conclusions are the starkest warning that once the critical reasoning faculty is suspended, even "good" people can abandon conscience and transform into fiends.
Once you've digested that, you might want to read (or reread) a 2004 Christian Science Monitor report by Owais Tohid titled Pakistan, US take on the madrassahs, which returns us to the grim warning in "Law of Leaving". And which points up the need for the advice you gave.
> Communicating effectively with the people and making freedom part of the prevailing wisdom in the society requires using modalities of communication that are meaningful to the people.
> Mr. Bush or his surrogates should speak directly to the Iraqi people frequently on radio or television.
> The speeches should be repetitive and should use stock phrases.
> The translation should actively employ constructions that have resonance in Arabic even at the expense of literal meaning.
> Abstractions e.g., freedom, democracy should be avoided in favor of concrete examples of the exercises of freedom and democracy.
> The speeches should be aggressive, energetic, and argumentative rather than conciliatory or temperate.
> Hardest of all, liberal democracy should be sold using an appeal to traditional values.
11:00 AM
"Pundita, after reading the Esquire article, Dave's advice strikes me as guidance for how NOT to talk to people who've known only despotic rule! He's advising to [use] repetition and other verbal postures that the researchers used on the hapless subjects in the experiment!
Lynn in Toronto"
Dear Lynn:
If you are opening communication with someone who is already 'programmed' (as in brainwashing, etc.), deprogramming initially requires very strong, unequivocal repetitive statements and essentially the same approach Dave suggests.
If you ask someone who has been programmed by a cult, "What do you think, you'll receive a recorded message in reply. So you first have to clearly establish your position.
This said, you've brought out an important point. There is a huge difference between teaching and 'sending a message.' Students should be encouraged to develop the discursive intellect and in general sweat out reasoning on their own instead of blindly relying on authority to tell them how to view information.
For all that, the teacher needs to encourage classroom dialogue and debate in a structured way -- and of course, encourage the students to ask questions of the teacher. And teen students should be introduced to the fun exercise of learning to spot the standard reasoning traps; i.e., pseudo-logics, and how to avoid them.
Thinking for oneself, like everything else, is a matter of learning the ropes then practice, practice, practice. The Socratic method -- which, I might add, is an oral teaching method -- is the key to teaching students to reason things through and check and re-check their assumptions and the assumptions of others.
All this should be done in a highly structured way so that the student retains respect for authority -- respect, not blind obedience.
12:10 UPDATE
"How interesting that your post today is at least a little bit about talking to Iraqis about democracy! I finally wrote last night about how I think it would be fun to help Iraqis (or anyone anywhere) to "get" this idea of democracy by using classic American movies and music and biographies and discussions of them. It would certainly help with those cultural references...
Beth in the Midwest"
Dear Beth:
Before the US invaded in Iraq, the #1 TV show in the country was Baywatch. Iraqis, and indeed the entire developing world, have a terrribly distorted idea of America. And they don't realize that this country was built by people very much like themselves. An "American Democracy Film Project" would be a great idea, if the movies show Americans struggling to make their democracy work and the difficult life that most experienced in building this country.
The project could include people from the local viewing audience explaining the storyline to the rest of the audience and describing the film characters in a way that connects with people in their own land.
It's really important for peoples in developing lands to understand how hard early Americans worked and how many mistakes they made while trying to build a strong democracy. People in other lands need to understand that if we can do it, anybody can do it. It just takes persistence and a lot of sweat -- and of course a good Constitution and a dedication to democratic government.
Also, American visitors to the poorest countries can help correct false impressions if their family came from humble beginnings. They can tuck photos of their family's hardscrabble days into their wallets and pull them out for viewing at the drop of a hat. And make good use of their time waiting in airports, bus and train stations to recount immigrant hardship tales told by their relatives. We can't expect the VOA and such to do all the work of telling people who we are.
Inspired (if that's the right word for it) by your Law of Leaving post I've written something you might want to take a look at: Orality and Iraq
Dave Schuler
The Glittering Eye"
Dear Dave:
To orient the reader, "orality" is a term coined by Reverend Walter J. Ong for his famous book Orality and Literacy, which you reference in your essay. Orality is another way of saying illiteracy or to be more precise, the kind of thinking that arises from illiteracy.
As to the list of orality characteristics your essay provides, and which I assume is a summary of Rev Ong's conclusions, I have noticed something quite odd about it. First we'll let the readers in on the discussion by asking them to glance through the nine items on the list:
"Orally-based thought and expression are:
1. Additive rather than subordinative. Complex constructions are avoided in favor of simple conjoining of ideas.
2. Aggregative rather than analytic. Standard expressions, stock phrases, and cliches are preferred over novel descriptions.
3. Redundant or "copious." Repetition is an aid to memorization.
4. Conservative or traditionalist. Knowledge is hard to come by and traditional ways should be conserved.
5. Close to the human lifeworld. Knowledge of skills is passed person-to-person rather than through manuals or books.
6. Agonistically toned. [confrontational]
7. Empathetic and participatory rather than objectively distanced. (Gaining knowledge is an empathetic and participatory process: don't expect objectivity.)
8. Homeostatic. Memories without relevance are discarded.
9. Situational rather than abstract. Objects are grouped pragmatically rather than in abstract categories."
I will exclude #5 in particular because illiterates have means other than oral of encoding information and passing it down; e.g., arts and crafts, but of course knowledge is harder to preserve and transmit without writing.
But I'd like you to look down the list and tell me if the majority of points could apply to the thinking of a group of literate peoples. What about Germans under Nazi rule? What about members of the Jim Jones cult? What about North Korea's ruling class? What about the Catholic priesthood in Spain during the Inquisition?
Dave, the list you provide does not identify exclusive characteristics of illiterate thinking patterns. It's a summary of psycho-epistemological traits that humans, both literate and illiterate, demonstrate when trained by a governing force to suppress reliance on the discursive aspect of intellect.
It's a list of what happens to the human mind when the state or other ruling force demands that indoctrination be the primary purpose of education.
I suspect I would find Reverend Ong's work on illiteracy to be a study in Western cultural bias, sloppy research and sweeping generalizations. Yet it seems he unwittingly isolates factors that typify the thinking of peoples conditioned to adopt a posture of unquestioning obedience to a governing authority. Whether they are literate or illiterate.
You noted in your essay, "This post is based on ideas that occurred to me nearly two years ago and I've been researching them ever since. The more I researched the more I realized that this was not a post or even a series of posts but a book and to do the topic justice I'd need to master skills that, themselves, would require years. That's simply not going to happen so I'm putting these ideas out there and what you see is what you get. Nearly everything in this post is disputed or controversial and a lot may be just plain wrong."
Have I taught you nothing? Or have you not noticed that my learned colleagues are furred and feathered? Pardon my being instructive but you have an irritating habit of linking very interesting results of your own cogitation with those of academics you admire. You should think about breaking the habit.
The advice* your essay gives to the Bush administration is sound, although I doubt it could be defended by any argument in Ong's work. However, it can be defended by an exercise of reason. Consider Peter Lavelle's Lost in Translation: A Russian Political Lexicon. The essay, which explains how differently Russians interpret abstract political terms dear to the hearts of Americans, is a crash course in how Americans can be sensible when talking to people of another culture -- particularly those who do not have a long history of democracy or are new to it. His points, by implication, support your advice.
My quibble is that your advice should not be limited to talking to Iraqis -- literate or illiterate. Americans must learn that the referents they carry around in their heads are not necessarily present in the heads of those who live outside America.
In this way we might avoid a replay of the situation that saw American soldiers helpfully putting up a sign in English, "Radioactive: Keep Out" outside the abandoned Iraqi al Tuwaitha facility, which was so radioactive Vladimir Putin had to call George Bush and warn, "For God's sake don't bomb anywhere near the place or you'll light up the entire Middle East and half of Central Asia!"
Yes, this is the same al Tuwaitha that Mohamed ElBaradei walked through blindfolded then reported to the IAEA, "Nuclear weapons grade stuff? We don't see no stuff."
But I digress -- or maybe not. The above sentence contains a cultural referent; specifically, a reference to the banditos in the classic American film, Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Alfonso Bedoya's sneering retort ("Badges? We ain't got no badges.") has worked its way into the American culture, so that variations on the retort are code for a sardonic reference to any scoundrel blustering it out.
Yet outside North America virtually no one but a film buff would find anything but awful grammar in my reference to ElBaradei's rubber-stamp inspection of a nuclear facility. The Bedoya reference is highly abstract, as with many cultural referents.
That observation is the best argument for following your advice when Americans strike out to promote democracy.
Now to return to your two years of wandering in the desert with your idea. It would not require years more study and mastery of special skills to develop your advice into a handbook for how to talk with people who are living under, or emerging from, totalitarian or extremely authoritarian rule. It wouldn't need to be a scholarly work; businesslike bulleted points for Americans to remember would be just fine.
But for this, I venture you would need to de-couple from Ong's ideas about illiteracy and hook up with research in areas such as cultic behavior, brainwashing techniques, and similar topics.
If you are interested in this approach, I can suggest the best place to start: An account of what is the most horrifying behavioral experiment known to be conducted on American shores. The research is famously summarized in a 1970 Esquire magazine piece by Philip Meyer titled If Hitler Asked you to Electrocute a Stranger, Would You?.
For readers who don't know about Stanley Milgram's experiment, I'm tempted not to give anything away in order to preserve the full shock value, if you'll pardon the expression. But I will mention this much before you embark on the reading:
The kind of experiment Milgram conducted in the 1960s could not happen today; it's been banned from American science because it is unethical.
Yet it is an enormously valuable experiment because it explains, as no work of literature or account of war crimes can do, that unquestioning obedience to authority is rather easy to bring about, even without use of lethal force or brainwashing.
And the research conclusions are the starkest warning that once the critical reasoning faculty is suspended, even "good" people can abandon conscience and transform into fiends.
Once you've digested that, you might want to read (or reread) a 2004 Christian Science Monitor report by Owais Tohid titled Pakistan, US take on the madrassahs, which returns us to the grim warning in "Law of Leaving". And which points up the need for the advice you gave.
They sway as they recite the Koran under the glare of their teacher...who swings a tree branch in the direction of any pupil who errs.* Dave's advice, which I present in list fashion:
"These are parrots of heaven," says the young cleric..."We teach our students purely Islamic teachings to make them pure and ideal Muslims who will not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the cause of Islam."
> Communicating effectively with the people and making freedom part of the prevailing wisdom in the society requires using modalities of communication that are meaningful to the people.
> Mr. Bush or his surrogates should speak directly to the Iraqi people frequently on radio or television.
> The speeches should be repetitive and should use stock phrases.
> The translation should actively employ constructions that have resonance in Arabic even at the expense of literal meaning.
> Abstractions e.g., freedom, democracy should be avoided in favor of concrete examples of the exercises of freedom and democracy.
> The speeches should be aggressive, energetic, and argumentative rather than conciliatory or temperate.
> Hardest of all, liberal democracy should be sold using an appeal to traditional values.
11:00 AM
"Pundita, after reading the Esquire article, Dave's advice strikes me as guidance for how NOT to talk to people who've known only despotic rule! He's advising to [use] repetition and other verbal postures that the researchers used on the hapless subjects in the experiment!
Lynn in Toronto"
Dear Lynn:
If you are opening communication with someone who is already 'programmed' (as in brainwashing, etc.), deprogramming initially requires very strong, unequivocal repetitive statements and essentially the same approach Dave suggests.
If you ask someone who has been programmed by a cult, "What do you think, you'll receive a recorded message in reply. So you first have to clearly establish your position.
This said, you've brought out an important point. There is a huge difference between teaching and 'sending a message.' Students should be encouraged to develop the discursive intellect and in general sweat out reasoning on their own instead of blindly relying on authority to tell them how to view information.
For all that, the teacher needs to encourage classroom dialogue and debate in a structured way -- and of course, encourage the students to ask questions of the teacher. And teen students should be introduced to the fun exercise of learning to spot the standard reasoning traps; i.e., pseudo-logics, and how to avoid them.
Thinking for oneself, like everything else, is a matter of learning the ropes then practice, practice, practice. The Socratic method -- which, I might add, is an oral teaching method -- is the key to teaching students to reason things through and check and re-check their assumptions and the assumptions of others.
All this should be done in a highly structured way so that the student retains respect for authority -- respect, not blind obedience.
12:10 UPDATE
"How interesting that your post today is at least a little bit about talking to Iraqis about democracy! I finally wrote last night about how I think it would be fun to help Iraqis (or anyone anywhere) to "get" this idea of democracy by using classic American movies and music and biographies and discussions of them. It would certainly help with those cultural references...
Beth in the Midwest"
Dear Beth:
Before the US invaded in Iraq, the #1 TV show in the country was Baywatch. Iraqis, and indeed the entire developing world, have a terrribly distorted idea of America. And they don't realize that this country was built by people very much like themselves. An "American Democracy Film Project" would be a great idea, if the movies show Americans struggling to make their democracy work and the difficult life that most experienced in building this country.
The project could include people from the local viewing audience explaining the storyline to the rest of the audience and describing the film characters in a way that connects with people in their own land.
