I can't watch TV without being reminded of the ever-worsening news about America's failing in Iraq. Even Fox News is asking: "Why have we bungled this war so badly?" Right...how could experienced officials be so misguided and incompetent? It's not like the Bush administration doesn't have top officials who don't have any Soviet or Eastern European expertise. So have they applied anything they picked up on from the Cold War's end and aftermath? As strange as this may seem, especially given American penchant for ahistorical and compartmentalized treatment of its foreign affairs, a better understanding would have cautioned much of the US's Iraq folly. Consider the endemeic corruption that has engulfed Iraq and subverts efforts to rebuild the country, provide vital services, and improve lives of ordinary Iraqis. The single most incessant problem across the entire post-communist area is the public and private sector corruption that drains investment, slows growth, and disenthralls once enthusiastic "Westernizers" in even the most successful transition states. Look at Russia, it was chiefly disgust at the rampant criminalization during the 90's that created broad support for Putin's turn to despotic, state-corporatist policies. Building on the ruins of Socialism, since if this chaos and consequent anti-market, anti-democratic backlash was surely inevitable. Even advocates of "shock therapy", *cough* World Bank *cough*, now admit that rapid privatization of state industy and social services led to avoidable destruction and waste, impoverishment, polarization, and corruption. All over Eastern Europe and Central Asia crime and malfeasance fuel an anti-Western force in politics. Instead of using competence guided by real-world experience to establish a plan for Iraq, the administration used naivety fueled by ideology. Designing a utopian private healthcare system and computerizing the Baghdad stock exchange is a good idea? Meanwhile, the state was plundered, social services crashed, and the country quickly descended into chaos. Fuck, I can run this country. How do you overlook the painful post-communist experience, not just repeatedly, but magnify ALL the recent mistakes of transition politics and economics? Donald Rumsfeld so wisely said: "Stuff happens". Hell yes it does, Mr. Rumsfeld. Especially when an old system is destroyed with little regard for the difficult work of preparing a new one. Instead, you put blind faith in the indebtedness of the liberated mass and free market magic. The Bush administration has acknowledged its stupid mistake of dismatling the Iraqi army and dismissing thousands of experienced managers in a sweeping "de-Ba'athification". But we still await for a critique of the numerous other reconstruction failures like the deflection of millions of dollars from unsupervised rebuilding projects to the bribery and pay-offs that permeate everything from small business to nation politics? Hmmm? Oh nevermind.
Any long-tyrannized society can't adapt to Western economic and political models overnight. That's a give-in. Let's take a look at war-torn Bosnia, Kosovo, and even Tajikistan. There were many warnings when Bush 1 wanted to topple Saddam the first time around. What did Bush 2 not see? The likelihood of a Sunni-Shi'ite-Kurdish conflict? They should have looked at what happened between the Serbians, Croatians, and Bosnians after the collapse of Yugoslavia or the Pashtuns, Tajiks, and Uzbeks warlordism that came after the fall of the Soviet-backed government in Afghanistan. Bloodshed. There are just 2 post-communist dangers that weren't just overlooked, but completely ignored. More specifically the failure to see the consequences of sudden regime change in an area that does not have a single community or nationality and has many divisions in culture, region, and economy.
Face it, Iraq is like America's Chechnya. The Chechens fought the Russians between 1994 and 1996 and that conflict ended in a draw. They signed a cease fire and gave Chechnya de facto independence, but that did no good. The republic became a host to feuding clans, criminal gangs, and Islamic fundamentalism. Putin decided to reinvade after a series of attacks and hostage-takings in Russia. Chechnya today is nothing but a mephitic wound. It's society shattered. The Russians fear withdrawal because that would spur more separatism and bolder terrorist attacks. What connection am I trying to establish here? Corruption and criminalization debilitate stability and much less hopes for democracy. When rival parties are expelled by rival sectarian groups, with then break down into rival paramilitaries and gangs...warlordism transcends the religious or national cause. The opposition becomes so radicalized that yesterday's extremists are today's moderates and the odds of stabilizing that nation grow long. Chechnya is in a constant state of "normalization" like the Oakland Raiders are in a constant state of rebuilding. The occupiers become just as brutal as the insurgents, the ambitious youth seek life abroad, and the rest are nominally ruled by the occupiers. Iraq isn't this bad, but it's showing similarities. Iraq is also much more difficult to handle. America does not just have to abrogate a secessionist challenge and pacify a terrorist threat in a tiny, contingous republic, but build a stable and independent nation on the other side of the world. Shit I am tired. I will build on this later.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
I didn't go to high school, I went to school high.
Since I write as I go and take no time out of my soooo busy life to put my thoughts into essay form I decided to give you breaks with pictures chosen randomly. Yeah, it doesn't flow and the grammar is probably terrible. Fuck off. When I start school, I'll care, but I am not ready yet. Deal and enjoy.
