Tag Archives: U.S. politics

Larry David is Bernie Sanders

Larry David’s Bernie Sanders is perfect. In fact, all the Saturday Night Live political personalities are pretty funny right now. Which is a probably a bad sign for our country. It’s just not that easy to parodize boring responsible grownups without a lot of weird personality quirks – think Obama, Romney, Gore. Oh, and then there is Ben Carson…

I’ve got a friend in Jesus…

the best and the brightest

The U.S. is sending “advisors” into Syria. This reminds me of David Halberstam’s The Best and the Brightest, where he describes the gradual escalation of the Vietnam war. A small force is sent. Then more are sent to protect the perimeter of that force. Then more are sent to patrol out from the perimeter. And so on until you have a president (Kennedy started it, Nixon ended it, but this book takes aim squarely at Lyndon Johnson) with an enormous amount of blood on his hands. Johnson has been judged kindly by history for his domestic programs and civil rights, but anybody who has read The Best and the Brightest might question that. Obama must have read The Best and the Brightest.

Jimmy Carter on Syria

This Jimmy Carter op-ed in the New York Times is a bit eyebrow raising.

The Carter Center had been deeply involved in Syria since the early 1980s, and we shared our insights with top officials in Washington, seeking to preserve an opportunity for a political solution to the rapidly growing conflict. Despite our persistent but confidential protests, the early American position was that the first step in resolving the dispute had to be the removal of Mr. Assad from office. Those who knew him saw this as a fruitless demand, but it has been maintained for more than four years. In effect, our prerequisite for peace efforts has been an impossibility…

The involvement of Russia and Iran is essential. Mr. Assad’s only concession in four years of war was giving up chemical weapons, and he did so only under pressure from Russia and Iran. Similarly, he will not end the war by accepting concessions imposed by the West, but is likely to do so if urged by his allies.

Mr. Assad’s governing authority could then be ended in an orderly process, an acceptable government established in Syria, and a concerted effort could then be made to stamp out the threat of the Islamic State.

The needed concessions are not from the combatants in Syria, but from the proud nations that claim to want peace but refuse to cooperate with one another.

It’s eyebrow raising both because if it is right it makes U.S. foreign policy look pretty bumbling, and also because these statements are being made in public seemingly after many years of behind-the-scenes frustration.

I think back to the 1990 Gulf War. The Cold War was over and we still had faith in international institutions. Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was a clear violation across sovereign borders. A coalition was formed and backed by the U.N. Security Council. As imperfect as all of this was, at least it had the feel of the rule of law. 15 years later, we have sovereign nations invading other sovereign nations, shadowy commando activity and drone assassinations across national borders from Europe to Africa to Asia. That hope we all felt when the wall fell in 1989 (well, maybe Jimmy Carter should ask his good friend Gorbachev how he felt at the time) seems to be receding further into history. And on top of the geopolitical instability we have more people, more weapons, climate change, and a shaky global economy.

Middle East spiral?

Here’s a scenario of how the Syria war and larger Middle East instability could escalate into something much worse.

As in imperial Europe in the period leading up to the First World War, the collapse of an entire order in the Middle East is in process, while forces long held in check are being released. In response, the former superpowers of the Cold War era have once again mobilized, at least modestly, even though both are fearful of a spark that could push them into direct conflict. Each has entangling regional relationships that could easily exacerbate the fight: Russia with Syria, the US with Saudi Arabia and Israel, plus NATO obligations to Turkey. (The Russians have already probed Turkish airspace and the Turks recently shot down a drone coyly labeled of “unknown origin.”)

Imagine a scenario that pulls any of those allies deeper into the mess: some Iranian move in Syria, which prompts a response by Israel in the Golan Heights, which prompts a Russian move in relation to Turkey, which prompts a call to NATO for help… you get the picture. Or imagine another scenario: with nearly every candidate running for president in the United States growling about the chance to confront Putin, what would happen if the Russians accidentally shot down an American plane? Could Obama resist calls for retaliation?

As before World War I, the risk of setting something in motion that can’t be stopped does exist.

As I’ve said before, I don’t think any of this is Obama’s fault, but if it does ultimately lead to something very bad, the roots may be traced back to events that happened on his watch whether they were under his control or not (also, clearly, to direct actions taken by his predecessor), and his legacy could be the president who let the post-World War II and post-Cold War order slip away.

CIA torture

Here are some really sickening descriptions of post-2001 CIA torture. It starts with a pretty awful case, but then it goes on and on.

It was the CIA’s goal, through a program designed and executed by two psychologists the agency contracted to run its torture operations, to break his mind. Integral to the program was the idea that once a detainee had been psychologically destroyed through torture, he would become compliant and cooperate with interrogators’ demands. The theory behind the goal had never been scientifically tested because such trials would violate human experimentation bans established after Nazi experiments and atrocities during World War II. Yet that theory would drive an experiment in some of the worst systematic brutality ever inflicted on detainees in modern American history.

 

Zakaria on Singapore

Fareed Zakaria thinks Singapore has more “social harmony” than the U.S. Uncritically quoting a deputy prime minister:

I asked the country’s deputy prime minister, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, what he regarded as the country’s biggest success. I imagined that he would talk about economics, since the city-state’s per capita GDP now outstrips that of the United States, Japan and Hong Kong. He spoke instead about social harmony.

