The Inviting Chinese Language

This past Tuesday, reportedly:

Singer: "Where are you from?"
Ng: "I was born in Indiana and grew up in New York."
Singer: "Where are you from?"
Ng: "My family's from China."
Singer: [Nonsensical mock Chinese] "What country in China?"


This past January:

Shaquille O'Neal: "Tell Yao Ming, 'ching-chong-yang-wah-ah-soh.'''

- posted by Bob at 9:08 PM; link

 
Ice Hockey and Rainbow Farms

DES MOINES--The Iowa Caucuses have an interesting effect on presidential politics. This morning, I watched Sen. John Kerry play Ice Hockey for the Des Moines Fire Department team. He skated well, took some good shots, but never scored. Except for his stamina, he compared favorably with the firemen.

This afternoon, I've been watching the presidential candidates compete with one another regarding how much and in which ways they wil funnel subsidies to Iowa's farmers. Ethanol subsidies, new crop subsidies, prohibiting hog raisers from being meat packers among other steps.

But the most interesting idea was proferred, of course, by Dennis Kucinich. At the end of his speech, Kucinich got a standing ovation. But then the moderator asked him his vision for Iowa. He described driving across the state and seeing leaping rainbows, as if he was passing a rainbow farm. Then he promised to make the rest of us see the rainbows.

I'm not sure what that means, but we'll see if the promise of making us see colors has an appeal with caucus voters.

- posted by Carney at 4:45 PM; link

 
We're All Socialists Now

DES MOINES-- It turns out that, except for Dennis Kucinich, the Democratic presidential candidates, including Dean, are to the right of Iowa Caucus voters, according to a poll I came across in today's Register.

"...49 percent of likely caucus participants who say that if the federal government could do only one thing to improve access to health care, it should create a national health insurance program covering all Americans."

I wonder if Bush hasn't played a masterful hand. Democratic voters are so upset that they are being driven to extremism, meaning they'll nominate a candidate that normal people couldn't stomach.

p.s. look for me on C-SPAN Saturday night. I'll be the guy with the notepad and the three-piece suit.

- posted by Carney at 6:13 PM; link

 
RE: interest #1

I’m certainly no military strategist and am completely unwilling to engage McCain on anything regarding this issue. However, I do think there are some very viable questions that I would need answered before jumping on the “send more troops” bandwagon. I’ll try to make a short list of my questions. If they sound as stupid as Bush’s optimistic twist on more attacks, then I apologize:

1. What effect would 50,000 troops have on the condition of Iraq? Or, rephrased, what is the marginal benefit of 1 soldier and how does this change as the number increases? McCain claim that this type of careful analysis has not been performed. Well, I guess he did some calculations when he said “at least another full division.” But I fear that comment is far more off-handed than the administration’s decision.

2. How would an increase in the presence of American troops affect the PR war? This, I think, is a very important question. While the Arab street is begging us to get out, we’d bet getting in. Further, sending more troops might be an indication that we’re weak and encourage more attacks.

3. Why are the Iraqi police forces ineffective? I’m of the opinion that foreign troops (now a lost cause) and Iraqi troops are a far better option that sending more of us. This chart not only shows some progress in Iraq, but also shows that 85,000 Iraqis have been added in one capacity or another. I’m guessing they’re not eating doughnuts, but they’re also not decreasing the number of attacks.

4. How well managed is the current presence in Iraq? Is there benefit to shifting focus to attacking hideouts than gathering intelligence, etc.? Or, in other words, can a restructuring of priorities accomplish some of what we hope more troops would?

- posted by Jon at 2:24 PM; link

 
Some Crooked Timber for the Fire

Crooked Timber's Chris Bertram comments on a very recent article by Mary Kaldor (an LSE prof.) on the prospects for democracy in Iraq under American and British foreign policies. It's not a bad article. Her basic argument is that if we want to prevent Iraq from becoming another tyrannical government that hates us and abuses its citizens, then we must make it into a democracy. But, a democracy is not something that can be imposed, it must be a grassroots sort of thing. She writes:

We need to support bottom-up, rooted democratic processes in Iraq, not a crash constitution imposed from above, or giving power to paramilitary, neo-tribal or sectarian groups. A peaceful democratic framework is possible in Iraq. It is what is owed to the Iraqi people – thanks to all that has been done to them, by Saddam, by the failure to support the uprising in 1991, by the sanctions, and by the 2003 invasion.

