Nation-Building

I think it's probably necessary to preface this post with the following disclosures: I was against invading Iraq; I am a pragmatic liberal interventionist as regards to foreign policy; I think that the argument for total and complete withdrawal from Iraq is a. genuinely harmful to America's self-interest (in a global sense) and b. not on the table, regardless of who wins the election in 2008. The very term "withdrawal" is in fact meaningless, but there's some irony in the fact that the rabid Article III/Section 3-quoting right-wingers and the reflexively anti-military ultra-leftists define the term in precisely the same way. Rather analogous to how Islamophobes and Al Qaeda interpret the Qur'an the same way, in fact, but that's truly tangential.

Small-w withdrawal can take many forms, and there are costs and benefits accordingly. For the sake of discussion, let's define Withdrawal with a capital W as the total Vietnam-esque withdrawal of every last soldier from Iraq. Jim Henley argues forcefully that the cost-benefit analysis of Withdrawal is neutral:

It is possible that if we leave, hundreds of thousands will die and millions be displaced. That has already happened under our government’s tender and expert care. There is no short-term prospect that it will stop happening. But I guess if you die while the US is around, you have the comfort of knowing we were trying.

Let's be honest with ourselves and admit that if we leave, it is not just possible but in fact rather likely that (X1) hundreds of thousands will die and (Y1) millions will be displaced. Let's also be honest that if we stay, (X2) hundreds of thousands will die and (Y2) millions will be displaced. Can Aziz Poonawalla, or Jim Henley, or George Bush, or Bill Richardson, or anyone else make a coherent empirical argument about whether X1 < X2 or X1 > X2? The answer is no; with one caveat Assertion (with a capital A) - the people in Iraq who are those most invested in the idea of Iraq as a stable, prosperous, free nation, ie the people who it is in our best interest as a nation to help stay alive and be in charge of Iraq someday, will be brutally massacred if we Withdraw-with-a-capital-W. The policy and strategy implications of the Assertion can be debated, but the factual nature of the Assertion cannot.

If liberals are to articulate a coherent foreign policy vision that can compete for mindshare with the neoconservative PNAC agenda, it needs to be founded on liberal principles. I define liberalism in a classical sense; the universal right of individual liberty. The fundamental premise of pragmatic liberal interventionism (PLI) is that America's vast power (including but not limited to military power) is best applied in service of global promotion of that universal idea.

It seems to me that abandoning Iraq via outright Withdrawal would betray that principle. We certainly cannot remain in Iraq as we are, but neither should we rush to embrace the polar opposite of "staying the course", because there is a real blood cost. Blowback, if you will.

If we want to argue policy that accepts the blood cost of withdrawal on its merits, with full realization and acknowledgment therein, then by all means let us do so. But let's not pretend that our presence in Iraq is utterly irrelevant.

Highly related reading: Anthony Cordesman's report from Iraq, entitled "The tenuous case for strategic patience in Iraq" (PDF). The synopsis:

The attached trip report does, however, show there is still a tenuous case for strategic patience in Iraq, and for timing reductions in US forces and aid to Iraqi progress rather than arbitrary dates and uncertain benchmarks. It recognizes that strategic patience is a high risk strategy, but it also describes positive trends in the fighting, and hints of future political progress.

These trends are uncertain, and must be considered in the context of a long list of serious political, military, and economic risks that are described in detail. The report also discusses major delays and problems in the original surge strategy. The new US approach to counterinsurgency warfare is making a difference, but it still seems likely from a visit to the scene that the original strategy President Bush announced in January would have failed if it had not been for the Sunni tribal awakening.

Luck, however, is not something that can be ignored, and there is a window of opportunity that could significantly improve the chances of US success in Iraq if the Iraqi government acts upon it. The US also now has a country team in Iraq that is far more capable than in the past, and which may be able to develop and implement the kind of cohesive plans for US action in Iraq that have been weak or lacking to date. If that team can come forward with solid plans for an integrated approach to a sustained US effort to deal with Iraq’s plans and risks, there would be a far stronger and more bipartisan case for strategic patience.

Cordesman is a full-fledged member of the VSP and as his publications list demonstrates, not a serial revisionist like O'Hanlon or Pollack. The full report is worth reading in full.

Labels: Iraq, PLI, VSP, withdrawal

Continue reading/discuss the blood cost of withdrawal ...

