President Bush's "appeasement" comments really annoy me. The rhetoric itself is bad enough - yes, I know he didn't refer explicitly to Senator Obama, but really, did anyone out there think for a second that he was talking about anyone else?
But what really gets me is how factually wrong Bush is (although I guess I should have gotten used to this a long time ago). Obama is not calling for appeasement, and never has. Let's take the case of Hamas. Obama has explicitly said that he wants Hamas to renounce terrorism and recognize Israel, but, unlike the administration, he has also said that he will not insist that Hamas must comply before any negotiations can begin. This is not appeasement. Appeasement would involve us trying to figure out a way for Hamas to keep doing whatever they want to do, preferably with as few casualties of our own as possible. Appeasement derives from the verb "to appease," which has a connotation of making the other party content/happy/satisfied. Something tells me that Obama's demands aren't going to leave Hamas happy or satisfied. But in order to get anything from them, we have to be willing to compromise, and compromise happens over a negotiating table, not at gunpoint.
Finally, one thing that Bush said in the article linked above really stood out to me as emblematic of why his administration has failed so spectacularly in the Middle East. In straw-manning Obama's motives for calling for negotiations, Bush derisively said that Obama must have the intention of "persuad[ing] them they have been wrong all along." No, Mr. President, that's not the goal. We're not going to persuade them that they're completely wrong, because no one likes to be told that, and all it does is put people on the defensive and make them more hostile to you. You went into Iraq determined to prove that the Iraqis were wrong about everything, and it blew up in your face. Even though these groups may have methods and/or visions for the future that we don't entirely love, they certainly do some things right, and they also have the support of a lot of people on the ground. We're not going to get a surrender out of Hamas, or Ahmadinejad, or any of them, so we have to try for a compromise. And compromises don't happen without respect or without dialogue. Obama is far more invested in both of these than the current administration ever was. This doesn't make him an appeaser; it makes him a realist.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Sunday, May 11, 2008
John McCain: He Was In Favor of Hypocrisy Before...Wait, He Still Is
So the latest piece of news out of the McCain camp is that his choice for RNC Chair spent some time in 2002 working for the military junta in Myanmar. And this wasn't exactly pro bono representation, either: they were paid over $300,000 to lie about the junta's generally reprehensible (mis-)treatment of its citizens.
So basically, John McCain called out Barack Obama because Hamas independently came to the conclusion that they "support" Obama, while at the same time retaining someone who had actively worked for the brutally repressive Myanmar junta. And it's not like he made these accusations at a time when it was unclear that the Myanmar thing would come to light: he made them on Friday, multiple days after the cyclone had hit and the junta's nature had come to light. Can someone--anyone-- explain his logic to me?
So basically, John McCain called out Barack Obama because Hamas independently came to the conclusion that they "support" Obama, while at the same time retaining someone who had actively worked for the brutally repressive Myanmar junta. And it's not like he made these accusations at a time when it was unclear that the Myanmar thing would come to light: he made them on Friday, multiple days after the cyclone had hit and the junta's nature had come to light. Can someone--anyone-- explain his logic to me?
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Letting sleeping dogs lie
Matthew Yglesias writes that Hizbullah's actions in Lebanon over the past few days demonstrate that it is primarily focused on gaining power within Lebanon, rather than attacking Israel or the West. Of course, such sentiments trigger a flood of "Are you kidding me?????" sentiment, based on Hizbullah's repeated declarations about how much it hates teh Jewz.
But Yglesias is completely correct in his assessment, and here's why: if Hizbullah really were interested in attacking Israel, it would never begin by taking over the government of Lebanon. Israel, for all of its faults (of which it has many), is a very, very powerful military force, one that has proven itself capable of defending itself against, oh, the entire Arab world (cf. the Six-Day War). The IDF is extremely well-equipped, possessing state-of-the-art weaponry on land and in the skies, along with the world's only operational anti-ballistic missile system. On top of that, the Shin Bet (Israel's internal security service) and the Mossad (foreign intelligence) are among the most feared and respected such organizations in the world.