It's really important for peoples in developing lands to understand how hard early Americans worked and how many mistakes they made while trying to build a strong democracy. People in other lands need to understand that if we can do it, anybody can do it. It just takes persistence and a lot of sweat -- and of course a good Constitution and a dedication to democratic government.
Also, American visitors to the poorest countries can help correct false impressions if their family came from humble beginnings. They can tuck photos of their family's hardscrabble days into their wallets and pull them out for viewing at the drop of a hat. And make good use of their time waiting in airports, bus and train stations to recount immigrant hardship tales told by their relatives. We can't expect the VOA and such to do all the work of telling people who we are.
Saturday, July 9
Satellite channels for John Batchelor Show and other questions
In answer to questions:
> See today's earlier post for the satellite radio channels and where to access them.
> My guess is that much of John's Monday show will be given to discussing the London Train bombings.
> A caution for overseas readers who hope they can follow the show by visiting John's website: The news reports and guest names he features in the daily lineup portion of the website are only a ballpark indication of what a segment will be about.
Until such time as the entire broadcast is archived on the show's website, if that ever happens, you need to listen to the show to get his source's reports. Also, depending on how news is breaking, the reports can sometimes be at wide variance from the list of topics on the website.
> If I were three people I would type up my notes on every Batchelor segment over the coming weeks that discusses evidence/expert opinion about the London Train bombings. While I have done this on occasion for other Batchelor reports and other radio shows (recall my notes on Drudge interview with Gertz on China-North Korea), I cannot do it on a regular basis. I hope my readers in the United Kingdom understand. And really, my notes are a poor substitute for the reports from Batchelor's sources.
> As to whether what Eddie Hayes said on the air last night during Batchelor's show is true, which is that the ratings for John's show are bigger than the circulation numbers for The New York Times -- Eddie is a big-name attorney with a reputation for integrity so I doubt he would have said it, if it wasn't true. But if this question is important to you kindly write John Batchelor (his email address is posted on the show's website) and ask him. Or spend hours trying to plumb the arcane notations at the byzantine Arbitron website (I tried two years ago and gave up).
I will note that anecdotal reports I've heard over the years tend to support Eddie's observation. What is certain is that the reporters and other sources, including the "superstar" media figures who guest on John's show, do it for free. This would include Larry Kudlow, the British media journalist John Terrett, and a host of top reporters for major press here and in Europe in Asia (including reporters who do stories for The New York Times).
All that is volunteer work. While their primary motive is surely to help John's audience get the 'real' story, they know they are not talking into a black hole in USA radio-land. And they know the audience for John's show is global.
> As to why you can't find taped broadcasts and/or transcripts of the show on the Batchelor website -- I don't know; kindly write Batchelor and ask him.
> I was supposed to get a breather this weekend but as you can see I'm still at my -- er, post. However, the next post will not be until Monday, even if the breaking news is North Korea has agreed to rejoin the Six-Party talks, which it happens to be. Check Marmot's Hole and Simon World (see Pundita sidebar under China/Korea's heading for the links) for comments on the latest act in the Tehran-Pyongyang-Beijing Three Ring circus. And don't forget to stop by American Future for the latest from the EU.
Best regards to all,
Pundita
> See today's earlier post for the satellite radio channels and where to access them.
> My guess is that much of John's Monday show will be given to discussing the London Train bombings.
> A caution for overseas readers who hope they can follow the show by visiting John's website: The news reports and guest names he features in the daily lineup portion of the website are only a ballpark indication of what a segment will be about.
Until such time as the entire broadcast is archived on the show's website, if that ever happens, you need to listen to the show to get his source's reports. Also, depending on how news is breaking, the reports can sometimes be at wide variance from the list of topics on the website.
> If I were three people I would type up my notes on every Batchelor segment over the coming weeks that discusses evidence/expert opinion about the London Train bombings. While I have done this on occasion for other Batchelor reports and other radio shows (recall my notes on Drudge interview with Gertz on China-North Korea), I cannot do it on a regular basis. I hope my readers in the United Kingdom understand. And really, my notes are a poor substitute for the reports from Batchelor's sources.
> As to whether what Eddie Hayes said on the air last night during Batchelor's show is true, which is that the ratings for John's show are bigger than the circulation numbers for The New York Times -- Eddie is a big-name attorney with a reputation for integrity so I doubt he would have said it, if it wasn't true. But if this question is important to you kindly write John Batchelor (his email address is posted on the show's website) and ask him. Or spend hours trying to plumb the arcane notations at the byzantine Arbitron website (I tried two years ago and gave up).
I will note that anecdotal reports I've heard over the years tend to support Eddie's observation. What is certain is that the reporters and other sources, including the "superstar" media figures who guest on John's show, do it for free. This would include Larry Kudlow, the British media journalist John Terrett, and a host of top reporters for major press here and in Europe in Asia (including reporters who do stories for The New York Times).
All that is volunteer work. While their primary motive is surely to help John's audience get the 'real' story, they know they are not talking into a black hole in USA radio-land. And they know the audience for John's show is global.
> As to why you can't find taped broadcasts and/or transcripts of the show on the Batchelor website -- I don't know; kindly write Batchelor and ask him.
> I was supposed to get a breather this weekend but as you can see I'm still at my -- er, post. However, the next post will not be until Monday, even if the breaking news is North Korea has agreed to rejoin the Six-Party talks, which it happens to be. Check Marmot's Hole and Simon World (see Pundita sidebar under China/Korea's heading for the links) for comments on the latest act in the Tehran-Pyongyang-Beijing Three Ring circus. And don't forget to stop by American Future for the latest from the EU.
Best regards to all,
Pundita
London Train bombings: early reports, pieces in a jigsaw puzzle
(See about half-way down this post for information on Batchelor show satellite radio channels.)
From Friday John Batchelor show:
> John Loftus reports that it's looking as if a "local hothead" AQ "franchise" cell carried out the bombings. (In other words, AQ didn't risk exposing their best sleeper cells - Pundita.)
> Yossef Bodansky reports that the bomb material is expensive, military grade and bears some earmarks of the same material used in the Madrid train bombings. There are indications the material is part of large shipment stolen from a base in Yugoslavia some years back. The British government is awaiting a sample of the material. The Iranian military was involved in the heist, has a huge covert presence in Yugoslavia, and personally oversees bombmaking for terrorist cells moving in and out of the region.
> Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi of Iran Press News reports that her sources in Iran tell her that the London bombings were directed by the Iranian military; this was to send a message to Britain not to push Iran on nuclear weapons program and to Vienna not to push the criminal investigation of Iran's new president.
* * * * * * * * *
Speaking quite frankly, I would not be surprised to learn that Zand-Bonazzi's sources are also currently blaming global warming and male pattern baldness on the Iranian regime. But there is no doubt that Tehran is alarmed about strong hints that Britain is leading the EU to considering a tougher stance on Iran's nuclear program. This from a July 5 story:
http://www.iranpressnews.com/english/
source/005978.html
I repeat the warning I mentioned in the update to my last post: Traditional military wisdom is that in war, the first three reports are often wrong. News consumers (including Batchelor and his sources) are working with 'mosaics' -- bits and pieces of data, in the manner of forensic investigators, and as more pieces are obtained the picture can change. But it's vital to pay attention to the data because al Qaeda, the regime in Tehran and their stoodges are trying to 'spin' the London bombings as being the fault of the British because their government stood with the US administration on Iraq.
That is a crock. All President Bush did was flush into the open a war that's been going on for more than a decade, and which is not grounded in the Israel-Palestine dispute. All Tony Blair did was the right thing -- how right, the story will come out soon enough.
The Europeans need to keep one thing uppermost in mind: the sleeper cells that al Qaeda installed in Europe predate the Afghanistan and Iraq operations. And the cells were not installed for the fun of having a secret society.
About listening to Batchelor via satellite:
http://www.sirius.com/servlet/ContentServer?
pagename=Sirius/CachedPage&c=
Channel&cid=1104779630453
Above is the URL for John Batchelor page of Sirius website. His show can be heard Monday-Friday 3-6 AM Greenwich Mean Time at Channel 140.
Also available on XM Satellite radio Channel 125 at same time
http://xmradio.com/programming/
channel_page.jsp?ch=124
Via Internet:
WABC website (New York 770 AM)
10 PM to 1 AM, Eastern Standard Time
3 AM to 6 AM Greenwich Mean Time
or WMAL website (Washington, D.C. 630 AM)
9 PM to 1 AM, Eastern Standard Time
2 AM to 6 AM Greenwich Mean Time
or (anecdotal reports that it's the best Internet link) WRKO AM out of Boston -- click on WRKO logo on Batchelor's website home page
http://www.johnbatchelorshow.com/
.
From Friday John Batchelor show:
> John Loftus reports that it's looking as if a "local hothead" AQ "franchise" cell carried out the bombings. (In other words, AQ didn't risk exposing their best sleeper cells - Pundita.)
> Yossef Bodansky reports that the bomb material is expensive, military grade and bears some earmarks of the same material used in the Madrid train bombings. There are indications the material is part of large shipment stolen from a base in Yugoslavia some years back. The British government is awaiting a sample of the material. The Iranian military was involved in the heist, has a huge covert presence in Yugoslavia, and personally oversees bombmaking for terrorist cells moving in and out of the region.
> Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi of Iran Press News reports that her sources in Iran tell her that the London bombings were directed by the Iranian military; this was to send a message to Britain not to push Iran on nuclear weapons program and to Vienna not to push the criminal investigation of Iran's new president.
* * * * * * * * *
Speaking quite frankly, I would not be surprised to learn that Zand-Bonazzi's sources are also currently blaming global warming and male pattern baldness on the Iranian regime. But there is no doubt that Tehran is alarmed about strong hints that Britain is leading the EU to considering a tougher stance on Iran's nuclear program. This from a July 5 story:
WASHINGTON – AFP- The European Union will not accept a resumption of any nuclear arms activitiy by Iran, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douse-Blazy said Tuesday after talks with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.For the rest of the report visit Iran Press News at this URL:
"The Europeans will never accept a resumption of the Iranian military nuclear activity," he told reporters with Rice by his side after their meeting at the State Department.
http://www.iranpressnews.com/english/
source/005978.html
I repeat the warning I mentioned in the update to my last post: Traditional military wisdom is that in war, the first three reports are often wrong. News consumers (including Batchelor and his sources) are working with 'mosaics' -- bits and pieces of data, in the manner of forensic investigators, and as more pieces are obtained the picture can change. But it's vital to pay attention to the data because al Qaeda, the regime in Tehran and their stoodges are trying to 'spin' the London bombings as being the fault of the British because their government stood with the US administration on Iraq.
That is a crock. All President Bush did was flush into the open a war that's been going on for more than a decade, and which is not grounded in the Israel-Palestine dispute. All Tony Blair did was the right thing -- how right, the story will come out soon enough.
The Europeans need to keep one thing uppermost in mind: the sleeper cells that al Qaeda installed in Europe predate the Afghanistan and Iraq operations. And the cells were not installed for the fun of having a secret society.
About listening to Batchelor via satellite:
http://www.sirius.com/servlet/ContentServer?
pagename=Sirius/CachedPage&c=
Channel&cid=1104779630453
Above is the URL for John Batchelor page of Sirius website. His show can be heard Monday-Friday 3-6 AM Greenwich Mean Time at Channel 140.
Also available on XM Satellite radio Channel 125 at same time
http://xmradio.com/programming/
channel_page.jsp?ch=124
Via Internet:
WABC website (New York 770 AM)
10 PM to 1 AM, Eastern Standard Time
3 AM to 6 AM Greenwich Mean Time
or WMAL website (Washington, D.C. 630 AM)
9 PM to 1 AM, Eastern Standard Time
2 AM to 6 AM Greenwich Mean Time
or (anecdotal reports that it's the best Internet link) WRKO AM out of Boston -- click on WRKO logo on Batchelor's website home page
http://www.johnbatchelorshow.com/
.
To Readers in UK
If you did not listen to John Batchelor's Friday show, kindly stop back in an hour and I'll fill you in; his sources did have some news about the bombings. The caution, as Batchelor has said many, many times, is that in war the first three reports are usually wrong.
Regards,
Pundita
Regards,
Pundita
Friday, July 8
Questions about Pundita's London bombings post
I received questions about today's earlier post (Re-titled London bombings and President Bush plays Sherlock Holmes), which I strive to answer here:
> At last count there were 1,690,000 Google references to the Iran-al Qaeda (AQ) connection; a large number of these surely reference al Qaeda's connection to the regime in Tehran.
> It is well established that AQ senior leadership are now bunkered in Iran and rely on Tehran's military for protection. In exchange, they carry out Tehran's bidding -- which does not mean Tehran is the sole "funder" of AQ.
> The AQ-Tehran connection is an example of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" method that terrorists are using to survive the US war on terror -- a method which now dominates AQ's (and Tehran's) ever-shifting alliances. In other words, AQ and Tehran buried the hatchet when it was mutually beneficial for them to do so.
> To clarify my speculation that Tehran ordered AQ to strike London: Tehran's new president has recognized that his hard line on nukes could be met with a hard line from the EU Three. A strong European united front, led by Britain, could easily set in motion a UN resolution for an embargo of Iran -- a resolution with teeth. At all costs Tehran needs to prevent that.