There's not been much coverage in the VSP-sphere about Pakistan's pending regime change, but there's a great overview article in the LA Times that points out that the clock is ticking for Pervez Musharraf:

his country's long-running political crisis has entered a decisive phase, with developments in coming weeks likely to determine whether President Pervez Musharraf is able to hang on to power or is pushed aside.

Exiled opponents such as former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto are vowing to return and reclaim a place on the political stage. The current parliament, whose rubber-stamp approval Musharraf wants for another term as president, is nearing the end of its tenure. An emboldened Supreme Court is weighing legal challenges to Musharraf's participation in politics while he retains his position as military chief.

And all the while, popular anger simmers. Celebrations last week of the 60th anniversary of the end of British colonial rule and the advent of statehood were muted not only by security fears but by a sense among many Pakistanis that a transition away from military rule is long overdue.

In a nutshell, Musharraf wants to continue wearing both his President (civil) hat and his General (military) stripes. This is an attempt at legitimizing the fact of Pakistan being under military rule, using a democratic fig leaf. The fact is that Musharraf is a dictator - a restrained one, but a dictator nevertheless:

This month, the general considered imposing emergency rule, a measure that would have given him wide-ranging powers to act against political opponents and the Pakistani media. Some analysts believe influential military figures counseled him against such a drastic measure, which probably would have provoked further unrest.

"There were indications that corps commanders were not very keen on the idea," said Urmila Venugopalan, editor of the Asia-Pacific section of Jane's Country Risk. Musharraf dropped the idea of an emergency declaration, but aides said it remained an option.

However, the machinery of Pakistan's government and judicial system is still functioning, and the wheels are grinding slowly but surely. The five-year term of the present (rubber stamp) Parliament is ending and the political opposition will not allow Musharraf's promises of returning the nation to democracy with new (and this time, fair) elections to silently evaporate.

After a long spring and summer of discontent, matters are coming to a head, political and legal observers say. The clock is ticking down on the five-year term of the current parliament, which was elected in a 2002 vote widely believed to have been rigged in the general's favor.

The vote on another presidential term for Musharraf by an electoral college made up of national and regional lawmakers is to take place between Sept. 15 and Oct. 15, the general's aides have said. The Supreme Court, presided over by Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, the chief justice Musharraf tried to oust, has indicated it will entertain challenges to the vote being conducted by current lawmakers, rather than the new parliament to be elected by early next year.

The high court is also expected to be asked to determine whether Musharraf should be held, at last, to the constitutional ban on holding office while in uniform. Another legal provision that is expected to be invoked by the general's opponents states that anyone who leaves the military must wait two years before seeking public office.

Yet more legal challenges are expected to center on the fairness of the upcoming elections, which are to take place within 90 days of the parliament's dissolution Nov. 15. More than 20 million people eligible to vote are missing from the rolls, and the court has ordered officials to come up with an accurate and updated registry in the next month.

BTW Musharraf's attempted ouster of the Chief Justice was probably the clumsiest thing anyone has tied in Pakistani politics in recent memory. That was the spark that really undermined Musharraf's grip. That same Chief Justice now will preside over ther various legal challenges and elections, which include the return of two major players to the Pakistani politics scene: former Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif.

Bhutto is heavily tainted with corruption, but she made Musharraf an offer he shouldn't refuse:

In remarks to a U.S. network broadcast Tuesday, Bhutto outlined a possible agreement that would reduce Musharraf's power while allowing her to return from exile and perhaps to government.

"So we're not trying to bail out a military dictator by saying we will come there on your terms. What we are seeking is a compromise that could help bring about a stable, democratic, civilian order," Bhutto told PBS. "What we're negotiating for are certain changes that will empower the Parliament to take on the militants."

A deal with Bhutto offers Musharraf a chance to fend off legal challenges to his continued rule and make good on pledges to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda, viewed with growing skepticism in Washington.

Of course the deal also includes full pardons for Bhutto and her husband on various corruption charges. Quid pro quo. Meanwhile, Nawaz Sharif, who was deposed by Musharraf in the military coup and exiled, just won the right to return:

His campaign to return and contest elections has been seen by analysts as a challenge to the president, who is facing growing political pressures.
[...]
Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry said in his judgement: "The Sharifs can return to Pakistan unhindered.

"They have an inalienable right to return and remain in the country as citizens of Pakistan."

