The most obvious competitor presently capable of challenging U.S. primacy is the European Union. The E.U., although not hostile toward the U.S. or its interests, is capable on multiple levels of challenging the strength of the American monolith. More so than all other potential competitors, and possibly those competitors combined, the E.U. has wealth. Wealth is a necessity if a state or group of states wants to be strong in any worthy endeavor. Without sufficient capital, no other aspect of interstate relations can flourish. Insufficient capital will undermine any state's cross border relations but in a competition for the title of global hegemon, a state must be capable of competing monetarily with the one which holds that position.
Monetarily, the E.U. is really the only potential competitor which can come close to challenging the U.S. (Art 2003, 242). Although the E.U. boasted the world's largest GDP in 2008 at $14.94 trillion U.S. dollars (PPP) (the U.S. 2008 GDP was slightly less at $14.44 trillion) (CIA World Factbook), it is far from certain that the entity as a whole is capable of harnessing that GDP in order to make a credible challenge to American global dominance. Inasmuch as the E.U. is a work in progress and seems to be in the process of working out innumerable kinks in its overall existence, there is a great deal of unknown in terms of E.U. capability across the board. Indeed it seems a little premature to even calculate an E.U. GDP since many of its member states’ citizens have yet to identify themselves first as E.U. members rather than their own nationalities.
With the potential to rival the U.S. monetarily, the E.U. is on fertile ground to challenge the U.S. for military supremacy. According to Art, military equality requires little more than a comparable military; comparable in size, ground, sea, and air assets, technological advancement, etc. By this standard, according to Art, no other state actor has the potential to rival American military supremacy over the next few decades but the E.U. Presently the E.U. has 27 member states with 3 negotiating entry (Europa), and a population of 491.5 million (CIA World Factbook). In conjunction with its monetary capacity, the E.U. could probably produce a military to rival that of the U.S. However, the advantage the U.S. has in this regard is that it has been producing superior military capability for two full generations, whereas, other than a piece-meal, patchwork military with units thrown in from various states within the E.U., the E.U. would need many years to produce a uniquely European Union military capable of rivaling that of the U.S. on the battlefield. It is problematic in many ways to believe that the piece-meal strategy of military building would be an efficient and effective answer to American military hegemony (Art 2003, 243).
The other potential rivals for American hegemony would be China and Russia, likely in that order. These two states have unique problems in such an ambition. China's military infrastructure and tradition is seriously lacking in comparison to that of the U.S. China would rely almost entirely on a consistently increasing GDP at a rate of 7 percent per annum to match American might within three decades. Without said increase, China may never obtain parity with the U.S. Russia, on the other hand, has the infrastructure and tradition in place to potentially rival the U.S. as a global power, but that infrastructure and tradition is badly deteriorated and out of date, and it would likely take a few decades to upgrade and retrench that military prowess to enable a competent rivalry with the U.S. In either case, America seems firmly entrenched as the singular global power for at least two decades and probably three (Art 2003, 243-244).
The E.U. and the U.S. have a uniquely intertwined history and culture. As a result, it would be unlikely that the two would ever be at military odds with each other, but rather, should the E.U. develop a comparable military might to that of the U.S., the two would in all probability, dominate the world together in a co-equal partnership, with cooperation much like that seen in NATO. The strength of the E.U. is an asset to America and the strength of America is an asset to the E.U. It would be in America's best interests for the E.U. to develop into a formidable competitor in the modern world.
Art, Robert J. A Grand Strategy for America. Ithica, New York: Cornell University Press. 2003.
Europa: The EU at a Glance. http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/candidate_countries/index_en.htm. (accessed December 13, 2009)
U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. CIA World Factbook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ee.html (accessed December 14, 2009).
Europa: The EU at a Glance. http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/eu_members/index_en.htm (accessed Decmeber 13, 2009).
Showing posts with label military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label military. Show all posts
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Terrorism: Law Enforcement or Military Issue
To try to define terrorism as either strictly a law enforcement or a military issue seems to me to be an unwise attempt to make black and white a very grey issue. Terrorism has no widely accepted definition and, as the recent shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, demonstrated, isn’t likely to get one anytime soon. For this reason I believe it important to answer this question based on the specifics of each case.
Not only is it problematic to try to define terrorism, it defies reason to try to lump responsibility and jurisdiction for such vastly different instances as (just as mere examples) the Murrah Federal Building bombing in Oklahoma City and the attack on the USS Cole in the Port of Aden, both of which were obvious cases of terrorism, under the same entity. For the same reason, it is difficult to grant explicit jurisdiction to fight terrorism to either the military or to law enforcement. Terrorism is such a general term, with meaning differing from person to person, that doing so would be utterly foolish.
In many instances, the military has no jurisdiction, nor place, in dealing with terrorism. The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing is a prime example. I would be appalled to find military investigators or intelligence units investigating such an incident within the bounds of the United States. In this and other like instances, terrorism is clearly under the purview of law enforcement, either local or federal.
On the other hand, the military has similar jurisdiction when dealing with battlefield components of terrorism or terrorist acts perpetrated by or against its own personnel, such as the USS Cole or the Fort Hood example.
The question has only been muddled by the conflict between right and left leaning politicians with specific agendas within the United States. It was begun by the Bush administration’s declaration of war on terrorism, defining the conflict between democracy and totalitarianism as a war. It might more accurately be called an ideological struggle, a struggle between conflicting, mutually exclusive ideologies. If the whole “war” thing had never been introduced, it might have simplified things. Ironically, I don’t recall any real quandary when it came to dealing with “prisoners” of the cold war, once again a conflict between ideologies.
