The Failure of Democratic Peace

The closest thing we have to a "law" in the social sciences, or at least political science, is that democracies do not fight each other. There are a few minor caveats, but generally this holds true from the beginning of democracy up to the present. This is part of the core of Neo-Conservative beliefs that led U.S. officials to engage in state building in Iraq. Just because we toppled Hussein's regime didn't mean we were obligated to establish a new one. But many of our policy makers, both then and now, place their faith in the dictum that democracies don't fight each other.
The reason this is so appealling, and worth the enormous price we've paid in lives, dollars and reputation, at least in the eyes of some, is that with a democracy in the middle east, especially a large and relatively wealthy country like Iraq, the West could get a foot hold and begin to exercise more control in more peaceful ways in order to acheive more peaceful outcomes. Sounds like an optimal solution, right?
Wrong. First of all they were hundreds of billions of dollars off in their pre-war cost estimates, and they thought the "body count" would resemble that in the first Gulf War in 1992. Second, they assumed that once they had a democracy established it would flourish and peace would begin to break out all over the middle east. One of the caveats to the democracies-never-fight-rule is that they have to be established democracies. This suggests that there must be fair and open elections with wide participation (we're ok there, not great), low levels of corruption (this one's a bit shaky but not a deal break in and of itself), and no or amost no political instability. State building, when it has been a successful venture in the past, which has not been often, has been a long and expensive process. It requires reshaping the thinking of an entire society. It more than convincing the people that voting is good and they need to do it. They have to gain faith in the system, trust that things can be handled legally in the courts. They have to understand how the system works and how they can address greivances peacefully.
In short, political stability does not exist in Iraq, nor is there any sign of it in the near future. The violence decreases when we have tens of thousands of troops on the ground and we're pumping billions of dollars into the country, but democracy has not yet taken root. It will likely be a long time and hundreds of billions of dollars down the road before it does. And only then can we hope that democracy might spread peacefully to other states in the region.

The “Glory Days” of American History

Many Western international relations scholars assume that history is linear. Immanuel Kant wrote Toward Perpetual Peace, arguing that humanity was moving towards an international condition of non-conflict among countries. There a group of thinkers, however, that would argue for a non-linear history of the world. We see countries rise and fall, civilizations grow and collapse, militarization waxes and wanes, and so on. Most of these scholars' fundamental argument is that the international system is cyclical. No country can stay on top forever, no civilization will remain the moral foundation for the world. All things come and go. This opens a pandora's box of questions and problems, but there is only one that I address here and it can be summarized in the following question; has the U.S. already seen and past the pinnacle of its power and influence on the international stage?
I think there are more American war movies about World War II than any other war in the history of the world. When little boys play “war” they generally emulate WWII scenarios and heroes. There are more video games, toy guns, action figures and more that are based on WWII than any other war. Why is that?
It wasn't the only 'world war', so it's not unique in that way. It's not the most recent war in history either. Strategically, it wasn't the best fought war either, we lost hundreds of thousands of Americans and perhaps as many as 20 million people were killed in the warring countries between 1937 and 1946. So why is it so popular?
It is the most popular war because it is the one where America was the stoic, non-aggressive by-stander from the beginning. She vowed not to get involved in this foreign war. But, when the war came to her she didn't back down. America rode in like the good guy in a western movie, white battle ships and tanks, strong, eager young men ready to fight for their country and families and the tide of the war dramatically changed.
Many Americans have this idea that the U.S. was like the big brother of western Europe that, when the big mean bully axis powers started causing trouble, stepped in, picked him up by the front of his shirt and slapped him in the face until the axis couldn't do anything anymore. In a certain sense that's the way it happened too.
So why do talk so much about it? Because we can't do it anymore. Maybe we're still strong enough to pick somebody up by the front of the shirt and slap them around, but now we look more like the bully than the savior. Anti-American sentiment is not prevalent only among Islamic extremists. Ask Europeans, Asians, Slavs, or Latinos what they think of Americans; you probably won't like the answer. They like American styles and culture to a certain extent, but they don't like America.
The point is that we're on the way down. If you see world history as linear, Americanism is not looking like the end point. If you adhere to cyclical ideas, the U.S. is on the down side of its cycle. So what do we do? There are two models, the first is the Roman model, they tried to hold on for too long and eventually crashed and burned. The other is the British model, they eventually let go and, although she's not as powerful today as she was 200 years ago, she's comfortable. Americans have to let go of their egotistical world views. We're not going to be the superpower for much longer and the sooner we realize that, and stop alienating the rest of the world, the better off we'll be in the long run.

