Gustav

Tulane just sent out the notice that the school will evacuate this weekend. There is no need to worry for my personal well-being; the school is really good at providing for it's students. Should you feel like worrying, you can follow my twitter stream here. Though this is my personal blog, this isn't a personal blog post per se. I'm not here to talk about how sucky it is to leave a campus less than a week after arriving.

What I am here to talk about is the fact that another hurricane threatens New Orleans, and that the city is nowhere near rebuilt enough to handle it. This is a tragedy, a failing of this government, and it is nothing shy of that. I joked earlier to a friend that this hurricane can't be as bad as Katrina, because the city hasn't been rebuilt enough for that level of damage to be possible. Read this list. Turns out, I'm not really joking - this is a true statement, and a terrifying one.

Rebuilding this city is a time-sensitive issue. It needs to be done quickly, done effectively, and done in such a way that the city can withstand multiple hurricanes in a given year. It will be tremendously expensive up front, but the alternative is a New Orleans that fades away, ceases to exist, and becomes a symbol of American failure to take care of it's own people. The stakes a high. Should Gustav miss New Orleans, the need will not go away. Should Gustav hit New Orleans, the city will need everything it possibly can to stand a second chance. Katrina hit New Orleans hard because people were ignorant. If Gustav hits hard, it will be because people knew the threat, and just didn't care.

Edit 8/29/2008: An acquaintance of mine summed up the feeling towards Gustav felt by many Katrina survivors:

For those of you who have no idea what this is like:

Imagine being in a horrifying car accident.

Now imagine that you think you're about to be in another one.

Now imagine the moment just before the potential impact.

Now imagine that moment lasting four or five days.

Edit 9/2/2008: Updating from a library in Arkansas. We survived, New Orleans survived, and and school starts again on Monday. I'll have more to say later from a better internet connection, but I'm fine and initial impressions of the aftermath are decent.

Brinkmanship

Yesterday I finished reading "The Crisis of Islam" by Bernard Lewis. While I recommend a lot of books, I don't make the recommendations lightly, and that is especially true for this book. "Crisis of Islam" reads and feels like the best history and context for understanding the actions of Usama bin Laden (or as we know him, Osama), and the conflict he sees with the west. The book is a scant 169 pages, and it goes quickly, which is why I'm inclined to recommend it over every other book of the sort a person can find. This is a book that can be read, read easily, and will have a profound effect on a person's understanding of the War on Terror. (This makes sense, given that the book is assigned reading for the "War on Terror" class I'm taking). The book, again, is great history.

The problem I have with it is that the book is poor political science, and it tries to be. In fact, the book was drawn in part from articles in Foreign Affairs (my favorite source of international relations political science), and the book was written with the intent of influencing major policy decisions. Checking the wikipedia on Bernard Lewis, it was kind of startling to read that he was one of the major intellectuals arguing in favor of the United States invasion of Iraq. The book itself doesn't overtly advocate the actions wikipedia attributes to Lewis's influence. But it's implied, and it's a strong undertone in the last chapter.

The book was written and published before the United States invaded Iraq. Lewis' plan, as it can be inferred, was for an externally imposed democracy to become a catalyst for more genuine democratic movements in the middle east, which would lead to prosperity, stability, and a positive outlet for moderate Islam to regain control of the debate from radical extremes. This is, as you've probably reasoned, absurd.

The logic behind it states that Islam, as nation-religion, no longer has adversaries to play off against each other. The rest of the West is out, Russia is out, and the United States stands as the only civilization opposing the glorious spread of Muhammad's nation and religion. Bernard Lewis does such a good job explaining the desire for the global religion-state as the objective of radical Islam, and he does such a good job showing the current regimes in the middle east as failed custodians of the faith and successors to the Caliph, that he can't figure out how a nativist movement could be anything but violently radical. In Lewis' view, the only hope for democracy in the middle east (excepting Turkey and Israel) is an external catalyst.

