Liberals see American political conservatives as a greater threat than jihadists. Their axis of evil is not Iran, Hamas or Chavez, but Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield. How utterly simplistic and small-minded they have become, like foolish children whose world is so small that they are more angry at parents than vicious despots they are unable to comprehend.
How true it is that prosperous civilizations eventually die because the bored among them have pushed the envelope so far that nothing remains but self-destruction, suicide -- born of national self-hate. Children spoiled by their parents usually end up hating their parents, biting the hands that fed them. And spoiled citizens usually end up hating and turning on the very country that gave them everything.
- Rabbi Aryeh Spero
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Monday, September 11, 2006
Stuff
Well I haven't posted in over a month due to starting TWO new jobs. Beware for MercNet Logistics LLC is near to becoming a reality ;).
As for the real topic...
Afghanistan has clearly been sidelined as a major US priority over the media driven debacle in Iraq. This is a shame since Afghanistan has far more public support and deserves more attention which the warlords growing poppy are happy not to have. Of course the question is, as far as poppy farming goes, what can they grow instead of poppy that will give them the same guarantee of income? I don't rightly know, but chances are that matters would be better if major nations such as the USA began geting rid of farm subsidies and normalized prices of their goods on the international market. Farmers would be saddened and probably heavuly lobby good ole congress to pay em not to do work again. Sure i'd like Congress to pay me not to work so the intrinsic value of my services would rise... (work 4 hours get paid for 8 because I'm paying Congress back with 2hrs of that money as a favor/kickback).
Afghanis should be angry at us for not delivering on our word as we should have. The initial war effort was a spectacular success. The US Military is truly the best conventional fighting force on Earth at this point in time, and I am very proud of that. Sadly between the first Bush and later Clinton defense cut backs our Military is thin. Rumsfeld is doing a magnificent job at making it more streamlined, so that what forces we do have are more mobile and efficient. Yes we have quality troops, pilots and sailors, but we still do need quantity. Drone ships,planes and tanks will help to make up some of the difference as well as automated defense systems, but those are still only ancillary to bots on the ground. Clearly no one has learned from the history of the Roman Republic, and later Empire. The USA is not conuering larger swathes of territory than it can control via domestic measures, but still the barbarians are at the gates and we try and "talk reason" with them, as if both our interests are served by coming to a consensus. Well the Afghanis do not have the same interests as say... George W. Bush. George, like the much renowned Woodrow Wilson, thinks we ought to make the world safe for democracy. This goes against the right of self determination. We are no better for "imposing" democracy on anyone than we would be for backing dictators that were pro-US in the Cold-War. If a people are not willing themselves to fight for their own freedom, then they do not deserve it.
In Iran, suposedly there are many who wish to take up arms to overthrow their current government. How much less expensive for us would it be to arm them, provide some measure of intel and political support than it would be to invade them? ure a movement like that would take a decade or maybe more to grow in to a successful entity, but we do need to be patient.
Afghanis are still by and large aligned with their "tribes", social groups, or other entities that we associate with pre-agriculture/urbanized societies. Yes Afghanistan has cities, but they are nothing like even in Iraq. Telling Afghanis to love democracy is like telling oragnized crime to love Federal Distric Attorneys. What I mean by that is that they will love it as long as they can game the system and seek some kind of partiality or advantage whether by getting an agent in place, or paying off the agent. Thats not to say that those in the USA don't have those same ideas, but the pressure for doing this is lessened in a society that is more concentrated on the individual than large family groups or ethnic lines.