Star Wars

No not the movie, the defense initiative.

During the Cold War, our movie actor president (a bit ironic isn't it?) thought it would be a good idea to build the Star Wars program. Basically, he wanted to build a weapon that would orbit earth and be able to shoot down ballistic missiles. Initially, nuclear warheads were delivered by manned aircraft. The rocket frenzy that ensued after the launching of the Sputnik was more a concern about nuclear warfare than about sending people to the moon.[1] Somewhere in the early 1960’s there were enough ICBMs armed with nuclear warheads in both the US and the USSR to give each a second strike capability and mutually assured destruction (MAD) set in. In other words, I have enough bombs that if you shoot me I can still shoot you back and we’ll both be ruined.
As crazy as it sounds, MAD is widely accepted as the safest possible situation in a nuclear world. That wasn’t good enough for President Reagan though. Much to the dismay defense experts and peace strategists, he wanted to be able to shoot and not be shot. The Star Wars program was one more way to try and assert the US’s already declining hegemony. Fortunately the program did not make much progress before it was cancelled.
Unfortunately, a few decades later George W. thought it would be a good idea to resurrect the Star Wars idea (although the technology is quite different). Of course, W. says that he just wants to protect us from the terrorists (i.e. anybody his administration doesn’t like) who might be able to get a hold of a war head (not very likely) that works (incredibly unlikely) on a missile (virtually impossible) that they are capable of shooting at the US (almost inconceivable).
So what’s the problem with putting up missile defense installations in Poland? Other than making anybody who has ideas different from our own extremely nervous, because they would suddenly be susceptible to unilateral violence, why would terrorists shoot missiles at the US by way of Poland? Ok, so an installation in Poland could shoot down anything within roughly 1500, maybe 2000 miles, but still… look at the map. Also, the US navy, as well as several others around the world, have these ships with what we often call AEGIS technology. Basically they can shoot down ballistic missiles; they are like miniature floating missile defense systems.
Some of the Europeans are not opposed to having missile defense systems in their countries but the neighbors, generally, are. With so much controversy over the issue, why keep pushing it? It’s not a matter of protecting our allies. The places that have been discussed as possible sites for installations are capable of developing the technology and building their own. The EU is every bit as capable as the US.
So, why do we need to build missile defense installations in Poland?

__________________
[1] A purely scientific endeavor would never receive that kind of funding.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Gays in the Military

Two students in my cohort at school participated in the filming of a documentary for PBS called “Speak Not” and announced that at the request of several other students they would be showing the film a couple times last week. There are always a number of events on campus, such as lectures, films, research presentations, etc. that closely relate to my field of study. I try to go to as many as are compatible with my class schedule and I have time for. I was not able view the first screening, but I did see most of the second one.

The documentary was about a tour they did, sponsered by Soul Force, about gays in the military. The two students are gay partners, and one had been dishonorably discharged from the army while the other completed his service, but did not reinlist in spite of his desire to do so because he was concerned he would be dishonorably discharged as well and thereby lose all veteran benefits – including his G.I. bill funding for school. One of the two speaks 4 languages conversationally and scored in the top 10% on the military aptitude test. The other student was a Korean linguist. Neither of the two is flamboyant or obviously gay in anyway, in fact, I was unaware that they were gay until I watched the movie. The point is, these were intelligent, healthy, competent men.