I think this is right, but we face many of the same problems that Allen W. Dulles faced in the reconstruction of Germany. Namely, the de-Ba'athification process leaves many knowledgeable Iraqis out of work at a time when their country could use their know-how, just as the de-nazification process did to Germany. We do not want any Sadman loyalists to have jobs where they have access to the means of causing greater harm. But we don't want to leave a huge number of intelligent men unemployed and angry in Baghdad. That will certainly cause violent problems.

Also, there is the fact that many of the people attacking US troops may not be Iraqis. There may be foreign terrorists who have come to Baghdad to fight the US. This is actually an argument I've heard used for keeping our troops there - that is, we have the opportunity to kill a bunch of terrorists by attracting them to our troops in Baghdad instead of other "soft" targets. The fact that, if this were true, would be done at theexpensee of Iraqi civilians makes this agruesomee idea. But it is important that there many be many foreign fighters in Baghdad. It means that there may in fact be a good reason to hand over control as quickly as possible to Iraqi securitypersonnell because then these foreign fighters would not have a common cause with the Iraqis (expelling the US - because the US would already be gone). I don't know if this would mean that these foreign fighters would leave Iraq, or cause trouble there. Their exact motives are not clear to me. In the end, this seems to be the question. If we pull out our troops, what will the people who are attacking us do? Would they be equally unacceptableg of the new Iraqi democracy? I think part of Mary Kaldor's point is that, an imposed democracy will not be accepted by these people, but a democracy that has the appearance of grassroots will not be attacked by these terrorists (or at least will be attacked less - say, only by foreign fighters, and not by Iraqis).

At the very least, I'm sure we agree that when we do pull our troops out, the Iraqi security personnel must be properly trained and equiped. The article that Mark linked, that started our debate makes it clear that the US has changed a 12 week training course to a two week training course for the Iraqi security people, and that they do not even have enough uniforms. Moreover, the articles that Mark and Bob have just cited make it clear that US military personnel seem to think that they need more, not fewer troops right now.

- posted by Ethan at 12:32 PM; link

 
RE: interest #1

I should also make clear that no one is accusing Bush of not wanting success in Iraq. Rather, most of us are worried that in an election year he won't have the backbone to make a politically unpopular decision (like sending more troops to fight in a war that's lost much of its public support) even if it is the right thing to do, militarily and morally.

Over at Slate, Michael Kinsley's got a piece on reading Bush's motives that's worth a read.

- posted by Bob at 12:08 PM; link

 
RE: interest #1

I would fail if I tried to put this better than McCain did in the Post this past Sunday:


"The truth is that we do not have sufficient forces in Iraq to meet our military objectives. In early September, the U.S. commanding officer in Iraq, Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, admitted that his forces could not handle any new eruption of conflict in Iraq. 'If a militia or an internal conflict of some nature were to erupt,' he said, '. . . that would be a challenge out there that I do not have sufficient forces for.'

Since then, attacks on American forces have doubled, to more than 30 a day, and their increasing sophistication has made them more lethal.

Yet the number of American forces in Iraq has not increased. Our overall troop level in Iraq does not reflect a careful assessment of what it takes to achieve victory. It reflects the number of American forces who were in Iraq when the war ended -- minus the Marines who were sent home. Simply put, there does not appear to be a strategy behind our current force levels in Iraq other than to preserve the illusion that we have sufficient forces in place to meet our objectives.

I believe we must deploy at least another full division, giving us the necessary manpower to conduct a focused counterinsurgency campaign across the Sunni Triangle that seals off enemy operating areas, conducts search-and-destroy missions and holds territory."


McCain is not alone. By virtually all reports from outside the administration, our troops are stretched unacceptably thin. I'm sure there's a point at which sending more soldiers over isn't worth the cost, but the administration is all but alone in thinking that we're past that point and should start bringing troops home. Of course, if you think that the increasing frequency and deadliness of the attacks is a sign of progress, why wouldn't you think that?

- posted by Bob at 11:02 AM; link

 
RE: interest #1

Bob, I want to be clear on the framework of this discussion. If I understand you correctly, you are implying that if Bush truly lived up to his "rhetoric," i.e., his humanitarian and general Middle East peace goals, he would be sending more troops to Iraq. You may be implying more than a greater troop commitment, but for now let's leave it at that.

