Wednesday, August 30, 2006
The Mess in Iraq, I mean Aghanistan, I mean New Orleans
So another anniversary of a BushTeam debacle has come and gone. I couldn't watch him actually go to New Orleans and speak concerned platitudes with so many still suffering. But it indeed got me to thinking, what do all of these Bush blunders from 9/11 until the present day have in common?
Two big things: Cronyism and Privatization. Is that really just one thing? They certainly are hand-in-hand. We have since the Reagan years paid lip-service to the idea that the private sector can do it better, cheaper, more efficiently. The process of this move to the private has been greatly accelerated during TeamBush's reign, with the compliance of a GOP-dominated Congress. Part of the 'Government Bad' rhetoric. And its time to stop that crap right now! Let's take a look at each of these circumstances, detailed by writers and thinkers far better than moi.
Thomas Rick's new book Fiasco is as even-handed as it can be while decrying and lamenting over the horrible miscalculations and fraud and hubris that has characterized the US in Iraq. (You can also listen to him discuss it with Bill Maher on the link above.) My favorite part is when we learn the people in charge of reconstruction were discovered in fact to be GOP college kids or recent grads who had Zero Zip Nada experience with these extremely complicated budgeting issues. As they all began to talk about what they had in common that would bring them to Baghdad to control a monster project, one whose failure would engender the discontent to get us where we are today in that wretched country, the single thread was that they had all applied for internships at The Heritage Foundation. Some neocon in the Government had simply taken the resumes for interns, and hired them on the spot to lead this crucial project.
But then again, they might have been signing the checks, but the real decisions had all been made back in DC. The most-connected good ol' boy loyalists were given no bid contracts. Halliburton led the pack, in Iraq and after Katrina interestingly enough, but are far from the only culprits. Which leads me back to the twin pillars of cronyism and privatization. Here's a fine example from Afghanistan, where our efforts might have had a chance if they were executed with some sense of responsibility and oversight. Or as Naomi Klein notes, Katrina was only the first major US instance of a future in which the level of service you get (from pensions, to healthcare, to education, even to emergency response) is solely dependent on your ability to pay. Or be well connected, which in large part is the same thing once again.
So another anniversary of a BushTeam debacle has come and gone. I couldn't watch him actually go to New Orleans and speak concerned platitudes with so many still suffering. But it indeed got me to thinking, what do all of these Bush blunders from 9/11 until the present day have in common?
Two big things: Cronyism and Privatization. Is that really just one thing? They certainly are hand-in-hand. We have since the Reagan years paid lip-service to the idea that the private sector can do it better, cheaper, more efficiently. The process of this move to the private has been greatly accelerated during TeamBush's reign, with the compliance of a GOP-dominated Congress. Part of the 'Government Bad' rhetoric. And its time to stop that crap right now! Let's take a look at each of these circumstances, detailed by writers and thinkers far better than moi.
Thomas Rick's new book Fiasco is as even-handed as it can be while decrying and lamenting over the horrible miscalculations and fraud and hubris that has characterized the US in Iraq. (You can also listen to him discuss it with Bill Maher on the link above.) My favorite part is when we learn the people in charge of reconstruction were discovered in fact to be GOP college kids or recent grads who had Zero Zip Nada experience with these extremely complicated budgeting issues. As they all began to talk about what they had in common that would bring them to Baghdad to control a monster project, one whose failure would engender the discontent to get us where we are today in that wretched country, the single thread was that they had all applied for internships at The Heritage Foundation. Some neocon in the Government had simply taken the resumes for interns, and hired them on the spot to lead this crucial project.
But then again, they might have been signing the checks, but the real decisions had all been made back in DC. The most-connected good ol' boy loyalists were given no bid contracts. Halliburton led the pack, in Iraq and after Katrina interestingly enough, but are far from the only culprits. Which leads me back to the twin pillars of cronyism and privatization. Here's a fine example from Afghanistan, where our efforts might have had a chance if they were executed with some sense of responsibility and oversight. Or as Naomi Klein notes, Katrina was only the first major US instance of a future in which the level of service you get (from pensions, to healthcare, to education, even to emergency response) is solely dependent on your ability to pay. Or be well connected, which in large part is the same thing once again.