The thing is, though, that Israel has shown itself to have the same problem as America: it's good at conventional warfare, but bad at fighting asymmetrical wars. So, if you were Hizbullah and intended to put yourself in the best position to strike at Israel, why in God's name would you start by taking over the Lebanese government? All that that would do is expose you to being targeted by the IDF! Remember what happened to America in Iraq: we were great at taking down Saddam's regime, but terrible at rooting out the insurgency afterwards. Governments are easy to attack, seeing as how they tend to have very obvious and vulnerable institutions (such as Parliament buildings, courts, and other such things). They have to be visible to their people, and in doing so they make themselves visible to the enemy.
What Israel learned in 2006 was that all Olmert's horses and all Olmert's men couldn't root out a determined, battle-tested, and (most importantly) agile insurgent group. If Hizbullah were to succeed in carrying out a coup d'etat in Lebanon, it would sacrifice a critical piece of that agility. I don't mean to imply that Hizbullah would necessarily be destroyed by Israel if it tried to launch an attack after establishing itself as the ruling party in Lebanon: its bases of support in the countryside are likely too strong, and Israel may prove to be more wary now than it was back in 2006. But Hizbullah would certainly be inviting a serious body blow, and courting disaster is not something that any successful resistance organization wants to do. Hizbullah may want power in Lebanon. It may want to attack Israel. But I seriously doubt that it wants to do them in that order.
But Yglesias is completely correct in his assessment, and here's why: if Hizbullah really were interested in attacking Israel, it would never begin by taking over the government of Lebanon. Israel, for all of its faults (of which it has many), is a very, very powerful military force, one that has proven itself capable of defending itself against, oh, the entire Arab world (cf. the Six-Day War). The IDF is extremely well-equipped, possessing state-of-the-art weaponry on land and in the skies, along with the world's only operational anti-ballistic missile system. On top of that, the Shin Bet (Israel's internal security service) and the Mossad (foreign intelligence) are among the most feared and respected such organizations in the world.
The thing is, though, that Israel has shown itself to have the same problem as America: it's good at conventional warfare, but bad at fighting asymmetrical wars. So, if you were Hizbullah and intended to put yourself in the best position to strike at Israel, why in God's name would you start by taking over the Lebanese government? All that that would do is expose you to being targeted by the IDF! Remember what happened to America in Iraq: we were great at taking down Saddam's regime, but terrible at rooting out the insurgency afterwards. Governments are easy to attack, seeing as how they tend to have very obvious and vulnerable institutions (such as Parliament buildings, courts, and other such things). They have to be visible to their people, and in doing so they make themselves visible to the enemy.
What Israel learned in 2006 was that all Olmert's horses and all Olmert's men couldn't root out a determined, battle-tested, and (most importantly) agile insurgent group. If Hizbullah were to succeed in carrying out a coup d'etat in Lebanon, it would sacrifice a critical piece of that agility. I don't mean to imply that Hizbullah would necessarily be destroyed by Israel if it tried to launch an attack after establishing itself as the ruling party in Lebanon: its bases of support in the countryside are likely too strong, and Israel may prove to be more wary now than it was back in 2006. But Hizbullah would certainly be inviting a serious body blow, and courting disaster is not something that any successful resistance organization wants to do. Hizbullah may want power in Lebanon. It may want to attack Israel. But I seriously doubt that it wants to do them in that order.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Why isn't Michel Aoun a household name yet?
Surprise, surprise: Beirut is a war zone again. And, even less surprisingly, the tangle of alliances resembles a veritable Gordian knot.
