Garrison Keillor, master of the quirky, Midwestern fable, writes this article, which is just too good to pass up. Maybe not as good as "The Living Flag," but, I think, just as patriotic.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.keillor26oct26,0,7238007.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines
Monday, October 30, 2006
Betcha Didn't See This One Coming
An interesting piece in The American Conservative (surprise! my news-reading extends to both sides of the aisle!)...
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_06/feature.html
...and an interesting companion to it from Al-Jazeera.
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=12030
For the record, both Breaking the Silence and B'Tselem are official, above-the-radar NGOs, based in Israel. It takes a lot, in the current political climate, to stand up for the truth (as it's not pretty on either side), and the two organizations should be applauded.
Although I think Walt and Mearshimer could have done a better job with carefully choosing source material and playing a bit of devil's advocate in their paper, I look forward to buying their book. Whatever your position on America and Israeli foreign policy, raising the level of debate in the US will result in a better outcome for us all.
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_06/feature.html
...and an interesting companion to it from Al-Jazeera.
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=12030
For the record, both Breaking the Silence and B'Tselem are official, above-the-radar NGOs, based in Israel. It takes a lot, in the current political climate, to stand up for the truth (as it's not pretty on either side), and the two organizations should be applauded.
Although I think Walt and Mearshimer could have done a better job with carefully choosing source material and playing a bit of devil's advocate in their paper, I look forward to buying their book. Whatever your position on America and Israeli foreign policy, raising the level of debate in the US will result in a better outcome for us all.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Unoriginality, at least
Now, I don't claim that the Washington Post reads my travel blog, but note the similarity here between their discussion of the US border "fence" and my comments on the Israeli occupation wall (March 24, 2005):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102601826.html
http://ririaroundtheworld.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_ririaroundtheworld_archive.html
Unfortunately, the Post's article talks all about walls, and doesn't even mention Israel, the land of borders, walls, and fences. Writing about walls isn't really quite as effective when you hide behind them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102601826.html
http://ririaroundtheworld.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_ririaroundtheworld_archive.html
Unfortunately, the Post's article talks all about walls, and doesn't even mention Israel, the land of borders, walls, and fences. Writing about walls isn't really quite as effective when you hide behind them.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Dean Gallucci must be pretty pissed off
Interestingly, the Dean of Georgetown SFS was the US Ambassador that negotiated the deal w/North Korea under the Clinton administration. It would have been very interesting to talk to him in the past few days - I didn't expect NK to actually test a bomb quite so quickly - I figured they'd see what they could leverage first. I haven't found a response/analysis piece from him posted anywhere yet, but I'm looking.
Anyway, now that my assessment (and, I'd bet, a lot of other people's, but maybe I'm just making myself feel better) is proven wrong, here's the text of the draft UN resolution:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2397543,00.html
The Washington Post, which has recently pulled its investigative journalism credentials out of the closet, today ran an editorial/analysis piece about the Axis of Evil and how the situation with each country has rapidly deteriorated since the Bush Administration took office. Here's the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/09/AR2006100901130.html
Anyway, now that my assessment (and, I'd bet, a lot of other people's, but maybe I'm just making myself feel better) is proven wrong, here's the text of the draft UN resolution:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2397543,00.html
The Washington Post, which has recently pulled its investigative journalism credentials out of the closet, today ran an editorial/analysis piece about the Axis of Evil and how the situation with each country has rapidly deteriorated since the Bush Administration took office. Here's the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/09/AR2006100901130.html
Sunday, October 08, 2006
The Crumbling Difference Between Wrong and Right
Here in Ramallah, everything is quiet. However, news reports are starting to sound sharper. The Times cites growing evidence of civil war, whereas Al Jazeera mentions only a Hamas rally, and their repeated declaration that they will refuse to recognize Israel.
Who, then, is correct? It would be naive to assume that there won't be confilct in Gaza, but I would be surprised if it spread so rapidly to the West Bank. At the moment (possibly not for too much longer, but at the moment), the opportunity cost of civil war is too great.
However, when it comes to principle, who's right? Hamas is holding rigidly to an untenable position. The West refuses to recognize a government that, while distasteful, was elected in what even the US concedes was a free and fair election. So who's right?