Ergo, my guess that Tehran ordered AQ to deliver a brutal warning to the British government not to go down the embargo road and not to support a tough Bush line on Tehran. Again, my view runs counter to the prevailing ones about the rationale for the attack on London, which is why I brought it up.
In war we need to look at all plausible major scenarios relating to an attack. Also the speculations I've heard drift from Bush's argument that most terrorism we face today is state sponsored. My speculations carefully stay within the framework of his argument.
> For readers who want some kind of map before sailing on Google's sea of data about the AQ-Iran connection, they might wish to start with Dan Darling's recent observations at Winds of Change blog are found here and here Iran & al-Qaeda: The Ties That Bomb.
Check the Winds of Change archive for additional reports on the Iran-AQ connection.
> For readers who yearn for deep background, read Yossef Bodansky's The Secret History of the Iraq War, which details US intelligence on the AQ-Iran alliance.
Please -- no questions to Pundita about why the book is not footnoted. Read through Bodansky's credentials at the link I provide in order to grasp why he couldn't name his sources.
> Finally, returning readers might note that I made extensive edits to today's post on the London bombings. I did this after a sincere reader who is not very much up on the war on terror got lost wending through the many points I hurled into the essay. The reader's questions are much appreciated, and galvanized me to clarify points and prune the writing.
Thus, I leave it for another day to argue that emphasis on the Islamic element makes for a diversionary counter-thesis to Bush's elegant (and correct) theory that the emphasis of the war on terror should be on state sponsors of terrorism.
.
> At last count there were 1,690,000 Google references to the Iran-al Qaeda (AQ) connection; a large number of these surely reference al Qaeda's connection to the regime in Tehran.
> It is well established that AQ senior leadership are now bunkered in Iran and rely on Tehran's military for protection. In exchange, they carry out Tehran's bidding -- which does not mean Tehran is the sole "funder" of AQ.
> The AQ-Tehran connection is an example of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" method that terrorists are using to survive the US war on terror -- a method which now dominates AQ's (and Tehran's) ever-shifting alliances. In other words, AQ and Tehran buried the hatchet when it was mutually beneficial for them to do so.
> To clarify my speculation that Tehran ordered AQ to strike London: Tehran's new president has recognized that his hard line on nukes could be met with a hard line from the EU Three. A strong European united front, led by Britain, could easily set in motion a UN resolution for an embargo of Iran -- a resolution with teeth. At all costs Tehran needs to prevent that.
Ergo, my guess that Tehran ordered AQ to deliver a brutal warning to the British government not to go down the embargo road and not to support a tough Bush line on Tehran. Again, my view runs counter to the prevailing ones about the rationale for the attack on London, which is why I brought it up.
In war we need to look at all plausible major scenarios relating to an attack. Also the speculations I've heard drift from Bush's argument that most terrorism we face today is state sponsored. My speculations carefully stay within the framework of his argument.
> For readers who want some kind of map before sailing on Google's sea of data about the AQ-Iran connection, they might wish to start with Dan Darling's recent observations at Winds of Change blog are found here and here Iran & al-Qaeda: The Ties That Bomb.
Check the Winds of Change archive for additional reports on the Iran-AQ connection.
> For readers who yearn for deep background, read Yossef Bodansky's The Secret History of the Iraq War, which details US intelligence on the AQ-Iran alliance.
Please -- no questions to Pundita about why the book is not footnoted. Read through Bodansky's credentials at the link I provide in order to grasp why he couldn't name his sources.
> Finally, returning readers might note that I made extensive edits to today's post on the London bombings. I did this after a sincere reader who is not very much up on the war on terror got lost wending through the many points I hurled into the essay. The reader's questions are much appreciated, and galvanized me to clarify points and prune the writing.
Thus, I leave it for another day to argue that emphasis on the Islamic element makes for a diversionary counter-thesis to Bush's elegant (and correct) theory that the emphasis of the war on terror should be on state sponsors of terrorism.
.
London Bombings and President Bush plays Sherlock Holmes
"Pundita, I'm wondering if you have your crystal ball back from the repair shop or if your Ouija board is in the mood to speak English.
Jan in Reston"
Dear Jan:
When it gets to the point where one's regular readers can psych one out, I don't know whether this is a good or bad thing. All right. The caveats apply but my first thought on getting the news of the London bombing was that this was a message from Tehran to Blair's government.
Keep in mind that the EU Three negotiations with Tehran about their nuclear program have been led by Jack Straw; the negotiations, which have depended on the diplomatic ploy known as confidence building (or what the layperson would call "appeasement"), have been his special project. But recently the EU Three have said in essence, "Hey, this isn't working."
They've been tossing around the idea of a harder line but it really depends on Britain's decision because they've been leading the negotiations. The question of what to do about Tehran is surely at the top of the agenda at the G8 meeting, even though I doubt this has been announced.
So if ever there was a time for Tehran to send a message to Blair that stiff penalties would accompany London encouraging Brussels to take a harder line, yesterday was the time.
The reasoning informing my view requires explanation. I see the term "war on terror" as shorthand for referring not to the methods of warfare or so-called terror organizations but to state sponsors of covert warfare. These states use mercenary armies specializing in asymmetrical warfare that passes as terrorism.
Bush came close to spelling it out when he okayed a speechwriter's use of the term "axis of evil." He was speaking of governments -- three, to be precise -- that fund and direct what are mercenary armies, although he was aiming the message at more than three governments.
Bush's naming of governments as an axis spreading terrorism was the outcome of a trend that he and his military and intelligence advisors identified after 9/11. Previous to that time, Western intelligence agencies were drowning in data about terrorist attacks, but with no way to organize the data to reveal meaningful patterns.
Along came Bush, the son of a US president who had been head of the CIA. So, unlike his predecessor, Bush actually read the intelligence reports that came to his desk. And (unlike his predecessor) he received an in-person report from the head of the CIA every working day. And he paid more attention to Israeli dossiers on terrorism than perhaps any previous US president.
From all that, Bush formed the idea that the concept of terrorism was outdated. At that time (early 2001) terrorism was seen as the means for an oppressed group to influence/topple a government via attacking the civilian population. But from what Bush was learning, it seemed that many terrorist acts were government sponsored.
That view up-ends the accepted definition of terrorism. Yet it also presents an efficient way to organize data about terrorism: Instead of trying to figure out from the past attacks where and when various terrorist organizations are going to strike next, see if the data points to a specific government sponsor.
That tentative view led to the Bush administration's ill-fated attempt to hit at al Qaeda via the Afghanistan Taliban regime. I'd say the administration was on the right track but a little late in the day -- 1998 would have been a better shot but then that was before the Bush administration. And bin Laden figured out that the Taliban were preparing to give him up.
After 9/11 Paul Wolfowitz had his assistants plug data on terrorist attacks into a software program called Analyst Notebook, which looks for connections between disparate data. The program massaged the data to reveal a clear pattern of government-sponsored terrorism.
Yet so entrenched was the idea that terrorism is a weapon against the state that intelligence agencies never made a concerted effort to connect terrorist acts with state sponsorship. Once they made that effort a completely different picture emerged. The new picture quickly rescued Western intelligence agencies from the hall of mirrors created by too much data and no coherent way to organize it.
And the revised view quickly led to successful interdictions of weapons and WMD material shipments. One such interdiction led to Libya folding up their WMD program.
So, while George W. Bush seems an unlikely contributor to the science of detection, he holds a place there, although it might take historians a century to get around to crediting him. He had considerable help but without his grasp of the issues and pushing the idea, the revised view of terrorism could not have come about and gotten a foothold in the US government.
This does not imply that all modern acts of terrorism are state sponsored. The "Battle of Algiers" type of terrorism, which is as old as resistance to a powerful oppressive government, will always be with us. But the global epidemic of terrorism, which is the target of the war on terror, can be traced to sponsorship by a small number of governments and/or factions within them.
Thus, the Bush Axis of Evil speech and the thesis informing the war on terror: take down the kingpins -- the corrupt regimes sponsoring terror armies -- to end the global epidemic of terrorism. Readers who lived through decades of rampant crime in New York City then saw Rudy Giuliani's strategy to go after the crime kingpins can appreciate the concept behind the war on terror.
With that explanation out of the way, I can return to the London bombings. From what I heard last night on John Batchelor's show, George Friedman, the head of Stratfor , would probably dispute my view of who gave the order for the London bombings and why.* According to what George said last night, Stratfor holds to the theory that the bombings were part of a methodical al Qaeda plan to stage bombings in Europe about 18 months apart.
For what reason? Once you accept the Stratfor thesis, there are branching theories. One branch is that the bombing is an attempt to terrorize Europe into pressuring European members of the Coalition to leave Iraq. Another theory is that al Qaeda has to periodically stage attacks in order to save Face and keep up recruitment.
Those speculations might be very sound. Yet they ignore that al Qaeda central command currently draws pay from Tehran and the implications. And they ignore that timing is everything. They ignore other things as well, such as that al Qaeda's leaders are not fools. They don't spend a lot of money and risk exposing a cell over a matter of Face. And in a world of many hungry people, recruitment is always as easy as a few bags of grain.
My bet is that the London bombings were staged to send a precise message to a government at a precise time. In the case of London the message was: If Britain wants to avoid being a target for ongoing warfare against civilians, the British government should continue taking a soft line against Tehran's nuclear weapons program.
* This is not to discount Stratfor's view. It's thanks to Stratfor's analysts that John Batchelor's audience was probably the first to get confirmation that al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attack.
Stratfor is not a news source -- it's an intelligence source -- but it provides so much valuable information that it's used by many media insiders, congressionals, and even government intelligence analysts as a cutting edge source of news on international developments. From that angle, Stratfor, along with John Batchelor's radio show, is spearheading the "intelligence-based" post-partisan revolution in news reporting and analysis.
For readers unfamiliar with John's show and the concept of intelligence-based reporting, see yesterday's Pundita post John Batchelor Show: stay tuned , which I put up as a public service to UK readers looking for news on the London train bombings. (Almost all of John's three-hour show last night, plus the fourth hour we receive here in WMAL-land, was devoted to sources reporting on the bombings.)
Jan in Reston"
Dear Jan:
When it gets to the point where one's regular readers can psych one out, I don't know whether this is a good or bad thing. All right. The caveats apply but my first thought on getting the news of the London bombing was that this was a message from Tehran to Blair's government.
Keep in mind that the EU Three negotiations with Tehran about their nuclear program have been led by Jack Straw; the negotiations, which have depended on the diplomatic ploy known as confidence building (or what the layperson would call "appeasement"), have been his special project. But recently the EU Three have said in essence, "Hey, this isn't working."
They've been tossing around the idea of a harder line but it really depends on Britain's decision because they've been leading the negotiations. The question of what to do about Tehran is surely at the top of the agenda at the G8 meeting, even though I doubt this has been announced.
So if ever there was a time for Tehran to send a message to Blair that stiff penalties would accompany London encouraging Brussels to take a harder line, yesterday was the time.
The reasoning informing my view requires explanation. I see the term "war on terror" as shorthand for referring not to the methods of warfare or so-called terror organizations but to state sponsors of covert warfare. These states use mercenary armies specializing in asymmetrical warfare that passes as terrorism.
Bush came close to spelling it out when he okayed a speechwriter's use of the term "axis of evil." He was speaking of governments -- three, to be precise -- that fund and direct what are mercenary armies, although he was aiming the message at more than three governments.
Bush's naming of governments as an axis spreading terrorism was the outcome of a trend that he and his military and intelligence advisors identified after 9/11. Previous to that time, Western intelligence agencies were drowning in data about terrorist attacks, but with no way to organize the data to reveal meaningful patterns.
Along came Bush, the son of a US president who had been head of the CIA. So, unlike his predecessor, Bush actually read the intelligence reports that came to his desk. And (unlike his predecessor) he received an in-person report from the head of the CIA every working day. And he paid more attention to Israeli dossiers on terrorism than perhaps any previous US president.
From all that, Bush formed the idea that the concept of terrorism was outdated. At that time (early 2001) terrorism was seen as the means for an oppressed group to influence/topple a government via attacking the civilian population. But from what Bush was learning, it seemed that many terrorist acts were government sponsored.
That view up-ends the accepted definition of terrorism. Yet it also presents an efficient way to organize data about terrorism: Instead of trying to figure out from the past attacks where and when various terrorist organizations are going to strike next, see if the data points to a specific government sponsor.
That tentative view led to the Bush administration's ill-fated attempt to hit at al Qaeda via the Afghanistan Taliban regime. I'd say the administration was on the right track but a little late in the day -- 1998 would have been a better shot but then that was before the Bush administration. And bin Laden figured out that the Taliban were preparing to give him up.
After 9/11 Paul Wolfowitz had his assistants plug data on terrorist attacks into a software program called Analyst Notebook, which looks for connections between disparate data. The program massaged the data to reveal a clear pattern of government-sponsored terrorism.