“We were a nation that was not meant to be,” Shanmugaratnam said. The swamp-ridden island, expelled from Malaysia in 1965, had a polyglot population of migrants with myriad religions, cultures and belief systems. “What’s interesting and unique about Singapore, more than economics, are our social strategies. We respected peoples’ differences yet melded a nation and made an advantage out of diversity,” he said in an interview, echoing remarks he made at the St. Gallen Symposium last month in Switzerland…

I believe that Singapore is an example of a diverse society that has been able to live in harmony and that we could learn something from.

I had similar impressions when visiting Singapore. I had a very different impression when I lived there for three years. My impression was that families in Singapore are very, very strong, but relations between strangers, regardless of race or religion, are very, very weak. People don’t love or hate each other, because they don’t care about each other or have any interest in each other at all. I didn’t spend a lot of time around groups of Americans while I was there, so when I would occasionally find myself in a group of Americans, what always struck me was the sort of easy banter and camaraderie that Americans have, even when they are strangers to each other. Despite our despicable racial history, this is deeply engrained in our culture at this point and it is something we take completely for granted until and unless we spend some time in a society where it is not there. My conclusion from my personal experience was that Singapore may be pleasant and peaceful, as long as things are going well economically, but that social glue is not there, particularly for the younger generations who have known nothing but wealth seeking and consumerism as the dominant culture. I am not sure the country will be resilient some day when adversity finally comes, as it always does. I think people may turn on each other. Lee Kuan Yew, who led the country through the difficult times the deputy prime minster mentions above, understood this when he repeatedly cautioned that Singapore is not yet a true nation. Incidentally, he would point to China and Japan (not the U.S. or other western countries) as examples of “true nations” that always come through no matter what. I hope the current leadership understands what he meant. I wish Singaporeans all the best.

DoD and Climate Change

The U.S. Department of Defense believes in climate change:

DoD recognizes the reality of climate change and the significant risk it poses to U.S. interests globally. The National Security Strategy, issued in February 2015, is clear that climate change is an urgent and growing threat to our national security, contributing to increased natural disasters, refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources such as food and water.1 These impacts are already occurring, and the scope, scale, and intensity of these impacts are projected to increase over time.

Will the U.S. public finally be ready to just laugh science-denying Presidential candidates off the stage next year?

July 2015 in Review

I’m experimenting with my +3/-3 rating system again this month, just to convey the idea that not all stories are equal in importance. The result is that July was a pretty negative month! Whether that reflects more the state of the world or the state of my mind, or some combination, you can decide.

Negative stories (-21):

  • In The Dead Hand, I learned that the risk of nuclear annihilation in the 1980s was greater than I thought, and the true story of Soviet biological weapons production was much worse than I thought. (-3)
  • Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking, among others, are concerned about a real-life Terminator scenario. (-2)
  • I playfully pointed out that the Pope’s encyclical contains some themes that sound like the more lucid paragraphs in the Unabomber Manifesto, namely that the amoral pursuit of technology has improved our level of material comfort and physical health while devastating the natural world, creating new risks, and leaving us feeling empty somehow. (-1)
  • Bumblebees are getting squeezed by climate change. (-1)
  • The Cold War seems to be rearing its ugly head. (-2)
  • There may be a “global renaissance of coal”. (-3)
  • Joel Kotkin and other anti-urban voices like him want to make sure you don’t have the choice of living in a walkable community. (-2)
  • I think Obama may be remembered as an effective, conservative president, in the dictionary sense of playing it safe and avoiding major mistakes. Navigating the financial crisis, achieving some financial and health care reforms, and defusing several wars and conflicts are probably his greatest achievements. However, if a major war or financial crisis erupts in the near future that can be traced back to decisions he made, his legacy will suffer whether it is fair or not. (-0)
  • We can think of natural capital as a battery that took a long time to charge and has now been discharged almost instantly. (-3)
  • James Hansen is warning of much faster and greater sea level rise than current mainstream expectations. (-3)
  • Lloyd’s of London has spun a scenario of how a food crisis could play out. (-1)

Positive stories (+7):

War and Peace and Obama

Here is Jeffrey Sachs on Obama’s war and peace legacy:

Viewed through the lens of history, the main job of US presidents is to be mature and wise enough to stand up to the permanent war machine. Kennedy tried; his successor, Lyndon Johnson, did not, and the debacle of Vietnam ensued. Jimmy Carter tried; Reagan did not (his CIA helped to unleash death and mayhem in Central America throughout the 1980s). Clinton mostly tried (except in the Balkans); George W. Bush did not, and generated new wars and turmoil.

On the whole, Obama has tried to restrain the warmongers, yet he has given in to them frequently – not only by relying on weaponized drones, but also by waging covert wars in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere. Nor did he truly end the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; he replaced troops on the ground with US drones, air strikes, and “private” contractors.

Iran is surely his finest moment, a historic milestone that demands full-throated approval. The political difficulty of making peace with Iran is similar to that of JFK’s peacemaking with the Soviet Union in 1963.