Not so fast, David

I read an interesting (if mostly because it was disturbing) entry on Tech Central Station today regarding our number of troops in Iraq. The gist?

It is disappointing that intelligent people who are well versed in military affairs are capable of seeing a forest but fail to recognize that it is composed of trees, with some trees bearing more fruit than others. To put it in less abstract terms, we have enough troops in Iraq, but far too few of them are engaged in hunting down our enemies and training our Iraqi allies. Rather than maximizing the number of soldiers in Iraq, we should be focusing on maximizing the effectiveness of the soldiers who are already there.

Do I think the 'tooth-to-tail' ratio in Iraq is bad? Yep. Do I think the number of troops committed to profoundly silly functions on FOBs (such as "seat belt monitor," "NCO in charge of take-out plates," "NCO in charge of making sure no one has sunglasses on their head in the chow hall..." well, I think you get the picture) is bad news? Yep. I certainly do. Do I think taking these rear-echelon troops and throwing them outside the wire with a few words of wisdom and a hearty "Go get 'em, tiger!" (and there is little in the way of time, resources, or training available for much more in theater) makes any sense? Hell no. Support troops are...support troops. Not infantry. The US military is short on infantrymen...of that there is no doubt. But we are short of trained, skilled infantrymen, not re-flagged, half (or un)-trained pretend infantrymen who have neither the training nor the desire to close with and engage a wily, ever-changing opponent.

Unfortunately, this DOES routinely happens in Iraq - and it does not advance the fight. Generally speaking, these troops are unable to aggressively fire and maneuver, are more likely to engage innocent Iraqis accidentally, and are more likely to be killed or wounded due to their own tactical errors.

In fact, it tends to weaken the American center of gravity - which is our (American) public opinion. These soldiers have very easy access to media sources, very easy access to relatives and political figures, and often very easy access to blogs. Employing them for tasks they are completely unprepared for does NOT make for a good PR campaign. And it probably helps explain Army recruiting problems.

While we certainly need to reevaluate how our resources are used in Iraq, that shift should NEVER include assigning soldiers to tasks for which they are untrained and unsuited.

Tags:

Iraq
Tech Central Station
Military Reform

Argoogling...heh.

I think Argoogling, as elaborated upon here by GrimReader rests at the heart of those concerned that blogging is undermining legitimate journalism - or, perhaps more accurately, celebrating the amateur over the professional.

The problem is that the 'Argooglers' and their ilk probably make up the bulk of bloggers - and tend to bury those sites (such as GrimReader...) that offer a degree of knowledge that previously was unavailable to the general public. Adding these measured, thinking voices to the general discussion is a GOOD thing...the difficulty clearly is in sorting the wheat from the chaff.

The other benefit of blogging (that again serves as a double-edged sword) is the ability to gain a much less filtered look at 'truth on the ground' from within the heart of news-making events - whether it's bloggers from Iraq, bloggers from disaster sites such as Katrina or the tsunami relief effort. Why is this double-edged? Well, ground truth is great...but it may only represent the truth as far as that individual's eyes can see (or even less if the individual has chosen to jump on a rumor train such as many reporters did in the aftermath of Katrina).

People have become generally distrustful of both the mainstream media and official sources - often for very good reasons (one of those reasons being the tendency of many reporters to cut small pieces out of transcripts or fairly lengthy speeches/verbal exchanges as a means of furthering their story (often at the expense of the original context). This, essentially, the same as argoogling as defined in GrimReader...and brings up the question of who exactly decided that reporters were 'professionals,' 'experts,' or above reproach in their presentation of 'fact' to begin with).

The problem is that many blog readers and internet users have not yet developed the same sort of critical eye when they view information generated within the blogosphere. Google is a GREAT tool for satiating curiousity generated by an interesting blog entry...and an excellent first step in beginning to develop a greater grasp of different subjects...but these new sources must be viewed as just that - another step in the process of building knowledge and informed opinions. I think we'll get there...and I think it will happen because people will begin to see the errors and biases that so often shoot through the blogosphere - mostly because folks such as Nicholas Carr will be there to remind us that revolutions DON'T lead to Utopia. They lead to new ways of doing business that bring their own unique sets of problems that must be overcome. Web 2.0 is not Utopia.