Yet so entrenched was the idea that terrorism is a weapon against the state that intelligence agencies never made a concerted effort to connect terrorist acts with state sponsorship. Once they made that effort a completely different picture emerged. The new picture quickly rescued Western intelligence agencies from the hall of mirrors created by too much data and no coherent way to organize it.
And the revised view quickly led to successful interdictions of weapons and WMD material shipments. One such interdiction led to Libya folding up their WMD program.
So, while George W. Bush seems an unlikely contributor to the science of detection, he holds a place there, although it might take historians a century to get around to crediting him. He had considerable help but without his grasp of the issues and pushing the idea, the revised view of terrorism could not have come about and gotten a foothold in the US government.
This does not imply that all modern acts of terrorism are state sponsored. The "Battle of Algiers" type of terrorism, which is as old as resistance to a powerful oppressive government, will always be with us. But the global epidemic of terrorism, which is the target of the war on terror, can be traced to sponsorship by a small number of governments and/or factions within them.
Thus, the Bush Axis of Evil speech and the thesis informing the war on terror: take down the kingpins -- the corrupt regimes sponsoring terror armies -- to end the global epidemic of terrorism. Readers who lived through decades of rampant crime in New York City then saw Rudy Giuliani's strategy to go after the crime kingpins can appreciate the concept behind the war on terror.
With that explanation out of the way, I can return to the London bombings. From what I heard last night on John Batchelor's show, George Friedman, the head of Stratfor , would probably dispute my view of who gave the order for the London bombings and why.* According to what George said last night, Stratfor holds to the theory that the bombings were part of a methodical al Qaeda plan to stage bombings in Europe about 18 months apart.
For what reason? Once you accept the Stratfor thesis, there are branching theories. One branch is that the bombing is an attempt to terrorize Europe into pressuring European members of the Coalition to leave Iraq. Another theory is that al Qaeda has to periodically stage attacks in order to save Face and keep up recruitment.
Those speculations might be very sound. Yet they ignore that al Qaeda central command currently draws pay from Tehran and the implications. And they ignore that timing is everything. They ignore other things as well, such as that al Qaeda's leaders are not fools. They don't spend a lot of money and risk exposing a cell over a matter of Face. And in a world of many hungry people, recruitment is always as easy as a few bags of grain.
My bet is that the London bombings were staged to send a precise message to a government at a precise time. In the case of London the message was: If Britain wants to avoid being a target for ongoing warfare against civilians, the British government should continue taking a soft line against Tehran's nuclear weapons program.
* This is not to discount Stratfor's view. It's thanks to Stratfor's analysts that John Batchelor's audience was probably the first to get confirmation that al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attack.
Stratfor is not a news source -- it's an intelligence source -- but it provides so much valuable information that it's used by many media insiders, congressionals, and even government intelligence analysts as a cutting edge source of news on international developments. From that angle, Stratfor, along with John Batchelor's radio show, is spearheading the "intelligence-based" post-partisan revolution in news reporting and analysis.
For readers unfamiliar with John's show and the concept of intelligence-based reporting, see yesterday's Pundita post John Batchelor Show: stay tuned , which I put up as a public service to UK readers looking for news on the London train bombings. (Almost all of John's three-hour show last night, plus the fourth hour we receive here in WMAL-land, was devoted to sources reporting on the bombings.)
Thursday, July 7
John Batchelor Show: Stay tuned
Broadcasting on the radio since September 12, 2001.
The head of C-SPAN changed his schedule to make time to listen to John Batchelor and so have many news media insiders and high-level government figures in Washington and around the world. During this fast-moving dangerous era, so should you.
The audience for John Batchelor's radio show is global. The show has the world's best reporting on the war on terror and also carries nightly (M-F) the John Loftus report on current war-related "open source" intelligence. The show also features reports from journalists filing with the world's most respected press outlets.
Batchelor's show represents post-partisan, intelligence-based news analysis and reporting.(*) John and his sources unpack background to major news events over days, months, and even years so that the listener develops an in-depth, coherent view of a particular world region/issue.
First American news program to treat the United States as a superpower nation. First American news program to look at international news from a uniquely American perspective. First news program to integrate daily news coverage with 21st century issues--energy, space exploration, etc.
Witty, dramatic, and always fascinating presentation of the news. Brings back radio's Golden Age. Analysis of US politics and European/other world region politics--Middle East, China, India, Former Soviet Union, African countries, etc. Reports regularly on State Department, White House, Congress, US intelligence agencies. Nightly in-depth reporting on war on terror. US history discussions, strong on US war history. Cultural trends. Discussions about new books on literary/historical figures.
The show, based in New York City (WABC AM radio), airs on many ABC radio stations throughout USA. Show is three hours Monday-Friday nights on most stations (10:00 PM - 1:00 AM, Eastern US time).
Show airs four hours in WMAL AM region (Greater Washington, DC). Some or most of the fourth hour is aired during the regular three hour format, time permitting.
The show (or portions of it) is sometimes bumped by sportscasts on local ABC radio stations. Check ABC affiliate station websites for sports schedules.
Check affiliate ABC radio station websites for information on show times and listening via local websites. Also see John Batchelor Show website ("Q & A" and "Show Times"):
http://johnbatchelorshow.com/
Listening via Satellite (All four show hours)
1) Sirius satellite radio, Monday-Friday 3-6 AM Greenwich Mean Time at Channel 140. Sirius Batchelor webpage:
http://www.sirius.com/servlet/ContentServer?
pagename=Sirius/CachedPage&c=
Channel&cid=1104779630453
2) XM Satellite radio Channel 125 at same time as Sirius:
http://xmradio.com/programming/
channel_page.jsp?ch=124
Listening via Internet:
WABC website (New York 770 AM)
10 PM to 1 AM, Eastern Standard Time
3 AM to 6 AM Greenwich Mean Time
Or
WMAL website (Washington, D.C. 630 AM)
9 PM to 1 AM, Eastern Standard Time
2 AM to 6 AM Greenwich Mean Time
* Post-partisan means Republicans and Democrats more-or-less equally get their blood pressure raised listening to the program over a period of a few weeks.
Intelligence-based means (a) the guest lineup can reflect guests with good sources in intellience agencies here and abroad, and (b) the show takes an empirical rather than agenda-based view of news.
The latter observation doesn't mean the show has no point of view (Batchelor is on the Hawkish side and strongly supports Israel); it means Batchelor is more interested in getting the story straight than pushing his point of view. He is completely up front about his personal views on US foreign policy, which is more than can be said for any other broadcast (or major press) news media outlet in the USA.
NOTE: This post does not constitute an endorsement of John Batchelor's views or the views of any of his sources. Nor is it an endorsement of the advertisers or links featured on Batchelor's website. Also, I have no connection with the John Batchelor Show, ABC and its parent corporation, ABC Radio, or any ABC affiliate stations.
The head of C-SPAN changed his schedule to make time to listen to John Batchelor and so have many news media insiders and high-level government figures in Washington and around the world. During this fast-moving dangerous era, so should you.
The audience for John Batchelor's radio show is global. The show has the world's best reporting on the war on terror and also carries nightly (M-F) the John Loftus report on current war-related "open source" intelligence. The show also features reports from journalists filing with the world's most respected press outlets.
Batchelor's show represents post-partisan, intelligence-based news analysis and reporting.(*) John and his sources unpack background to major news events over days, months, and even years so that the listener develops an in-depth, coherent view of a particular world region/issue.
First American news program to treat the United States as a superpower nation. First American news program to look at international news from a uniquely American perspective. First news program to integrate daily news coverage with 21st century issues--energy, space exploration, etc.
Witty, dramatic, and always fascinating presentation of the news. Brings back radio's Golden Age. Analysis of US politics and European/other world region politics--Middle East, China, India, Former Soviet Union, African countries, etc. Reports regularly on State Department, White House, Congress, US intelligence agencies. Nightly in-depth reporting on war on terror. US history discussions, strong on US war history. Cultural trends. Discussions about new books on literary/historical figures.
The show, based in New York City (WABC AM radio), airs on many ABC radio stations throughout USA. Show is three hours Monday-Friday nights on most stations (10:00 PM - 1:00 AM, Eastern US time).
Show airs four hours in WMAL AM region (Greater Washington, DC). Some or most of the fourth hour is aired during the regular three hour format, time permitting.
The show (or portions of it) is sometimes bumped by sportscasts on local ABC radio stations. Check ABC affiliate station websites for sports schedules.
Check affiliate ABC radio station websites for information on show times and listening via local websites. Also see John Batchelor Show website ("Q & A" and "Show Times"):
http://johnbatchelorshow.com/
Listening via Satellite (All four show hours)
1) Sirius satellite radio, Monday-Friday 3-6 AM Greenwich Mean Time at Channel 140. Sirius Batchelor webpage:
http://www.sirius.com/servlet/ContentServer?
pagename=Sirius/CachedPage&c=
Channel&cid=1104779630453
2) XM Satellite radio Channel 125 at same time as Sirius:
http://xmradio.com/programming/
channel_page.jsp?ch=124
Listening via Internet:
WABC website (New York 770 AM)
10 PM to 1 AM, Eastern Standard Time
3 AM to 6 AM Greenwich Mean Time
Or
WMAL website (Washington, D.C. 630 AM)
9 PM to 1 AM, Eastern Standard Time
2 AM to 6 AM Greenwich Mean Time
* Post-partisan means Republicans and Democrats more-or-less equally get their blood pressure raised listening to the program over a period of a few weeks.
Intelligence-based means (a) the guest lineup can reflect guests with good sources in intellience agencies here and abroad, and (b) the show takes an empirical rather than agenda-based view of news.
The latter observation doesn't mean the show has no point of view (Batchelor is on the Hawkish side and strongly supports Israel); it means Batchelor is more interested in getting the story straight than pushing his point of view. He is completely up front about his personal views on US foreign policy, which is more than can be said for any other broadcast (or major press) news media outlet in the USA.
NOTE: This post does not constitute an endorsement of John Batchelor's views or the views of any of his sources. Nor is it an endorsement of the advertisers or links featured on Batchelor's website. Also, I have no connection with the John Batchelor Show, ABC and its parent corporation, ABC Radio, or any ABC affiliate stations.
Wednesday, July 6
French philosopher goes to war against Iran's regime. What's next from Europe? Pink elephants falling from the sky?
Pundita is not having a good week. Yesterday we keeled at news that the European Commission has decided that rampant environmentalism is bad for industry. Tonight we suffered a bruised elbow while falling off our swivel chair. This happened upon hearing Shaheen Fatemi of the Iran va Jahan blog inform John Batchelor's audience that a famous French philosopher, Bernard-Henri Lévy, has called a spade a spade with regard to Iran's new president.
Here are excerpts from Fatemi's translation of Lévy's opinion piece for the prestigious French weekly, Le Point:
"Chancelleries will as usual minimize it. Experts will explain that there is no religious extremism which is not diluted by the responsibility which comes with the elected office.
"Americans and the Israelis will be warned against the temptation to use force. It would be said and repeated that it is urgent to hold judgment on the newly elected subject to his actions.
"As far as Vladimir [Putin] is concerned, he has already given [the new President of Iran] his shining seal of approval in return for petrodollars.
"Let’s face the facts: Mr. Ahmadinejad is a dangerous man. His election as President of Iran is a catastrophe. Coming after the takeover of the city and municipal councils and then the Parliament it should be construed as another step in the full fledged return to power of the hard-liners. [...]
"The new President is not the modest and pious leader described at length by the media. He is a brutal man. He is a man with blood on his hands. He is a professional killer, not very well known publicly but very familiar to the intelligence community that see him rightfully as one of the agents of international terrorism manipulated by IRI. Before him Iran was already a terrorist state. What will happen to it with him? What would you call a country whose chief is a terrorist himself?
"On the nuclear issue the new President following his election left no room for doubt. He promised that Iran under his leadership would become an exemplary powerful Islamic State. The status of nuclear power according to him is non-negotiable.
"And those who did not understand this unbelievable sophistry, a good example of the best collection of political bad faith, should take a second look:
"How did we get there? How did Iran about whom we were assured of irreversible progress towards democracy could all of a sudden reverse into such regression?" [...]
We will leave off there, before Lévy really gets wound up. Pundita must meet the philosopher's question with a question: When you ask how we got to there -- what you mean "we" kemosabe?
Any well-informed news consumer, any Iranian exile, knows there is nothing "sudden" about the hard-line regime. There is no "reverse into regression." There is a natural progression, as methodical and inevitable as the Nazi party progressed until the world had no choice but look at their face.
So here is my question: How does one interpret as a "sudden reversal" a regime following on a regime that ordered the death by beating and gang rape of a female Canadian journalist, then poured acid on the victim's genitals in a vain attempt to cover up the method of murder?
Where is the "sudden reversal" when for years Iranian exiles in France have been shouting at the French in speeches and from books, press articles and websites about wholesale atrocities and murders carried out by every administration in power in Tehran since the Iranian revolution?
Where is the "sudden reversal" when it was screamingly obvious during the first months after the revolution that democracy had not followed on the heels of the Shah's toppled regime?
And as long as I'm in the mood to ask rhetorical questions: What's in their water supply that causes the French to studiously ignore barbarism until it prepares to cook them for dinner? Maybe it's the same gunk that infested the water supply in Washington, DC, and which caused one US presidential administration after another to think it was a really cool idea to have a 'Green Belt' in the Middle East.