Some facts, over 30,000 people have been dishonorably discharged from the military since the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy went into effect. Thousands more have tried to enlist but were rejected. Military is the only federal job that discriminates based on sexual preference. Although it is officially not allowed, gay hate speech persists in the military.[i] During this campaign nearly two hundred retired, high-ranking officers signed a petition to let gays into the military.

Let me state here that I personally think that homosexuality is morally heinous, as well as revolting. Seeing to men kiss makes my stomach churn with disgust. However, a person who chooses to live a gay lifestyle is no less a person. Although they choose to live a lifestyle I believe to be morally corrupt, they are still God’s children. Why should they not be allowed to serve in the military if they want to?

People often lump homosexuality and gay people into the same notion of disgust and contempt expressed above. But why? None that I know lump fornicators into the same conceptual abhorrence as fornication, or adulterers with adultery. How different are these in reality?

Arguments and Counter-Arguments

Some argue that having gays in the military would ruin moral because soldiers do not want to be hit on by the guy they are sharing their fox hole with. Thinking logically, is this likely to be a problem? Is any soldier thinking about sex while hunkered down in a fox hole? I doubt it. Even if they are, there are disciplinary measures for misconduct that apply to all military personnel, at least while in uniform.

Other arguments suggest that having people in the same unit who are attracted to one another would cause problems with the efficiency of the unit, but there are mixed-gender, non-combat units in the U.S. military that work efficiently. Countries in which there is no discrimination in the military do not have any more problems with insubordination, inefficiency, or misconduct than militaries that only allow men, or heterosexuals.

This line of discussion could continue, but I will stop here for the sake of space and time.

Conclusions

Why do people hate gays? For the same reason Missourians and others hated Mormons, for the same reason Nazis hated Jews, because they are different and they do not understand them. Is there really a legitimate reasons for not allowing gays in the military? I do not think so. Obviously there are arguments supporting the current policy that were not addressed above, but likewise, there are counter-arguments as well. Church leaders often remind us how central and holy the family is to God’s plan. They tell us that we need to uphold family values. But I have never heard a church leader say that we should discriminate against gays. I have never heard a leader say that gays do not deserve the same rights as other people. However, I have heard them preach tolerance and love. Hate the sin, not the sinner.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[i] The cameraman captured a candid moment in which the participants of the tour were conversing while a platoon of soldier marched by singing a cadence that included something to the effect of “’cause we’re not a bunch of f***ing fags.”

Is it torture?

Several weeks ago, while listening to the radio, the dj's kept talking about a police blitz. They were going to more actively look for people driving under the influence. Apparently they bought ad space all over the state, and were putting representatives on the radio and TV commercials to get the word out. The dj for the station I usually listen to was joking around with the officer that was visiting their morning radio show, and somehow they got on to the topic of the stun guns that some officers carry now.

These stun guns shoot thin little wires with barbed hooks on the end that hook into a person's skin. Then the gun shoots as much as like 2,000,000 volts through the wires hooked in to your skin. The dj asked if it hurt (duh) and the cop said "most of the time". 'Well, what do you mean'? The cop explained that if somebody is intoxicated enough the pain doesn't seem to register in their brain and the gun does not effectively "stun" them as it does with most people. At that point the gun significantly increases the voltage until they get a response. As they talk about it the office mentions that everyone on the force who carries one has to be stunned as part of their training. So the dj, in the name of entertainment, volunteers himself to be stunned (that part is really relevant, just funny, and it was!)

So, what is the point? There has been a lot of arguing whether "water boarding" is torture. I've never had to experience it, so I don't know. Torture is a bit of a wiggling definition in that it's hard to pin down. Different people/agencies/organizations define it differently. Am I opposed to water boarding? Yes! A retired CIA intelligence officer told me that intelligence gather by coercive means is some of the very least credible intelligence they acquire. It's maybe a half notch above the National Inquirer, she said. Ok, sorry for the tangent, back on topic...

The point is. I would feel better about water boarding and other coercive means of obtaining intelligence if the interrogators were subjected to the treatments to the same level and extent they are used and under the same conditions, before they could use them. Would that make it right? No, but I don't think there would be nearly as many interrogators using those methods.