How do we win in Afghanistan? I can't say that I have the only answer but I believe part of that answer is to create a Middle East Economic Development Zone (MEEDZ) where the nations in that area can enter in to a cooperative free trade zone. Develop a trade law system that encourages investment, and legal standards for equitable employment. That doesn't mean that there shouldbe a minimum wage, as the price of labor should be market driven, but there should be even standards for hiring, firing and adjudication of cases in the employment arena. We should help them set up a base for their legal system, but they should develop a body of law independent of what we have. So what does Afghanistan have that it can do cheaper than anyone else in the world at the moment? Heroin. What can it do? Well I don't know, but that can be analyzed by Wolfowitz in his position at the World Bank. If the Warlords could be seen as "Govenors" rather than Warlords I am sure their public relations would be better. Afghan law could even maintain that provinces could choose the govenor based on any criteria that they passed. A provincial sub-seetion of laws would be similar to US State Election laws becuase we also do not have sweeping federal election laws. Some exist yes, but by and large each state has its own set of election laws. translating this theory in to a provincial system might be of some advantage. Govenors could be hereditary, or elected, or appointed by the provincial legislature/national legislature. Leave it up to the provinces to have a "congress" and create charters dictating the base rules, set up provincial courts and jurisdictions. The Afghani national government would control disputes between provinces, but leave alone any internal matters.
People are by and large easier to deal with in small groups or homogeneous populations as there are fewer conflicts of interest and less of a diversity of opinions. Let us treat the Afghanis as people rather than some abstract entity that we think to be homogeneous. Let them draw their own provinces based on ethnic or racial lines, or however they see fit. Work out national election balance similar to our own federal system wherethe legislature is bicameral (two houses for those who haven't taken a civics class). Our founders were rather genius when they planned out the final version of our government in 1786. That was changed in a very large way with directly electing the senate (a mistake in my opinion) and one we could set right in Aghanistan.
Afghanis suffer from a lack of law more recent than the 13th century, but that is mostly due to the Russian invasion in 1979 and lasted 9 years. The USA sponsored the rebellion and in effect created Al Qaeda...which has come back to bite us. But that is neither here nor there. That was smart policy by Reagan to fight a proxy war, as that wwas how the Russians played Vietnam with us...supporting the North with weapons and intel. The USA's biggest issue is like any world power; over confidence/arrogance. When we were finished with those militia we had armed and operated with, we cut them loose; not bothering to follow up and consolidate matters politically. We got what we wanted to a degree...lots of dead Soviets, but we didn't necessarily GAIN anything from it, and we left the Afghanis treading water.
Could the US have swoped in as a trade partner, without acting like an economic imperialist? Maybe but that is tough in a society that prizes competition over cooperation. Our economic policies should be culturally sensitive, and sometimes even restrained capitalism like ours can be a shock. and yes we are restrained quite a bit in our commercial practices now. However the Afghanis once again need to modernize their domestic trade law to something that they can accept and modify over time as wants change.
What can the US do now? Everything we should have done in 1989. It is still not too late to be fair.
yes... in the end we should be judicious in all that we do.
As for the real topic...
Afghanistan has clearly been sidelined as a major US priority over the media driven debacle in Iraq. This is a shame since Afghanistan has far more public support and deserves more attention which the warlords growing poppy are happy not to have. Of course the question is, as far as poppy farming goes, what can they grow instead of poppy that will give them the same guarantee of income? I don't rightly know, but chances are that matters would be better if major nations such as the USA began geting rid of farm subsidies and normalized prices of their goods on the international market. Farmers would be saddened and probably heavuly lobby good ole congress to pay em not to do work again. Sure i'd like Congress to pay me not to work so the intrinsic value of my services would rise... (work 4 hours get paid for 8 because I'm paying Congress back with 2hrs of that money as a favor/kickback).
Afghanis should be angry at us for not delivering on our word as we should have. The initial war effort was a spectacular success. The US Military is truly the best conventional fighting force on Earth at this point in time, and I am very proud of that. Sadly between the first Bush and later Clinton defense cut backs our Military is thin. Rumsfeld is doing a magnificent job at making it more streamlined, so that what forces we do have are more mobile and efficient. Yes we have quality troops, pilots and sailors, but we still do need quantity. Drone ships,planes and tanks will help to make up some of the difference as well as automated defense systems, but those are still only ancillary to bots on the ground. Clearly no one has learned from the history of the Roman Republic, and later Empire. The USA is not conuering larger swathes of territory than it can control via domestic measures, but still the barbarians are at the gates and we try and "talk reason" with them, as if both our interests are served by coming to a consensus. Well the Afghanis do not have the same interests as say... George W. Bush. George, like the much renowned Woodrow Wilson, thinks we ought to make the world safe for democracy. This goes against the right of self determination. We are no better for "imposing" democracy on anyone than we would be for backing dictators that were pro-US in the Cold-War. If a people are not willing themselves to fight for their own freedom, then they do not deserve it.