This contradicts his own understanding of the importance of nativism to the nation-religion of Islam. The importance of bin-Laden and the threat that he represents is based on and enhanced by his success in driving Russia out of Afghanistan. Khomeini and al-Sadr both can be pointed to as having had meaningful action against the corrupt and the foreign, and without the legitimacy of the act they would be fringe elements. That Khomeini's state became more oppressive than the one it succeeded is a grave flaw, but the quasi-democracy it operates, the poor economic fortunes of many Iranians, the concentration of poor economic prospects in the younger half of a nation where the media age is 26, and the fading memory of revolution all provide the opportunity for a nativist change in government, and a move away from oppressive and radical Islam. The state bin-Laden supported has been reduced to the margins, and with luck will remain there. Meanwhile, a variety of ethnic parties have filled the void left by a religious government, and this too bodes well for nativst change. Perhaps the devolution of the state of Afghanistan, but certainly a trend towards nativist rule over outsider radicals.

And then we have Iraq. Iraq is my major sore point with Lewis, and it baffles me how he can write that history and assume an imposed democracy will work. The way Lewis sees it, the United States needs to just maintain a presence, outlast the terrorists, and it can claim victory. He points to the fact that the PLO repeatedly engaged in terrorist activity but never had Isreal give in as a sign of success, and treats the largely one-sided negotiations between Israel and Palestine as a positive sign. The trick, Lewis seems to be saying, is for the US to master brinkmanship - we stay right on the edge, we keep our opposition there, and we don't blink. If we can hold out, prove by our existence their futility, they will be forced to adopt other means, and the whole crisis of radical Islam will be over. This actually justifies making the Iraq the battleground for the war on terror, as it is an overt desire to create an actual battlefield on which terrorism can lose.

It's a bold statement, but it's fundamentally stupid. In all his reading of history, and in his undertanding of bin Laden's reading of history, Lewis makes the astute observation that the terrorists are motivated by percieved marks against the dignity of the nation-religion of Islam. Specific grievances cited are the crusades (which are much more of an after-the-fact grievance), the breakdown and destruction of the Ottoman empire, and US support for corrupt and weak leaders in the middle east. Again, the grievances are: 1- an invasion by infidels, 2-the destruction of an important and powerful muslim state, and 3-the support of government that otherwise shouldn't exist. Having made this claim, I cannot understand how he thinks the overthrow of the government of Iraq by the US with the express purpose of putting in place a new government is a good idea. That is two of the above indignities, and close to the third (Iraq was, in name, secular, but it has a muslim population and is a historic center of muslim government).

The problem with the crisis is that it is too big an issue to be tackled by one solution. Catalysts are nice, and sometimes essential, but that are very hard to create from the outside. And I think that is the fundamental frustration that Lewis is unable to address. The United States has suffered from terrorism, and the destruction of the United States is the stated objective of radical Islam. The United States, as the most power country in the world, should be able to do something about it. The wars is Iraq and Afghanistan were moves to do something about it. But the problem is that they don't work, and the thing that is absolutely terrifying about this conflcit is that the United States is powerless here. To end radical Islam, moderate Islam has to make real gains at home. That will require the end of oil money and the end of US interest in backing corrupt governments that provide oil, and then it will require American non-interference in the potentially revolutionary or democratizing moves that follow. The United States must let native movements take place, and let self-determination and human dignity be affirmed by these movements of their own will, even in the shape of religious parties or states. Without dignity, the terrorists will continue. With human dignity restored, with governments responsive to the needs of the populace (or at the very least vulnerable to the populace), then and only then will we have outlasted the War on Terror.

But we've created a battlefield on which it is impossible for us to win. Brinkmanship won the Cold War, but that was against a nation. The Nation of Islam that bin-Laden wants to establish doesn't exist in a present form, and as a transient quantity, it can't be destroyed. As an ideology, and as an ideology with at 1400 year legacy, it can be outlasted. That's an impossibility, and even turing Iraq into an accelerator of the movement, the lighting of match to burn out the gas leak, will not help. The problem cannot be changed in that way, and our continued actions only breed contempt.

We need to find a solution other than this impossibility.