But it's worth looking into who's fighting whom here, because no one seems to be talking about the most important piece of it. The media has been telling the story of a conflict pitting Hizbullah and its allies, whoever they may be, against the Western-backed government, led by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. When reported this way, the conflict looks like nothing more than the same old song and dance: an Islamist organization, seething with hatred for All That Is Good And Holy (read: the West, particularly America), grabs up weapons and starts trying to impose its vision of a new societal order, dissenting opinions be damned.
If you read between the lines, though, the story gets much more interesting. Because, you see, Hizbullah's allies aren't the radical Islamists that everyone seems to assume they are. In fact, their most powerful ally is none other than the Free Patriotic Movement, a political party led by a former army commander named Michel Aoun, who just happens to be a Christian. Yes, that's right: Hizbullah, the "terrorist organization" which the American government says is following in the ideological footsteps of Ayatollah Khomeini, is allied with a Christian. (Digression: this is further evidence that the American government actually has no idea of what's going on in the Middle East. No organization that supported Khomeini's belief in vilayet-i faqih would ever ally itself politically with a party headed by a non-Muslim. In order for vilayet-i faqih to work, the Jurist in charge has to actually be a Muslim.)
And there's more. Not only is Hizbullah allied with the FPM, but two years ago it signed a public memorandum with them outlining the goals of their partnership. There are a lot of interesting words in there, but Section X is far and away the most surprising. In that section, which talks about protecting Lebanon's sovereignty, the two groups address the issue of Hizbullah's (substantial) military capacity. While no solution is explicitly given, the document quite definitively states that any acceptable solution must "objectively define conditions that would eliminate the reasons and justifications for keeping these weapons." In other words, two years ago Hizbullah signed a document in which it promised to disarm itself, making no mention of the obliteration of Israel as a precondition.
Why isn't this being talked about? Am I the only one who sees it as a good thing that Hizbullah has allied itself with the Free Patriotic Movement, which calls for, among other things, women's rights, adherence to international laws, and democracy in its charter? Hizbullah probably doesn't like Israel any more now than it did before it entered into this alliance, but this type of gesture, crossing religious boundaries to further objectively positive ends (i.e. the disarmament of the Lebanese militias) should cause people to stop and take notice. Terrorist organizations don't do this sort of thing, Mr. President.
I've saved the best part of this story for last: according to Hizbullah's website, al-Qaeda has declared war on Hizbullah. The stated reason is that al-Qaeda wants to "defend the Sunni community of Lebanon." I'd be shocked if Hizbullah's alliance with the FPM weren't part of the calculus as well. Either way, Hizbullah is clearly starting to run afoul of at least one segment of the radical community. Those of us who have an interest in winning some support in the region might do well to ask why.
But it's worth looking into who's fighting whom here, because no one seems to be talking about the most important piece of it. The media has been telling the story of a conflict pitting Hizbullah and its allies, whoever they may be, against the Western-backed government, led by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. When reported this way, the conflict looks like nothing more than the same old song and dance: an Islamist organization, seething with hatred for All That Is Good And Holy (read: the West, particularly America), grabs up weapons and starts trying to impose its vision of a new societal order, dissenting opinions be damned.
If you read between the lines, though, the story gets much more interesting. Because, you see, Hizbullah's allies aren't the radical Islamists that everyone seems to assume they are. In fact, their most powerful ally is none other than the Free Patriotic Movement, a political party led by a former army commander named Michel Aoun, who just happens to be a Christian. Yes, that's right: Hizbullah, the "terrorist organization" which the American government says is following in the ideological footsteps of Ayatollah Khomeini, is allied with a Christian. (Digression: this is further evidence that the American government actually has no idea of what's going on in the Middle East. No organization that supported Khomeini's belief in vilayet-i faqih would ever ally itself politically with a party headed by a non-Muslim. In order for vilayet-i faqih to work, the Jurist in charge has to actually be a Muslim.)