Question: what is the largest single change that would better U.S. foreign policy that can be achieved simply by an act of political will? Answer: abandonment of the "War" on Drugs. The global war on drugs can't be won. There is no argument. Why am I even posting this? This is silly. The U.N. has this unrealistic goal of achieving a drug free world. How did the alcohol free world go? Oh. The global war on drugs is modeled after America's (where drugs are freely available to anyone who wants them) punitive and moralistic policy. The United States (with less than 5% of the world's population) is first in the world in per capita incarceration (with 25% of the world's prisoners). Listening to America's ideas about prohibition is like listening to Carl Everett's position on dinosaurs. The government treats the usage of drugs like disease control. Politicians will spew garbage about how they must rid the world of drugs like they're a plague. What stupid logic. There is no popular demand for AIDS or small pox.
If the government really wants to go that route, why not accept addiction as what it really is: a health problem, not a criminal one? Most people that use drugs are just like the responsible alcohol users. Oooooh but it's immoral. Where do some people get off thinking there is some principal basis for discriminating against people solely based on what they put in their bodies, absent harm to others? People living in "Jesusland" (good song by NOFX by the way) think legalization will lead to huge increases in drug abuse. Ummmm drugs are pretty much readily available to those who want them now anyways. There's never been a drug free world and there never will be. These people believed in the U.N. General Assembly in 1998 when it committed to "eliminating or significantly reducing the illicit cultivation of the coca bush, cannabis plant, and the opium poppy by 2008" and reducing demand. Today, global reproduction and consumption of those drugs are roughly the same; meanwhile, many producers have become more efficient, and heroin and cocaine have become purer and cheaper. The government probably spends close to $100 billion on these failed drug policies. Just think if the government used even a third of that to reduce drug related illness and addiction. Fatalities from overdoses would be less and the spread of infectious diseases by sharing syringes would be reduced. The government would rather stick to its "zero tolerance" policies.
I'm totally losing focus. I guess I'll wrap this up because I am getting bored. The problem isn't with drug users because most of them are responsible. The problems are with the government's zero tolerance policy which doesn't allow people with serious addictions to seek help without being indicted. Full legalization may not be realistic at the present time but partial is. The drug that stands the greatest chance of being legalized is cannabis. Hundreds of millions of people use it and most do not suffer harm or go on to use harder drugs. Drug users are not dangerous it's the organized crime markets that are riddled with corruption and violence that are. It would be much more pragmatic if the government would let the powerful alcohol and tobacco companies handle it. The government could regulate the drugs to prevent the diseases that come with unregulated products and eliminate the dangerous markets where one purchases drugs. Prohibition does nothing to stop the desire for drugs.
**I can provide sources. Have a problem with the facts? Email me.
Fin
Question: what is the largest single change that would better U.S. foreign policy that can be achieved simply by an act of political will? Answer: abandonment of the "War" on Drugs. The global war on drugs can't be won. There is no argument. Why am I even posting this? This is silly. The U.N. has this unrealistic goal of achieving a drug free world. How did the alcohol free world go? Oh. The global war on drugs is modeled after America's (where drugs are freely available to anyone who wants them) punitive and moralistic policy. The United States (with less than 5% of the world's population) is first in the world in per capita incarceration (with 25% of the world's prisoners). Listening to America's ideas about prohibition is like listening to Carl Everett's position on dinosaurs. The government treats the usage of drugs like disease control. Politicians will spew garbage about how they must rid the world of drugs like they're a plague. What stupid logic. There is no popular demand for AIDS or small pox.
If the government really wants to go that route, why not accept addiction as what it really is: a health problem, not a criminal one? Most people that use drugs are just like the responsible alcohol users. Oooooh but it's immoral. Where do some people get off thinking there is some principal basis for discriminating against people solely based on what they put in their bodies, absent harm to others? People living in "Jesusland" (good song by NOFX by the way) think legalization will lead to huge increases in drug abuse. Ummmm drugs are pretty much readily available to those who want them now anyways. There's never been a drug free world and there never will be. These people believed in the U.N. General Assembly in 1998 when it committed to "eliminating or significantly reducing the illicit cultivation of the coca bush, cannabis plant, and the opium poppy by 2008" and reducing demand. Today, global reproduction and consumption of those drugs are roughly the same; meanwhile, many producers have become more efficient, and heroin and cocaine have become purer and cheaper. The government probably spends close to $100 billion on these failed drug policies. Just think if the government used even a third of that to reduce drug related illness and addiction. Fatalities from overdoses would be less and the spread of infectious diseases by sharing syringes would be reduced. The government would rather stick to its "zero tolerance" policies.
I'm totally losing focus. I guess I'll wrap this up because I am getting bored. The problem isn't with drug users because most of them are responsible. The problems are with the government's zero tolerance policy which doesn't allow people with serious addictions to seek help without being indicted. Full legalization may not be realistic at the present time but partial is. The drug that stands the greatest chance of being legalized is cannabis. Hundreds of millions of people use it and most do not suffer harm or go on to use harder drugs. Drug users are not dangerous it's the organized crime markets that are riddled with corruption and violence that are. It would be much more pragmatic if the government would let the powerful alcohol and tobacco companies handle it. The government could regulate the drugs to prevent the diseases that come with unregulated products and eliminate the dangerous markets where one purchases drugs. Prohibition does nothing to stop the desire for drugs.