Edit 9/12/2008: It's well worth mentioning that Lewis is very orientalist in his perspective, and that he sees most of the past two centuries of development in the Muslim world as adapted or inspired by Western ideals. That said, the history is still good, and he even counters his own emphasis on the West by repeatedly referring to the necessity and importance of nativist trends.

Hillary's Democratic Convention Speech

I was never a strong Hillary supporter, and to be perfectly honest I was relieved that the Democratic Primary ended with victory for Obama. Obama struck me as the brilliant, pragmatic, and modern outside; my impression of Hillary was always one of the stuff establishment candidate, who played the game of 1990s pro-business democrat so well that she was indistinguishable from the party staples of a decade prior.

It's not the best sign of progress, but it's telling that Hillary Clinton played the political game so well as to become that which outsiders would rail against. Hillary Clinton, who in this nation of White Christian Male presidents challenged one of those criterion with at times a nonchalance that made it possible to forget how unprecedented she was.

My disagreements with Hillary Clinton stem not from her race, gender, or faith, but like all good political disagreements they originate from policy disagreements. Hillary's plan was not the soundest execution of democratic principles, in my opinion, and when she had real substantive differences with Obama I always favored Obama.

That all said, the two candidates (and almost all the other democrats running, with perhaps Gravel excepted) are operating in a way to address real problems within the United States today. Hillary's speech yesterday at the democratic convention is an incredibly well-written call to action.

The best part, in my opinion, excerpted below:

I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?

We need leaders once again who can tap into that special blend of American confidence and optimism that has enabled generations before us to meet our toughest challenges. Leaders who can help us show ourselves and the world that with our ingenuity, creativity, and innovative spirit, there are no limits to what is possible in America.

This won't be easy. Progress never is. But it will be impossible if we don't fight to put a Democrat in the White House.

Hillary is still a force in politics today. It is a blessing to have her supportive of Barack Obama.

The Israel Question

Before I state anything, I'd like to direct you to this photo gallery of female Israeli soldiers, and ask you to both look through the gallery and read the authors statement with an open mind and in the spirit of respecting art.

After checking that out, feel free to form opinions of your own. If you want some pre-made opinions, many can be found here.

Israel is and has been the pressing issue of the middle east. It's a nation born in the aftermath of tragedy that finds itself in a perpetual state of alert. Public service, most commonly military service, is compulsory for Israelis when they turn 18. The photographer does, in my opinion, a really good job examining with minimal judgment the juxtaposition of adolescence with military service, and by using pictures of female soldiers she's allowed to open up a new avenue for understanding what military service does to young people. Soldiering is too often tied up in definitions of masculinity and male duty, so it is fascinating to see it in another context.

And then we have Israel itself, as discussions over anything related to Israel must return back to the state. My family has a small personal history with the nation; my grandfather, Alfred Leroy Atherton Jr (Roy), was ambassador to Egypt for the United States from 1978-1979. He was present during the assassination of Anwar Sadat. And he personally met with Yassar Arafat. This legacy, as a burgeoning student of history and politics, informed my understanding of the world and of international relations. At the center of this legacy is figuring out a right relationship with Isreal.

Israel is a state whose origins I will not dispute and whose right to exist is an anarchronistic question. The modern state of Israel is, and will be, a reality. There is no sense in arguing otherwise, and there is only ill will to be gained that way. Besides, saying Israel shouldn't exist is much the same as arguing that Global Warming isn't happening - both statements delay real, meaningful debate, and both fly in the face of obvious and accepted fact. So what is the debate I have in mind?

The classical debate over the US and Israel is what the relationship should be. Under the Carter presidency, and when Roy was ambassador to Egpyt, the US backed off from it's standard unwavering support for Israel and tried to create a meaningful dialogue with the parties in conflict. Since then, the attitude and tone have changed from administration to administration, but the general purpose has been the same: to secure a stable relationship between Isreal and its neighbors, with accomodation for Palestine that still leaves Isreal in a position of strength.