Mr Sharif's brother, Shahbaz, another politician, was also exiled in 2000.

Mr Sharif leads the biggest party in an opposition alliance committed to removing his Gen Musharraf from power.

He and cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan announced in London in June that they were teaming up to challenge what they called Gen Musharraf's "dictatorship."

Mr Sharif, who still officially heads his faction of the conservative Pakistan Muslim League party from exile, served as prime minister from 1990 to 1993, and again from 1997 to 1999.

Note that the decision to permit Sharif to return was made by Chief Justice Chaudhry.

In one sense, there's three Pakistan's in conflict here. Musharraf represents the status quo, ironically - Pakistan has been under military rule for most of its history. Sharif represents the most genuine element of Pakistani democracy that exists, and will probably be adopted by the reformists within Pakistan who want to move the country forward. Bhutto represents the old "democracy" of Pakistan, wherein powerful families rules the nation like a fiefdom. It's not surprising that Bhutto wants to ally herself to Musharraf, in that context. Sharif was hardly a good Prime Minister by most standards, it must be admitted, but should he succeed he will be at the apex of the new movement within Pakistan for reform and thus is probably Pakistan's best hope for building a stable society ruled by Law.

Incidentally, what's the role of the US in this? Overall, neutral - the Bush Administration is focusing on the mechanics of the upcoming election:

At this juncture, the Bush administration appears to be using its influence primarily to push for free and fair parliamentary elections, sidestepping the question of whether Musharraf should be allowed to continue as military chief.

During a visit to Pakistan last week, Richard Boucher, the U.S. assistant secretary of State for South and Central Asian affairs, said the Pakistani leader had pledged to "address or deal with the issue of the uniform . . . during the course of this transition."

Asked whether he believed the general would in fact do so, Boucher replied, "Yes." Then he added, "We'll see."

The U.S. failure to exert pressure on Musharraf to relinquish his military role has left many Pakistanis cynical, believing that the expediency of an alliance with him trumps the U.S. commitment to democracy in the region.

Cynicism aside, spending whatever political capital the US has on the election mechanics is probably the best investment we can make. The fact is that Musharraf won't surrender his military uniform unless forced to do so. A genuinely free and open election will do more for democracy promotion in Pakistan than any threats of withholding aid (short-sighted though that would be, given the real threat of Al Qaida in the northwest) would possibly be. I think that Pakistan is one case where the US is doing the right thing as far as democracy promotion goes; the rest is up to the Pakistanis themselves.

UPDATE: Sepoy has more.

Labels: Pakistan

Continue reading/discuss Pakistan gets interesting ...

A Japanese political activist has been arrested after he cut off his little finger and posted it to PM Shinzo Abe's ruling party, according to police.

Yoshihiro Tanjo said he was protesting against Mr Abe's refusal to visit a war shrine, on the 62nd anniversary of Japan's surrender in World War II.

The Yasukuni shrine is the one in Tokyo that honors all the Japanese war dead - including those later convicted of being war criminals. Personally I think that while cutting off your finger is extreme, there's a pretty cogent critique of Shinzo Abe to be made here. It's worth noting that the previous PM, Junichiro Koizumi, made a point of visiting the shrine despite the outcry of protests. I think that it's appropriate for the PM to do so, for the same reason that Confederate soldiers are buried at Arlington National Cemetery in Washington DC - they were soldiers who fought for their nation, and even if there are a handful of genuine criminals buried alongside there, it dishonors the rest more by eschewing them altogether.

Shinzo Abe campaigned on a national pride platform for Japan; he was considered a hawk who pledged to rewrite the pacifist nature of Japan's constitution. And Abe has visited the shrine before, and argued forcefully in favor of doing so. It is possible that his reticience this time is driven by concerns about offending China, which may threaten his attempts at building economic ties. Abe has made a big play to build separate economic links with both China and India, as a hedge against both. A massive Japanese business delegation just went to India:

Kamal Nath, the Indian minister for trade and industry, said Wednesday that the two countries would sign a comprehensive economic agreement by the end of the year.

Already during the visit, Japan and India have agreed on a currency swap, Mr. Abe said, allowing them to deal with a short-term liquidity squeeze.