Full disclosure: I MAY have googled for sources in the process of writing this blog entry....

Tags:


Google
Argoogling
Web 2.0

Digging for the roots of real liberalism

I stumbled across a great blog from a California professor with a knack for reminding us all how far both Republicans and Democrats have moved from the roots of their movements. And, perhaps, reminding us that, as voters, we are the ones responsible for correcting the deviation. Here are a few of his latest posts highlighting what he considers to be an ideal political platform.

I just finished van Creveld's Rise and Decline of the State

I finally found the time to sit down and work my way through Martin van Creveld's Rise and Decline. While I'm certainly glad that I did, I find myself uncomfortable with some of his assumptions. First, a brief synopsis of his work:

The state, which since the middle of the seventeenth century has been the most important and most characteristic of all modern institutions, is in decline. From Western Europe to Africa, many existing states are either combining into larger communities or falling apart. Many of their functions are being taken over by a variety of organizations which, whatever their precise nature, are not states. In this unique volume Martin van Creveld traces the story of the state from its beginnings to the present. Starting with the simplest political organizations that ever existed, he guides the reader through the origins of the state, its development, its apotheosis during the two World Wars, and its spread from its original home in Western Europe to cover the globe. In doing so, he provides a fascinating history of government from its origins to the present day.

Yes...he certainly does all that...but I get the feeling the book (written in 1999) shows its age. How? One of the bedrocks of State power has been nationalism. During the early years of THIS round of globalization (essentially after the Berlin Wall fell), nationalism began to fade across many of what we consider to be the advanced states. That downswing in nationalism is one of the trends van Creveld noted in his book...but I don't think he expected the upswing that was, I believe, sparked by the market meltdowns in Asia, Latin America, and Russia; the international backlash to the spread of "Americanism" (as many have come to term 'globalization' - and often tied into many peoples' impressions of the root cause of those meltdowns); the 9/11 attacks; or the strong surge in nationalism that has accompanied the rise of east Asian powers (China and Korea most specifically - but extending to Malaysia and perhaps Indonesia as well).

Viewed from 2005, I would say the book does a better job of documenting the decline of the Western state - although as members states of the EU begin to bicker amongst themselves, consider limits to immigration, and question unfettered globalization, that assumption could be called into question as well. Of course van Creveld may simply view the latest actions of the EU nations as "too little, too late."

One of the underlying assumptions van Creveld makes (although he doesn't go into specific details) is that another type of entity will replace the State as the most efficient means of organizing people and resources. Since he is not in possession of a crystal ball, he doesn't spend much time elaborating on just what that might be. Others, of course have done that for him. After reading Rise and Decline and wandering around the net a bit to get a feel for how others view van Creveld and his work, I noticed his work has been heralded by some libertarian organizations (such as LewRockman.com) - and that he published a rather scathing review of US efforts in Iraq, tying them quite tightly (too tightly, in my eyes) to Vietnam. One of his key arguments against the war is built upon an argument he uses in questioning Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank as well:

In private life, an adult who keeps beating down on a five year old – even such a one as originally attacked him with a knife – will be perceived as committing a crime; therefore he will lose the support of bystanders and end up by being arrested, tried and convicted. In international life, an armed force that keeps beating down on a weaker opponent will be seen as committing a series of crimes; therefore it will end up by losing the support of its allies, its own people, and its own troops. Depending on the quality of the forces – whether they are draftees or professionals, the effectiveness of the propaganda machine, the nature of the political process, and so on – things may happen quickly or take a long time to mature. However, the outcome is always the same. He (or she) who does not understand this does not understand anything about war; or, indeed, human nature.

In other words, he who fights against the weak – and the rag-tag Iraqi militias are very weak indeed – and loses, loses. He who fights against the weak and wins also loses. To kill an opponent who is much weaker than yourself is unnecessary and therefore cruel; to let that opponent kill you is unnecessary and therefore foolish. As Vietnam and countless other cases prove, no armed force however rich, however powerful, however, advanced, and however well motivated is immune to this dilemma.