The conflict then is what to do with “terrorists” once our military has taken them captive in a foreign combat zone. I don’t believe the issue has ever been what to do with American citizens, or even foreign nationals, arrested on US soil, by US law enforcement, for either planning or executing a terrorist attack. This is where it gets fuzzy in regard to US national security. If there is insufficient evidence to convict a “terrorist” for criminal activity, and yet, the person was picked up fighting alongside terrorists and against US military personnel, is it rational and reasonable to just send the person back to where he’s from, knowing that he may just take up arms again against US military personnel?
I believe the answer is, if it is indeed a “war”, the international laws regarding the conduct of war, ought to be applied. If the “war” is still ongoing, the person ought to be held as a prisoner of that war until its conclusion. If it is something short of war, the person ought to be sent back to where he’s from. My critics will say, “If you send him back, he’ll just kill again.” They’ll also argue that by being held indefinitely, he may have developed animosity toward America where there was none, and so, he may be dangerous now when he wasn’t before. To my critics I would cite the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The critics will then say, “those rights are reserved for American citizens.” To that I would say, “ALL MEN…..” not just American citizens. It is contrary to the moral standard of America to hold individuals indefinitely, without giving them the right to apply for their liberty, or being able to prove their innocence. That's what Joseph Stalin and Saddam Hussein would do.
The American Intelligence Community is among the best in the world, if not THE best. There ought to be a very rational, and legal, means of monitoring these individuals, and using them, once tossed back into the population, to further develop America’s knowledge of Islamic extremist networks. Perhaps it seems simplistic, after all, I’m not an expert in such things, but biologists do this sort of thing all the time. They tag birds, animals, and even fish, then monitor their movements once back in the wild. There ought to be a great way of taking advantage of the situation and the people America has in its custody.
Not only is it problematic to try to define terrorism, it defies reason to try to lump responsibility and jurisdiction for such vastly different instances as (just as mere examples) the Murrah Federal Building bombing in Oklahoma City and the attack on the USS Cole in the Port of Aden, both of which were obvious cases of terrorism, under the same entity. For the same reason, it is difficult to grant explicit jurisdiction to fight terrorism to either the military or to law enforcement. Terrorism is such a general term, with meaning differing from person to person, that doing so would be utterly foolish.
In many instances, the military has no jurisdiction, nor place, in dealing with terrorism. The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing is a prime example. I would be appalled to find military investigators or intelligence units investigating such an incident within the bounds of the United States. In this and other like instances, terrorism is clearly under the purview of law enforcement, either local or federal.
On the other hand, the military has similar jurisdiction when dealing with battlefield components of terrorism or terrorist acts perpetrated by or against its own personnel, such as the USS Cole or the Fort Hood example.
The question has only been muddled by the conflict between right and left leaning politicians with specific agendas within the United States. It was begun by the Bush administration’s declaration of war on terrorism, defining the conflict between democracy and totalitarianism as a war. It might more accurately be called an ideological struggle, a struggle between conflicting, mutually exclusive ideologies. If the whole “war” thing had never been introduced, it might have simplified things. Ironically, I don’t recall any real quandary when it came to dealing with “prisoners” of the cold war, once again a conflict between ideologies.
The conflict then is what to do with “terrorists” once our military has taken them captive in a foreign combat zone. I don’t believe the issue has ever been what to do with American citizens, or even foreign nationals, arrested on US soil, by US law enforcement, for either planning or executing a terrorist attack. This is where it gets fuzzy in regard to US national security. If there is insufficient evidence to convict a “terrorist” for criminal activity, and yet, the person was picked up fighting alongside terrorists and against US military personnel, is it rational and reasonable to just send the person back to where he’s from, knowing that he may just take up arms again against US military personnel?
I believe the answer is, if it is indeed a “war”, the international laws regarding the conduct of war, ought to be applied. If the “war” is still ongoing, the person ought to be held as a prisoner of that war until its conclusion. If it is something short of war, the person ought to be sent back to where he’s from. My critics will say, “If you send him back, he’ll just kill again.” They’ll also argue that by being held indefinitely, he may have developed animosity toward America where there was none, and so, he may be dangerous now when he wasn’t before. To my critics I would cite the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The critics will then say, “those rights are reserved for American citizens.” To that I would say, “ALL MEN…..” not just American citizens. It is contrary to the moral standard of America to hold individuals indefinitely, without giving them the right to apply for their liberty, or being able to prove their innocence. That's what Joseph Stalin and Saddam Hussein would do.
The American Intelligence Community is among the best in the world, if not THE best. There ought to be a very rational, and legal, means of monitoring these individuals, and using them, once tossed back into the population, to further develop America’s knowledge of Islamic extremist networks. Perhaps it seems simplistic, after all, I’m not an expert in such things, but biologists do this sort of thing all the time. They tag birds, animals, and even fish, then monitor their movements once back in the wild. There ought to be a great way of taking advantage of the situation and the people America has in its custody.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Public Opinion and the Military
Use of American military forces abroad has always been a contentious issue. In question more broadly has been the conflict between two ideologies, Isolationism and Globalism (or internationalism; or interventionism). The debate between the two in America goes back to its genesis; the debate over whether America should keep to its own borders, or if its interests require, that it exert its influence abroad.