In a series of banquets and buffets, featuring plenty of Indian food but few concessions to Japanese cuisine, Japanese executives and politicians have been gathering with their Indian counterparts to discuss everything from open skies agreements to Buddhism. Implicit in the discussion of cooperation is the notion that an allied India and Japan could help hedge against China’s growth.

I think that the shadow of China weighs heavily indeed on Abe's mind. His first official trip as PM was to Beijing, after all. It's hard to see his refusal to visit Yasukuni this time in any other light.

Labels: China, India, Japan

Continue reading/discuss Japanese activist gives PM the finger ...

There's a handy chart at myDD that purports to show, with references, where the dmeocratic candidates stand on various issues related to withdrawal from Iraq. Richardson comes out looking the most committed to withdrawal as soon as possible, which isn't surprising given that his campaign put the chart together (sourced from his affiliated campaign site, No Troops Left Behind).

However, Richardson gave a speech ("the New Realism") at the CSIS (PDF) a while back wherein he said several things that I think contradict the image he is trying to put forth here.

in the introductory remarks he explicitly calls for increase in the size of the military:

if America is to lead again, we need to remember this history and to rebuild
our overextended military, increase the size of our Army, revive our alliances, and restore
our reputation as a nation which respects international law, human rights, and civil
liberties.

But over the course of the rest of the speech, he doesn't quite spell out exactly where troops are needed (though he has quite a laundry list of foreign policy issues that need our attention).

later in response to a direct question, what woud he do in Iraq, he answers in part,

I would get out this calendar year, but I would couple that with three
other steps: one, diplomacy, American leadership; bring together a reconciliation
conference among the ethnic groups – the Shi’a, the Sunni; find a way that that
reconciliation conference, using the leverage of a withdrawal, brings forth a coalition
government, a sharing of oil revenues, a sharing of Cabinet ministries, and a Dayton-type
accord similar to Dayton – not a division, a splitting up of the country, that would bring
territorial integrity and respect to the religious groups in Iraq.

The problem is that this is largely meaningless. First, "get out this calendar year" ? Which year? 2008? Is it even possible to withdraw from Iraq in one year?

The other things like a "reconciliation coference" and "leverage the threat of withdrawal" seem absurdly naive for someone with such supposedly seasoned foreign policy chops as he has. Contrast this with the much grittier analysis by Cordesman that notes that the US "cannot dictate Iraq’s future, only influence it." The idea that a reconciliation conference akin to South Africa would suffice to meaningfully ameliorate the ethnic division there, utterly ignores the complex interplay of foreign interests and the domestic political landscape that make Iraq such a Gordian knot (and there's no better summary/overview of that knot than the Cordesman report linked above. ESSENTIAL reading for anyone daring to opine on Iraq strategy or policy, including Presidential candidates).

Richardson acknowledges that such conferences would provide no guarantee:

Now, is that going to guarantee success? Is that going to guarantee the stoppage of a civil war and sectarian conflict? It won’t guarantee it, but I believe it will be an important step to make things
better.

emphasis mine; what kind of drivel is this? an "important step" ? Is he serious? This is hand-waving of the most transparent kind. A policy needs to be evaluated according to some measure or metric, and all he has to offer is platitude.

I donm't think Richardson is a fool. In fact I think he knows that he needs to distinguish himself from the other candidates and is using withdrawal as his wedge. He's too intelligent to be ignorant of the emptiness of his words at the CSIS as pertain to Iraq, which lead me to suspect that this is really a pander operation. It's far more plausible that Richardson sees a need for increased troops in Iraq for the long haul. That isn't a position I personally would not neccessarily disagree with him, but that is a position at odds with how he is trying to portray himself to the Democratic electorate and the netroots. I think Biden has a more honest approach: stand on principle and make your case.

Labels: 2008, Richardson, withdrawal

Continue reading/discuss Richardson pandering to the pro-withdrawal base? ...

Atrios has been on a snark roll recently lampooning what he calls the club of "very serious people" aka the VSP who dominate foreign policy debate. Glenn Greenwald recently alluded to the same, arguing that the sacred cow of American foreign policy is that America has a right to intervene around the world in its own interests. He casts this as a "rigid pro-war ideology" but frankly, this is a perfectly reasonable prime motivator for any nation's self-interest; given that America has the most power of all nations in the world (and more than the rest combined), a truly liberal and moral foreign policy demands not that we have the right to intervene, but rather that we have the obligation to intervene. Pragmatic and liberal intervention, of course - and always firmly within the bounds of international law. (It bears repeating that the Iraq war was perfectly legal and bore UN sanction).