Suppose instead of reducing our presence, we instead increased our current number from 132,000 to 200,000, would this be the best solution? Instead of relieving weary troops we'd be sending 68,000 more of our boys into the fire. To solve what? Would the increase of security and general restorative activities be enough to offset the massive cost in calling up this much support? Would we stop seeing such gruesome displays of resistance?

My thinking is that the answer the administration sees is "no" to both questions. And I want to stress that answering "no" to the first question does not mean Bush has not lived up to his rhetoric. And, no, I'm not questioning that more troops will help pursue and prevent a few more attackers, but I'm not willing to think the decision is that easy.

Bush has every reason to want success in every possible way in Iraq. I suppose my reading of administration's actions is that the administration thinks sending more troops will solve relatively little and cost a fortune (not just in dollars). Its also a very poor long term solution.

- posted by Jon at 10:34 AM; link

 
RE: interest #1

Jon, there's a world of difference between saying that the situation could be improved if Bush matched his policy to his rhetoric and saying that with a change in administration priorities all problems would vanish. That we need more troops in Iraq for security and intelligence is growing more and more obvious, just as the administration is announcing plans to cut our presence from 132,000 to 105,000 by next May. Are you questioning that increasing our forces would help in the pursuit of the attackers and the prevention of their attacks? Is there a way of reading the administration's actions such that they don't suggest an insufficient commitment?

Here's an OpinionJournal piece on what success we have had in stopping the loyalists.

- posted by Bob at 11:20 PM; link

 
Meatrix

You've seen The Matrix. Now watch the Meatrix!

- posted by Ethan at 9:50 PM; link

 
RE: interest #1

Spinsanity has some good posts on the whole "Imminent Threat" debate. Read the original column as well.

I'm not sure I buy the whole connection of having the wrong reasons and the current debacle that is post-war Iraq. Its hard for me to visualize a plan for reconstruction that would prevent a bunch of random loyalists (who have an entire country to hide in) from blowing stuff up. I'm a bit reluctant to say "If Bush really cared then he and his team of Neocons would have figured out a way to make Iraq all nice."

- posted by Jon at 3:29 PM; link

 
Re: The Neocons are getting nervous

Mark's outline of the four interests in the Iraq War, and the issue of pre-war criticism of Bush's motives for war have clarified thing for me.

The four interests, as stated by Mark are: 1) Immanent danger of WMD, 2) Oil, 3) Regional political stabilization, and 4) local political stability/ humanitarian interest. Mark articulated the argument as, "even if it was a good idea to invade Iraq and liberate the Iraqis, if Bush's motives weren't right he wouldn't be able to do the job right." I think this is correctly articulated, and it was my position. Let me explain why this seemed so likely then and now.

Regarding interest #1: At the time we were gearing up to attack Iraq, there appeared to be other countries that were more threatening, both with regard to terrorism (i.e. Syria, Saudi Arabia) and WMD (i.e. N. Korea, Iran). Moreover, it certainly looks like they were trying a little too hard to dig up a reason to attack Iraq (maybe for "dad").

Regarding interest #2: Regarding #2: At the time we were gearing up to attack Iraq, we were buying oil from Iraq without difficulty. The oil was flowing freely. In fact, it was flowing a little more freely than OPAC liked.

As a little side note: Michael Walzer's article, Is there an American Empire? (which Mark recommended earlier), points out the strangeness of the left's argument here.

Hardt and Negri's argument might be read as a (before the fact) response to people who claim that the Iraq War was a "war for oil." In reality, as the left has been saying for some time now, the control of natural resources does not require "access to local spaces" or the "microadministration" of territories and populations; it does not require colonies or satellites. The market operates to allow richer states to acquire and use the resources of poorer states-not independently of politics but without reliance on political domination. If it didn't do that, we would be much less critical of the market than we are.

This was not a war for oil. War (or imperial occupation and "microadministration") is no longer necessary for rich countries to acquire the resources of poor countries, because we have "The Global Market." This has never been more true than in the oil situation for Iraq. The Market forced us to allow Iraq to sell oil because we needed to buy it, despite the fact that we were trying to economically sanction Iraq to bring down Sadams regime. Even more odd is the fact that because we only allowed Iraq to buy food and medicine with the oil revenue, we actually improved the food and medicine situation for Iraq's citizens (for which Sadam claimed credit).