Best Scroll Ever. . .
I'll admit to being a scroll watcher. Those quick bursts of news are often more satisfying than the non-news prattling of the talking heads above the moving graphics. At their best, the condensed blurbs can even be tantalizing and mysterious. None more than the one I saw last Monday during the morning news. It began mundanely enough. . . "Hezbollah launches. . ", What? A missile? A food drive? A peace overture? Nope: "Hezbollah launches boy band to stardom." Sure my eyes were still sleep-filled and brain groggy, I dallied around the TV until the scroll came back again, and yep, I was right the first time.
Witness all the meteoric rise of Northern Band. Described as a struggling West Bank wedding band, they wrote new lyrics to an old classic tune singing the praises of Hassan Nasrallah. Its all over the place. Email downloads, CDs, tapes, and even ringtones. And here it is, the lyrics that launched their careers: "Hey, you, hawk of Lebanon. Hey, you, Nasrallah. Your men are from Hezbollah and victory is yours with God's help."
Catchy, huh?
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
International Gasolin' Appreciation Day
In honor having it's eponymous first album named the Greatest Album in Rock History by an esteemed panel of music critics, this humble Blogger would like to honor the Danish powerhouse Gasolin' by proclaiming today International Gasolin' Appreciation Day.
So kick back, enjoy a chilled 'Vit, and let the Scandanavian psychedelia wash over you.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
A New Direction in Foreign Policy? We can but hope.
It's simply amazing to think of what havoc the neoconservative foreign policy has caused since its main proponents asserted themselves in our government. In half a decade the US image abroad has plummeted to previously unseen lows, we've destroyed several countries with no solid plan to fix them (and, predictably, they've devolved into chaos) and we've sat by while a proxy nation has turned one of its neighbors into rubble. And the worst part, let's be frank, it has all been for naught. And yet still the unapologetic, incapable of mid-stream-correction TeamBush has soldiered on, making overtures to invade yet another foreign nation with a hostile regime in an unstable part of the world.
But equally disappointing has been the lack of a response from the opposition. Always yearning for the success of Clintonian triangulation, the Democratic Party has consistently opted for some muddled Republican Lite strategy--despite being handed an opportunity for change by the floundering GOP. Perhaps that is all about to change.
The first salvo in this new direction was sounded in a NYT op-ed piece by Robert Wright on July 16. Wright and his colleagues at The New America Foundation have outlined a new way for America to deal with the world. One which emphasizes transparency, engagement, and persuasion over the "for us or agin' us" mentality to Team Bush. The policy is called Progressive Realism, and as the title of his piece suggests, its a policy that "both realists and idealists should fall in love with." Rather than fail to do the concept justice I suggest reading it at the link above.
What I've found interesting is the traction this idea has gotten. Without mentioning his piece or Progressive Realism by name, Harvard scholar Juliette Kayyem wrote a piece in Sunday's Inky that echoed many of his points and further expanded on them. The 'new direction' theme was all over the place on Sunday, from Chris Matthews to a pleasantly coherent, on-message Howard Dean on Meet the Press. You could feel the wave of 'stay the course' Bushism breaking and receding in the face of a reality only the biggest neoconservatives now fail to recognize--their policy is bankrupt, it has no new tricks and has performed poorly with those it has enacted. What's desperately needed is something new.
Not that its so new, mind you. Realism as a stream of foreign policy, Wright reminds us, was conceived of and championed by Hans Morganthau and his devotees and has at its core an unflinching belief that policy must advance a nation's own self-interest. The progressive part of the equation comes from how we frame that self-interest. Again citing Morganthau, Wright notes:
Will it be embraced? Progressive Realism has had detractors on the left and right, but the discussion has allowed for clarification and expanding the conversation.And where we're currently heading just can't go any further (I type with crossed-fingers, having never thought our nation would be so reviled or complicit in so much overt shit in my lifetime and been proven wrong). We're bogged down, Israel's bogged down, having faced its own mini-Iraq in Lebanon, we're increasingly isolated and hated, and everywhere anti-Americanism and violent extremism are on the rise. Increasingly, an eye for an eye is making the whole world blind. While a policy of enagagement may not have the virile satisfying swagger of the John Wayne diplomacy we've grown to expect from TeamBush, it's clear the we're never going to win 'hearts or minds' going this route--and it should be equally clear that we'll never be able to kill or main them into obeyance. Alternatives, anyone?