At the outset of the Second World War in Europe, American public opinion was largely opposed to the committal of US forces to that theater. The opinion was largely, “Let the Europeans deal with their own mess!” After all, America had intervened in World War One and the Europeans clearly hadn’t learned their lesson. Roosevelt had wanted to commit American forces to the European theater long before the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor and it was American public opinion that prevented him. He needed the Japanese awakening to persuade the American public that American intervention in Europe was necessary. It was public opinion, ultimately, that brought the United States of America into the Second World War.
America’s engagement in Vietnam largely ended as a result of tremendous public pressure, or negative public opinion. Over the decade long war, the Vietnam conflict garnered increasing public criticism. In this instance, Isolationism had grown in the arena of foreign policy as a result of the Second World War and the Korean conflict. As Vietnam dragged on, American public opinion grew until finally, under U.S. President Gerald Ford, American troops were completely withdrawn from Vietnam in 1975. The conflict rested upon the premise that democracy’s mortal enemy was communism, and that democracy, in order to prevail on the global stage, needed to stem the tide of communist expansionism. The American public didn’t see things quite in that light. In large part because of the media, American public opinion turned so strongly against Vietnam that Washington finally conceded and removed the last remaining American troops in April, 1975.
In 1993, American forces had been committed to Somalia as part of a UN aid program to protect and distribute relief aid to starving Somalis. The country was run largely by warlords and was in basic anarchy. The American commander in that theater authorized a raid aimed at abducting Mohamed Farrah Aidid, a leading warlord and strongman in Mogadishu, along with several of his top lieutenants. The raid succeeded in part, but failed to net Aidid, and resulted in the deaths of several American soldiers. The media, as in Vietnam, couldn’t get enough of the carnage of war, and succeeded in driving public opinion in opposition to the American presence in Somalia. Many Americans saw Somalia as a lawless, godless region and believed American troops had no place in such a god-forsaken part of the world. It didn’t take long for President Bill Clinton to withdraw American forces.
More recently, with waning public support for “Operation Iraqi Freedom”, President Barack Obama promised in his election campaign that he would withdraw American troops from Iraq. The American public, at least in some part, had begun to desert the Iraq war and see it as another Vietnam. Obama viewed his election, as do all American presidents, as a “referendum” on the former president’s policies, and immediately set out to withdraw American troops from Iraq. Although public opinion is in no way as galvanized against the Iraq war as it was against Vietnam, the people have spoken, and public opinion has again been a part in shaping American policy.
Public opinion will always shape the ebb and flow of the use of military force as well as American policy generally. The nature of a democracy demands it. If public opinion ceased to be a factor in such aspects of government, America would cease to be a democracy.
At the outset of the Second World War in Europe, American public opinion was largely opposed to the committal of US forces to that theater. The opinion was largely, “Let the Europeans deal with their own mess!” After all, America had intervened in World War One and the Europeans clearly hadn’t learned their lesson. Roosevelt had wanted to commit American forces to the European theater long before the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor and it was American public opinion that prevented him. He needed the Japanese awakening to persuade the American public that American intervention in Europe was necessary. It was public opinion, ultimately, that brought the United States of America into the Second World War.
America’s engagement in Vietnam largely ended as a result of tremendous public pressure, or negative public opinion. Over the decade long war, the Vietnam conflict garnered increasing public criticism. In this instance, Isolationism had grown in the arena of foreign policy as a result of the Second World War and the Korean conflict. As Vietnam dragged on, American public opinion grew until finally, under U.S. President Gerald Ford, American troops were completely withdrawn from Vietnam in 1975. The conflict rested upon the premise that democracy’s mortal enemy was communism, and that democracy, in order to prevail on the global stage, needed to stem the tide of communist expansionism. The American public didn’t see things quite in that light. In large part because of the media, American public opinion turned so strongly against Vietnam that Washington finally conceded and removed the last remaining American troops in April, 1975.
In 1993, American forces had been committed to Somalia as part of a UN aid program to protect and distribute relief aid to starving Somalis. The country was run largely by warlords and was in basic anarchy. The American commander in that theater authorized a raid aimed at abducting Mohamed Farrah Aidid, a leading warlord and strongman in Mogadishu, along with several of his top lieutenants. The raid succeeded in part, but failed to net Aidid, and resulted in the deaths of several American soldiers. The media, as in Vietnam, couldn’t get enough of the carnage of war, and succeeded in driving public opinion in opposition to the American presence in Somalia. Many Americans saw Somalia as a lawless, godless region and believed American troops had no place in such a god-forsaken part of the world. It didn’t take long for President Bill Clinton to withdraw American forces.
More recently, with waning public support for “Operation Iraqi Freedom”, President Barack Obama promised in his election campaign that he would withdraw American troops from Iraq. The American public, at least in some part, had begun to desert the Iraq war and see it as another Vietnam. Obama viewed his election, as do all American presidents, as a “referendum” on the former president’s policies, and immediately set out to withdraw American troops from Iraq. Although public opinion is in no way as galvanized against the Iraq war as it was against Vietnam, the people have spoken, and public opinion has again been a part in shaping American policy.