I kind of like the acronym, VSP. Might as well adopt it - as Very Serious Policy rather than very serious people. The irony is that the VSP was ignored in the runup to the Iraq war because political agendas trumped the value of their advice; now the same thing is happening, since the VSP is largely measured in its critiques and simply not on the same page (as far as any consensus can be described) about total withdrawal from Iraq as the leftist blogger camp is (Atrios, et al). For example, Anthony Cordesman's report this month from Iraq is titled, "The Tenuous Case for Strategic Patience in Iraq". That's hardly a full-throated cry for yanking the troops out now; like most VSP analyses, it is a balanced, measured look at the pros and cons of the policy in question and provides no clear cut rallying cry.

We don't live in a technocracy; the loudest voices with the simplest messages are the ones who gain a following and have the most influence. So no matter who is in power, the VSP is going to have an uphill battle and face critiques.

The important thing is to articulate a consistent foreign policy philosophy. I am of course a pragmatic liberal interventionist; that's a better policy I think most lefties would agree than the neoconservative creed of pure political self-interest couched in moral principle for appearances' sake only. Unfortunately the alternative offered up by the extreme left is a neo-isolationist reactionary position. In that regard I don't see it as any better than what the neocons have to offer, in terms of offering genuine opportunity for furthering freedom abroad and security at home.

Ilan at Democracy Arsenal provides a very serious proposal to Atrios and other critics:

There is a use for expertise. Experts’ opinions should not be the absolute be all and end all, but people should have an opportunity to listen to someone who reads the Arabic press every morning, has spent years living in the region, devotes their career to these issues and for the most part has been right on important questions like the war in Iraq.

So, here’s my proposal. You can have some people in the blogosphere make the decoding easier for everyone. People who pay attention to this stuff regularly (Like some of the more notable bloggers and their readerships.) could work to come up with a list of good experts on various issues. This expert list should include people who really know what they are talking about, but don’t get enough attention.

Will the top lefty blogs take Ilan up on this? They certainly have the mindshare to get these ideas out into the mainstream.

Labels: PLI, VSP

Continue reading/discuss Very Serious Policy ...

The strange contradiction of the mass media is that it combines true journalism - the nuts and bolts, reporters on the street, old school journalism trade - with talking heads up their own asses who write "opinion". Frankly the blogsphere obsoletes the latter. I am not one of those blog triumphalists who think the blogsphere can replace the former, but there certainly are good examples of blogs who make the attempt; on the right, Patterico comes to mind, whereas on the left, Josh Marshall's TPM. Both are examples of blogs that do honest and genuine reporting.

Which is why the punditocracy is so threatened. Michael Skube of the LA Times today tries to argue that the blogsphere is a ranting mob as usual. But note anything odd in his examples?

The blogosphere is the loudest corner of the Internet, noisy with disputation, manifesto-like postings and an unbecoming hatred of enemies real and imagined.

And to think most bloggers are doing all this on the side. "No man but a blockhead," the stubbornly sensible Samuel Johnson said, "ever wrote but for money." Yet here are people, whole brigades of them, happy to write for free. And not just write. Many of the most active bloggers — Andrew Sullivan, Matthew Yglesias, Joshua Micah Marshall and the contributors to the Huffington Post — are insistent partisans in political debate.

Kevin Drum notes of the above,

of these four examples, the first three are all professional writers and the fourth is a venture-funded site with a paid staff. If you're going to extol "thorough fact-checking and verification" over the blogosphere's "potpourri of opinion," you really ought to fact-check your assertions first.

And what's more, Josh Marshall emailed Skube directly about being lumped in. Guess what?

Not long after I wrote I got a reply: "I didn't put your name into the piece and haven't spent any time on your site. So to that extent I'm happy to give you benefit of the doubt ..."

This seemed more than a little odd since, as I said, he certainly does use me as an example -- along with Sullivan, Matt Yglesias and Kos. So I followed up noting my surprise that he didn't seem to remember what he'd written in his own opinion column on the very day it appeared and that in any case it cut against his credibility somewhat that he wrote about sites he admits he'd never read.

To which I got this response: "I said I did not refer to you in the original. Your name was inserted late by an editor who perhaps thought I needed to cite more examples..."