And there's more. Not only is Hizbullah allied with the FPM, but two years ago it signed a public memorandum with them outlining the goals of their partnership. There are a lot of interesting words in there, but Section X is far and away the most surprising. In that section, which talks about protecting Lebanon's sovereignty, the two groups address the issue of Hizbullah's (substantial) military capacity. While no solution is explicitly given, the document quite definitively states that any acceptable solution must "objectively define conditions that would eliminate the reasons and justifications for keeping these weapons." In other words, two years ago Hizbullah signed a document in which it promised to disarm itself, making no mention of the obliteration of Israel as a precondition.
Why isn't this being talked about? Am I the only one who sees it as a good thing that Hizbullah has allied itself with the Free Patriotic Movement, which calls for, among other things, women's rights, adherence to international laws, and democracy in its charter? Hizbullah probably doesn't like Israel any more now than it did before it entered into this alliance, but this type of gesture, crossing religious boundaries to further objectively positive ends (i.e. the disarmament of the Lebanese militias) should cause people to stop and take notice. Terrorist organizations don't do this sort of thing, Mr. President.
I've saved the best part of this story for last: according to Hizbullah's website, al-Qaeda has declared war on Hizbullah. The stated reason is that al-Qaeda wants to "defend the Sunni community of Lebanon." I'd be shocked if Hizbullah's alliance with the FPM weren't part of the calculus as well. Either way, Hizbullah is clearly starting to run afoul of at least one segment of the radical community. Those of us who have an interest in winning some support in the region might do well to ask why.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
With Friends Like These...
So Larry Lucchino, president and CEO of the defending world champion Boston Red Sox, came to speak at Calhoun yesterday. He said a lot of interesting things, but what struck me the most were his thoughts about payroll disparities in baseball. We aren't talking about a minor phenomenon here: Alex Rodriguez makes more money than the entire Florida Marlins roster combined, and the Yankees roster in total makes only slightly less money than the rosters of the Nationals, Pirates, A's, Rays, and Marlins put together. Revenue sharing has helped the situation somewhat - while the Yankees are still far and away the most profligate spenders, there are now 12 teams with payrolls between $138m and $98m, ranging from big-market teams (Red Sox, Mets) to small-market ones (Blue Jays). But the problem with revenue sharing is that it lacks an accompanying salary floor. The opposite of a salary cap, a salary floor is a minimum amount of money which must be spent on player salaries. It is designed to make sure that teams actually take their revenue sharing checks and put them to their intended use (i.e. paying players) instead of siphoning off the money into the owners' bank accounts and continuing to field a cheap, mediocre team.
On its face, a salary floor seems like a good idea, and one would assume that the players' union would be behind it - after all, unions have long championed minimum wage laws, which is basically the concept behind a salary floor (albeit applied to the collective wages of all players, not to each individual). Surprisingly, though, the players' union is vehemently opposed to a salary floor. The rationale, at least according to Lucchino, is that the union opposes any attempt to regulate salaries at all, fearing that it would be the first step on the road to salary caps (either for a team or for individual players).
Basically, the players' union is allowing its irrational fear of a slippery slope of regulation to dominate its thinking, resulting in a situation where the Marlins can field a team with an average salary of about $650,000 while the average Yankee makes just over 10 times that much. Is it just me, or does this scenario run counter to the raison d'etre of unions? Unions are supposed to look out for all of their members, not just the powerful ones. Instituting a salary floor does not necessarily mean that a salary cap is coming, and even if it did, why would the union give preferential treatment to the elite players (whose exorbitant salaries would be reined in somewhat by a cap) instead of the average players (whose low salaries would be increased by a salary floor)?
The free market may be good for some things, and it may allow certain individuals to reap enormous rewards, but it is emphatically not an egalitarian system - the strong survive, and the weak are trampled down. Unions are, at their core, supposed to be a way to counterbalance these Darwinian tendencies. Maybe someone should tell the MLB players' union this...