Luckily(?) for the Americans, the insurgents in Iraq (much like the hard core of the Al-Aqsa Intifada in the occupied territories), have chosen to skip this lesson. In aggressively targeting innocent civilians, they have managed to put themselves in a position where they appear as villains to much of the world even as they carry out insurgencies that would otherwise receive a great deal more public support (witness the success of the first Palestinian Intifada).

If the Iraqi insurgency had built on the sympathy generated after the second seige of Fallujah - and shifted attacks largely to American targets while presenting an alternative to the current interim government that did NOT involve Islamism, they would be far ahead of where they are now...where they are generally reduced to trying to sow as much general chaos as possible because they can accomplish little that is viewed as constructive.

I wonder how much of this shift has been generated by the loss(es) of former Baathist leaders, organizers, and financiers among the insurgency. As Sunni Islamists (often foreign-born) take a greater role in directing the insurgency (as much as one can actually 'direct' such an amorphous creature as the Iraqi insurgency), it turns more into a campaign of vindictiveness and hatred - frowned upon by much of the rest of the Islamic world. They so tarnish their image as the "weak" fighting the "strong" that van Creveld's assumptions (much more correct in November 2004 when he wrote the article) appear off-base. Viewed from the weak vs. strong angle, Israel's pull-out from Gaza appears a wise move - a step toward putting Israel back in the position of victim rather than ruthless oppressor.

Yikes. I just realized I've wandered a bit off-topic in discussing Rise and Decline of the State. I'd call it an interesting book that outlines a possible future but far less certain than van Creveld believes (or at least believed at the time he wrote his book - a time when globalization seemed so difficult to slow or resist and nationalism seemed foolish at best). I did notice one of the Amazon reviewers commenting on some historical inaccuracies within the book...and openly wondering if perhaps there were more.

UPDATE: Cicero from (the appropriately named) Between Hope and Fear puts a positive spin on what society after the State could look like, arguing that social networks spun together over the Internet go a long way toward tearing down traditional national borders (something I've seen for myself in traveling to different parts of the world. The cultural similarities I've witnessed among youths from Asia to the Middle East are striking).

Between he and Peggy Noonan (she taking the far more pessimistic view), they do a fairly thorough job of supporting Mr. van Creveld and covering my assumptions in mud. I HATE it when that happens!

Tags:

Martin Van Creveld
Rise and Decline of the State
Globalization
Iraq
Middle East Conflict

The Monitor takes a look at France and efforts to update their social model

As part of its ongoing series describing EU attempts to fit their social systems into a globalizing world, The Monitor turned its eyes toward France today. The article pulls few punches as it lays out current problems with the French social system:

"After more than two decades of jobless rates hovering stubbornly around 10 percent, France's chronic unemployment crisis 'is the one big problem with the French social model,' says John Martin, a senior official with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 'If a social model should deliver a satisfactory labor market,' says Mr. Martin, as European leaders gather outside London for talks about how to adjust their economies and social benefits, 'this one has failed dismally for the best part of three decades.'"

Of course, the second problem with France's social model is that its generous pensions require a robust (and growing) work force to fund the aging population. Unfortunately, the work force is not growing...and France is faced with a dilemma striking elsewhere on the Continent: where to find enough skilled workers to fill that void? In a rapidly globalizing world, living as a second class citizen in France probably doesn't appeal to many skilled foreigners looking for a new home to settle. Add in French 'issues' with religious expression and a xenophobic fear of culture erosion, and we don't find the most hospitable land, do we?

The Monitor article finishes up with an evaluation of the four different 'social models' currently operating within the EU:

In a briefing paper prepared for EU finance ministers prior to Thursday's Hampton Court summit, Mr. Sapir outlined the models, and argued that only the Anglo-Saxon and Nordic models are economically sustainable.

Anglo-Saxon - (Britain, Portugal, Ireland) This model features social assistance as a last resort. It's characterized by free markets, relatively less protection from firing, but vigorous measures to help unemployed find work. Health and other benefits are attached to employment, even for low-income jobs.

Many analysts say Britain has moved to an "Anglo-social" model, a hybrid of the Anglo-Saxon and Nordic models.