It's simply amazing to think of what havoc the neoconservative foreign policy has caused since its main proponents asserted themselves in our government. In half a decade the US image abroad has plummeted to previously unseen lows, we've destroyed several countries with no solid plan to fix them (and, predictably, they've devolved into chaos) and we've sat by while a proxy nation has turned one of its neighbors into rubble. And the worst part, let's be frank, it has all been for naught. And yet still the unapologetic, incapable of mid-stream-correction TeamBush has soldiered on, making overtures to invade yet another foreign nation with a hostile regime in an unstable part of the world.
But equally disappointing has been the lack of a response from the opposition. Always yearning for the success of Clintonian triangulation, the Democratic Party has consistently opted for some muddled Republican Lite strategy--despite being handed an opportunity for change by the floundering GOP. Perhaps that is all about to change.
The first salvo in this new direction was sounded in a NYT op-ed piece by Robert Wright on July 16. Wright and his colleagues at The New America Foundation have outlined a new way for America to deal with the world. One which emphasizes transparency, engagement, and persuasion over the "for us or agin' us" mentality to Team Bush. The policy is called Progressive Realism, and as the title of his piece suggests, its a policy that "both realists and idealists should fall in love with." Rather than fail to do the concept justice I suggest reading it at the link above.
What I've found interesting is the traction this idea has gotten. Without mentioning his piece or Progressive Realism by name, Harvard scholar Juliette Kayyem wrote a piece in Sunday's Inky that echoed many of his points and further expanded on them. The 'new direction' theme was all over the place on Sunday, from Chris Matthews to a pleasantly coherent, on-message Howard Dean on Meet the Press. You could feel the wave of 'stay the course' Bushism breaking and receding in the face of a reality only the biggest neoconservatives now fail to recognize--their policy is bankrupt, it has no new tricks and has performed poorly with those it has enacted. What's desperately needed is something new.
Not that its so new, mind you. Realism as a stream of foreign policy, Wright reminds us, was conceived of and championed by Hans Morganthau and his devotees and has at its core an unflinching belief that policy must advance a nation's own self-interest. The progressive part of the equation comes from how we frame that self-interest. Again citing Morganthau, Wright notes:
Morgenthau seems to have sensed something that later political scientists
dwelt on: technology has been making the world’s nations more interdependent —
or, as game theorists put it, more non-zero-sum. That is, America’s fortunes are
growing more closely correlated with the fortunes of people far away; fewer
games have simple win-lose outcomes, and more have either win-win or lose-lose
outcomes.
This principle lies at the heart of progressive realism. A correlation
of fortunes — being in the same boat with other nations in matters of economics,
environment, security — is what makes international governance serve national
interest. It is also what makes enlightened self-interest de facto humanitarian.
Progressive realists see that America can best flourish if others flourish — if
African states cohere, if the world’s Muslims feel they benefit from the world
order, if personal and environmental health are nurtured, if economic inequities
abroad are muted so that young democracies can be stable and strong. More and
more, doing well means doing good.
Will it be embraced? Progressive Realism has had detractors on the left and right, but the discussion has allowed for clarification and expanding the conversation.And where we're currently heading just can't go any further (I type with crossed-fingers, having never thought our nation would be so reviled or complicit in so much overt shit in my lifetime and been proven wrong). We're bogged down, Israel's bogged down, having faced its own mini-Iraq in Lebanon, we're increasingly isolated and hated, and everywhere anti-Americanism and violent extremism are on the rise. Increasingly, an eye for an eye is making the whole world blind. While a policy of enagagement may not have the virile satisfying swagger of the John Wayne diplomacy we've grown to expect from TeamBush, it's clear the we're never going to win 'hearts or minds' going this route--and it should be equally clear that we'll never be able to kill or main them into obeyance. Alternatives, anyone?
