The Exercise of Vital Powers

http://www.rezendi.com/travels/bbbb.html

Ryan Lackey was the guy who moved onto an abandoned gun platform in the English Channel to setup a datahaven outside of any national jurisdiction. That business failed with the dot com bust. Now he is in Iraq doing satellite hook-ups for the US Military, contractors and other western interests.

The article gives an excellent view into a westerner’s life in Iraq and the problems Iraq is facing. Its a long read, but its worth it.

This is real-life Cryptonomicon.

Nick Weininger over on Catallarchy makes a valid point about how problems can have multiple and simultaneous causes. He uses the examples or terrorism and two causes pushed by the right and libertarians: Islam and foreign occupation.

If we think of terrorism as a chemical reaction, then Islam is more of a catalyst than a cause. Foreign occupation is one of (many possible) fuels of the reaction. But every chemical reaction requires more than one reactant. I believe that other ingredient is poverty.

Poverty is a key ingredient in most terrorist acts. Suicide bombers in Israel blow themselves up so their family will get the payoffs from the Saudi royals and others. The French and Russian revolutions were led by upper middle class kids wanting to do something (usually the wrong thing) about poverty. The 9/11 hijackers and London bombers were more of the same, middle class reactionaries looking to blame someone for the fact their culture is so far behind the rest of the world.

Olivier Roy, writing in the New York Times, says:

Converts are to be found in almost every Qaeda cell: They did not turn fundamentalist because of Iraq, but because they felt excluded from Western society (this is especially true of the many converts from the Caribbean islands, both in Britain and France).

“Born again” or converts, they are rebels looking for a cause. They find it in the dream of a virtual, universal ummah, the same way the ultra-leftists of the 1970s (the Baader-Meinhof Gang, the Italian Red Brigades) cast their terrorist actions in the name of the “world proletariat” and “Revolution” without really caring about what would happen after.

After 9/11 America consoled itself with the line: “The Terrorists hate us for our freedom”. That sounds nice, but isn’t true. Terrorists hate us for our successful economy, which we owe to freedom. Al Qaeda doesn’t hate the Saudi’s for their freedom. It doesn’t hate the Egyptians for their freedom. It doesn’t hate the Indonesians for their freedom. Yet it still blows up innocent civilians in those countries.

Oliver goes on to make the case that the whole Foreign-Occupation-as-a-cause-for-terrorism is a non-sequiter:

If the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine are at the core of the radicalization, why are there virtually no Afghans, Iraqis or Palestinians among the terrorists? Rather, the bombers are mostly from the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, Egypt and Pakistan - or they are Western-born converts to Islam.

It is also interesting to note that none of the Islamic terrorists captured so far had been active in any legitimate antiwar movements or even in organized political support for the people they claim to be fighting for. They don’t distribute leaflets or collect money for hospitals and schools. They do not have a rational strategy to push for the interests of the Iraqi or Palestinian people.

The problem with terrorism is that is works. Terrorists, like spoiled children, want attention and our 24/7 international news cycle gives it to them. It is a small price we have to pay for our globally connected economy. And I say it is a small price because our globally connected economy has in a large part ended state to state war.

The solutions to terrorism are: global economic connectivity, ruthlessly hunting down the perpetrators and financiers of terror, preemptive elimination of the leaders for whom terrorism is their source of importance, and a general populace that says “bugger off, I’ve got to get to work” when terrorists disrupt their daily life.

The truth is, those grim factories in Dongguan and the rest of southern China contributed to a remarkable explosion of wealth. In the years since our first conversations there, we’ve returned many times to Dongguan and the surrounding towns and seen the transformation. Wages have risen from about $50 a month to $250 a month or more today. Factory conditions have improved as businesses have scrambled to attract and keep the best laborers. A private housing market has emerged, and video arcades and computer schools have opened to cater to workers with rising incomes. (Source)

In the early 1990s, the United States Congress considered the “Child Labor Deterrence Act,” which would have taken punitive action against companies benefiting from child labor. The Act never passed, but the public debate it triggered put enormous pressure on a number of multinational corporations with assets in the U.S. One German garment maker laid off 50,000 child workers in Bangladesh. The British charity organization Oxfam later conducted a study that found that thousands of those laid-off children later became prostitutes, turned to crime, or starved to death. (Source)