So Skube writes an opinion piece in the LA Times about how bloggers are just a pack of partisan hounds who do no real journalism, and roam free unfettered by the bounds of editorial control. The same editorial review which inserted blogs Skube admits to never having read for "more examples" to support his thesis? The ironies abound.

Labels: media

Continue reading/discuss punditocracy ...

It seems that Edwards is on track to pull off an upset in Iowa.

In discussion at myDD, someone asks whether Obama would be finished if he lost both Iowa (to both Edwards and Clinton) and New Hampshire (to Clinton). I don't think that Obama's base would evaporate. he has better anti-Clinton credentials than Edwards. If things shake out as I expect, ie Edwards 1st, Clinton 2nd and Obama 3rd in Iowa, and Clinton 1st and Obama 2nd in NH, then we are probably still looking at Clinton vs Obama for the nomination. Unless Edwards wins NH outright, he's really running for VP again.

If Gore enters the race, the dynamics change of course. Speaking purely in wishful thinking mode, I think a Gore-Obama matchup would be the strongest ticket.

Labels: 2008, Edwards, Obama

Continue reading/discuss Edwards ahead in Iowa ...

In a nutshell, Gore is not opposed to nuclear power, but his focus is on global warming, and as far as nuclear power is being promoted (for example, by Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore) as a panacea to the GW problem, he is skeptical, for pragmatic rather than ideological reasons. I think this is a realistic approach, and is perfectly compatible with rigorous pro-nuclear domestic energy policy.

From Gore's climate policy speech at the NYU Law School on Sep. 18, 2006.

Many believe that a responsible approach to sharply reducing global warming pollution would involve a significant increase in the use of nuclear power plants as a substitute for coal-fired generators. While I am not opposed to nuclear power and expect to see some modest increased use of nuclear reactors, I doubt that they will play a significant role in most countries as a new source of electricity. The main reason for my skepticism about nuclear power playing a much larger role in the world's energy future is not the problem of waste disposal or the danger of reactor operator error, or the vulnerability to terrorist attack. Let's assume for the moment that all three of these problems can be solved. That still leaves two serious issues that are more difficult constraints. The first is economics; the current generation of reactors is expensive, take a long time to build, and only come in one size -- extra large. In a time of great uncertainty over energy prices, utilities must count on great uncertainty in electricity demand -- and that uncertainty causes them to strongly prefer smaller incremental additions to their generating capacity that are each less expensive and quicker to build than are large 1000 megawatt light water reactors. Newer, more scalable and affordable reactor designs may eventually become available, but not soon. Secondly, if the world as a whole chose nuclear power as the option of choice to replace coal-fired generating plants, we would face a dramatic increase in the likelihood of nuclear weapons proliferation. During my 8 years in the White House, every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program. Today, the dangerous weapons programs in both Iran and North Korea are linked to their civilian reactor programs. Moreover, proposals to separate the ownership of reactors from the ownership of the fuel supply process have met with stiff resistance from developing countries who want reactors. As a result of all these problems, I believe that nuclear reactors will only play a limited role.

Also, Gore was interviewed by the Sydney Morning Herald last fall, and expanded upon his stance:

In an interview with the Herald yesterday, Mr Gore said it would be too expensive and would threaten the world's safety through possible weapons proliferation. "Early in my career I was enthusiastic about nuclear power. I'm not now," the climate campaigner said in Sydney.

"I'm not an automatic opponent to any nuclear power plants [but] I think that a realistic view is that they will play only a small and limited role. The reason why they're likely to play only a limited role is mainly economic."

The Switkowski task force is believed to argue that nuclear power could be economically viable in Australia in about 15 years, but it is not expected to make a specific recommendation to go ahead.

The Prime Minister, John Howard, has advocated nuclear power as cleaner fuel in the fight against global warming. Mr Gore said the long-term problems of storing nuclear waste, potential accidents and securing reactors could possibly be overcome.

"But that leaves the proliferation issue," he said.

In the case of Iran and North Korea, he said nuclear scientists worked by day on energy issues and then "you make them work at night on weapons". "What will you do? Spread thousands and thousands of reactors in Papua New Guinea and

Libya and Sudan? If this were the option of choice the world would become more dangerous."

Labels: Gore, Nuclear

Continue reading/discuss Al Gore on nuclear power ...