Bright thinking: pit a bunch of Islamofascists and outright dictators against the Soviet commies. Downside: once you let loose the Hounds of Hell, they don't tend to respond to "Shoo poochie!"
But let us look on the bright side. One has to understand the French and their influence in the Arab world to appreciate the far-reaching import of Levy's opinions. Surely as write these words Egyptian intellectuals lounging in Cairo coffee houses are discussing Lévy's points.
God Himself could appear to the French to give a warning and they would just shrug. But let a French philosopher hold forth and the earth pauses in its spin while the French ponder. Their dedication to the ideas of intellectuals -- which often make no reference to facts -- is at once their most irritating and endearing trait.
In this case, though, Lévy references hard facts while challenging his government's studious blindness about Iran's regime.
As to where we go from here, it's up to French citizens to continue recalling the meaning of a democracy -- a trend they've been demonstrating since the "Non!" vote. They need to stop acting as if they are ruled by oligarchs. All they have to do is read the riot act to their government and Chirac's party.
As to the fear that Iran will cut off oil to Europe if Europeans put up a united front, Tehran is referencing the past if they make that threat. They assume a UN embargo would have the same effect on them as it did on Saddam's regime. All that did was force the regime into back-channel deals with Europeans who were eager to do business with him.
So it's a matter of the French, and the rest of Europe, grasping the concept of a "united front." It doesn't require a philosopher to understand the meaning.
For Shaheen Fatemi's complete English translation of Bernard-Henri Lévy's piece for Le Point and a link to the article in French, visit Iran va Jahan. The visit is well worth it.
.
Here are excerpts from Fatemi's translation of Lévy's opinion piece for the prestigious French weekly, Le Point:
"Chancelleries will as usual minimize it. Experts will explain that there is no religious extremism which is not diluted by the responsibility which comes with the elected office.
"Americans and the Israelis will be warned against the temptation to use force. It would be said and repeated that it is urgent to hold judgment on the newly elected subject to his actions.
"As far as Vladimir [Putin] is concerned, he has already given [the new President of Iran] his shining seal of approval in return for petrodollars.
"Let’s face the facts: Mr. Ahmadinejad is a dangerous man. His election as President of Iran is a catastrophe. Coming after the takeover of the city and municipal councils and then the Parliament it should be construed as another step in the full fledged return to power of the hard-liners. [...]
"The new President is not the modest and pious leader described at length by the media. He is a brutal man. He is a man with blood on his hands. He is a professional killer, not very well known publicly but very familiar to the intelligence community that see him rightfully as one of the agents of international terrorism manipulated by IRI. Before him Iran was already a terrorist state. What will happen to it with him? What would you call a country whose chief is a terrorist himself?
"On the nuclear issue the new President following his election left no room for doubt. He promised that Iran under his leadership would become an exemplary powerful Islamic State. The status of nuclear power according to him is non-negotiable.
"And those who did not understand this unbelievable sophistry, a good example of the best collection of political bad faith, should take a second look:
“Nuclear energy is the result of scientific development of the Iranian people and no one can bar them from this path to scientific advancement.""Add to this the hatred toward Israel which is the main ingredient of his world view; add to this a North Korean-type hatred for America of an irresponsible leader who has no hesitation in saying that he will lead his country on the path of self-sufficiency and thus is not impressed with threats of a superpower. [...]
"How did we get there? How did Iran about whom we were assured of irreversible progress towards democracy could all of a sudden reverse into such regression?" [...]
We will leave off there, before Lévy really gets wound up. Pundita must meet the philosopher's question with a question: When you ask how we got to there -- what you mean "we" kemosabe?
Any well-informed news consumer, any Iranian exile, knows there is nothing "sudden" about the hard-line regime. There is no "reverse into regression." There is a natural progression, as methodical and inevitable as the Nazi party progressed until the world had no choice but look at their face.
So here is my question: How does one interpret as a "sudden reversal" a regime following on a regime that ordered the death by beating and gang rape of a female Canadian journalist, then poured acid on the victim's genitals in a vain attempt to cover up the method of murder?
Where is the "sudden reversal" when for years Iranian exiles in France have been shouting at the French in speeches and from books, press articles and websites about wholesale atrocities and murders carried out by every administration in power in Tehran since the Iranian revolution?
Where is the "sudden reversal" when it was screamingly obvious during the first months after the revolution that democracy had not followed on the heels of the Shah's toppled regime?
And as long as I'm in the mood to ask rhetorical questions: What's in their water supply that causes the French to studiously ignore barbarism until it prepares to cook them for dinner? Maybe it's the same gunk that infested the water supply in Washington, DC, and which caused one US presidential administration after another to think it was a really cool idea to have a 'Green Belt' in the Middle East.
Bright thinking: pit a bunch of Islamofascists and outright dictators against the Soviet commies. Downside: once you let loose the Hounds of Hell, they don't tend to respond to "Shoo poochie!"
But let us look on the bright side. One has to understand the French and their influence in the Arab world to appreciate the far-reaching import of Levy's opinions. Surely as write these words Egyptian intellectuals lounging in Cairo coffee houses are discussing Lévy's points.
God Himself could appear to the French to give a warning and they would just shrug. But let a French philosopher hold forth and the earth pauses in its spin while the French ponder. Their dedication to the ideas of intellectuals -- which often make no reference to facts -- is at once their most irritating and endearing trait.
In this case, though, Lévy references hard facts while challenging his government's studious blindness about Iran's regime.
As to where we go from here, it's up to French citizens to continue recalling the meaning of a democracy -- a trend they've been demonstrating since the "Non!" vote. They need to stop acting as if they are ruled by oligarchs. All they have to do is read the riot act to their government and Chirac's party.
As to the fear that Iran will cut off oil to Europe if Europeans put up a united front, Tehran is referencing the past if they make that threat. They assume a UN embargo would have the same effect on them as it did on Saddam's regime. All that did was force the regime into back-channel deals with Europeans who were eager to do business with him.
So it's a matter of the French, and the rest of Europe, grasping the concept of a "united front." It doesn't require a philosopher to understand the meaning.
For Shaheen Fatemi's complete English translation of Bernard-Henri Lévy's piece for Le Point and a link to the article in French, visit Iran va Jahan. The visit is well worth it.
.
African economist pleads, "For God's sake, please stop the aid!" Can astrologers explain this week in Europe?
Has anyone else noticed that something really strange is going on across the Pond? Dave Schuler at The Glittering Eye has just sent Pundita this bombshell: an online newspaper interview with a Kenyan economist who charges that aid to Africa and Western development policies helped wreck the continent. Nothing the economist says would be news to Pundita readers, but the astounding part is that the newspaper is Germany's Spiegel and that they actually published the interview:
.
The Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati, 35, says that aid to Africa does more harm than good. The avid proponent of globalization spoke with SPIEGEL about the disastrous effects of Western development policy in Africa . . . "If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor. [...]That's telling it like it is.
"Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent.
"In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need.
"As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid. " [...]
.
Powderkeg Gaza and a recollection of Churchill's warnings
Beth, Pundita has not forgotten your letter. I am working on an essay with the fun title, US Aid Policy and ICT: Barber's Pandorian, Panglossian, and Jeffersonian models.
Simon, Pundita has not forgotten your essay on China and I'm still working on The West's view of China: the enemy is ourselves.
But right now I entreat my readers to keep one eye on the Middle East and one eye on the runup to Gleneagles.
Tom Friedman's report today for The New York Times jibes with observations about the Palestinians that John Loftus made in his reply yesterday to Pundita's question. Friedman notes in part:
Friedman criticizes Condoleezza Rice for "breezing in and out of the region" at this critical juncture. I don't know what Mr Friedman wants the United States government to do there. Continue treating both sides as if they're children?
In any case, it's Tehran that is the bad actor in the situation. They're seeing common sense blooming in the region wherever they look. That's the worst news for them.
But the pressure from the US side has to be at the G8 meeting in Gleneagles -- and it has to be directed toward the EU Three -- Britain, France and Germany. If the G7 nations cannot agree to put up a united front with Tehran, Russia won't go along with a hard line toward Tehran. If Russia won't go along, you can be sure China will continue sucking up to Tehran.
As with so many situations today, the United States needs to be focusing on our allies in West Europee. It's not about "over there in the Middle East." It's about our Western allies getting their heads together and acknowleding that it helps nothing to attempt to appease a terror-sponsoring regime that deals in bad faith.
And it's time for those allies to acknowledge that government-sponsored terror armies are not freedom fighters. It ain't the Battle of Algiers going on over there. It's Tehran feeling like an island in a sea of Arab nations and playing the divide-and-conquer card.
If our oldest allies in Europe do not confront that truth, Secretary Rice could take up residence in Gaza and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.
Everybody in the Middle East knows what Tehran is up to, so it's a matter of both sides continuing to resist Tehran-sponsored provacations. And everybody in the Middle East knows what the Israeli extremists are up to. Yet they also know that Ariel Sharon is practically dead man walking for standing up to the extremists in his government.
So if there was ever a time for sane adults in Palestine and Israel to maintain the upper hand, now is that time. The biggest help the United States could give at this juncture would occur at Gleneagles.
As if to underscore my sense of foreboding, this weekend I received a letter from Marc Schulman at American Future that made reference to parallels between today and 1930s Europe. I promised Marc a reply but the question is whether his points can be readily perceived in many regions outside America.
The more I learn about present-day Europe's news media, the more obvious that much news is suppressed by Europe's governments. So while many informed Americans could easily grasp the parallels, I'm not sure they would be seen in Europe. In any case, I'll publish the letter with Marc's permission:
"Pundita:
I'm curious about something. Ever since I was a teen-ager, I've been absolutely fascinated by the 1930s. While I've read numerous books on the subject, I still can't understand how the western democracies could allow Hitler to have his way in Europe. After all, he made no secret of his ambitions and intentions -- they were all in Mein Kampf.
Yes, there are plenty of explanations, such as perceiving Nazi Germany as the bulwark against communism. Be that as it may, the blindness of Europe's statesmen (with the notable exception of Churchill) remains incomprehensible to me.
My knowledge of the 1930s is the prism through which I view our current situation. Like Hitler, bin Laden and his ilk have made it crystal clear, in their spoken words and writings, that they seek the destruction of Western civilization.
And, as in the 1930s, numerous statesmen (again in Europe!) and millions of ordinary citizens have chosen to bury their heads in the sand, notwithstanding 9/11. Further, the United Nations is as ineffective and toothless now as the League of Nations was then.
The parallels between now and that sorry decade seem so obvious to me that I am again finding it to be impossible to truly understand those who do not see what I see and instead are irate because [America's] behavior is less than perfect.
So here's my question: is your prism the same as mine and, if not, what is it?"
Interested readers might want to send their answer, if they can find one, to Marc for publication. I hope that European readers will consider responding. And readers outside Europe -- please remember to check American Future (see the blogroll) for the latest news on EU doings in the runup to Gleneagles.
.
Simon, Pundita has not forgotten your essay on China and I'm still working on The West's view of China: the enemy is ourselves.
But right now I entreat my readers to keep one eye on the Middle East and one eye on the runup to Gleneagles.
Tom Friedman's report today for The New York Times jibes with observations about the Palestinians that John Loftus made in his reply yesterday to Pundita's question. Friedman notes in part:
The simultaneous boomlets in the Israeli and Palestinian stock markets highlight one of the most important political facts I encountered traveling in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank: a groundswell of relief that both sides have found a way, even temporarily, to stop the insane cycle of Palestinian suicide bombing and Israeli retaliations that totally distorted daily life here.The Israeli military is deploying 45,000 troops to insure an orderly withdrawal and has strongly warned that if shooting starts, they will finish it.
Quite simply, Israelis and Palestinians are really enjoying this calm after four years of mutually assured destruction. Palestinian restaurants in Ramallah are full again. Hotel owners in Gaza are repainting their lobbies. Israel is again awash in tourists.
No leader or party can ignore how much people want this calm to hold - even Hamas. As Ghazi Hamad, editor of the Hamas newspaper Al Risalat, said to me, "One reason Hamas agreed to the cease-fire was to give people a chance to breathe and rest."
The other hugely important fact is that Israel is going to begin withdrawing from the Gaza Strip in mid-August.
Friedman criticizes Condoleezza Rice for "breezing in and out of the region" at this critical juncture. I don't know what Mr Friedman wants the United States government to do there. Continue treating both sides as if they're children?
In any case, it's Tehran that is the bad actor in the situation. They're seeing common sense blooming in the region wherever they look. That's the worst news for them.
But the pressure from the US side has to be at the G8 meeting in Gleneagles -- and it has to be directed toward the EU Three -- Britain, France and Germany. If the G7 nations cannot agree to put up a united front with Tehran, Russia won't go along with a hard line toward Tehran. If Russia won't go along, you can be sure China will continue sucking up to Tehran.
As with so many situations today, the United States needs to be focusing on our allies in West Europee. It's not about "over there in the Middle East." It's about our Western allies getting their heads together and acknowleding that it helps nothing to attempt to appease a terror-sponsoring regime that deals in bad faith.