Who said:

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”

Was it:
a) George Bush in an Address to the nation
b) Colin Powell before the United Nations
c) Tony Blair before the British Parliment
d) Hillary Clinton on the floor of the US Senate

Answer below the break
(more…)

Watching the Dems on this one [CAFTA] is like watching the French and Dutch on the EU Constitution. It is typically the out-of-power party in the Core that argues for go-slow on globalization, preying on people’s pain and fears. Ross Perot and the Republicans did it plenty under Clinton, and now the Dems do it big time under Bush. Leading is all about the future, and when you’re in power, it’s hard to do anything but embrace globalization for the challenges it represents. But when you feel like you’re falling behing in the game, like the French seem to feel across the board, then the best you can do is try and prevent the future for as long as possible.

–Thomas Barnett

So I finally read the infamous Downing Street Memo. Not much there I didn’t already learn from Bob Woodward. Reading the memo I’m reminded of the scene in ESB when Luke asks “What’s in there?” and Yoda replies “Only what you take with you”. If you are an anti-war Bush hater you’ll see all the damning evidence of a conspiracy.

There are two interesting parts of the memo - beyond the glimpse into UK military jargon.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. (emphasis mine)

The allegations that policy drove the intelligence is old news. As is the fact that post-conflict planning was severely lacking. Given the sorry state of Iraq today - the fact that the Blair Government knew this before hand is more of an black-eye to him than to the Bush Administration.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force

First off, just because Saddam wasn’t actively threatening people doesn’t mean he wasn’t a threat. And just because other countries had greater WMD capacities doesn’t necessarily mean they need to be bumped to a higher number of the regime change list. Iran is on the road to reform, so invasion doesn’t make sense at this time. Qaddafi is looking to be the elder statesmen of Africa - and has voluntarily shut down some of his WMD programs. North Korea is its own quagmire that China needs to deal with.

Iraq was unique in that we already had the UN resolutions in place, it had a mostly crippled military, and we already had lots of troops in place. If we wanted to pick a target to make an example of, Iraq was the prime choice.

All in all I don’t see the smoking gun evidence of wrong doing. But then again I didn’t go in there carrying the hatred that leads to the dark side either.

I think its time to close down our enemy combatant detention centers in Cuba. They have become a lightning rod of anti-Americanism. Most of the people held there have been there for at least a year. If we haven’t gotten information out of them by now, we aren’t going to get information out of them. We are detaining them to keep them out of circulation.

We should establish a prison in Afghanistan and turn over management to the Karzai government - with the proviso that US troops are responsible for security. The Afghans would be responsible for taking care of the prisoners - US forces are there to make sure they don’t escape. Any time a US official needs access to a prisoner then an Afghani is present.

This puts any responsibility for abuse on the Karzai government. It would provide a much needed influx of money into the country. More importantly it shuts down one more thing the left can use to attack our efforts in the war on terror.

I really like the guys at Cato, but this bit of silliness needs rebuttal:

Any country does better defending itself than fighting other people’s wars. Problems arise when invading a foreign country, such as fighting on unfamiliar terrain and dealing with people who speak different languages and have very different values. A foreign country’s actions are hard for the U.S. to predict. Moreover, because
the U.S. is fighting in somebody else’s country, its adversaries know that eventually the troops are going home, and if they hold out long enough, they could prevail.

If a conflict is inevitable - and I’m not saying in any particular case that it is or isn’t - then it is far better for the US to attack people and fight the war on their soil than it is for them to fight it on ours.

The reason the US won both world wars was that the war was fought in Europe - American agriculture and industry were not under direct threat. The North won the civil war because it was mostly fought in the South, and so it was the Confederacy’s infrastructure that was destroyed.

Fighting on unfamiliar terrain, dealing with other languages and unpredictable adversaries is much better than millions of dead American Civilians, a crippled economy and a ravished landscape.

