Sunday, January 3, 2010

The Tarbaby & The Gullible Clown



The incident involving an attempted terrorist bombing of a Northwest Airlines passenger jet arriving in Chicago from Holland on Christmas Day, has focused world attention on the nation of Yemen, where the Nigerian terrorist suspect was allegedly trained by Al Quaeda operatives on suicide bomb techniques. President Obama and others in his administration have acknowledged that the U.S. has been funding anti-terrorist efforts in concert with the Yemeni government, and that Yemen is known to harbor a virulent Al Quaeda presence, proselytizing and training potential terrorist operatives. There was talk this weekend on the news-talk programs of possible American military involvement in Yemen.        
 
 

One of the main pretexts for invading Iraq originally was the (fake) suspicion by our foreign intelligence agencies that Iraq harbored Al Quaeda cells, and that that nation posed a de-facto threat to American security, in addition to which it was attempting to develop a military nuclear threat by refining uranium and acquiring missile delivery capability.
 
As everyone by now knows, Iraq was not developing nuclear weapons, and had no rocket technology with which to deply such weapons, even if they had had them. 
 
In other words, the Bush Administration coerced the American intelligence community, and duped our allies (and the American Congress and the American people) into supporting a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. The invasion, and subsequent internecine political complications there, in the years since, have done nothing to safeguard the American population, and have in fact provided the Islamic terrorist factions with new propaganda ammunition in the court of public opinion. 
 
After initially subduing the broad countryside in Afghanistan, America was unable either to capture bin-Laden, or to insure the democratization of that country, where age-old, internal, ethnic and religious factions have proven to be more resistant to cooperation or national consolidating priorities than ever before. Indeed, our actions in Afghanistan have caused neighboring Pakistan to become destabilized, to the extent that some experts in the field now expect Pakistan to fall eventually under Taliban rule within the next decade--despite huge infusions of American aid and diplomatic pressure.  
 
In short, the money and lives we've spend in Iraq and Afghanistan have yielded almost nothing in terms of improved relations, or any significant ground gained in the shadow war with Islamic terrorism. And now there are those who are advocating that the U.S. engage Islamic terrorist factions in Yemen.             
 
 

Yemen is, like Iraq, the creation of European colonial powers. It's a marginal country, with a large sprawling peasant population living in hopeless poverty. Unlike Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and Iran Yemen has few oil reserves--and these are expected to be played out very soon. It's heavily Islamic, and is thus--along with its poverty--a fertile breeding ground for terrorist inflluence. 
 
    
 
If our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us anything, it's that Al Quaeda isn't geographically limited to a single nation. In fact, most of the leaders of the Islamic terrorist movement are Saudis or Egyptians. The terrorist network is now being described as "horizontal"--which is to say it is not linked to any specific national or geographic region, but operates across boundaries, using the modern technologies of computers, cell-phones, and suicide volunteers. In other words, it doesn't make sense for U.S. planners to imagine that we can defeat it by engaging indigenous populations or "host" nations. We could "level" the mountainous regions of Northeastern Afghanistan and Northwest Pakistan, and we'd be no closer to stamping out Al Quaeda than before.  
 
Nevertheless, the illusion persists in our public discussions in America, that this is a "war" which can be "won" in the conventional way, by subduing foreign nations, and by making them "safe" for democratic conversion ("nation building").
 
This is simply folly. We are not going to succeed in building a democratic nation in any of the Near, or Middle Eastern nations. Islam, and the conditions on the ground, preclude anything like that. 
 
It's also clear that one of Al Quaeda's original intentions was to cause the Western powers to engage in futile military adventures, draining their resources, and stirring up unrest and indignation amongst indigenous Arab, Afghan and other native populations. We have fallen right into this trap. With relatively little expenditure either of funds or of human capital, the terrorists have been able to coerce us into futile conflicts. 
 
Meanwhile, China and India are seeing double-digit economic growth year upon year, and now are bidding to surpass the U.S. in exports, GNP, and net wealth. 
 
In effect, Al Quaeda has managed, with the most modest of means, to tip the balance of world power against The West. Who could have predicted that this would happen, even 10 years ago?       

7 comments:

Kirby Olson said...

Chinese and Indian economic growth stems from the low salaries they pay their workers, and the lack of workplace protections and yet highly skilled work forces.

I don't think it's that they're not fighting the war on terror and they are. These seem to be two separate issues, and I think your argument therefore falls into the post hoc fallacy category (because something that happened before -- war on terror -- must have led to something that happened after -- the rise of India and China as economic supergiants).

Those two countries also have an inherent contradiction within them. They make products for foreign markets. Their own people largely cannot afford the products they are making.

I think there is also a systemic contradiction within radical Islam, but I can't put my finger on it.

They seem to succeed as long as they have an enemy to fight, but they can't be peaceful, because they must constantly do the jihad thing.

Still, your argument did give me pause. War economics cannot go on indefinitely. One thinks of Agamemnon. Whatever was left of Troy at the end of ten years probably wasn't worth the candle.

But they weren't they to build a democracy. They ostensibly wanted Helen back, but that was probably just a ruse to destroy a rival trading power.

But democracies do lead to safe market conditions, ultimately, and to safer conditions for the women and children and men who live in those democracies (they can vote in people who are better for their health and safety -- so things slowly improve).

In turn, this is better for the world economy ultimately? and thus, better for us -- since we too will have a market for our products?

Vietnam is a financial ruin for most of the last third of the twentieth century. Average annual income: 350 dollars.