Public opinion will always shape the ebb and flow of the use of military force as well as American policy generally. The nature of a democracy demands it. If public opinion ceased to be a factor in such aspects of government, America would cease to be a democracy.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Accountability of Russia's Nuclear Arsenal
The arsenal of nuclear weapons belonging to the Russian Federation has been a topic of concern to the United States and the west since the fall of the Soviet empire. The economic collapse that took place in the 1990s is largely to blame for the deteriorating and perceived unreliability of the systems and facilities used to house and protect this vast arsenal. The economic element accounts for international concern about the personnel responsible for the handling and maintenance of the stockpile as well. With the era of global terror ahead of us and the era of nuclear annihilation seemingly behind us, the decayed and corrupt system in which the old Soviet stockpile of nuclear weapons is entrusted seems at best, vulnerable, at worse, disastrous.
The impact of the economic depression of the 1990s on the Russian Federation’s stockpile of nuclear weapons is near incalculable. Although extensive and comprehensive measures are and always have been taken to keep the arsenal secure and out of the wrong hands, the facilities in which these weapons are housed are several decades old and in decrepit condition in most cases. The entity charged with the storage and protection of this nuclear arsenal is known as the 12th Main Directorate. This directorate has been under funded since the Soviet collapse and its facilities have accordingly gone without repair and upgrading. I spent a few years in Russia in the mid 1990s and I can picture the old and dilapidated concrete structures with rusted steel reinforcements showing through cracked and crumbling exteriors. I recall seeing an old Soviet military facility in Romania where the fencing intended to keep people out was decayed and patchy and the only thing it might have been successful at keeping out may have been an American tourist who was too fearful of the Soviet stereotype to venture inside (I’m also envisioning some old babushka sweeping snow off the porch of this nuclear storage facility with a homemade broom).
The accountability, security, and physical protection systems in place are likewise decades old and the 12th Main has consistently lacked funds to purchase, install and manage state of the art, or even second hand, computerized accountability and security systems. A former commander of the 12th Main boasted in the late 1990s that the security systems in place had been perfected over several decades and that there has never been a significant breach in security nor major accident with nuclear weapons under the 12th Main’s watch. First, that the systems are several decades old is serious cause for concern, and second, with a perfect record over a several decade span, the odds are against them.
Another issue dealing with the security systems is the economic impact of years of destitution suffered by the bulk of the Russian army. From where would they draw the personnel to man and manage these systems if not from the ranks of this destitute soldiery. 30,000 personnel are necessary to do the job under the present circumstances. The odds of a hand full of bad eggs among those 30,000 is tremendous and the reward for successfully acquiring a single nuclear warhead, or even the fissile material necessary to make a nuclear devise, is equally as great. No doubt someone could retire to some French villa and live out his life in relative luxury after successful completion of such a task.
Even if the Russian Federation suddenly came into some exorbitant amount of money to upgrade and completely modernize the storage facilities and security systems, plus compensate those 30,000 troops sufficiently to dissuade them from wanting to risk certain death for trying to steal a nuclear warhead, the infrastructure for transportation, protection while in transit, and temporary storage of the arsenal is certainly as old, decrepit and vulnerable as the permanent facilities and systems currently in use. The rail lines, rail cars, trucks and other vehicles, procedures, routes, etc., are by no means sophisticated and the material would be exponentially more vulnerable to outside interference in the process of relocation and temporary storage than it would be by leaving it in those dilapidated storage bunkers. That’s not even mentioning the increased risk of accident by putting a dozen nuclear warheads on an old rail car, on old rail lines, using old equipment, guarding it with destitute soldiers using old firearms. The recipe for disaster is clear.
The Russian Federation, although now much better off than it was 10 years ago, is still in comparative dire economic straits and likely lacking the resources and the will to fully secure those thousands of nuclear warheads. The United States has in the past provided assistance in this regard and may continue do so but the probability of U.S. resources going to buy some Russian general a retirement home on the Black Sea or a yacht in the Mediterranean is very high. The problem then goes unsolved but the necessity is still very great if the interests of the West are to be protected. Much more attention ought to be paid to the Russian nuclear stockpile and its circumstances in order to insure the security of the this vast nuclear arsenal.
Read about Russia's Missing Briefcase Nukes
The impact of the economic depression of the 1990s on the Russian Federation’s stockpile of nuclear weapons is near incalculable. Although extensive and comprehensive measures are and always have been taken to keep the arsenal secure and out of the wrong hands, the facilities in which these weapons are housed are several decades old and in decrepit condition in most cases. The entity charged with the storage and protection of this nuclear arsenal is known as the 12th Main Directorate. This directorate has been under funded since the Soviet collapse and its facilities have accordingly gone without repair and upgrading. I spent a few years in Russia in the mid 1990s and I can picture the old and dilapidated concrete structures with rusted steel reinforcements showing through cracked and crumbling exteriors. I recall seeing an old Soviet military facility in Romania where the fencing intended to keep people out was decayed and patchy and the only thing it might have been successful at keeping out may have been an American tourist who was too fearful of the Soviet stereotype to venture inside (I’m also envisioning some old babushka sweeping snow off the porch of this nuclear storage facility with a homemade broom).
The accountability, security, and physical protection systems in place are likewise decades old and the 12th Main has consistently lacked funds to purchase, install and manage state of the art, or even second hand, computerized accountability and security systems. A former commander of the 12th Main boasted in the late 1990s that the security systems in place had been perfected over several decades and that there has never been a significant breach in security nor major accident with nuclear weapons under the 12th Main’s watch. First, that the systems are several decades old is serious cause for concern, and second, with a perfect record over a several decade span, the odds are against them.