Nordic - (Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, and the Netherlands) This model is marked by high taxes, and high spending on education, research, universal healthcare, child care, maternity leave, and welfare. It features less job protection, but higher employment rates than Continental and Mediterranean models. A strong social safety net lowers the risk of poverty.

Continental - (France, Germany, Belgium, Luxemburg). This social support model relies on state insurance-based benefits and pensions. Poverty is fought by protecting workers from being fired. Unemployment benefits are less generous than the Nordic model. Labor union membership is declining but still influential.

Mediterranean - (Italy, Spain, Greece) This model concentrates social spending on old-age pensions. It's characterized by strong protections against firing workers and generous early retirement plans. Unemployment and poverty rates are higher than other models.

The Bruegel study (from which the information on the four models above is drawn) is actually quite a bit more blunt in its analysis of the social models within the EU:

Europe’s labour and social institutions need urgent reform if we are to grasp the opportunities offered by globalisation and avoid the threats. But the notion of a single “European Social Model” is largely unhelpful for thinking about reforms. Of the four main models operating, the “Nordic” and the “Anglo-Saxon” models are both efficient, but only the former manages to combine both equity and efficiency. Critically, the “Continental” and “Mediterranean” models, which together account for two-thirds of the GDP of the entire EU-25 and 90 per cent of the GDP of the 12-member eurozone, are inefficient and unsustainable. These models must therefore be reformed, probably by adopting features of the two more efficient models. These reformsmay also involve changes towards more or less equity.

Surely not music to French ears. Or perhaps worse than not being music, not FRENCH music....

On a completely separate note, I've got big plans (BIG PLANS!) to write a more definitive entry on the so-called Nordic system. I'm not sure if it's an easily copied example because there are unusual circumstances - at least in Finland (a quarter of GDP provided by one high tech company) and Norway (floating on a sea of oil) - that allow a greater degree of social spending than is possible in more complex economies. Then again, I'm not an economist so I might just be talking smack. Ah...the joys of blogging! This pulpit is GREAT!

Tags:

France
Globalization
Social Reform

Iraq in the news

Between articles describing tentative Sunni participation in the Iraqi political process and others documenting the continued investigation into Oil for Food, there's quite a bit to cover today on Iraq.

From the Wa Post, "The New Sunni Jihad: 'A Time for Politics.'" The article recounts one insurgent leader's attempts to boost Sunni participation in the electoral process.

"It is a new jihad," said Abu Theeb, a nom de guerre that means "Father of the Wolf," addressing a young nephew one night before the vote. "There is a time for fighting, and a time for politics."

[...]

It was not possible to confirm directly how many Sunnis share his views on the political process. But Iraqi and U.S. analysts in Baghdad express hope that such a shift in outlook will eventually lead large numbers of radical Sunnis to abandon their weapons permanently and take part in the political process.

[...]

Abu Theeb's group kept up the attacks. "Something like fire was inside us," he said. ". . . When the infidel conquers your home, it's like seeing your women raped in front of your eyes and like your religion being insulted every day."

Abu Theeb said he eventually sent the Syrians home, feeling that foreigners had no role in the resistance. He and other Salafi fighters formed the Anger Brigade, which has also kidnapped people it perceives as collaborating with the Americans and their Iraqi allies.

Does he sound like the sort of guy we'd like to see leading the country? Well...not exactly. But the same likely applies to a large portion of the current Shiite coalition running the show. The benefit of free and fair elections, however can be viewed as more long term than short. As (currently violent) leaders enter the political process, they discover that violence isn't necessarily the key to governance. Just ask Al-Sistani - who recently refused to endorse the current Shiite leadership in the upcoming elections:

Sistani's withdrawal of support for the Iraqi administration led by Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari is based on the poor performance of the government in improving the security and basic services such as electricity and water, of not giving enough credibility to the authority in terms of fighting against the corruption, and of being dissatisfied at the fact that the government officials fail to stop interference of neighboring countries from interfering in Iraqi internal affairs.

The CS Monitor presents a story similar to that of the Post, highlighting both Sunni willingness to enter politics, and their reluctance to be seen as merely justifying the American presence or Shiite control of the government:

The engine that drives Iraq's insurgency, this country's politically marginalized Sunni Arab minority, is getting ready for a fight - but this time it's at the ballot box.