Regarding interests #3 and #4: Prior to Sept. 11th, Bush had shown a serious reluctance to become involved in efforts to stabilize the middle east or to provide humanitarian aid to foreign countries. He seemed to have a "let them fight it out" strategy. The only thing that changed on Sept. 11th was that Bush saw the middle east as a breeding ground of terrorist threat that could actually reach the US. There is no reason to think his interest in the middle east extends beyond homeland security, and having thousands of men flock to Iraq to attack the occupying US force is a perfect situation, as far as US security is concerned. We have provided a local target that serves as a terrorist meat grinder, attracting anti-US fighters like mosquitoes to a bug-zapper, while our folks back home are safe. I'm sure the Pentagon thinks a few more months of this will reduce the world-wide terrorist population, and thereby reduce attacks against the US.

My point is, it has never seemed to me that the Bush administration had any reason to attack Iraq except that they wanted to finish the job that Powell and Bush senior failed to complete a decade before. This is not to say that there were no good reasons to attack Iraq, but rather that, as Mark said, the failure of Bush to have the right reasons is a cause of reduced effectiveness in the aftermath.

- posted by Ethan at 1:13 PM; link

 
CIA Leak

Did someone break a law here?:

As the Bush administration intensified the hunt for evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the CIA reluctantly agreed to look into reports from a previously discredited source that highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons was smuggled from Iraq to Iran, U.S. officials said....The officials requested anonymity because the issue involved classified information.

- posted by Carney at 12:14 PM; link

 
Occupation

Foreign Affairs has printed a "Digest of a meeting with Allen W. Dulles at the Council on Foreign Relations, December 3, 1945." I highly recommend reading these brief notes written by Allen W. Dulles because they describe the postwar conditions of Germany in a way that show the differences and similarities between that occupation and the current occupation of Iraq. The administrative difficulties, the lack of an overall plan, the problem of determining which locals are trustworthy for employing in the rebuilding endeavor, and concerns about public perception locally and back home are all issues facing the reconstruction effort. These notes also foreshadow the coming problems with the USSR (even using the term "Iron Curtain" before Churchill's famous speech).

As a side note, I was curious as to whether this man, Allen W. Dulles (who was later the Director of the CIA), was the man for whom Dulles Airport was named. A quick bit of research revealed that Dulles Airport was named for John Foster Dulles, who was the Secretary of State under Eisenhower. Allen W. Dulles was the younger brother of John Foster Dulles.

- posted by Ethan at 12:09 PM; link

 
The Neocons are getting nervous

Bill Kristol and Bob Kagan in the Weekly Standard:
The stunning victory in the war to remove Saddam has been followed by an almost equally stunning lack of seriousness about winning the peace, despite the vital importance of creating a stable, secure, and democratic Iraq.

The above article is good and worrisome. There was a lot of opposition to the war with Iraq that was really only founded on suspicion of Bush's motives. The best justification I heard for an opposition on those grounds was that even if it was a good idea to invade Iraq and liberate the Iraqis, if Bush's motives weren't right he wouldn't be able to do the job right. Once he'd removed the not-quite-immanent danger of WMDs (the security interest) and secured the oil fields (the economic interest), he wouldn't feel any pressure to stabilize the region (the geo-political interest) and establish a viable Iraqi democracy (the humanitarian interest).

It would be unfortunate, to say the least, if the Bush-bashers were ultimately correct.

- posted by Mark at 10:58 AM; link

 
re: X-treme PolitiX

How unhip is Sullivan Andrew?

"[Dean's] favorite singer is Jean Wyclef (no, don't ask me)."

Sic.

- posted by Bob at 5:32 PM; link

 
Some are more equal than others

The head of the Chinese Communist Party recently died in a tragic golf cart accident. A full investigation as to why he was at a golf course is pending.

- posted by Mark at 4:56 PM; link

 
X-treme PolitiX

Andrew Sullivan has a good article here about the polarization of American political discourse, but I wish he'd try to come up with an explanation as to why this has come about if he's right about Bush's moderate rhetoric.

- posted by Mark at 4:25 PM; link

 
Ruining Chess

In Today's Wall Street Journal my brother Brian has a piece about getting thrashed by Garry Kasparaov and about grandmasters versus computers. The interesting section deals with how Kasparov plays a less interesting, more careful game against computers:

This is a shame. In times gone by, when an opponent sacrificed a piece to launch an attack, it was considered dishonorable not to capture the sacrificed piece. Today, the decision whether to accept a sacrifice is made not on the basis of "honor," but after an attempt to carefully calculate the consequences of taking the offered piece or declining to. Chess is not enjoyed by millions around the world as an engineering problem, but for its aesthetic qualities. The beauty and daring of a game in which the queen, the most powerful piece on the board, is voluntarily given up in order to launch a game-winning attack against the king cannot be quantified, but it is precisely these possibilities that draw people to the game.