To there benefit, Palestine and Isreal can rely on world media coverage, and the fact that many nations have a vested interest in the outcome of a peace process. To the detriment of most any cause elsewhere, Isreal takes media priority. This is a tricky balance - Isreal is a democracy of sorts, and Isreal is a western country. We (being the West) have high standards for Israeli conduct, and constant media attention helps keep things honest. And it is important to be aware of and acknowledge the Palestinian grievances as real and meaningful, and media attention helps with that as well.

The problem is that almost any government could use the same scrutinty in its actions, and that this media attention has been an objective of terrorist action. That helps no one, and while grievances need to be aired and addressed (and don't think that I am anything like in favor of letting Isreal off the hook for what has amounted to serious crimes ans flaws in conduct), terrorism undermines moves for stability, it undermines the potential for democracy, and it doesn't allow for any other option besides the destruction of Israel. It is, to put it mildly, unrealistic. And the media does a disservice to the public by continuing to focus so much on Isreal.

I have no answers for the Israel question. I have general notions, ideas of way more carrot and way less stick, and an emphasis on responsible diplomacy. Human dignity as a cornerstone of US policy would be a good plan, especially if the plan emphasized Palestinian and Israeli human dignity as equally important. But I don't think the solution for Isreal is high-profile and external, and I don't think that every slight development in Isreal needs the world media pouring over it. Again, grievances recorded and tragedies documented and protested, but the emphasis on covering Isreal over every other crisis in the world isn't beneficial. Israel is an important nation, but it is not the only important nation. And Israel has interesting and modern problems, but it is not alone in that.

My point is this: the Israel question is not as important as we make it, and the issue is too divisive, too complicated to really be dealt with well. I think that we, as a civilization, can collectively move on. I think we'll be better for it, and I think on the whole it will help the situation.

Youth and Play

Like many of my posts of late, this one is inspired by a link found on boingboing. The boingboing post concerns the fact that "go out and play" has become something lost to the American middle class, and that we are robbing children of childhood while depriving them of the rights of adults. In that post, commentor Cristovir says:

An interesting observation: in the history of the world, only recently have we had the phenomenon of adolescence -- everything we think of as "teenagerdom," particularly moodiness, rebellion, and impulsiveness. Some psychologists, albeit a minority, believe that adolescence is an artifact of having the rights of a child while expected to have the responsibility of an adult, and that if anyone, no matter what their age, had that mismatch in lower control and higher expectations, they would act more adolescent. I wonder if we will see adolescence creep at its borders, slowly expanding as we exert more control and less freedoms on both young children and young adults?

In many of my posts, I advocate both greater youth empowerment to go along with greater responsibilities. This flies in the face of previous impressions of what children are capable of, and I know it. The assumption that childhood and adolescence is nothing more than a sea of incompetence out of which and adult meges is a flawed perception, and I think that youth are more than capable of responsibly shouldering many adult tasks (holding a job, being actively engaged in politics), and that they should be rewarded with adult rights (the right to vote, the right to drink). I've a high opinion of youth, and seeing the great requirements already placed upon them (tight schedules, opppressive homework regimens, multiple extracurriculars, and in many cases jobs as well), I think youth are ready to rise to the challenge of being active and engaged citizens.

But maybe I've been wrong. The reason youth rights sounds absurd to many is because they remember childhoods full of play and self-development and independence, and they remember how yotuh and children experimented with these things. Yeah, youth did stupid things and made mistakes, and yeah, occasionally badthings happened. That is what happens with risk taking. There is risk involved. But the value gained from that, the degree of self-sufficiency and the learning involved are both essential components of civilization.

I've linked previously to Free Range Kids, and I'm going to do it again. It's a nice complement to philosophies of youth empowerment, and it hits the problem from the other direction. I see the imposition of adult responsibility and life on youth as needing a counter in the form of recognizing youth as competent and worthy of adult rights. But the problems of adolescence, "that mismatch in lower control and higher expectations", can be fought at in other ways. We can secure childhood by given kids more control over there lives, and letting them have that control within the context of being kids.

(Sidenote: In September, I will have a pulpit editorial delivered in some form at the UU church in Albuquerque, and it hits upon these themes. If I can get the audio to work, I'll upload it to this post before then. Edit 8/28/2008: this is the link to listen to the 7+ minute long pulpit editorial.)