Fight the war Over There

Like that one that our founding fathers were non-interventionalist.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/050605B.html

One of the unpleasant realities that the young and still untested United States had to face at the turn of the 19th century was the threat of piracy against its merchant shipping in the Mediterranean. The leading European powers had long dealt with the threat by paying tribute - we would now say protection money - to the rulers of the Barbary States of North Africa: Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis, and Morocco. At first the United States followed suit, but in May 1801 the Pasha of Tripoli was overthrown by a usurper who brazenly demanded more and, when it was refused, declared war on the United States.

President Thomas Jefferson decided to fight, despite the fact that the Navy had been nearly dismantled after the Revolution. In August a blockade of Tripoli was established by Commodore Richard Dale, who had fought with John Paul Jones. The blockade, small and ineffective at first, continued for nearly four years and gradually, with reinforcements from home and some borrowed vessels from the King of the Two Sicilies, took command of the waters of the Barbary Coast. ….

The Tripolitan War may well be counted the first instance of America’s stepping forth to solve a problem on Europe’s doorstep, a line that runs down to the Balkans and the Middle East and Central Asia today. More significantly, it first thrust the United States into the unsought role of enforcer of international law against rogue states in league with terrorists.

So even 200 years ago, Europe sat idle while the US had to go make things right.

As we continue to watch the death toll from the South East Asian Tsunami rise, I can’t help but notice the different effects disasters have in third world countries when compared to similar occurrences in the developed world. One year to the day before the tsunami, an earthquake measuring 6.3 on the Richter scale hit Iran. The Red Cross reported 43,000 people were killed. In October 1989 a more powerful quake, measuring 6.9 on the Richter scale hit San Francisco. Only 60 people were killed. A single cyclone in 1991 killed over 130,000 people in Bangladesh, yet the four hurricanes that made landfall in Florida in 2004 resulted in less than 100 deaths. When Mt. Saint Helens erupted in 1980, 57 people were killed. Five years later the Ruiz Volcano in Columbia erupted killing 21,000. Why then do similar disasters cause such greater loss of life in the poorer nations of the world, and more importantly how do we reduce the tremendous number of casualties?

Part of it is obvious: developed countries have more resources to spend on hard sciences, especially hard sciences that have economic value like disaster prediction. Developed countries also have and enforce legal restrictions such as proper land use, surveying, and building codes. The changes made in the wake of Hurricane Andrew are one of the major reasons that newer homes were not destroyed by all the hurricanes in 2004.

So having established an inverse relationship between economic development and loss of life from a natural disaster, the common sense approach to disaster mitigation would be to increase the level of economic development. The question then becomes how best to do this.

In his ground breaking book The Mystery of Capital, Hernando DeSoto tries to discover why capitalism works in the western world, yet fails almost everywhere else. He discovered that the people in the developing world have significant assets. They own their homes, operate small businesses, and have a decent amount of savings in the bank. But their countries lack the framework of Property Law that the developed nations have. Here in the US, I can take a piece of paper that says I own a specific plot of land to a bank and that bank will give me cash. The bank can do this because that piece of paper is signed by my county’s court. Through the diligence of the court and thanks to established laws and precedents, the bank has reduced its risk from loaning me money to the point where I am charged less than eight percent interest. Finally, the bank and I have confidence that no one else has a piece of paper that says they own that same plot of land.

I can then take the money from that loan and use it to start a business that will employ many other people, who will eventually be able to buy their own plots of land. In this one regard it could be said that reasonable government helped make America great.

Contrast this experience with a country like Egypt. To legally acquire and register a plot of land requires dealing with 77 bureaucratic procedures at 31 agencies. In the US it is the buyer, the seller, and the county court. That, in a nutshell, is why DeSoto says Western Countries became the economic powerhouses of the world, while the rest of the world languishes. The developing world needs fair government that establishes an efficient, uniform system of property rights and property rights protection for all its citizens.

Caring individuals across the world should step forward immediately to provide disaster relief. None of these reforms will help the people who die from disease and lack of food and clean water. But as the world transitions from disaster relief to reconstruction aid, we must demand the fundamental political, judicial and economic changes necessary to mitigate this much damage from ever happening again.