The aesthetic component is vital, because in the broader scheme of things, chess has no purpose. A brilliant chess game will solve no larger problem, but it is a thing of beauty. That is its reason for being.

Computers will ruin chess at its highest level, making it fun only if it is played imperfectly. This, oddly enough, puts chess in the same camp as Ultimate Fighting Championships. In UFC, the best fighters were grapplers, who would just roll around until they pinned you. The match would then consist of a bigger, stronger man, not being able to get free until he tapped out, 20 minutes later.

The more exciting UFC fights included strikers such as Tank Abbott, who were just big, mean guys who could kill you with a punch, but always lost to the likes of Gracie.

To me, this signals something flawed about Chess and UFC as forms of entertainment, like tic-tac-toe.

- posted by Carney at 10:51 AM; link

 
Nihilism at F.S.U.

Last week, my fiancé picked up the July issue of the Believer. The first thing I looked for, and happily found, was Tommy T's name on the back cover. His name has been modified since the last I remember it, though; the audacious "Tommy Thornhill IV" has become the simple, austere "Thomas Thornhill." The second thing I noticed is that the Believer really is a beautiful magazine, very well laid-out, with an embarrassing panopoly of interesting things to read. In this particular issue, some of you might be interested in the last selection, "The Diet That Amazed Europe," a new poem by D.C. Berman.

But what I gravitated to was the interview with Florida State University philosopher Michael Ruse. Ruse thinks that "[T]here is no ultimate truth about morality. It is an invention–an invention of the genes, rather than humans."

"Ultimate truths about morality" are best left to Monty Python and its epigones–I don't know of any serious thinker who has ever uttered that preposterous phrase straight-faced. But there are plenty of philosophers who would dispute that morality is an invention of the genes. Some would dispute the very intelligibility of that idea.

Ruse charges ahead, though, and accepts what he sees as the consequences of his position: moral nihilism. Now you might have thought nihilism was only the plaything of depressed Germans (cf. the Big Lebowski) and their clove cigarette smoking domestic imitators on campuses everywhere. But Ruse's nihilism is neither of the Nietzschean, destroy-the-world-and-laugh-maniacally variety, nor of the undergraduate hipster strain. It's a kinder, gentler, more Humean nihilism--the kind that vanishes when you leave your study to go and play backgammon or order something from the Sharper Image catalogue. In everyday life, Ruse says, you can't act on this nihilism. You have to pretend that you're acting on good reasons and not simply because your genes are making you do it.

The thought is something like this. When my dog falls asleep in the hallway, I step over him to avoid kicking him. This commits me to some dubious moral absolutism that I cannot help but believe in everyday life. But when I come to my senses in my study, I know better. I know that there is no "objective" reason I shouldn't have kicked poor Sammy down the hall, that all choices are equal. And all this is true because humans are determined to do whatever they will do by their genes.

Now there's no reason to believe that someone who believed the above couldn't be a decent person. But aside from that qualification, it’s not hard to see that Ruse has completely embraced the caricature of the scientist that religious fundamentalists have been peddling for years. He’s so eager to take on the Religious Right that he’s adopted an obviously (and internally) adversarial position on the nature of morality, one that’s as at least as idiotic as anything that William Jennings Bryan ever subscribed to.

Fundamentalist-baiting aside, though, there’s no good reason why anyone should think that anything scientists could possibly discover about our evolutionary history will somehow invalidate the moral reasons we appeal to in everyday life. My sympathy for Sammy is perfectly immune to skeptical counterattack. Ruse’s schizophrenic alternation between the “false” morality of everyday life and the “true” perspective of philosophy is both unnecessary and an obvious sign of intellectual dishonesty. He presents us with the spectacle of a castrated libertine: someone who wants the thrill of being beyond good and evil without having to worry about violating his middle-class conscience.

- posted by Mark at 9:39 PM; link

 
Outlawing Unskilled Labor

"San Franciscans voted last week to forbid anyone in their city from taking a job that pays less than $8.50 per hour."

Human Events' David Freddoso cuts to ribbons the idea that a living wage law in San Fran will, as one AP reporter blockheadedly put it, "make [living in San Francisco] a little more affordable" with his latest piece in Brainwash.

- posted by Carney at 3:44 PM; link