I must not think bad thoughts
Blogging the rise of American Empire.

me

Friday, November 14, 2003

Will UN bodies be better than US bodies?
I wrote the following in response to a post about the useful of the UN taking over for the US in Iraq:
I must disagree with your assessment of the utility of the UN in Iraq. You assume that all that the UN can do is change minds by flying the international flag. The changing of the flag of occupation would be symbolic, but it would not be inconsequential. It would ease fears that the occupation is being used to manipulate politics in the Middle East and to allow US companies to profit from oil. Furthermore, the UN is generally willing to work to empower governments more rapidly in order to work with them—not wholesale, but in areas that are of no concern to security and foreign relations (this is the difference between autonomy and self-government.) What cannot be dismissed is that the UN has experts and expertise in a broad range of fields—political, economic, social, cultural—that the US armed forces do not. Over the course of the 1990s every skill that could be called “nation-building” was attacked by legislators, weakening many departments in the administration. The US armed forces lost the ability to be an occupying force in the process. The UN has attempted to nurture its abilities in these areas, even as the same US legislators threatened the UN budget.

Will the presence of the UN stop the attacks? No. To some extent they are nationalist—against the occupation rather than the US in particular. Insurgents will attempt to cultivate distrust among the Iraqi middle class: they will make them feel that the occupation cannot provide security. Even more, any UN takeover of the occupation would require that the US become more involved in that agency—the US would still be involved in Iraq. The US will need to rethink its policies about the UN—especially the US refusal to allow UN troops to engage. Even if the presence of the UN has no direct effect on security, the benefits that I have outline above will in the long run.



Posted by: Nathanael / 5:38 PM : (0) comments

Thursday, November 13, 2003

New look for the blog
This is a very simpe design that I came up with. It is not exciting, but it is somewhat more reflective of my interests: I chose the colors used in many of the municipal and regional flags used in the Rhine region. Bad Thoughts Alaaf!

Posted by: Nathanael / 10:50 PM : (0) comments
Kissinger on Iraqi Resistance
I took a quick look at a report written by Henry Kissinger on the state of resistance in Iraq and the Bush administration's response thereto. I have only taken at it briefly, but I would not a few things.
  • Bush and Rumsfeld did not take seriously CIA and State Department warnings that resistance would be profuse after the collapse of the Hussein regime.

  • That the Baathists and Al-Qaeda/terrorists are not solely responsible for the attacks. There is a significant number of attacks by individuals who are unaffiliated with either group.

  • Kissinger cautions the administration from believing that they should use the occupation of Iraq as a "magnet for terrorism."

The report is not favorable to the administration considering its source. Kissinger was the voice of diplomatic and security strategy for republicans for decades. He sounds like he is lecturing at them, but they are not listening.

Posted by: Nathanael / 10:52 AM : (0) comments

Tuesday, November 11, 2003

Security Website: Bonn International Center for Conversion
For a while I have been looking for a policy group that looks at issues of defense and security as they relate to areas beyond national security. Here is the mission statement of the Bonn International Center for Conversion:

The Bonn International Center for Conversion (BICC)
is an independent non-profit organization dedicated to promoting and facilitating the processes whereby people, skills, technology, equipment, and financial and economic resources can be shifted away from the defense sector and applied to alternative civilian uses.
Through research and analysis, technical assistance and advice, retraining programs, publications, and conferences, BICC supports governmental and non-governmental initiatives as well as public and private sector organizations by finding ways to reduce costs and enhance effectiveness in the draw-down of military-related activities. As a result, BICC contributes to disarmament, demilitarization, peace-building, post-conflict rehabilitation and human development.


Take a look at the site. It has an interesting articel about the development of a common defense policy for the EU. In particular, it talks about the development of a Rapid Response Force (RRF) that could be deployed quickly for peacekeeping and missions of humanitarian interest.

Posted by: Nathanael / 11:04 AM : (0) comments

Monday, November 10, 2003

The slow path to democracy
The Carnegie Endowment has had an ongoing discussion concerning the success of democratization in the Middle east and how fast it should be implemented. The discussants have dealt with questions concerning the pace of democratization, how it could serve long-term US security interests, and the success of such efforts. The linked articled discussed the question of gradualism. This is an insightful article: it points out that democracy often had not been achieved if it has been approached in a gradual manner. One of the successes that is mentioned, Taiwan, was effectively a constutional republic under a state of military dictatorship (thanks to Chiang Kai Shek)--it was because the Republic of China has been at war, technically, with the People's Republic of China since 1949. Only in the last few decades has democracy been more openly practiced, and it is only at this time that there had been an emergence of the concept of an independent Taiwan within the republic's ideology.

What I would add to this discussion is that the plan for Iraqi reconstruction should differentiate between autonomy and self-government. Much of the arguments about how much power to give the current governing council have been based on the former--and it ultimately appears that the Iraqis cannot govern themselves at this time and that the US would not allow it. However, Iraq can practice self-government and still exist in a state of US military dependency/protectorship. Areas of public and social services should be turned over to the governing council at once. The US should only worry about security and foreign affairs, but the military government should aid in organizing and structuring the governmental services. Areas like waste disposal, highways, communications, etc., may not sound glamorous (army and diplomacy are much more fun) but they are politically contentious. These areas could serve as arenas for Iraqi's to develop their democratic sensibilities and might help in the emergence of a real public sphere. The point is to put as much decision making in the hands of Iraqis, even if they will still call on the US for support.

Posted by: Nathanael / 12:56 PM : (0) comments