I'm not sure what this signifies in a broader sense, but it's worth noting that there's a strain of anti-intellectualism in modern society running underneath both the left and the right. I think the right is more susceptible to it, by virtue of heavy weighting towards religious dogma. Usually, you see it among Christian conservatives, but I was rather surprised to see this sneer at panspermia theory from a well-educated, Jewish lawyer like Ron:

We can admit the preposterousness of the suggestion that life spontaneously began and then, after a few tough winters, turned into Albert Einstein, Merv Griffin and Alex Rodriguez on this lonely sphere, because we have an alternative “scientific” explanation: It “could have happened,” see, that life came to earth on magic flying incubator rocks, which are uh-infinity old.

How do “radioactive elements … keep[ing] water in liquid form in comet interiors for millions of years… mak[es] them potentially ideal ‘incubators’ for early life.” (”Potentially”?)

There are certainly valid critiques of panspermia to be made, but this is not a rigorous one.

Meanwhile, over at My Left Wing, a liberal community site, we see an argument that Science is overrated. Why? because it's sole purpose, apparently, is to wage war:

Science has not been cultivated in this country out of a love of learning. Its primary job is to make Stealth Bombers and Nuclear Weapons. This accounts for its funding.
[...]
If Science doesn't carry with it the potential to cure disease or blow up Hiroshima (or Iran, for that matter), we're not even having this conversation.

So if its value is a product of its potential for application, then the only way to determine whether it's overvalued is to consider the value of its fruits.

We need a balance sheet. Has it done more harm than good?

It astonishes me that anyone sitting comfortably at a personal computer powered by electricity 24/7 in a home with potable water on tap on demand, with education that Newton would have envied and a lifespan that is almost double their forebears (and including a productive and vigorous old age rather than senile frailty to boot) can even dare to ask the question whether science has done more harm than good. Again, there is a dogma at work here; the insistence and overshadowing of War as prime motive to Science that colors the view.

One might be tempted to counter with the question, has War done more harm than good? but the impedance mismatch would be too high to have a meaningful dialouge, it would just devolve.

Perhaps the greatest threat that these anti-intellectuals are really reacting against is simply the Rational process, which undermines their respective dogmas. And neither side has any immunity to dogma.

There is and has to be a counter to the purist Enlightenment argument that places Reason above all; there is a place for dogma. But the application of dogma above serves to stunt rather than constructively channel growth.

Continue reading/discuss anti-intellectualism, left and right ...

today at RedState I saw this fairly odious piece of conservative conventional wisdom again rear its head: that Democrats actively desire failure in Iraq. I don't believe for a second that anyone in the political class, or the pundit class, genuinely believes or wants us as a nation to fail. It's a little thing called Benefit of the Doubt; in a civilized society with free speech and democratic process, its our responsibility to extend this basic courtesy to our opponents. The problem in modern discourse is that this basic civility has been sacrificed on the altar of immediate, short term political gain.

That benefit of the doubt is why I refuse to castigate Stu Bykofsky for his provocative column titled "To save America, we need another 9/11". His thesis is that

ONE MONTH from The Anniversary, I'm thinking another 9/11 would help America.

What kind of a sick bastard would write such a thing?

A bastard so sick of how splintered we are politically - thanks mainly to our ineptitude in Iraq - that we have forgotten who the enemy is.

This is a provocative piece. Something for everyone, it seems, though curiously it's been embraced by conservatives and denounced by liberals (I'd have predicted the opposite, based on his analysis of the Iraq war as an unmitigated failure).

But I take substantive issue with his analysis on the merits. We are splintered politically, true - but that was long before Iraq and even before 9-11, and the reason, the sole reason, is because of that abandoned principle of benefit of the doubt. You can't just disagree anymore; you have to paint your opponent as the scum of the earth. That's the true way in which we have forgotten who our enemy is; but it long predates the true enemies we have today.

Would another 9-11 really help? Bykofsky argues,

It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail.

The unity brought by such an attack sadly won't last forever.

The first 9/11 proved that.

true, which is why another 9-11 will again serve as only a temporary distraction from the much more important pursuit of each other. If the result of 9-11, past or future, is a transient unity, then it comes at too high a price.

Still, Bykofsky dared to write something genuinely provocative about 9-11, that makes us really think. Or at least, pause for a moment.

Continue reading/discuss pining for 9-11? ...