If freedom were to have taken place in that country, and democracy, it would be more like South Korea: stable institutions, good universities, a decent market, and not so much like North Korea.

Creating, and helping to sustain pluralistic democracies in turn will create markets and stability.

That was the Bush baby's idea. I think it is a good one.

Steven Fama said...


What's your strategy?

Unless you posit one, maybe even if everything single criticism you make is valid, the approach being taken (leaving Iraq out of it, but in Afghanistan / Pakistan) is, bad as it is, the best, the very best, from among horrible alternatives.

Curtis Faville said...

Dear Kirby:

"Chinese and Indian economic growth stems from the low salaries they pay their workers, and the lack of workplace protections and yet highly skilled work forces."

The standard of living in the Indian sub-continent is rising rapidly. Their middle-class (professional classes) is now larger than that in America. Wages will rise as their economy improves. Millions of American jobs have already been lost to China and India, and more will follow.

"I don't think it's that they're not fighting the war on terror and they are. These seem to be two separate issues, and I think your argument therefore falls into the post hoc fallacy category (because something that happened before -- war on terror -- must have led to something that happened after -- the rise of India and China as economic supergiants)."

Of course I didn't say that. The rise of China and India as economic titans was a separate event, but our diversion into foreign wars of attrition weakens us, and gives them an opening to overtake us. We should be expending our treasure to restore America's economic predominance, not throwing it away trying to convert Muslims to democracy.

"Those two countries also have an inherent contradiction within them. They make products for foreign markets. Their own people largely cannot afford the products they are making."

Not true. Chinese now own (or buy) more cars than Americans do. They're poised to surpass us in the consumption of nearly every consumer good you could name.

"I think there is also a systemic contradiction within radical Islam, but I can't put my finger on it."

That isn't hard. It's theocratic at its core. There's your poli-sci lesson for the day, Kirby.

"They seem to succeed as long as they have an enemy to fight, but they can't be peaceful, because they must constantly do the jihad thing."

We've provided them with an enemy. Us.

"Still, your argument did give me pause. War economics cannot go on indefinitely. One thinks of Agamemnon. Whatever was left of Troy at the end of ten years probably wasn't worth the candle."

By the time we give up on these foreign adventures, the American standard of living will look like Italy's.

"But they weren't they to build a democracy. They ostensibly wanted Helen back, but that was probably just a ruse to destroy a rival trading power."

I don't think that war was about pussy. It was about wealth and power.

End Part I

Curtis Faville said...

Part II

"But democracies do lead to safe market conditions, ultimately, and to safer conditions for the women and children and men who live in those democracies (they can vote in people who are better for their health and safety -- so things slowly improve)."

What's a "safe market"? One where the rich exploit the poor? Where credit schemes sink the markets and produce mass unemployment? Where people worship money and material possessions?

"In turn, this is better for the world economy ultimately? and thus, better for us -- since we too will have a market for our products?"

America now is a client economy, we consume, and service, but we don't produce. Production is the driver of capitalism. Eventually our country will collapse into poverty and despair, if we can't get back to making things.

"Vietnam is a financial ruin for most of the last third of the twentieth century. Average annual income: 350 dollars."

There are different visions of success. Would Vietnam be better if it looked like Los Angeles, or Bangkok, or Tokyo?

"If freedom were to have taken place in that country, and democracy, it would be more like South Korea: stable institutions, good universities, a decent market, and not so much like North Korea."

South Korea is our client state. WIthout our aid and support, it would crumble.

"Creating, and helping to sustain pluralistic democracies in turn will create markets and stability."

But we can't bring this about through violent intervention. They have to find their own way to it, like China. They may never do it, but it can't be forced. You can't punish people for not wanting to be like us.

"That was the Bush baby's idea. I think it is a good one."

Bush didn't have any ideas. He was a pathetic parrot.

Curtis Faville said...

Steven:

My strategy would be to swoop down, seize all of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and production facilities and spirit them away for safe-keeping.

Second, I would fund the most favorably disposed (towards us) dictator in Afghanistan to keep him in power; bring home American soldiers, and discourage the production of opium poppies.

I'd exit from Iraq post-haste, support whoever we like best with money and guns. I'd also tell the Chinese to keep their mitts off the oil.

J said...

At least you didn't bless Olsonberg's daily xenophobic rant.


And note, as with most neo-cons, Kirby's not at all troubled by the fact that BushCo (and really, the US govt.--most leading Demos supported the IWE as well) misrepresented the danger of WMDs, more or less using false pretenses to invade Iraq, killing at least 200,000 civilians. Onward xtian soldiers (er, jewish-xtian soldiers) . Now, some action may have been needed. Scorched-earth policies and torture weren't needed.

Steven Fama said...

I think the backing the dictator approach is disfavored based on what happened when we backed the Shah of Iran for all those years. When he went down, and Khomeni came in, we had nobody. Plus there's a political will, like it or not, to get O.B.L., and it's necessary to mess around militarily in the Afghan border mountains in order to have even a slim chance of doing that.

And nobody's going to go grab the bombs in Pakistan, not at least until that's the ONLY option. That would be seen as a HUGE escalation of war and intervention. I'm pretty certain we're ready to give it a whirl, but again, only if necessary (if the bad guys get control). Plus, at present, to be brutally selfish (which is how those in charge think) -- I don't think those Pakistan bombs can get to the U.S.

The problem with Iraq is that having destabilized it, we can't run away. We messed it up, the w/drawal has to be gradual.