Nation-Building

Obsidian Wings has a tremendous guest post from an Armenian of Lebanese origin, with family living there right now. It paints a much more complex picture of Lebanon, of identity, and war than I think most analyses have made. He talks a great deal about the fragility of the Lebanese civil society to begin with, and the further strains that the war has made upon them. And he talks about where the money for reconstruction is probably going to come from. Essential reading. On the topic of Lebanese identity, Josh Trevino argues that Lebanon is a fiction . However, Michael Totten draws upon his own direct experiences traveling in the region to argue that Lebanese national identity is nascent and something very real. Why does it matter? Jonathan Edelstein points out that anarchy in Lebanon - or partition, as proposed by streiff at RedState - is an outcome that bodes ill for Israel's security as well as our own interests. Do not miss the discussion on Jonathan's post, which touch...

The idea that Lebanon is a failed state, and should be torn asunder, surfaces repeatedly. It is in one sense an excuse for the enlarged scope of the Israeli offensive against Hizbollah. But the issue does deserve discussion in the broader context of foreign policy aims aimed at furthering our own goals. To those ends, proposed partition of Lebanon (and/or Iraq) would only undermine prospects for peace. Partition only works if the ethnic enclaves are reasonably contiguous. The ethnicities in Lebanon are not as separable as pro-partitioners imply. For it to work, partition would require resettlement - which is invariably a massive scar that never heals. India is quoted as an example of a multi-ethnic success story. I largely agree; but if you look at indopak as a whole, we really are talking about a single canton in a very large partition - and the richest one in terms of resources (economic and human). Partition was achieved in the Subcontinent only via forced resettlement - which tore ...

Over at Wizbang blog there was a post about the most beautiful person on Capitol Hill. The winner was a woman of Guayanese orgin, specifically, mixed East Indian (that's what they call brown down there), African and European. The comments started out crass , no big surprise. Someone expressed the opinion that the winner was butt ugly , while others disagreed . Par for the course in "guy talk." But then this comes up , "I haven't noticed Kos postings as being racist." Now, there was a crack about affirmative action earlier, but the general tone is just one of crass sexism and objectification. Now, myself, I do objectify women quite a bit, it is a personal pleasure of mine. Though I admit that women are more than eye candy, but who can't enjoy a little sugar now and then? The only reason I post this is that I was waiting for someone to call any criticism of the young woman's appearence racist . The problem with a segment of the modern Left i...

since people who don't casually surf the leftsphere, let alone consider themselves members, have a very skewedperspective of the Democratic partisan mind, I wanted to point out a post at activist site myDD.com that gives a little more depth into the netroot mentality. The basic issue here is that liberal voters - and this is especially true of the netroots - are proud of their beliiefs with respect to whether government can be a force for good, whether there is such a thing as a societal commons, whether there is a moral obligation upon those in society to help provide for those who are less capable by dint of circumstance or ability. They are proud to be Democrats and believe that what Democrats have stood for over history is something to be defended. And I agree, though I am not a Democrat myself. That is the true reason why, to take an example, Joe Lieberman is so hated. Because like many of the politicians in the DLC, but far more egregiously so, he advances his own political ...

Here we go again. This time, Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe, heaping yet more glory upon the Republican Party tradition of elevating the debate: In an interview, he heaped criticism on what he saw as the strategy used by those on the other side of the debate and offered a historical comparison. "It kind of reminds . . . I could use the Third Reich, the big lie," Inhofe said. And of course the inevitable comparison: The Oklahoma Republican compares "An Inconvenient Truth," which he doesn't plan to see, to Adolf Hitler's book "Mein Kampf."

Paleoprog over at American Footprints runs a few fact-check cycles on Juan Cole (not to be confused with John Cole ). While I don't take issue with the substance, I left a comment disagreeing with his style: While a response to Cole is a good thing - after all, continued dialouge on the topic is the best way to clear away the half-truths and misconceptions of the sort which you did a fine job in addressing herein - I don't understand why people accord to Cole's analysis the importance that they do. Cole is invaluabel for his translations and his knowledge of the Shi'a and Lebanese histories. As far as his analysis goes, as you pointed out, he's a lightweight. Ultimately I think it's harmful to paint him as a completely useless source because he does add value to the discussion, after proper filtering. And really, calling his misstatements "lies" is just too strong. You think he is being deliberately mendacious? I think it's more a case of pulling ...

A common refrain I hear in the blogosphere is about "mad mullahs" and the possibility that Iran might destroy Israel, or subsidize a nuclear attack via terrorist proxies on a US city. Of course, if the state of Iran does such a thing then it seals its own fate in a self-induced Götterdämmerung as it invites massive nuclear retaliation from either the US or Israel. How plausible is this scenario? In my opinion, not very, and the reason is simple: the commanding heights of government does not select for individuals with suicidal intent because those individuals are not by their nature good at manipulating politics and playing the "game." To put a not too fine point on it, political leadership tends to select for a somewhat craven sort, the Churchill's of the world stand in contrast to the run of the mill political leader, and this includes autocrats like Stalin or Hitler. The idea that Iran would engage in a nuclear attack proactively seems to defy a host o...