In Iran, suposedly there are many who wish to take up arms to overthrow their current government. How much less expensive for us would it be to arm them, provide some measure of intel and political support than it would be to invade them? ure a movement like that would take a decade or maybe more to grow in to a successful entity, but we do need to be patient.
Afghanis are still by and large aligned with their "tribes", social groups, or other entities that we associate with pre-agriculture/urbanized societies. Yes Afghanistan has cities, but they are nothing like even in Iraq. Telling Afghanis to love democracy is like telling oragnized crime to love Federal Distric Attorneys. What I mean by that is that they will love it as long as they can game the system and seek some kind of partiality or advantage whether by getting an agent in place, or paying off the agent. Thats not to say that those in the USA don't have those same ideas, but the pressure for doing this is lessened in a society that is more concentrated on the individual than large family groups or ethnic lines.
How do we win in Afghanistan? I can't say that I have the only answer but I believe part of that answer is to create a Middle East Economic Development Zone (MEEDZ) where the nations in that area can enter in to a cooperative free trade zone. Develop a trade law system that encourages investment, and legal standards for equitable employment. That doesn't mean that there shouldbe a minimum wage, as the price of labor should be market driven, but there should be even standards for hiring, firing and adjudication of cases in the employment arena. We should help them set up a base for their legal system, but they should develop a body of law independent of what we have. So what does Afghanistan have that it can do cheaper than anyone else in the world at the moment? Heroin. What can it do? Well I don't know, but that can be analyzed by Wolfowitz in his position at the World Bank. If the Warlords could be seen as "Govenors" rather than Warlords I am sure their public relations would be better. Afghan law could even maintain that provinces could choose the govenor based on any criteria that they passed. A provincial sub-seetion of laws would be similar to US State Election laws becuase we also do not have sweeping federal election laws. Some exist yes, but by and large each state has its own set of election laws. translating this theory in to a provincial system might be of some advantage. Govenors could be hereditary, or elected, or appointed by the provincial legislature/national legislature. Leave it up to the provinces to have a "congress" and create charters dictating the base rules, set up provincial courts and jurisdictions. The Afghani national government would control disputes between provinces, but leave alone any internal matters.
People are by and large easier to deal with in small groups or homogeneous populations as there are fewer conflicts of interest and less of a diversity of opinions. Let us treat the Afghanis as people rather than some abstract entity that we think to be homogeneous. Let them draw their own provinces based on ethnic or racial lines, or however they see fit. Work out national election balance similar to our own federal system wherethe legislature is bicameral (two houses for those who haven't taken a civics class). Our founders were rather genius when they planned out the final version of our government in 1786. That was changed in a very large way with directly electing the senate (a mistake in my opinion) and one we could set right in Aghanistan.
Afghanis suffer from a lack of law more recent than the 13th century, but that is mostly due to the Russian invasion in 1979 and lasted 9 years. The USA sponsored the rebellion and in effect created Al Qaeda...which has come back to bite us. But that is neither here nor there. That was smart policy by Reagan to fight a proxy war, as that wwas how the Russians played Vietnam with us...supporting the North with weapons and intel. The USA's biggest issue is like any world power; over confidence/arrogance. When we were finished with those militia we had armed and operated with, we cut them loose; not bothering to follow up and consolidate matters politically. We got what we wanted to a degree...lots of dead Soviets, but we didn't necessarily GAIN anything from it, and we left the Afghanis treading water.
Could the US have swoped in as a trade partner, without acting like an economic imperialist? Maybe but that is tough in a society that prizes competition over cooperation. Our economic policies should be culturally sensitive, and sometimes even restrained capitalism like ours can be a shock. and yes we are restrained quite a bit in our commercial practices now. However the Afghanis once again need to modernize their domestic trade law to something that they can accept and modify over time as wants change.
What can the US do now? Everything we should have done in 1989. It is still not too late to be fair.
yes... in the end we should be judicious in all that we do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)