If people spend too long battling over ideas, living conditions deteriorate, coping strategies are exhausted, and that opportunity cost suddenly doesn't seem so high. There's no civil war yet. This isn't Iraq. But another actively unstable linchpin in the Middle East will further weaken the tenuous hold on law and order that currently exists. Watch out.
In case the world looks too depressing, take a look at this: http://improbable.com/
Who, then, is correct? It would be naive to assume that there won't be confilct in Gaza, but I would be surprised if it spread so rapidly to the West Bank. At the moment (possibly not for too much longer, but at the moment), the opportunity cost of civil war is too great.
However, when it comes to principle, who's right? Hamas is holding rigidly to an untenable position. The West refuses to recognize a government that, while distasteful, was elected in what even the US concedes was a free and fair election. So who's right?
If people spend too long battling over ideas, living conditions deteriorate, coping strategies are exhausted, and that opportunity cost suddenly doesn't seem so high. There's no civil war yet. This isn't Iraq. But another actively unstable linchpin in the Middle East will further weaken the tenuous hold on law and order that currently exists. Watch out.
In case the world looks too depressing, take a look at this: http://improbable.com/
Saturday, October 07, 2006
The Great Game
Now, I don’t usually turn my focus to East Asia, as I know least about the politics of that region. Kim Jong Il’s intent to detonate a nuclear* weapon, however, is newsworthy enough that even my narrow focus will be diverted to North Korea. I spent a little bit of time in college studying the Cold War, debating the virtues or the futility of nuclear deterrence, articulating how and why countries act, parsing politics down to game theory.
In this instance, even the universal seems not to apply. What does Mr. Kim gain by a nuclear test? Let’s think it through. In early July, the world found out that, although North Korea does possess long-range missile capability, the results of the tests do not exhibit consistent capacity to reach the intended target. We know, and have known for quite a while, that North Korea possesses the capability to build nuclear weapons, and now we know that they have done so. Again, not a surprise.
So, given limited delivery capability, and the general consensus that, no matter how many weapons North Korea has, the US has more, spread within a wider territory, how does this test change the political balance? If anything, Mr. Kim has created a weapon that he cannot use, for North Korea has no second-strike capability. If he were to detonate a weapon in a context other than a test, the world would react, either with nuclear or conventional weapons, obliterating significant sections of both his population and his infrastructure. My personal money would be on well-placed tactical nukes, particularly if it were to happen in the next two years (before the US administration changes), but that's beside the point. Overall, regardless of the method, overt war would be good for no one, and even in the most simple game theory matrix, an option to be avoided.
Instead, what Mr. Kim has achieved by announcing this test is a new phase of detente between China and Japan. After nearly two years of silence between the two powers, the change in Japan's political landscape, coupled with North Korea's disregard for the Nuclear NPT, has led to a summit in Beijing. This, now, is a most interesting development. With the economic strength of China and Japan improving (despite rocky financial indicators for Japan this summer), and that of the US on the decline, Mr. Kim's action, if it leads to more comprehensive cooperation between China and Japan, could be the precipitating moment for an economic power shift rather than a political or military one.
Given the relationship between China and North Korea, this would be no small achievement on Mr. Kim's part. The world could, then, rant, rave, and declare sanctions. But in terms of significant investment, North Korea's nuke could result in a short-term economic decline with the potential for far greater growth over the next twenty years. Not, perhaps, such a poor round of the game after all.
*note, please, that this is nu-cle-ar, not nu-cu-lar!
In this instance, even the universal seems not to apply. What does Mr. Kim gain by a nuclear test? Let’s think it through. In early July, the world found out that, although North Korea does possess long-range missile capability, the results of the tests do not exhibit consistent capacity to reach the intended target. We know, and have known for quite a while, that North Korea possesses the capability to build nuclear weapons, and now we know that they have done so. Again, not a surprise.