Enough With Biographies

In life we're all kings or pawns - "The Count of Monte Cristo"

It happened again today. Few people made some politically charged statements that might have set me off, but because I respect them a great deal, I said nothing. The following is more or less what I wanted to say. This post is not about religion.

A person's biography does not make them a great person. Just because a man used to change car tires does not mean that he is qualified to race Formula One cars. It's true that he has had experience with the mechanics of cars, at least the tires, and he may have been very good at changing tires, but that is not to say that he is able to keep the whole car under control and performing at its optimum for hundreds of miles through body crushingly tight turns at mind bending speeds.

I have known men who devoted their life to religion, given up years of life as young men, spent veritable fortunes for people of their age, and put personal interests aside to do what they thought was right. Then within a few years, sometimes a matter of months, they throw it all aside, abandon religion entirely and live the life they fought against so vigorously. They become different people; they forget the things they felt and the promises they made to themselves.

The catalysts for this kind of change in a man is the same they have always been from the beginning of human history. Fame, fortune, and power. How many lives are centered on the pursuit of one or more of these, and how many have been ruined by their acquisition.

Telling me how good a man was at changing tires 40 years ago tells me nothing about how well he can drive a race car today, and the best pawn might never be a good king.

Is it really success?

Remember the end of the 2005 summer when the intelligence community busted a plot to use liquid explosives to blow up a plane? Do you remember a couple of years ago when some guy tried to hide explosives in his shoes to blow up a plane? Remember how much everything changed after 9/11?

The goal of terrorism is not to kill people. Its goal is to make a lot of noise in order to bring attention to a specific cause, or to make a point. Killing big groups of people just happens to be one of the best ways to get people's attention. The point jihadists are trying to make is that capitalists are morally corrupt and are trying to corrupt their children and their culture in the same ways. Few people can argue that this is not true. I've never heard a reasonable argument against it; especially if you know just a little about Islamic beliefs. The cause the jihadists are working for is to "cut off the hand which offendeth thee" as Christians might say. They want the decadent capitalists and their evil influence out of their nation.

This is not to say that I condone their killings of thousands of people. It is only to make a point. They want to disrupt capitalism as much as they can, as long as it is stretching is imposing shadow over them. This raises two questions: first, have they succeeded, and second, what is the cost-benefit for us?
The first question is answered straightforwardly. Absolutely yes. The 9/11 attack was tremendously successful, as were later attacks whether carried out or "foiled" by intelligence. After 9/11 it became much more difficult to travel by air. Business representatives were undoubtedly impeded in their work. After the liquid explosives incident, what happened at airports? More security, more inconvenience, more time for check-in, and no electronics for a time (thank goodness that restriction has been eased up). You can't take your own water onto a plane. Then the explosive shoe furthered our inconvenience.

Of course, you're thinking right now, 'yeah, but at least nobody has died recently', and I would agree, but jihadists don't care. Each mission has been a success.

So what's the cost? Mere inconvenience? Perhaps. If you have traveled much you know that it can be a significant inconvenience. Imagine people who travel several times a month. They likely lose several working days worth of time by the inconvenience. The department of Home Land Security pays for all of the security guards, their training and their equipment, which may not be a great deal of money for a single year, but it adds up.

'But that's a small price to pay if it keeps us safe' you're saying. I would ask, does it keep us safe? For all of the security measures in place at airports there are still countless ways in which already familiar attack plans could again be implemented. How many retail stores are inside the security gates, and how many packages come in everyday? There are other ways to blow up a plane than putting someone with explosives on it. If we want to talk about other means of terrorism, how many millions of shipping containers come into the US every year with out ever being looked at?

So have their been "successful" terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11? YES, although fortunately none have been lethal. Do the security measures in place keep us safe? I don't feel any safer traveling now than I did in 2000. In fact, I wonder if the security measures aren't taken as a "challenge" for some.

The final question then, is our involvement in middle eastern Islamic countries really worth all of this?