On its face, a salary floor seems like a good idea, and one would assume that the players' union would be behind it - after all, unions have long championed minimum wage laws, which is basically the concept behind a salary floor (albeit applied to the collective wages of all players, not to each individual). Surprisingly, though, the players' union is vehemently opposed to a salary floor. The rationale, at least according to Lucchino, is that the union opposes any attempt to regulate salaries at all, fearing that it would be the first step on the road to salary caps (either for a team or for individual players).
Basically, the players' union is allowing its irrational fear of a slippery slope of regulation to dominate its thinking, resulting in a situation where the Marlins can field a team with an average salary of about $650,000 while the average Yankee makes just over 10 times that much. Is it just me, or does this scenario run counter to the raison d'etre of unions? Unions are supposed to look out for all of their members, not just the powerful ones. Instituting a salary floor does not necessarily mean that a salary cap is coming, and even if it did, why would the union give preferential treatment to the elite players (whose exorbitant salaries would be reined in somewhat by a cap) instead of the average players (whose low salaries would be increased by a salary floor)?
The free market may be good for some things, and it may allow certain individuals to reap enormous rewards, but it is emphatically not an egalitarian system - the strong survive, and the weak are trampled down. Unions are, at their core, supposed to be a way to counterbalance these Darwinian tendencies. Maybe someone should tell the MLB players' union this...
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Please excuse the lack of posts
Have been swamped with work for the past few weeks, and now it's reading week, followed by finals week. Will try to get in a post or two, but either way I'll be returning with a vengeance around mid-May.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
How do you say "Gallup Poll" in Hebrew?
The Economist has a very interesting piece on its website today about the opinions of residents of the Middle East regarding the upcoming elections. Not surprisingly, their preferences are most influenced by the candidates' views on foreign policy, but two things really jumped out at me.
The first thing is how close the ratings of McCain and Clinton are in the Israeli press (7.75 and 7.5, respectively, on a 10-point scale with 10 as the best - Obama gets a 5.12). McCain and Clinton obviously differ in their predictions and prescriptions for Iraq and the Middle East, but, at least in the Middle East, those differences clearly aren't seen as being all that important. Unfortunately, the article doesn't include any rankings of Bush, so we can't say for sure whether they see any difference between Bush's policies and those of Clinton/McCain. But if the view that McCain is just a wrinklier version of Bush is anywhere near as prevalent in Bethlehem, Israel, as it is in Bethlehem, PA, then the perceived similarities between McCain and Hillary can't be a good sign for her.
The other thing that stood out was Obama's support among the Arabs. Most interesting was the note about how badly the "Barack Hussein Obama" disparagements have played in the Middle East. Again, guys, the Middle East situation is as much about perception and framing as it is about actual policy. If we elect Hillary, not only will we have elected a president whom the Arabs are less enthusiastic about, but we will have failed to elect someone whom they do seem to support. I'm not sure which would hurt us more...
The first thing is how close the ratings of McCain and Clinton are in the Israeli press (7.75 and 7.5, respectively, on a 10-point scale with 10 as the best - Obama gets a 5.12). McCain and Clinton obviously differ in their predictions and prescriptions for Iraq and the Middle East, but, at least in the Middle East, those differences clearly aren't seen as being all that important. Unfortunately, the article doesn't include any rankings of Bush, so we can't say for sure whether they see any difference between Bush's policies and those of Clinton/McCain. But if the view that McCain is just a wrinklier version of Bush is anywhere near as prevalent in Bethlehem, Israel, as it is in Bethlehem, PA, then the perceived similarities between McCain and Hillary can't be a good sign for her.
The other thing that stood out was Obama's support among the Arabs. Most interesting was the note about how badly the "Barack Hussein Obama" disparagements have played in the Middle East. Again, guys, the Middle East situation is as much about perception and framing as it is about actual policy. If we elect Hillary, not only will we have elected a president whom the Arabs are less enthusiastic about, but we will have failed to elect someone whom they do seem to support. I'm not sure which would hurt us more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)