So, given limited delivery capability, and the general consensus that, no matter how many weapons North Korea has, the US has more, spread within a wider territory, how does this test change the political balance? If anything, Mr. Kim has created a weapon that he cannot use, for North Korea has no second-strike capability. If he were to detonate a weapon in a context other than a test, the world would react, either with nuclear or conventional weapons, obliterating significant sections of both his population and his infrastructure. My personal money would be on well-placed tactical nukes, particularly if it were to happen in the next two years (before the US administration changes), but that's beside the point. Overall, regardless of the method, overt war would be good for no one, and even in the most simple game theory matrix, an option to be avoided.
Instead, what Mr. Kim has achieved by announcing this test is a new phase of detente between China and Japan. After nearly two years of silence between the two powers, the change in Japan's political landscape, coupled with North Korea's disregard for the Nuclear NPT, has led to a summit in Beijing. This, now, is a most interesting development. With the economic strength of China and Japan improving (despite rocky financial indicators for Japan this summer), and that of the US on the decline, Mr. Kim's action, if it leads to more comprehensive cooperation between China and Japan, could be the precipitating moment for an economic power shift rather than a political or military one.
Given the relationship between China and North Korea, this would be no small achievement on Mr. Kim's part. The world could, then, rant, rave, and declare sanctions. But in terms of significant investment, North Korea's nuke could result in a short-term economic decline with the potential for far greater growth over the next twenty years. Not, perhaps, such a poor round of the game after all.
*note, please, that this is nu-cle-ar, not nu-cu-lar!
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Mom! Ismail stole my constituents!
I once had the pleasure of a short, impromptu debate with Bob Woodward over whether opening Iraq as a second front in the GWOT was a strategic blunder (I argued yes, seeing as how Afghanistan wasn't finished yet, and still isn't; he argued no, with the dodgeball theory). Although I've yet to win him to my side on that score, at least it appears that we may be in accord on the tactical:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2387604,00.html
In other news, I was watching CNN today (one of my 3 English channels here in Ramallah), and they had a dramatic headline announcement about how talks between Fatah and Hamas have broken down, saying that Fatah was no longer talking to Hamas, and Abbas voiced fears of civil war. Now, I hate to disparage CNN, particularly when it's giving me about 40% of my news lately, but, seriously? First of all, I believe Abbas was quoted as saying that civil war would theoretically be a big problem, and should be avoided at all costs. It's dangerous to equate that statement with the fear that civil war is imminent.
In addition, it's naive to say that the two parties aren't speaking (granted, Abbas is not having an official meeting with Haniyeh, but who are they, a pair of teenage girls?), just fighting.
I'd wager both sides are more clever than that. Look at the last week: Ongoing cycle of closures, lack of money, and rocket attacks leads to unrest in Gaza. Said unrest spreads to the West Bank. Talks break down. Rice comes to visit, with pledges to talk to Israel about easing travel restrictions.
If I were in charge of the Palestinian Territories, and my economy was being strangled, I think I just might turn to the one person with influence (military and economic) over my strangler. But I wouldn't want to give up my position of being powerless, yet. At the moment, I can plead for help with little tit-for-tat. If I shoulder the weight of government, I have much more international responsibility.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2387604,00.html
In other news, I was watching CNN today (one of my 3 English channels here in Ramallah), and they had a dramatic headline announcement about how talks between Fatah and Hamas have broken down, saying that Fatah was no longer talking to Hamas, and Abbas voiced fears of civil war. Now, I hate to disparage CNN, particularly when it's giving me about 40% of my news lately, but, seriously? First of all, I believe Abbas was quoted as saying that civil war would theoretically be a big problem, and should be avoided at all costs. It's dangerous to equate that statement with the fear that civil war is imminent.
In addition, it's naive to say that the two parties aren't speaking (granted, Abbas is not having an official meeting with Haniyeh, but who are they, a pair of teenage girls?), just fighting.
I'd wager both sides are more clever than that. Look at the last week: Ongoing cycle of closures, lack of money, and rocket attacks leads to unrest in Gaza. Said unrest spreads to the West Bank. Talks break down. Rice comes to visit, with pledges to talk to Israel about easing travel restrictions.
If I were in charge of the Palestinian Territories, and my economy was being strangled, I think I just might turn to the one person with influence (military and economic) over my strangler. But I wouldn't want to give up my position of being powerless, yet. At the moment, I can plead for help with little tit-for-tat. If I shoulder the weight of government, I have much more international responsibility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)