And it's time for those allies to acknowledge that government-sponsored terror armies are not freedom fighters. It ain't the Battle of Algiers going on over there. It's Tehran feeling like an island in a sea of Arab nations and playing the divide-and-conquer card.
If our oldest allies in Europe do not confront that truth, Secretary Rice could take up residence in Gaza and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.
Everybody in the Middle East knows what Tehran is up to, so it's a matter of both sides continuing to resist Tehran-sponsored provacations. And everybody in the Middle East knows what the Israeli extremists are up to. Yet they also know that Ariel Sharon is practically dead man walking for standing up to the extremists in his government.
So if there was ever a time for sane adults in Palestine and Israel to maintain the upper hand, now is that time. The biggest help the United States could give at this juncture would occur at Gleneagles.
As if to underscore my sense of foreboding, this weekend I received a letter from Marc Schulman at American Future that made reference to parallels between today and 1930s Europe. I promised Marc a reply but the question is whether his points can be readily perceived in many regions outside America.
The more I learn about present-day Europe's news media, the more obvious that much news is suppressed by Europe's governments. So while many informed Americans could easily grasp the parallels, I'm not sure they would be seen in Europe. In any case, I'll publish the letter with Marc's permission:
"Pundita:
I'm curious about something. Ever since I was a teen-ager, I've been absolutely fascinated by the 1930s. While I've read numerous books on the subject, I still can't understand how the western democracies could allow Hitler to have his way in Europe. After all, he made no secret of his ambitions and intentions -- they were all in Mein Kampf.
Yes, there are plenty of explanations, such as perceiving Nazi Germany as the bulwark against communism. Be that as it may, the blindness of Europe's statesmen (with the notable exception of Churchill) remains incomprehensible to me.
My knowledge of the 1930s is the prism through which I view our current situation. Like Hitler, bin Laden and his ilk have made it crystal clear, in their spoken words and writings, that they seek the destruction of Western civilization.
And, as in the 1930s, numerous statesmen (again in Europe!) and millions of ordinary citizens have chosen to bury their heads in the sand, notwithstanding 9/11. Further, the United Nations is as ineffective and toothless now as the League of Nations was then.
The parallels between now and that sorry decade seem so obvious to me that I am again finding it to be impossible to truly understand those who do not see what I see and instead are irate because [America's] behavior is less than perfect.
So here's my question: is your prism the same as mine and, if not, what is it?"
Interested readers might want to send their answer, if they can find one, to Marc for publication. I hope that European readers will consider responding. And readers outside Europe -- please remember to check American Future (see the blogroll) for the latest news on EU doings in the runup to Gleneagles.
.
Tuesday, July 5
Pundita faints dead away
Two posts up earlier today (don't miss the letter from John Loftus!) but I had to add this one after an alert reader sent the following tidbit from Blue State Conservatives: European Commission scrapping environmental strategy in order to put life back into European industry.
Note to alert readers: In future, kindly put some kind of warning in the email subject line so Pundita is not driven to the smelling salts.
For more shocking news out of Europe, see update to Pundita July 4th entry re end of political correctness. What is going on over there, anyhow? "Storming of the Bastille: The Sequel?"
Note to alert readers: In future, kindly put some kind of warning in the email subject line so Pundita is not driven to the smelling salts.
For more shocking news out of Europe, see update to Pundita July 4th entry re end of political correctness. What is going on over there, anyhow? "Storming of the Bastille: The Sequel?"
International Intelligence Summit: for readers who requested information
I provided a link to the summit's website in today's earlier post but here is an overview, from the website's About section. Kindly note the emphasis on the "free world." Unless I read it wrongly, that means intelligence agencies from countries such as Saudi Arabia and China have not received an invitation to attend the summit. Awwwww..... Where is Pundita's Kleenex box?
Does the Democracy Doctrine rock, or what? The journey of ten thousand miles is underway.
"International Intelligence Summit[sm], a non-partisan, non-profit, neutral forum that uses private charitable funds to bring together for the first time the intelligence agencies of the free world and the emerging democracies [emphasis mine].
"The purpose of the Summit is to provide an opportunity for the International Intelligence community to listen to and learn from each other, and to share ideas in the common war against terrorism.
"The Summit's Advisory Board includes former heads of CIA, DIA, NSA, former official of the Mossad, and former Chair of British Joint Intelligence Committee. The list of presenters at the Summit will include many of the top leaders of the intelligence, espionage, counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence agencies from around the free world.
"The Summit is intended to be the most prestigious world conference on international studies, intelligence policy, terrorism, and homeland security."
For information about the date of conference, any restrictions on attendance, etc. click here.
Does the Democracy Doctrine rock, or what? The journey of ten thousand miles is underway.
"International Intelligence Summit[sm], a non-partisan, non-profit, neutral forum that uses private charitable funds to bring together for the first time the intelligence agencies of the free world and the emerging democracies [emphasis mine].
"The purpose of the Summit is to provide an opportunity for the International Intelligence community to listen to and learn from each other, and to share ideas in the common war against terrorism.
"The Summit's Advisory Board includes former heads of CIA, DIA, NSA, former official of the Mossad, and former Chair of British Joint Intelligence Committee. The list of presenters at the Summit will include many of the top leaders of the intelligence, espionage, counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence agencies from around the free world.
"The Summit is intended to be the most prestigious world conference on international studies, intelligence policy, terrorism, and homeland security."
For information about the date of conference, any restrictions on attendance, etc. click here.
John Loftus weighs in on Palestine-Israel
"Dear Pundita:
Regarding your posts about the Muslim Brotherhood-Nazi connection. Thank you for discussing such an important issue. Sadly, too many people are in flat denial about the Arab Nazis. As you pointed out, it is quite simple to verify. If you have questions about the issue please feel free to contact me.
John Loftus
International Intelligence Summit
Dear John:
Actually I do have a question but first you might be surprised to learn that we met at the 2005 National Intelligence Conference, although I was not introduced as Pundita. However, you might remember me. I was wearing a sea foam green plaid suit with a pink silk flower and matched set of pearl earrings and necklace and I nearly shorted out the conference's electrical system when I spilled a pitcher of water near a keynote speaker.
Your letter points up that the Arab-Nazi connection goes beyond the Muslim Brotherhood. However, while the Europeans seem in denial about this connection, I submit that few Americans outside academic, intelligence and military circles are aware that Nazism continued to flourish after World War Two ended.
But Nazism did not walk to the Middle East on its own feet. Nor did it stay there after the war without encouragement from Western intelligence agencies. Yet when one speaks about the pervasive hatred of Jews among the Arabs, once again, peoples in 'underdeveloped' countries are blamed for mischief made by the Europeans.
Those who would say that the Arabs were free to reject Nazi teachings are not knowledgeable about the era or human nature. Peoples in underdeveloped lands -- underdeveloped by Western standards -- are a vessel for ideas brought to them by a wealthy culture that uses vast amounts of money and the trappings of authority to promulgate ideas among very poor people.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that Arabs and Jews managed to live in peace for centuries until Europeans sympathetic to the ideas of Nazism spread a doctrine of racial hatred in the Middle East. Yet Arab enmity toward the Jews is blamed on Islam and the creation of the Israeli state.
So my question to you is this: if the strongly European elements in the Israeli government and the European elements strongly influencing the Palestinian governing authority could be somehow induced to sit down and shut up, what are the chances for speedy, genuine agreement between the two sides?
"Pundita:
My sense is that in order to get rid of the last corrupt vestiges of Arafat's machine, the Palestinian people will vote for Hamas. Then, they will dump Hamas by voting for their local clan leaders. Once the foreign fighters (post-Oslo returnees) are removed from power, then yes, I think there is a real chance that the Palestinians and Israelis will sit down together.
Most Palestinians tell me the same thing: "We don't want Jewish extremists. We don't want Arab extremists. We want the tourists back."
* * * * * *
Thanks to John for his comments. Just see what happens when people get a little freedom to direct their own affairs. An epidemic of common sense breaks out.
I'm also glad to learn about the 2006 intelligence summit. From a quick visit to the website, I see that exhibitors and attendees can save a bundle if they sign up early. This conference looks to be even better than Intelcon, although I must say I learned a great deal at the Intelcon seminars. Pundita takes her duties as a citizen much more seriously after that conference.
Pundita readers really do need to put eyes on the Middle East. That means we should bone up on the history of the Israeli-Palestine situation. No groans. Think of it as a root canal; the sooner we do it, the better.
To make things as painless as possible, Pundita has found an article by David Meir-Levi at Front Page Magazine on the topic that is a rarity: although it's by a scholar in Near Eastern affairs, it's written in business rather than academic English.* And with points organized in such fashion as to present a coherent picture of a situation that generations of American and European journalists, scholars and Agenda Heads did their best to render arcane.
Palestine Myth and Reality.
Noon Update - Email from "Liz"
"Have read the Front Page column you featured and found it the best summary. For more detail (mind-numbing detail, perhaps) try these:
Palestine Facts
Jewish Virtual Library
They are, of course, written from a POV supporting Israel, but I have found a number of verifiable facts in the data. Hard to fake...."
Pundita has not had time to study all the data at the above sites but readers familiar with "Liz" from our dialogue about US security issues will understand why I trust her opinion of a source's value enough to share it with Pundita readers.
* 5:00 PM UPDATE
"Dear Pundita:
Thanks for running my piece. One correction: I am not a scholar of the Middle East. I am an insurance broker and investment professional. Note my attached bioblurb.
David Meir-Levi"
Dear Mr. Meir-Levi:
This explains everything -- why your report is so clear, so concise, so coherent....
I had found your bio on the Internet -- incidentially I was miffed at Front Page because they didn't carry info about the report's author, which tends to undercut it for those looking for credentials.
Yes I can see how you would want to split hairs so as not to be tarred and feathered by Academia; technically you are not a scholar because you don't have a PhD and you have a 'day' job. Okay, we'll define you as a businessman-educator-scholar.
But Pundita defends calling you a scholar because for the purposes of my writing, someone with a BA in Near Eastern studies and professorial-level teaching should qualify as -- Pundita will roll on this one -- as an 'expert.'
Actually, I recently featured another of your reports (discovered at the same time as the Palestine Myth-Reality) about how the terror contingent had ripped off the Palestinians. I had meant to do a blog on your Myth-Reality report almost immediately after, then send you notification of both, but things came up. I will dig up the URL to the earlier blog and send it along.
Thank you for letter and the correction.
.
Regarding your posts about the Muslim Brotherhood-Nazi connection. Thank you for discussing such an important issue. Sadly, too many people are in flat denial about the Arab Nazis. As you pointed out, it is quite simple to verify. If you have questions about the issue please feel free to contact me.
John Loftus
International Intelligence Summit
Dear John:
Actually I do have a question but first you might be surprised to learn that we met at the 2005 National Intelligence Conference, although I was not introduced as Pundita. However, you might remember me. I was wearing a sea foam green plaid suit with a pink silk flower and matched set of pearl earrings and necklace and I nearly shorted out the conference's electrical system when I spilled a pitcher of water near a keynote speaker.
Your letter points up that the Arab-Nazi connection goes beyond the Muslim Brotherhood. However, while the Europeans seem in denial about this connection, I submit that few Americans outside academic, intelligence and military circles are aware that Nazism continued to flourish after World War Two ended.
But Nazism did not walk to the Middle East on its own feet. Nor did it stay there after the war without encouragement from Western intelligence agencies. Yet when one speaks about the pervasive hatred of Jews among the Arabs, once again, peoples in 'underdeveloped' countries are blamed for mischief made by the Europeans.
Those who would say that the Arabs were free to reject Nazi teachings are not knowledgeable about the era or human nature. Peoples in underdeveloped lands -- underdeveloped by Western standards -- are a vessel for ideas brought to them by a wealthy culture that uses vast amounts of money and the trappings of authority to promulgate ideas among very poor people.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that Arabs and Jews managed to live in peace for centuries until Europeans sympathetic to the ideas of Nazism spread a doctrine of racial hatred in the Middle East. Yet Arab enmity toward the Jews is blamed on Islam and the creation of the Israeli state.
So my question to you is this: if the strongly European elements in the Israeli government and the European elements strongly influencing the Palestinian governing authority could be somehow induced to sit down and shut up, what are the chances for speedy, genuine agreement between the two sides?
"Pundita:
My sense is that in order to get rid of the last corrupt vestiges of Arafat's machine, the Palestinian people will vote for Hamas. Then, they will dump Hamas by voting for their local clan leaders. Once the foreign fighters (post-Oslo returnees) are removed from power, then yes, I think there is a real chance that the Palestinians and Israelis will sit down together.
Most Palestinians tell me the same thing: "We don't want Jewish extremists. We don't want Arab extremists. We want the tourists back."
* * * * * *
Thanks to John for his comments. Just see what happens when people get a little freedom to direct their own affairs. An epidemic of common sense breaks out.
I'm also glad to learn about the 2006 intelligence summit. From a quick visit to the website, I see that exhibitors and attendees can save a bundle if they sign up early. This conference looks to be even better than Intelcon, although I must say I learned a great deal at the Intelcon seminars. Pundita takes her duties as a citizen much more seriously after that conference.