**I can provide sources. Have a problem with the facts? Email me.
Fin
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Does Capitalism threaten democracy?
Before I answer this question I would like to address two things. First off, yes I went with the Seattle Seahawks color scheme. Big deal. Secondly, if you enjoy the work of Ayn Rand, stop reading my blog and proceed to the nearest...bah..it wouldn't work. Her followers are too narcissistic to do us all non-Randroids a favor and rid us of their self-centered drivel. And warning: I wrote this as I went, it probably doesn't flow. :-)
To the topic at hand, in a way, yes...but I think people are more of a threat to democracy than anything. It is a growing trend in the United States to hate on capitalism and then simultaneously enjoy the fruits of it. People will blame corporations for the negative side effects that come with the free market, but haven't we all made a compact with ourselves? Don't we all know the source of the economic deals we are getting? The minimum wages and crappy benefits forced upon the workers, the hazardous effects on the environment, the businesses that ditch the local communities they thrived in to turn their allegiance to the global supply chains, and the CEOs who take their paycheck home in a Maserati. Yes, we do...and nothing is done about it. It's partially not our fault and it is not capitalism's fault. Capitalism's only role is to "increase the economic pie" and nothing more. It is democracy's role to act upon the public goods and achieve both equity and growth. There is not one democratic nation that can cope with the negative side effects of capitalism. This is not a failing of capitalism, it is a blurring of capitalism's and democracy's responsibilities, to the disservice of our democratic duties. The big corporations, in order to intensify their competitiveness on the global scale, have rendered the general population powerless by investing greater sums in activities such as lobbying, public relations, and many times even bribery. They preoccupy Congress with concours between competing industries or companies for weeks or months, incapacitating the government's ability to act upon citizen's needs or concerns.
However, people need to realize there is more to a democracy than just fair and free elections. Citizens need to join together and decide on a common good. Unfortunately the public is divided into two extremist groups: those who believe the market should rule and those that believe in preserving the communities as they are and protecting jobs. Instead of coming together and figuring out how to softening the blows of globalization, compensating for the losers, or slowing the pace of change. We'd rather get at each other's throats even though we all share a common distress. The problem comes down to the people either being too ignorant, too arrogant, and/or too lazy. Both democracy and capitalism have been on the rise for the past few decades. The majority of countries in the world are a part of a individual, integrated, and turbocharged global market. Nearly two-thirds of the nations hold free elections, just a thirty years ago only one-third. It is up to us as citizens to figure out a way to keep corporations buoyed by runaway economic success from undermining the government's ability to respond to our needs and interests. I open the floor. :-)
To the topic at hand, in a way, yes...but I think people are more of a threat to democracy than anything. It is a growing trend in the United States to hate on capitalism and then simultaneously enjoy the fruits of it. People will blame corporations for the negative side effects that come with the free market, but haven't we all made a compact with ourselves? Don't we all know the source of the economic deals we are getting? The minimum wages and crappy benefits forced upon the workers, the hazardous effects on the environment, the businesses that ditch the local communities they thrived in to turn their allegiance to the global supply chains, and the CEOs who take their paycheck home in a Maserati. Yes, we do...and nothing is done about it. It's partially not our fault and it is not capitalism's fault. Capitalism's only role is to "increase the economic pie" and nothing more. It is democracy's role to act upon the public goods and achieve both equity and growth. There is not one democratic nation that can cope with the negative side effects of capitalism. This is not a failing of capitalism, it is a blurring of capitalism's and democracy's responsibilities, to the disservice of our democratic duties. The big corporations, in order to intensify their competitiveness on the global scale, have rendered the general population powerless by investing greater sums in activities such as lobbying, public relations, and many times even bribery. They preoccupy Congress with concours between competing industries or companies for weeks or months, incapacitating the government's ability to act upon citizen's needs or concerns.
However, people need to realize there is more to a democracy than just fair and free elections. Citizens need to join together and decide on a common good. Unfortunately the public is divided into two extremist groups: those who believe the market should rule and those that believe in preserving the communities as they are and protecting jobs. Instead of coming together and figuring out how to softening the blows of globalization, compensating for the losers, or slowing the pace of change. We'd rather get at each other's throats even though we all share a common distress. The problem comes down to the people either being too ignorant, too arrogant, and/or too lazy. Both democracy and capitalism have been on the rise for the past few decades. The majority of countries in the world are a part of a individual, integrated, and turbocharged global market. Nearly two-thirds of the nations hold free elections, just a thirty years ago only one-third. It is up to us as citizens to figure out a way to keep corporations buoyed by runaway economic success from undermining the government's ability to respond to our needs and interests. I open the floor. :-)
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