Energized by the adoption of a new constitution, which passed over Sunni objections, key Sunni political parties said this week that they are forming a coalition to ensure they have a voice in Iraq's new parliament, to be elected in December.

This vigorous new effort to participate is a complete reversal from the Sunni position last year that voters should boycott polls to select the transitional national assembly. But if the coalition has decided to join in a process it once rejected, it is also beginning to articulate a Sunni political agenda that is Islamist, vehemently anti-American, opposed to foreign troops, and discreetly pro-insurgency.

The Captain's Quarters builds upon the Post story in describing this increased Sunni participation as a strong step in the right direction (an opinion I happen to agree with). Regardless of the initial intentions of those Sunnis who enter the political process (such as those described above in the Monitor article), the nature of politics tends to foster a different outlook as elected leaders discover that inflexibility tends to put one in the same position that the current Shiite coalition finds itself in - struggling to justify itself to the electorate as the next election approaches.

And then, of course, we have the news on the investigation into the Oil for Food issue. Unsurprising to many and unimportant to many others, Russian and French firms benefited the most, Iraqi officials actively sought to influence Security Council members through the use of kickbacks, and Saddam reaped the benefits. From a strictly cash basis, Jordan and Turkey likely gained more from oil smuggled through those two countries (an issue separate from Oil For Food)...but the Iraqi attempts at influencing members of the Security Council stands out to me as a greater issue.

For an enjoyable read, check out Chris Hitchens' continuing pressure on George Galloway (reference his role in the Oil for Food scandal) in Slate.

The CS Monitor also has a story addressing the elections in Afghanistan. Here too, former strongmen will have to struggle to establish legitimacy in front of an electorate that will increasingly hold them accountable for their actions.

Tags:

Iraq
Oil For Food
UN
Afghanistan

An embarrassing day for the Senate. An enlightening day for an alert public

Is THIS really what we want from our elected officials? Interesting to watch so many run so quickly away from accountability for their actions. Sorta reminds me of the Senate chastising public officials for shunning responsibility after Katrina. Now that the shoe's on the OTHER foot, transparency is no longer so important, right? When do ya s'pose they'll set up an investigation into THIS debacle? What's that? Did I hear someone say "never?"

Riddle me this, Gray Lady.

Why is it that the Times article on the National Assessment of Education Progress can't include a link to the actual report, a link to the Education Trust (after choosing to mention the organization), a link to the Department of Education's press release after mentioning THEM, or links to any of the various state education departments as the article addresses various states' progress? Of course, they DO include links to NY Times stories about those states...stories that unfortunately have absolutely nothing to do with the article in general. Between articles like this and the whole Times Select debacle, it's increasingly clear to me these guys are in for a rough future.

Oh...for those of you looking for links that actually support the story, check these out:

Center on Education Policy (quoted in article).

Northwest Educational Evaluation Association (quoted in article).

National Assessment Governing Board (quoted in article).

Massachusetts Department of Education Press Release.

New York Department of Education Press Release.

California Department of Education Press Release.

District of Columbia Public Schools.

Come on, guys. This IS the 21st Century. Of course, no one will KNOW about all of these mssing links by next week when this article gets locked into the archives anyway....

The WaPost does its level best not to snicker as it covers the Times' sagging revenues.

Interested in a little compare and contrast action? Check out Google's earnings. Who looks to be on the right side of the Digital Revolution here...?

Tags:


NYTimes
Education
No Child Left Behind

Splitting the finest of hairs

The Senate continues hearings on the Free Flow of Information Act and, while several Senators deny bloggers should be considered 'journalists,' their definition seems to include them:

The hearing came as politicians are weighing the Free Flow of Information Act. The current wording of the measure, proposed in identical form in the U.S. House of Representatives, offers protection of confidential sources for anyone who 'publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical in print or electronic word.' The District of Columbia and every state except Wyoming already have some form of protection on their books.

Mike Yamamoto of CNet raised the same point ref: definitions in 1997 when discussing state "shield" laws.