Pundita readers really do need to put eyes on the Middle East. That means we should bone up on the history of the Israeli-Palestine situation. No groans. Think of it as a root canal; the sooner we do it, the better.
To make things as painless as possible, Pundita has found an article by David Meir-Levi at Front Page Magazine on the topic that is a rarity: although it's by a scholar in Near Eastern affairs, it's written in business rather than academic English.* And with points organized in such fashion as to present a coherent picture of a situation that generations of American and European journalists, scholars and Agenda Heads did their best to render arcane.
Palestine Myth and Reality.
Noon Update - Email from "Liz"
"Have read the Front Page column you featured and found it the best summary. For more detail (mind-numbing detail, perhaps) try these:
Palestine Facts
Jewish Virtual Library
They are, of course, written from a POV supporting Israel, but I have found a number of verifiable facts in the data. Hard to fake...."
Pundita has not had time to study all the data at the above sites but readers familiar with "Liz" from our dialogue about US security issues will understand why I trust her opinion of a source's value enough to share it with Pundita readers.
* 5:00 PM UPDATE
"Dear Pundita:
Thanks for running my piece. One correction: I am not a scholar of the Middle East. I am an insurance broker and investment professional. Note my attached bioblurb.
David Meir-Levi"
Dear Mr. Meir-Levi:
This explains everything -- why your report is so clear, so concise, so coherent....
I had found your bio on the Internet -- incidentially I was miffed at Front Page because they didn't carry info about the report's author, which tends to undercut it for those looking for credentials.
Yes I can see how you would want to split hairs so as not to be tarred and feathered by Academia; technically you are not a scholar because you don't have a PhD and you have a 'day' job. Okay, we'll define you as a businessman-educator-scholar.
But Pundita defends calling you a scholar because for the purposes of my writing, someone with a BA in Near Eastern studies and professorial-level teaching should qualify as -- Pundita will roll on this one -- as an 'expert.'
Actually, I recently featured another of your reports (discovered at the same time as the Palestine Myth-Reality) about how the terror contingent had ripped off the Palestinians. I had meant to do a blog on your Myth-Reality report almost immediately after, then send you notification of both, but things came up. I will dig up the URL to the earlier blog and send it along.
Thank you for letter and the correction.
.
Monday, July 4
The era of Political Correctness draws to a close, thank God
July 5, 2:15 Update: Marc Schulman just sent another eye-popper Luxembourg Set To Vote on EU Constitution. The stunning news is that the last poll showed 45% of the voters turned against the constitution and the number fast rising. This is amazing; just a few months ago polls showed that close to 70% were going to vote yes.
So much is happening so fast in Europe that it's hard to keep track of it. Luckily Pundita readers have access to American Future's intrepid correspondent to help keep track of what seems to be a "No, Nope, Forgitaboutit" revolution building across Europe.
* * * * *
The Pundita Blogroll has been restored. To keep the peace I have placed Belmont Club under the creative heading, "His Own Category."
If you have been twitching with anticipation over the holiday to read the latest on the run-up to the G-8 meeting, visit American Future for the roundup; look on his right sidebar for the titles. You can start with this gem, which is the best news I've had so far this century: British-French food fight.
It is refreshing and I think a healthy sign that European leaders are finally coming out and saying what they really think, or pretty close to it. This is a trend started by George W. Bush. It could be that by the time he leaves office leaders all over the world will be discovering that once in a while it's okay to say what you really think.
Of course all this frankness won't make Beijing happy but one never knows; it could be they'll get into the swing of the idea that language is supposed to convey reality, not mask it.
So much is happening so fast in Europe that it's hard to keep track of it. Luckily Pundita readers have access to American Future's intrepid correspondent to help keep track of what seems to be a "No, Nope, Forgitaboutit" revolution building across Europe.
* * * * *
The Pundita Blogroll has been restored. To keep the peace I have placed Belmont Club under the creative heading, "His Own Category."
If you have been twitching with anticipation over the holiday to read the latest on the run-up to the G-8 meeting, visit American Future for the roundup; look on his right sidebar for the titles. You can start with this gem, which is the best news I've had so far this century: British-French food fight.
It is refreshing and I think a healthy sign that European leaders are finally coming out and saying what they really think, or pretty close to it. This is a trend started by George W. Bush. It could be that by the time he leaves office leaders all over the world will be discovering that once in a while it's okay to say what you really think.
Of course all this frankness won't make Beijing happy but one never knows; it could be they'll get into the swing of the idea that language is supposed to convey reality, not mask it.
Happy Fourth of July and a note for scientists researching memory in rats
Pundita is up at this awful hour to prepare for a delightful family outing at the beach and then we hope to make it back in time for fireworks on the Washington National Mall.
In an effort to head off Not Born Yesterday, I am herewith announcing that I have temporarily suspended the Pundita Blogroll due to receiving hate mail from Rugby.
I had hoped that with the passage of time he'd forget I'd awarded a Pundita Prize to the Belmont Club blogger instead of Wretchard the Cat. But within 24 hours of posting a Pundita Prize category on the Blogroll and placing Belmont Club there, Rugby was on the warpath again.
This time he's turned quite venomous -- perhaps because his typing speed has picked up. He seems to have mastered using his nose, three paws and his tail. I will not inflict the missive on the reader because he's still not found the Spell Check key. But now Pundita is no longer just "human-centric." Now Pundita is a racist who is prejudiced against all mammalian beings except humans. Belmont Club is now not just a blogger with a puffy head. No, he's now plagiarizing the works of his devoted blind cat.
There is a way to blame all this on the Belmont Club blogger. If he wouldn't wander off the reservation and take pot shots at leftists, I could simply place him under the GWOT category. But I have a horror of some unsuspecting Japanese or Romanian Pundita reader, innocently in search of news about the war on terror, clicking onto Belmont Club while he's in the middle of shredding a kook such as Ward Churchill.
But there are other problems as well. Pundita has recalled that BCB was not the only person to be awarded a Pundita Prize. So now I've probably offended other bloggers by not fitting them under the category -- even though the prize for BCB was with regard to the 2005 Pundita Prize for Excellence in Journalism. This after an alert reader informed me that the Pulitzer Prize only applied to print journalism.
Well, I cannot put if off any longer. Time for the joyous ride to the beach.
Happy Fourth of July to everyone, and a special thanks to the US troops serving abroad. You are always in my thoughts and prayers.
Best regards to all,
Pundita
In an effort to head off Not Born Yesterday, I am herewith announcing that I have temporarily suspended the Pundita Blogroll due to receiving hate mail from Rugby.
I had hoped that with the passage of time he'd forget I'd awarded a Pundita Prize to the Belmont Club blogger instead of Wretchard the Cat. But within 24 hours of posting a Pundita Prize category on the Blogroll and placing Belmont Club there, Rugby was on the warpath again.
This time he's turned quite venomous -- perhaps because his typing speed has picked up. He seems to have mastered using his nose, three paws and his tail. I will not inflict the missive on the reader because he's still not found the Spell Check key. But now Pundita is no longer just "human-centric." Now Pundita is a racist who is prejudiced against all mammalian beings except humans. Belmont Club is now not just a blogger with a puffy head. No, he's now plagiarizing the works of his devoted blind cat.
There is a way to blame all this on the Belmont Club blogger. If he wouldn't wander off the reservation and take pot shots at leftists, I could simply place him under the GWOT category. But I have a horror of some unsuspecting Japanese or Romanian Pundita reader, innocently in search of news about the war on terror, clicking onto Belmont Club while he's in the middle of shredding a kook such as Ward Churchill.
But there are other problems as well. Pundita has recalled that BCB was not the only person to be awarded a Pundita Prize. So now I've probably offended other bloggers by not fitting them under the category -- even though the prize for BCB was with regard to the 2005 Pundita Prize for Excellence in Journalism. This after an alert reader informed me that the Pulitzer Prize only applied to print journalism.
Well, I cannot put if off any longer. Time for the joyous ride to the beach.
Happy Fourth of July to everyone, and a special thanks to the US troops serving abroad. You are always in my thoughts and prayers.
Best regards to all,
Pundita
Saturday, July 2
When varmits fall out: UK Guardian blasts Schroeder's poor ethics
"While The Guardian and Gerhard Schroeder may be ideological soulmates, the newspaper's editors are critical of the German Chancellor's shenanigans:
Yes, this is the same Guardian newspaper that called for the assassination of President Bush, tried to make the editorial disappear when they realized Drudge had gotten hold of it, failed, then had to print an apology -- a mealy-mouthed, whimpering one.
But let us not rake up the past. Pundita is just trying to understand how the Guardian can huff at Schroeder's ethics in the same breath that conveys it's okay to break a pact with a close ally.
.
Gerhard Schröder has always been a corner cutter, a politician ready to jettison rules and precedents when they do not suit him. He did it with the stability pact, and with Germany's relationship with the United States over Iraq, in both cases because he thought it would gain him votes, even though the latter decision, at least, was certainly the right one for Germany.click here here to read the rest of the report and Marc Schulman's comments at American Future.
Now he is doing it..."
Yes, this is the same Guardian newspaper that called for the assassination of President Bush, tried to make the editorial disappear when they realized Drudge had gotten hold of it, failed, then had to print an apology -- a mealy-mouthed, whimpering one.
But let us not rake up the past. Pundita is just trying to understand how the Guardian can huff at Schroeder's ethics in the same breath that conveys it's okay to break a pact with a close ally.
.
If you don't clearly define yourself, others will do it for you
"Pundita, I'm getting sick of the Brussels gang. I think they promoted anti-Americanism as a way to change the subject about their behavior during the European colonizing eras. Now they're starting in on democracy as a way to fight Bush. You wrote some time back about the US having program to help spread Western values among Muslims. Forget Operation Muslim Outreach; what we really need is Operation Europe Outreach.
Caesar in San Francisco"
Dear Caesar:
If you think you're sick of Brussels, you should talk with young Europeans -- the kind who rejected the EU Constitution. Pundita gets an earful every spring and summer, when we bounce around Washington, DC talking with tourists. This could be coincidental but since Bush's very strong, uncompromsing speeches about democracy after his reelection, I noted a change in the talk this spring, before the EU vote. They were no longer sounding resigned.
Previously I'd heard a lot of complaints about corrupt bureaucracy and a small minority making the decisions but this always finished with some version of, "What can you do?" They accepted the idea that government is inherently corrupt.
That shows how far their societies had drifted from the concept of democracy. They were looking at government as a ruling class -- an emperor's court -- and so believed themselves a long way from Rome. But that's ridiculous; in a democracy the government is the people. So, if you think the government is corrupt then get together and change it. Don't sit around in a wine bar or cafe rolling your eyes and shrugging.
I don't know how much the Brussels Sprouts crowd has done to promote anti-Americanism -- but I'll give you that it would be a clever way to deflect criticism from Brussels. If indeed it's a strategy, I suspect from conversations I had this spring, and from the Non and Neen votes, that it's not working well these days.
The weirdest thing about the European Union -- or at least the attempt to create a United States of Europe -- is that it's so much against the grain of the French. The French have always prized highly independent thought and discursive thinking. Remember this is the land that gave us a big batch of Enlightenment philosophers.
So for years Pundita has been wondering how the French are holding up with the push to merge themselves in a Great Motherland. Not terribly well it, seems, from the Non vote and the heat behind it.
In short, the French might be coming to their senses. If so, they can start applying their famous discursive thought to the issues. For example, there is a difference between cooperation and trying to become a blob to please everyone and offend no one. There is also a difference between multilaterialism and trying to merge with a group.
But many Americans are confused about these same points. So before we talk about Operation Europe Outreach, how about if we start with Operation America Outreach?
Instilling Western values in other lands is a really big job. You have to know Latin and ancient Greek, for starters. Then you have to begin with Thales and work up through the Western philosophy food chain.
So why don't we start with something simple? Why don't we try instilling more knowledge of American history and America's view on democracy in our own people? Because if we do not have a clear idea of who we are, peoples in other lands will supply the idea for us.
.
Caesar in San Francisco"
Dear Caesar:
If you think you're sick of Brussels, you should talk with young Europeans -- the kind who rejected the EU Constitution. Pundita gets an earful every spring and summer, when we bounce around Washington, DC talking with tourists. This could be coincidental but since Bush's very strong, uncompromsing speeches about democracy after his reelection, I noted a change in the talk this spring, before the EU vote. They were no longer sounding resigned.
Previously I'd heard a lot of complaints about corrupt bureaucracy and a small minority making the decisions but this always finished with some version of, "What can you do?" They accepted the idea that government is inherently corrupt.
That shows how far their societies had drifted from the concept of democracy. They were looking at government as a ruling class -- an emperor's court -- and so believed themselves a long way from Rome. But that's ridiculous; in a democracy the government is the people. So, if you think the government is corrupt then get together and change it. Don't sit around in a wine bar or cafe rolling your eyes and shrugging.
I don't know how much the Brussels Sprouts crowd has done to promote anti-Americanism -- but I'll give you that it would be a clever way to deflect criticism from Brussels. If indeed it's a strategy, I suspect from conversations I had this spring, and from the Non and Neen votes, that it's not working well these days.