Another issue dealing with the security systems is the economic impact of years of destitution suffered by the bulk of the Russian army. From where would they draw the personnel to man and manage these systems if not from the ranks of this destitute soldiery. 30,000 personnel are necessary to do the job under the present circumstances. The odds of a hand full of bad eggs among those 30,000 is tremendous and the reward for successfully acquiring a single nuclear warhead, or even the fissile material necessary to make a nuclear devise, is equally as great. No doubt someone could retire to some French villa and live out his life in relative luxury after successful completion of such a task.
Even if the Russian Federation suddenly came into some exorbitant amount of money to upgrade and completely modernize the storage facilities and security systems, plus compensate those 30,000 troops sufficiently to dissuade them from wanting to risk certain death for trying to steal a nuclear warhead, the infrastructure for transportation, protection while in transit, and temporary storage of the arsenal is certainly as old, decrepit and vulnerable as the permanent facilities and systems currently in use. The rail lines, rail cars, trucks and other vehicles, procedures, routes, etc., are by no means sophisticated and the material would be exponentially more vulnerable to outside interference in the process of relocation and temporary storage than it would be by leaving it in those dilapidated storage bunkers. That’s not even mentioning the increased risk of accident by putting a dozen nuclear warheads on an old rail car, on old rail lines, using old equipment, guarding it with destitute soldiers using old firearms. The recipe for disaster is clear.
The Russian Federation, although now much better off than it was 10 years ago, is still in comparative dire economic straits and likely lacking the resources and the will to fully secure those thousands of nuclear warheads. The United States has in the past provided assistance in this regard and may continue do so but the probability of U.S. resources going to buy some Russian general a retirement home on the Black Sea or a yacht in the Mediterranean is very high. The problem then goes unsolved but the necessity is still very great if the interests of the West are to be protected. Much more attention ought to be paid to the Russian nuclear stockpile and its circumstances in order to insure the security of the this vast nuclear arsenal.
Read about Russia's Missing Briefcase Nukes
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Ego/Ethno-Centrism In America
Someone like Sean Hannity would wet himself that I am anti-American for what I am about to publish. I think Americans are very ego/ethno-centric and have no clue what is going on in the rest of the world. Nor do they care. Many would say, "Why should I care?" The answer seems obvious.
While I was in Baghdad I had opportunity to work in very close proximity to, in total, about 70 Iraqis. The Army had hired them to do repairs on the palace complex we were living in and operating out of. The conditions those guys had to deal with, even at that time in late 2003 (it has gotten much worse since then), were horrendous. They had to risk getting shot up as they stood at the gate of the complex waiting to get in for cavorting with the American infidels, they risked being kidnapped, murdered, etc. Just watch the news and you'll know what they were putting up with from day to day. They were all pretty good guys and I became good friends with some of them. Some were crooked and thieves (Ali Babba, as they said) but for the most part they were just family men trying to make a living for their families. They were mostly laborers to clean up bomb rubble but we hired some for their skills such as carpentry, plumbing, and electrical. We paid the laborers $3/day and the skilled workers $5/day. They were happy for the income, and if I believe what they told me, it was a very good income compared to what they had been accustomed to. One guy told me he made that much in a month under Saddam, doing the very same work.
Here is an email I sent to my family while I was in Baghdad:
"Mon, 8 Sep 2003 06:17:28 -0700 (PDT) Last week was a good one for language. I learned a lot and I'm finally able to get some elementary thoughts across. I think M. (our 2 year old) speaks better English than I speak Arabic. One of my guys, Thamr, told me last week that his dad was driving his car and four armed men came up while he was stopped and carjacked him. They shot him twice in the leg and robbed him of his car. The people here live in fear for their lives because there is no law, nor order. The same guy, Thamr, told me that he wants to marry a girl he has known since childhood. He is 22 and she is 20. He told me that she has to be 23 years old before she can wed and he has to pay her dad $300 to do it. That's difficult for him because he is supporting his parents and 4 brothers with his $3/day wage. Perhaps within the 3 years he can come up with the money.
"Another guy, Salaam, told me that he had worked on Saddam's palace, the same one where we live. He was doing some marble work. Saddam came through one day to inspect the work. All the workers at the palace had been told not to look up at him. Salaam inadvertently looked up as Saddam was walking through and caught Saddam's eye. Saddam called him over, pulled out a pistol, and shot him in the head...for looking at him. He was in a coma for several months. He showed me the bullet hole...actually he let me feel it because hair had grown over. It was weird to put my finger into a bullet hole in a man's scull.
"It is so saddening to see the conditions and poverty that these people live in. The anarchy they have to experience. They are, for the most part, such good people. Today a Major got angry with me because I wasn't being their overseer. Some of the army types here are so uptight about this stuff. They figure the hajis have to be driven like slaves. They just can't see them as people. Some Americans are so racist. There's a lot of arrogance in people's hearts over here.
"Well, I guess this email has gone on long enough. I am again scheduled to go to Qatar to help on a doc-ex project. I'm praying I'll be able to stay. Thanks for all your support and prayers."
I struggle to have hope in human nature. It seems that as soon as a person is given a little authority, or as he may so suppose, he'll immediately begin to abuse that authority. It seems so clear to me that people will become depraved and inhuman the moment they perceive they can get away with it. One can easily see it in our civic leaders, occasionally our police officers, military personnel, people who, when given a little authority over others, immediately begin to debase themselves by abusing and maltreating those over whom they have authority.