I haven't spent a lot of time looking into the reaction of larger blogs. Certainly there will be screaming at Buzzmachine at the very least. I wonder how coalitions of bloggers publishing on a common site with stricter standards of editing will be viewed by Congress...?

What's that, you ask? Do I consider MYSELF to be a journalist? Um...not generally. I 'publish my opinion' (you know...'rant'). If I chose to publish something more (to include anything that included the use of sources), I would (at the very least) tread much more carefully with my self-editing. That being said, I have tried to improve my self-editing over the past few months - to include going back through my archives and just plain deleting pieces I wrote that I now don't think have enough factual basis for the tone I used or conclusions I reached. But I certainly didn't do that to increase my journalistic credentials. I did it simply because I don't want to be the guy yelling nonsense from atop the soapbox. I wanna be the guy INSINUATING nonsense from over in the corner....

As the vote begins, the media spins...

Iraqis Vote on New Constitution - New York Times

Iraqis Vote on Charter Amid High Security - Yahoo! News

Sunni Bombs and Guards Greet Iraq Vote

Fractured Iraq constitution a product of history - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

I'm left to wonder if many reporters' overly enthusiastic views from the January elections have created a sense of either greater caution or greater cynicism. Unfortunately, their view remains primarily on the short term (a problem US leadership displayed at the beginning of the war...). Steps in the political process that foster greater governmental legitimacy in the eyes of Iraq's citizens are steps toward success - however small. Fred (thanks for the catch, Eric...) Kaplan (in Slate) covers this in what I would call the most realistic of the negative reports currently focusing on the referendum.

As many Iraqis apparently realize, the fact they are being given the opportunity to vote on real issues is as important is the outcome of the vote. As I mentioned above, "selling" the idea that change is most easily (and peacefully) achieved through the political process is what is most important in these votes (whether we refer to the January vote, this referendum, or the next vote to determine a permanent parliament). The idea of voting on real choices can be intoxicating for those who have never before had the opportunity. Presenting this opportunity is a vital step in (re)building civil society within Iraq.

So as reporters try to compensate for overenthusiasm in January and critics point to the 'rising strength' of the insurgency (while failing to note the type of attacks, the number of people required to carry out those attacks, or the amount of ground over which the insurgency can now decisively exert its influence), we need to take a bit of the longer view - much as Zawahiri did in his letter to leaders of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Update:

Sunnis appear to have shown up in droves - including in locations such as Tikrit.

Tags:

iraq
Constitutional Referendum
Middle East

...but does it matter if no one is listening anymore?

Reason Online and TCS provide us with a rundown of the MSM's retreat from hyperbole in the wake of Katrina's devastation...but as most who follow news stories to their logical conclusion are well aware, once the public's interest has moven on, such efforts are often too little, too late. The perception has been established...and is now reality. Most casual observers of the news will never make the effort to reevaluate those first impressions.

The immediately obvious problem with disaster coverage is not so much that it tends toward inaccuracy (although it certainly does) but that the media tends to breathlessly jump to the next story before taking a thorough enough look at their own initial assessments and redefining them before they become set as matters of public record. But that's understandable. There's a whole world of news to be covered out there. Spending too much time shooting holes in one's own "breaking news" accomplishments is certainly not the best approach to building a faithful following of readers.

So what's the REAL problem? As consumers and producers of media (and opinions), we are still struggling to properly employ the new tools of the Information Age. I've actually touched on this subject previously in addressing the 'lessons learned' from Vietnam and the disconnect between Arab and American reporting on events in and around Iraq.

The vast quantities of information available...and the reading public's general desire to believe 'ground truth' (in the form of on-the-spot reporting, blogs from 'the front lines,' or anything else that avoids the supposed taint of processing by a larger body (be it government or MSM)) create a situation in which we can effectively shape 'news' to fit our personal views without ever getting particularly close to understanding the larger context of an issue. This trend was explored in considerable depth here. So the question continues as the Information Age advances...how can we turn these additional sources of information into a better understanding of issues rather than a method of confirming pre-conceived notions?

Of course, my more cynical side notes the front page efforts still being committed to pointing out governmental errors don't quite match the back page efforts to point out error-prone reporting....

Tags:


Katrina
Reason Magazine
Epic 2014
Information Age