It’s Sunday, have a kitten, courtesy of Anna:
Meanwhile, be sure to also read Avedon’s doubts about Al Gore
Realist empire
Jamie explains how the current backlash against the Israel lobby, even if limited, might help to strengthen the power of the (Bush) presidency and hence the American empire:
Take the famous Mearsheimer and Walt book. Responses have centred on whether its portrayal of the dimensions and influence of the Israel Lobby in the United States are accurate; at least when they haven’t been a competition for the most creative ways of suggesting that M & W are anti-semites.
Behind that there’s another point. Lobbies flourish in the US because the law permits them wide latitude to influence public affairs in whatever way they can. You can’t change the terms of trade for Israel without changing them for all the other lobbies. And one of the most efficient ways to do that is to limit Congress’s ability to respond to their lobbying. That in turn implies limiting its freedom of action, something which would automatically strengthen the executive.
I have noticed a … tendency amongst those American liberals brave enough to admit and object to the existence of a Israel lobby to believe that it was largely that lobby that was responsible for the War on Iraq. In a strange way, the wingnut insistence that liberals use “neocon” as an antisemitic slur (don’t bother with the reasoning behind that) also draws from this belief. Having an existing and clearly very succesful lobby to put the blame on makes it of course easier to ignore the flaws and malice in American politics itself that made it possible to start an illegal and immoral war on the flimsiest of reasons.
The myth of Afghanistan
[…] I can make the point in mitigation that, if the Afghanistan war had not been so shamefully mismanaged, most obviously the diversion of most of the required resources to the Iraq venture, it might well have reached a successful conclusion by now. But even after that mismanagement, I still, reluctantly, support the view that it is better to try and salvage the situation in Afghanistan by committing more resources, rather than pulling out and leaving the Afghans to sort it out themselves. I draw that conclusion because I think there would be even more bloodshed after a withdrawal, and that there’s a reasonable prospect that a democratic government and a largely free society can survive in Afghanistan with our help. And, even after all the mismanagement, I think most Afghans are better off now (or at least no worse off) than they would have been with a continuation of Taliban rule and civil war.
What John writes here seems to be widely believed by disappointed war supporters, but I think it’s a myth. Aghanistan was always a sideshow, a stepping stone on the way to the war that Bush really wanted: Iraq. It would’ve taken another president entirely for Afghanistan to be taken serious the way John wanted it to be. But there’s a deeper fallacy here, which is that if this war had been pursued more seriously, it could’ve been a succes. Again, it’s hard to see this happening with Bush in charge, as the example of Iraq, which has had all the funds and attention Afghanistan has lacked, shows. And let’s not forget the Soviet experience in Afghanistan either; that fiasco can’t be accused of having been underfunded. Enforcing democracy (or socialism) from the barrel of a gun is hard. That’s the lesson I wish more people would learn: that war is hardly the best way to export respect for democracy and human rights.
The other lesson I wish people like John would learn is that “things could be worse” is not a valid reason for staying the course, that hoping that spending more time, more money and more lives in doing the same thing will do the trick this time is not a strategy. We cannot solve the problems of Afghanistan and our presence only makes things worse.
Because until those on the left learn that waging war in the name of democracy and human rights is counterproductive, we will get more Afghanistans and more Iraqs.
Voting computers
Somewhat of an old story this, but still important. For some years now there have been doubts about the vulnerability of the voting computers used in Dutch elections which came to a head in last years national elections when several voting districts decided to use the oldfashioned red pencil again. In response a studygroup was set up to look at the whole voting process and recommend ways to make it more transparant. Almost three weeks ago this group gave its recommendation, which the responsible minister followed: to stop using the current voting computers. Instead, the study group recommended using a two stage process. The voter makes their choice using a voting computer which prints their ballot. The ballot is checked by the voter and if everything’s in order, put in the ballot box. Votes are counted electronically using these ballots and Optical Character Recognition technology; if in doubt these ballots can also be handcounted. So for the voter you have the convenience of voting electronically, without the vulnerability that this has, as the computer used by the voter does not record the vote…
Does this sound like something the US can use?
Comics scholar denied entry to US
Via Marc “not the Beastmaster” Singer, comes the news that comics scholar Ernesto Priego has been denied entry into the US. He was supposed to present a paper at the International Comic Arts Forum which is going to be held later this year. Marc wondered “what sort of security or immigration risk” Priego posed, personally I doubt there was any real reason for it, other than that somebody in the immigration/border service took a dislike to him for some reason or other. Just a random act of assholery, but as Marc also noted, not a standalone incident: quite a few scholars have been refused entry recently.
The US has long had a reputation for being welcoming to foreign scholars, its universities more than eager to attract top talent from all over the world. Part of the US wealth, scientific and technological prowess is built through the labour of hardworking foreign scientists. If this is changing, if these are now discouraged from coming over, then this can only bode ill for the country. Of course, it may be good for Europe, as all that top talent might come over here…