At the same time I have reason to hope because obviously the majority of people are decent well intentioned people. Most police officers are good people, a good many in the military (although I frequently disagree with their morals) are decent hearted folks. My struggle is with the direction it seems a few powerful people are taking this country. As I mentioned in my email, that Major was so concerned that I (the first line of inferior beings) was being too nice to the hajis (the second line of inferior beings). What was so wrong with giving those guys a break who worked in horrendous heat every day, 7 am to 5 pm doing hard manual labor so that joker didn't have to, for a pittance of $3-$5/day. This Major Joker couldn't figure that out. I always wonder what various people would do with power if they had it. I'm often skeptical in this regard.
As a side note, I was listening yesterday to NPR and there was a short news program about slums in poor countries, specifically not the United States. The conditions described were terrible and unimaginable. I remember one line that said, "a stream of sewage comes from the rich part of town. It flows into the slum and never flows out." People live in shacks of cardboard and tin, plastic bags, pretty much anything they can get a hold of. The specific slum being discussed was in Kenya and the speaker said it didn't have an official population because it wasn't even an official place, but it was estimated that the population was about that of San Francisco.
The reason I mention this is that the people said they were happy there, and there was a sense of community. People treated each other with dignity and respect and they looked out for one another. Perhaps that may have been an exception rather than the rule but the principle is certainly there. How can people be humane to one another while living in such destitute circumstances while people in the United States who have everything they could ever desire be so ruthless and inhumane? Clearly wealth doesn't make people good, nor does poverty make people bad. Clearly ethnic, national and racial lines don't define the quality of a person's character.
While I was in Baghdad I had opportunity to work in very close proximity to, in total, about 70 Iraqis. The Army had hired them to do repairs on the palace complex we were living in and operating out of. The conditions those guys had to deal with, even at that time in late 2003 (it has gotten much worse since then), were horrendous. They had to risk getting shot up as they stood at the gate of the complex waiting to get in for cavorting with the American infidels, they risked being kidnapped, murdered, etc. Just watch the news and you'll know what they were putting up with from day to day. They were all pretty good guys and I became good friends with some of them. Some were crooked and thieves (Ali Babba, as they said) but for the most part they were just family men trying to make a living for their families. They were mostly laborers to clean up bomb rubble but we hired some for their skills such as carpentry, plumbing, and electrical. We paid the laborers $3/day and the skilled workers $5/day. They were happy for the income, and if I believe what they told me, it was a very good income compared to what they had been accustomed to. One guy told me he made that much in a month under Saddam, doing the very same work.
Here is an email I sent to my family while I was in Baghdad:
"Mon, 8 Sep 2003 06:17:28 -0700 (PDT) Last week was a good one for language. I learned a lot and I'm finally able to get some elementary thoughts across. I think M. (our 2 year old) speaks better English than I speak Arabic. One of my guys, Thamr, told me last week that his dad was driving his car and four armed men came up while he was stopped and carjacked him. They shot him twice in the leg and robbed him of his car. The people here live in fear for their lives because there is no law, nor order. The same guy, Thamr, told me that he wants to marry a girl he has known since childhood. He is 22 and she is 20. He told me that she has to be 23 years old before she can wed and he has to pay her dad $300 to do it. That's difficult for him because he is supporting his parents and 4 brothers with his $3/day wage. Perhaps within the 3 years he can come up with the money.
"Another guy, Salaam, told me that he had worked on Saddam's palace, the same one where we live. He was doing some marble work. Saddam came through one day to inspect the work. All the workers at the palace had been told not to look up at him. Salaam inadvertently looked up as Saddam was walking through and caught Saddam's eye. Saddam called him over, pulled out a pistol, and shot him in the head...for looking at him. He was in a coma for several months. He showed me the bullet hole...actually he let me feel it because hair had grown over. It was weird to put my finger into a bullet hole in a man's scull.
"It is so saddening to see the conditions and poverty that these people live in. The anarchy they have to experience. They are, for the most part, such good people. Today a Major got angry with me because I wasn't being their overseer. Some of the army types here are so uptight about this stuff. They figure the hajis have to be driven like slaves. They just can't see them as people. Some Americans are so racist. There's a lot of arrogance in people's hearts over here.
"Well, I guess this email has gone on long enough. I am again scheduled to go to Qatar to help on a doc-ex project. I'm praying I'll be able to stay. Thanks for all your support and prayers."
I struggle to have hope in human nature. It seems that as soon as a person is given a little authority, or as he may so suppose, he'll immediately begin to abuse that authority. It seems so clear to me that people will become depraved and inhuman the moment they perceive they can get away with it. One can easily see it in our civic leaders, occasionally our police officers, military personnel, people who, when given a little authority over others, immediately begin to debase themselves by abusing and maltreating those over whom they have authority.
At the same time I have reason to hope because obviously the majority of people are decent well intentioned people. Most police officers are good people, a good many in the military (although I frequently disagree with their morals) are decent hearted folks. My struggle is with the direction it seems a few powerful people are taking this country. As I mentioned in my email, that Major was so concerned that I (the first line of inferior beings) was being too nice to the hajis (the second line of inferior beings). What was so wrong with giving those guys a break who worked in horrendous heat every day, 7 am to 5 pm doing hard manual labor so that joker didn't have to, for a pittance of $3-$5/day. This Major Joker couldn't figure that out. I always wonder what various people would do with power if they had it. I'm often skeptical in this regard.