The weirdest thing about the European Union -- or at least the attempt to create a United States of Europe -- is that it's so much against the grain of the French. The French have always prized highly independent thought and discursive thinking. Remember this is the land that gave us a big batch of Enlightenment philosophers.
So for years Pundita has been wondering how the French are holding up with the push to merge themselves in a Great Motherland. Not terribly well it, seems, from the Non vote and the heat behind it.
In short, the French might be coming to their senses. If so, they can start applying their famous discursive thought to the issues. For example, there is a difference between cooperation and trying to become a blob to please everyone and offend no one. There is also a difference between multilaterialism and trying to merge with a group.
But many Americans are confused about these same points. So before we talk about Operation Europe Outreach, how about if we start with Operation America Outreach?
Instilling Western values in other lands is a really big job. You have to know Latin and ancient Greek, for starters. Then you have to begin with Thales and work up through the Western philosophy food chain.
So why don't we start with something simple? Why don't we try instilling more knowledge of American history and America's view on democracy in our own people? Because if we do not have a clear idea of who we are, peoples in other lands will supply the idea for us.
.
Friday, July 1
Dadgummit if that don't beat all: EU bureacrat sniffs at democracy
Our intrepid European Union Correspondent, Marc Schulman at American Future, has just sent a post that has to be read to be believed. We need to start paying closer attention to our allies across the Pond. Here it is. One side benefit of the Bush democracy doctrine is that it's forcing the varmits into the open.
America do not break the Law of Leaving again
"Are you sufficiently recovered from Batchelor double whammy night to discuss the call for a timetable for US troop withdrawal from Iraq? The call is also coming from some on the GOP side of the congressional aisle.
Tom in Sioux City"
Dear Tom:
The calls are coming from Americans who are not in touch with how human nature impacts foreign relations. I could make this explanation easy by asking you to watch a 1970 film by Gillo Pontecorvo that got very little play in the United States, even though Marlon Brando had a lead role. The film is called "Burn!"
If you watch that film three times, then even if you know nothing about the Colonial period, you will know in your gut why the US would be loco to pull out of Iraq until that nation is fully on its feet.
More than any other film I've seen on the topic of Western colonialism, Burn! points up the profound sense of betrayal that colonized people felt when they realized the colonizers were cynically abusing the role of chieftain.
Peoples in old parts of the world are used to conquest. But in tribal societies the conquest is interpreted as saying, "I am the new chief." The chief has a father role; he can be a very cruel father but people accept conquest by according the conqueror the father role.
The European colonizers knew all that, but the colonizations were carried out greatly for business interests. So to the extent the colonizers adopted the chieftain role, it was a sham in many cases. They were intent on "managing" the locals, not being their dad.
I interject that I don't like to talk much about the Colonial period because we're in an era where it's important for peoples in the developing world to leave behind the Victim mentality. A lot of people in previously colonized lands have come to realize this. And it can be hard to talk about colonization without bringing up severe abuses of power, which distorts the real situation on the ground. Many of the tribes who were colonized probably wouldn't be here today without the Western imperialists stepping in.
However, it's critical for Americans to understand something of that period, and to realize that the worst anger against America has come not from our meddling but from a sense of betrayal when the US stepped in, then left before the job was done.
To this day, there are Pakistanis who cannot speak without their voices shaking in anger about the US leaving them in the lurch; this was after we finished with Afghanistan when the Soviets pulled out. Of course from our side it wasn't leaving them in the lurch. But I remember a Pakistani general saying that he was so furious at the US "betrayal" that he went straight out and joined a terror organization. Many in the Pak military did the same. Repeat the same story in Iraq and other places.
The US was always not so much intent on managing the peoples of the Middle East as propping up dictators, even though we went along with the West European management approach. People in the Middle East are not naive -- again, that region has known countless conquests. So they 'got' the part about the US need to prop up dictators. What they didn't get was the US coming to play rescuer than saying, "Goodbye, good luck" after shoving Saddam back over the line.
That is what Prince Bandar bin Sultan warned Bush about; he told him at the outset that if the US was going to invade Iraq they needed to see the job through.
If we pull out before the Iraqis get on their feet, our name will go down in infamy in the Middle East. The European business interests in that part of the world know this, so they are doing everything in their power to encourage the US to leave. This includes lobbying hard with US congressionals who want a troop pullout and/or who pander to those interests.
Odd how these Europeans so perfectly understood the need for the US to keep bases in Europe during the post-WW2 period while they sorted themselves out, but imperfectly understand why the US should remain a military presence in Iraq.
Of course we're making mistakes in Iraq and there's a lot of grumbling there about this. But here is a tip: the more grumbling you hear from the Iraqis, the more that means they've come to trust that the US will see the job through.
If this makes no sense, look to your heart to understand. What use is it to grumble to people you know don't give a damn about you, and who are just passing through? But once you come to trust that someone is in your life for the long haul, then you feel more free to express complaints. Isn't it so?
What's a little harder for Americans to grasp, because we are not a tribal society, is the expectations that go along with the role of the chieftain. Americans don't consider the president to be a fatherly role. This is because we have many fine distinctions in our culture about relationships outside the family; colleague, coworker, acquaintance, and so on. In the old parts of the world, there are still basically two: the Other, and Family.
So, the leader has to be fit into the family structure. If he doesn't like that role, that's too bad. It's the way things are. So either stay away -- which we can't do in Iraq because we are already involved -- or pay attention to the currents and eddies of the human heart.
The greatest anger is always directed at those we have taken into our heart, who have professed that we are in their heart -- and then turn their back on us. This anger is atavistic and accounts for some of the most brutal murders. They are called crimes of passion.
Our society has developed safety valves, including psychotherapy, to diffuse that limbic rage. But people in old parts of the world don't have that outlet. If they take you into their heart -- which is saying they take you into their family -- you need to be very, very careful about how and when you say goodbye.
Ancient cultures had elaborate leave-taking rituals for those who for one reason or another had to leave the tribe. The rituals were to assure that distance did not mean that the tribe was cast from the leave-taker's heart. I call this the Law of Leaving. Individuals and governments can be at great peril if they break that atavistic law.
All this is hard for Americans to hear because our culture is not based on a colonizing impulse. Very few Americans want to be in the Middle East. But now we are striking out on a new path. We are making commitments to engage in Middle Eastern societies in ways we've never done before. We have to accept what that means to the people we engage with. It means we are asking to be adopted into people's hearts. That is a very profound request. If people in that land come to care for us, God help us if we throw that back in their face, as we did in Pakistan -- and Afghanistan.
Again, Americans didn't think of walking away from those countries in that light. But we have to also think from the other side to understand how to proceed.
And again and again one must factor human nature into modern methods of decision making, in particular when it comes to foreign relations.
Oceans of grief could be avoided if policy makers asked themselves, "How would I like that, if it were done to me?"
To return to Iraq, at least the US military gave air support to the Iraqi Kurds after Saddam Hussein attempted genocide. The Kurds responded to the help, which was a long-term and very expensive commmitment, with genuinely loyal feeling toward the US. We should remember that lesson and what it implies.
.
Tom in Sioux City"
Dear Tom:
The calls are coming from Americans who are not in touch with how human nature impacts foreign relations. I could make this explanation easy by asking you to watch a 1970 film by Gillo Pontecorvo that got very little play in the United States, even though Marlon Brando had a lead role. The film is called "Burn!"
If you watch that film three times, then even if you know nothing about the Colonial period, you will know in your gut why the US would be loco to pull out of Iraq until that nation is fully on its feet.
More than any other film I've seen on the topic of Western colonialism, Burn! points up the profound sense of betrayal that colonized people felt when they realized the colonizers were cynically abusing the role of chieftain.
Peoples in old parts of the world are used to conquest. But in tribal societies the conquest is interpreted as saying, "I am the new chief." The chief has a father role; he can be a very cruel father but people accept conquest by according the conqueror the father role.
The European colonizers knew all that, but the colonizations were carried out greatly for business interests. So to the extent the colonizers adopted the chieftain role, it was a sham in many cases. They were intent on "managing" the locals, not being their dad.
I interject that I don't like to talk much about the Colonial period because we're in an era where it's important for peoples in the developing world to leave behind the Victim mentality. A lot of people in previously colonized lands have come to realize this. And it can be hard to talk about colonization without bringing up severe abuses of power, which distorts the real situation on the ground. Many of the tribes who were colonized probably wouldn't be here today without the Western imperialists stepping in.
However, it's critical for Americans to understand something of that period, and to realize that the worst anger against America has come not from our meddling but from a sense of betrayal when the US stepped in, then left before the job was done.
To this day, there are Pakistanis who cannot speak without their voices shaking in anger about the US leaving them in the lurch; this was after we finished with Afghanistan when the Soviets pulled out. Of course from our side it wasn't leaving them in the lurch. But I remember a Pakistani general saying that he was so furious at the US "betrayal" that he went straight out and joined a terror organization. Many in the Pak military did the same. Repeat the same story in Iraq and other places.
The US was always not so much intent on managing the peoples of the Middle East as propping up dictators, even though we went along with the West European management approach. People in the Middle East are not naive -- again, that region has known countless conquests. So they 'got' the part about the US need to prop up dictators. What they didn't get was the US coming to play rescuer than saying, "Goodbye, good luck" after shoving Saddam back over the line.
That is what Prince Bandar bin Sultan warned Bush about; he told him at the outset that if the US was going to invade Iraq they needed to see the job through.
If we pull out before the Iraqis get on their feet, our name will go down in infamy in the Middle East. The European business interests in that part of the world know this, so they are doing everything in their power to encourage the US to leave. This includes lobbying hard with US congressionals who want a troop pullout and/or who pander to those interests.
Odd how these Europeans so perfectly understood the need for the US to keep bases in Europe during the post-WW2 period while they sorted themselves out, but imperfectly understand why the US should remain a military presence in Iraq.
Of course we're making mistakes in Iraq and there's a lot of grumbling there about this. But here is a tip: the more grumbling you hear from the Iraqis, the more that means they've come to trust that the US will see the job through.
If this makes no sense, look to your heart to understand. What use is it to grumble to people you know don't give a damn about you, and who are just passing through? But once you come to trust that someone is in your life for the long haul, then you feel more free to express complaints. Isn't it so?
What's a little harder for Americans to grasp, because we are not a tribal society, is the expectations that go along with the role of the chieftain. Americans don't consider the president to be a fatherly role. This is because we have many fine distinctions in our culture about relationships outside the family; colleague, coworker, acquaintance, and so on. In the old parts of the world, there are still basically two: the Other, and Family.
So, the leader has to be fit into the family structure. If he doesn't like that role, that's too bad. It's the way things are. So either stay away -- which we can't do in Iraq because we are already involved -- or pay attention to the currents and eddies of the human heart.
The greatest anger is always directed at those we have taken into our heart, who have professed that we are in their heart -- and then turn their back on us. This anger is atavistic and accounts for some of the most brutal murders. They are called crimes of passion.
Our society has developed safety valves, including psychotherapy, to diffuse that limbic rage. But people in old parts of the world don't have that outlet. If they take you into their heart -- which is saying they take you into their family -- you need to be very, very careful about how and when you say goodbye.
Ancient cultures had elaborate leave-taking rituals for those who for one reason or another had to leave the tribe. The rituals were to assure that distance did not mean that the tribe was cast from the leave-taker's heart. I call this the Law of Leaving. Individuals and governments can be at great peril if they break that atavistic law.
All this is hard for Americans to hear because our culture is not based on a colonizing impulse. Very few Americans want to be in the Middle East. But now we are striking out on a new path. We are making commitments to engage in Middle Eastern societies in ways we've never done before. We have to accept what that means to the people we engage with. It means we are asking to be adopted into people's hearts. That is a very profound request. If people in that land come to care for us, God help us if we throw that back in their face, as we did in Pakistan -- and Afghanistan.
Again, Americans didn't think of walking away from those countries in that light. But we have to also think from the other side to understand how to proceed.
And again and again one must factor human nature into modern methods of decision making, in particular when it comes to foreign relations.
Oceans of grief could be avoided if policy makers asked themselves, "How would I like that, if it were done to me?"
To return to Iraq, at least the US military gave air support to the Iraqi Kurds after Saddam Hussein attempted genocide. The Kurds responded to the help, which was a long-term and very expensive commmitment, with genuinely loyal feeling toward the US. We should remember that lesson and what it implies.
.
European Union Dossier
Marc Schulman's post for today, EU: More Troubles for Chirac and Schroeder, covers the following topics:
1) Blair Turns Up the Heat on Chirac
2) France Will Block EU Reform
3) Spain's Zapatero Switches Sides
4) EU Farm Commissioner Wants To Cut Agricultural Spending, but . . .
5) Some Details on the Common Agricultural Policy
Pundita finds a certain irony about the observations made in #3.
1) Blair Turns Up the Heat on Chirac
2) France Will Block EU Reform
3) Spain's Zapatero Switches Sides
4) EU Farm Commissioner Wants To Cut Agricultural Spending, but . . .
5) Some Details on the Common Agricultural Policy
Pundita finds a certain irony about the observations made in #3.