Defining Hegemony

I often use the phrase Hegemony on this blog, especially when describing the United States, though not exclusively. In this post, for example, I refer to Russia re-establishing regional hegemony. Russia as regional hegemon has gained more weight in recent years. We've seen Russian involvement in Ukrainian politics (the other side in the "Orange Revolution"). We've seen Russia be overt about the potential for military action in Poland. And most strikingly, we've seen Russia wage war against neighboring Georgia and in return establish military bases in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. These are all the actions of a regional hegemon - influence in bordering countries, a foreign policy that seeks to tie the fates of satellite states to a bigger patron, defiance of other nations when it comes to neighboring states, and a willingness to use military force to achieve these ends. Russia is no doubt a regional hegemon.

But the sense of hegemony I tend to use is that of the United States and it's hegemony over the world. The United States is, at present, the world's foremost military power, and the world's most influential military. The United States, a country located entirely in the Western Hemisphere, has priorities and specific territorial concerns on every continent. The United States has done this for over half a century.

There's more minute detail that one can put into defining a global hegemon, but I think this map will suffice. As pointed out on BoingBoing, the 1-100 category probably includes embassy guards (which are good, and represent sound diplomacy instead of overt military control), but that aside, the map is still a decent documentation of where the US military exercizes it's influence. And the short of that "where" is "everywhere".

Russia, Georgia, and the Stateless

The war on Georgia has turned out to be way more interesting than just "Gah Russia Evil", and even more complex than "Western geopolitical entanglement causes problems". It is, like almost every issue ever, brought about by numerous disparate conditions. Is some of this renewed Russian militarism? Under Putin, certainly. Does the influence of NATO and the West partially explain the precarious position Georgia has placed itself in? Certainly, but lets not forget that the Georgian government had to at least be complicit and was almost certainly deliberate in these plans. But those are factors that exacerbate the situation - they cannot act without a catalyst. In this war, as in so many others, the catalyst is native, and is a desire for self-determination.

Wars for self-determination are among the most complex in existence. In antiquity, the Greek city states fought together to remove an invading foreign force (Persia). As soon as that ended, the Greek city states that had done the most fighting for the independence of others began to form their own empires, becoming the new overlords. More recently, the United States was founded by provinces seeking self-determination enlisting the aid of a foreign ally. Frances motives were not so much about democracy and freedom but about spiting the British, and it is fair to say that Russia is not a big fan of self-determination, but has a major investment in being regional hegemon, and in keeping the West confined to the West.

The province seeking autonomy in this case is Abkahzia. The News Hour had a fascinating segment on the province/nation recently, and I highly recommend it. The people interviewed are well aware that they need Russia to make the split into an independent nation. They've had every other avenue into the international community cut off, and so working with the powerful neighbor to the north is worth it. At this point in time, it looks like the move will pay off, and that they will keep a sovereignty. Russia may even gain an ally. But that situation is only part of what I want to talk about here.

The other part, the big elephant in the room when Russia is supporting self-determination, is Chechnya. Chechnya has wanted to be indepenent and fought for that independence for a surprisingly long time (centuries, or really ever since it wasn't independent). The Olympics have broguht to light another stateless nation, that of "Chinese Taipei", or as they are actually called, Taiwan. China is of course also well-known and well-protested for its domination and control of Tibet. Ever-present in the media and the public consciousness is the fluctuating autonomy of Palestine under Israel. And Iraq has for many brought to light the existence of Kurdistan, which is a state that has parts in Iran, Turkey, and Iraq, and has yet to achieve real independent nationhood.

Adding to this mix, the ever-reliable wikipedia has a list of stateless nations. I didn't count them all, but it looks like it's well over a hundred. There's even an organization of "Unrepresented Nations and Peoples". Unusual for me, I have no real point with this. I just think it is fascinating to know that this world order, this division into color-coded maps and broken sectioned-off territories is so hugely inadequate. It seems nationhood is so enticing that almost any nation has a smaller group inside wanting out, willing to dissolve the collective in favor of the specific.