As a side note, I was listening yesterday to NPR and there was a short news program about slums in poor countries, specifically not the United States. The conditions described were terrible and unimaginable. I remember one line that said, "a stream of sewage comes from the rich part of town. It flows into the slum and never flows out." People live in shacks of cardboard and tin, plastic bags, pretty much anything they can get a hold of. The specific slum being discussed was in Kenya and the speaker said it didn't have an official population because it wasn't even an official place, but it was estimated that the population was about that of San Francisco.
The reason I mention this is that the people said they were happy there, and there was a sense of community. People treated each other with dignity and respect and they looked out for one another. Perhaps that may have been an exception rather than the rule but the principle is certainly there. How can people be humane to one another while living in such destitute circumstances while people in the United States who have everything they could ever desire be so ruthless and inhumane? Clearly wealth doesn't make people good, nor does poverty make people bad. Clearly ethnic, national and racial lines don't define the quality of a person's character.
Monday, December 18, 2006
The Fight Against Nuclear Arms Proliferation
In the past decade, numerous states have acquired nuclear weapons capability, most recently of course, North Korea, Pakistan and India. Others remain at the forefront of international attention for their efforts to obtain Nuclear Weapons. Iran, for example persistently defies international pressure to abandon its pursuit of Nuclear weapons, and indeed, provokes the west with bellicose talk of wiping Israel off the map and enveloping the western world in the veil of Islam.
Since the fall of the Soviet empire, nuclear proliferation has been a top priority of each successive U.S. presidential administration, as well as most other nations’ executives, the UN, NATO, etc. Nuclear proliferation is no new phenomenon to the world community. Clearly nothing short of military action can persuade a sovereign state to give up its right to possess nuclear weapons (Iraq), but even in Iraq, where Iraq was certainly prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons, the end goal was probably not sufficient justification for the hornet’s nest that followed (in all probability Iraq wasn’t even close to possessing nuclear weapons, or even biological or chemical weapons). Past U.S. administrations have negotiated with “rogue states” and done everything short of bending over to persuade these states to give up their nuclear ambitions. Pakistan and India were handed their nuclear weapons programs on a silver platter when, under the auspice of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, they were given the capability to develop their weapons programs by the means of seemingly benign nuclear power capability gifted to them from the west.
North Korea, as I am writing this short treatise, is demanding the nations involved in the six party talks (Russia, China, Japan, U.S., South Korea) provide NK with nuclear power as a contingency for its elimination of its weapons program. This approach is obviously not an option (Pakistan/India), nor is it an option for the other five to give in to the demands of a felon state like NK. The repercussions of NK’s pursuit and eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons would be felt globally. Even now, Japan is expanding its military capability at a rate unprecedented since the close of the Second World War. Indeed, Japan has in the last few days upgraded its relatively inconsequential defense agency to a full cabinet level ministry in reaction to the obvious threat perceived from across the Sea of Japan. The threat is clearly felt on the opposite side of the Pacific with talk of NK’s long range missile capability. South Korea is perhaps the most affected with its shared hundred mile long border. It is well known that the military force encamped along that border is merely a delaying tactic to slow the advancing forces should NK decide to invade the south. Ideally, the delay would last just long enough for reinforcements to arrive.
With NK and other rogue states in hot pursuit of nuclear weapons, what is to be done? We can’t invade, negotiation is folly, appeasement is even more costly in the long run, so what other options are there?
An economics professor I had while at BYU insisted that world trade is the safest route to assuring peace. Although I don’t entirely disagree with this notion, it seems to me that if it were the foolproof case, the First World War would have been averted since even until now the world hasn’t reached the level of international economic cooperation that it enjoyed prior to WWI. The Persian Gulf War would have been avoided since nearly every country in the world traded for oil with both Iraq and Kuwait. Trade and commerce is evidently a significant motivation by itself for two or more countries to go to war. From the big dog’s perspective, sure, there are no good reasons to go to war with your trading partners, but from the little dog’s perspective (as is the case with NK) belligerence and confrontation are rational means of securing one’s interests. Not to mention if a small country is led by a madman like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or Kim Jung Il. Who is to say to that madman what is rational and what is not?
Another professor I had at BYU insisted that Democracy is the means by which the world of the future will avoid war. His reason for so insisting was that if people are given the choice, they’ll always choose peace over war. This inference is based solely on the assumption that the people care enough to educate themselves about the issues and not be swayed by every wind of doctrine and propaganda put forth by evil designing power brokers. Clearly this inference doesn’t apply to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. George W. Bush used media campaigns and propaganda to influence the ignorant in the United States to favor the invasion and only several years later did we learn for certain that the evidence used and fed like candy to the Hollywood worshiping American public for an impetus for war, was mostly bogus and highly inflated, largely fabricated to provide the American public with the anti-Iraq fervor necessary to fuel a full scale ground war. The American public is so spellbound by the free-speech Hollywood propagandists that it no longer recognizes fact from fiction nor the implications of war other than that it is glorious and exciting. No, democracy is not the be all and end all answer to world peace.
Although only a mediocre president, John F. Kennedy once stated, “It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war.” It is indeed a fact that America must, in conjunction with those other necessary aspects, i.e. economic cooperation and the peaceful spread of democracy, perpetually prepare for war to secure its own peace. Regimes with nuclear weapons capability will only increase in number and the more the U.S. and the UN fight against those regimes which actively seek nuclear technology, the more those regimes will fight tooth and nail to get it.
Perhaps the answer is a balanced attack on several fronts, diplomatic, military, economic, and by the means and use of information, to slow the process in order to insure America’s successful preparation for the inevitable eventual reality that hostile rogue states will obtain nuclear weapons. The U.S. comparative advantage is technology. We ought to be using the technology that we have to insure a secure future for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. Let NK, Cuba, Iran, and all the others remain in the stone age if they so choose, but let us make positive preparation for an eventual confrontation (and God willing our preparations will never prove necessary) by leaving those states with outdated and impotent weapons. Let us press into the future, striving for peace while preparing for war.
Since the fall of the Soviet empire, nuclear proliferation has been a top priority of each successive U.S. presidential administration, as well as most other nations’ executives, the UN, NATO, etc. Nuclear proliferation is no new phenomenon to the world community. Clearly nothing short of military action can persuade a sovereign state to give up its right to possess nuclear weapons (Iraq), but even in Iraq, where Iraq was certainly prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons, the end goal was probably not sufficient justification for the hornet’s nest that followed (in all probability Iraq wasn’t even close to possessing nuclear weapons, or even biological or chemical weapons). Past U.S. administrations have negotiated with “rogue states” and done everything short of bending over to persuade these states to give up their nuclear ambitions. Pakistan and India were handed their nuclear weapons programs on a silver platter when, under the auspice of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, they were given the capability to develop their weapons programs by the means of seemingly benign nuclear power capability gifted to them from the west.
North Korea, as I am writing this short treatise, is demanding the nations involved in the six party talks (Russia, China, Japan, U.S., South Korea) provide NK with nuclear power as a contingency for its elimination of its weapons program. This approach is obviously not an option (Pakistan/India), nor is it an option for the other five to give in to the demands of a felon state like NK. The repercussions of NK’s pursuit and eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons would be felt globally. Even now, Japan is expanding its military capability at a rate unprecedented since the close of the Second World War. Indeed, Japan has in the last few days upgraded its relatively inconsequential defense agency to a full cabinet level ministry in reaction to the obvious threat perceived from across the Sea of Japan. The threat is clearly felt on the opposite side of the Pacific with talk of NK’s long range missile capability. South Korea is perhaps the most affected with its shared hundred mile long border. It is well known that the military force encamped along that border is merely a delaying tactic to slow the advancing forces should NK decide to invade the south. Ideally, the delay would last just long enough for reinforcements to arrive.
With NK and other rogue states in hot pursuit of nuclear weapons, what is to be done? We can’t invade, negotiation is folly, appeasement is even more costly in the long run, so what other options are there?
An economics professor I had while at BYU insisted that world trade is the safest route to assuring peace. Although I don’t entirely disagree with this notion, it seems to me that if it were the foolproof case, the First World War would have been averted since even until now the world hasn’t reached the level of international economic cooperation that it enjoyed prior to WWI. The Persian Gulf War would have been avoided since nearly every country in the world traded for oil with both Iraq and Kuwait. Trade and commerce is evidently a significant motivation by itself for two or more countries to go to war. From the big dog’s perspective, sure, there are no good reasons to go to war with your trading partners, but from the little dog’s perspective (as is the case with NK) belligerence and confrontation are rational means of securing one’s interests. Not to mention if a small country is led by a madman like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or Kim Jung Il. Who is to say to that madman what is rational and what is not?
Another professor I had at BYU insisted that Democracy is the means by which the world of the future will avoid war. His reason for so insisting was that if people are given the choice, they’ll always choose peace over war. This inference is based solely on the assumption that the people care enough to educate themselves about the issues and not be swayed by every wind of doctrine and propaganda put forth by evil designing power brokers. Clearly this inference doesn’t apply to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. George W. Bush used media campaigns and propaganda to influence the ignorant in the United States to favor the invasion and only several years later did we learn for certain that the evidence used and fed like candy to the Hollywood worshiping American public for an impetus for war, was mostly bogus and highly inflated, largely fabricated to provide the American public with the anti-Iraq fervor necessary to fuel a full scale ground war. The American public is so spellbound by the free-speech Hollywood propagandists that it no longer recognizes fact from fiction nor the implications of war other than that it is glorious and exciting. No, democracy is not the be all and end all answer to world peace.
Although only a mediocre president, John F. Kennedy once stated, “It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war.” It is indeed a fact that America must, in conjunction with those other necessary aspects, i.e. economic cooperation and the peaceful spread of democracy, perpetually prepare for war to secure its own peace. Regimes with nuclear weapons capability will only increase in number and the more the U.S. and the UN fight against those regimes which actively seek nuclear technology, the more those regimes will fight tooth and nail to get it.
Perhaps the answer is a balanced attack on several fronts, diplomatic, military, economic, and by the means and use of information, to slow the process in order to insure America’s successful preparation for the inevitable eventual reality that hostile rogue states will obtain nuclear weapons. The U.S. comparative advantage is technology. We ought to be using the technology that we have to insure a secure future for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. Let NK, Cuba, Iran, and all the others remain in the stone age if they so choose, but let us make positive preparation for an eventual confrontation (and God willing our preparations will never prove necessary) by leaving those states with outdated and impotent weapons. Let us press into the future, striving for peace while preparing for war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
