NYC Junta

Whoever wants to know the heart and mind of America had better learn baseball.
—Jacques Barzun

Is that still true? I don’t think so. I’ve said elsewhere that it’s football you have to understand to get Americans, even if Jeremy might feel otherwise. When George Carlin did his famous number on football vs baseball, he was not only pointing out the differences between a farmer’s pastime and an allegory for war, he was explaining the evolution of America over the last 100 years. We have become a more precise, more aggressive people. We have lost our sense of nuance.

But whether it’s football or baseball that defines us, we can still learn a bit about ourselves through inspection. Our heroes have fallen mightily, so many revealed as juicers that it is no longer a surprise to hear the latest confession. The atmosphere clearly encouraged the use of steroids through a “don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude, and we, the fans, have been largely willing to just give everyone a pass.

The price of a night at the ballgame is now beyond the reach of your average working-class family, and the stadiums themselves – built at great taxpayer expense – have been neatly divided into class-oriented strata. Customers are more apt to buy a season package from their TV provider than season tickets, and this is partly because today’s fan is likely more driven by his fantasy league than by his hometown team. The new dream is to be not Derek Jeter, but George Steinbrenner. As Robert Lipsyte says, the ballplayers themselves have become mere monopoly pieces. “Teddy Roosevelt’s hero, ‘the man who is actually in the arena,’ has been replaced with the Gekko bonus baby who owns the arena.”

Fantasy leagues define our country today. Isn’t the lesson of America that it is better to own than to work?

Articles baseball, football, usa

I started the discussion on Tuesday night with a sort of mini-argument: four points that I had arrived at over a couple of weeks reading on the subject of Iran, which I figured would get the ball rolling on the evening. Because of the sharp minds in attendance, it was all that was necessary to spark a great conversation. I said:

• Iran is the dominant power in the Middle East. This was a historical fact for a long time before Saddam Hussein’s Iraq became a check on Iran’s power—and now the US has removed that check. While Israel and Saudi Arabia are America’s allies in the region, Iran could take both of them, as it had indeed already defeated Israel in Lebanon. Even the US could not really take over Iran. We could bomb them into submission and take Tehran, but we would not be able to hold the country against the guerrilla threat they represent.
• Iran has the power to make the US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan untenable, and indeed they have already done this to some degree. They have become experts at proxy warfare, and at this point they are able to determine the level of violence that US forces have to deal with in certain parts of both countries.
• All of this, it is important to note, does not require that Iran possess nuclear weapons. Indeed we (America) are quite powerless to stop them acquiring nukes if they are determined to have them. Sanctions won’t work; military attacks won’t work. Iran has the power to drive oil prices through the roof, by mining the Strait of Hormuz or launching missiles at tankers, which would make life in America very painful.
• Given all this, the best option is for America to reach some kind of settlement with Iran. This would involve giving Iran a formal role in maintaining the security of Iraq, which would likely end up partitioned. We would share responsibility for security of the Strait of Hormuz, because both countries have an interest in keeping the oil flowing. Trade and talk would increase as sanctions were lifted and diplomatic ties restored, and Iran would agree to stop arming Hezbollah and Hamas. America would stop talk of regime change and guarantee Iran’s security, in order to foster closer ties and stop the Iranians inching closer to Russia and China. In short, the US would balance its strategic alliances in the region.

There was some controversy in my words, because Jarrod came in right off the bat to challenge my first point, saying that Iran, in the wake of last year’s elections and subsequent protests, had never been weaker. And while it seems the mullahs aren’t going anywhere yet, I would concede that they might feel a bit restricted right now. Jarrod came back later in the evening, twice, on the point on nuclear weapons: the concern is not that Iran will use them, but that they will give them to others who will. “If a white light flashes over Israel, then that’s it, and Iran can say they had nothing to do with it.” Alex contended this forcefully, saying the uranium traces (or something) after an explosion would definitively prove where the bomb was made. So it seems Iran wouldn’t be able to get away with it, although that provides little comfort to Israel, since they are too small to absorb a nuclear explosion and still viably exist.

A lot was made of Ahmedinejad’s words towards Israel; although I argued that he didn’t have the final say in Iran, Noah said convincingly that he obviously spoke for the leadership. But Alex reminded us all that the fact is that there is no evidence Iran is pursuing nukes—citing the most recent intelligence reports. Noah claimed otherwise, mentioning the articles we have been seeing on our front pages for so long. But we also read a lot about Iraq’s weapons programs in the newspapers, I said, which turned out to be bluster.

We debated whether we could know the character of the Iranian people. Is there a “red/blue” divide, similar to America’s, with rural people more supportive of Ahmedinejad’s populism and jingoism, and urban “elites” more inclined towards cosmopolitanism and internationalism? Some argued in general support of this idea, although my conclusion was that we generally know very little of the Iranian people, despite the seeming ease of false labels.

The conversation broke into pieces several times during the evening, which was great. There were 10 people there, so it was inevitable that mini-convos would break out here and there. Of course I couldn’t follow everything that happened at once.

My most contentious point may have been the partitioning of Iraq. Some participants, Noah most vocally, said this would be crazy, that after spending so much blood and treasure we should “lose” Iraq. My point was that it was inevitable without American troops on the ground: should we stay forever? “Well, we’re still in Germany, we’re still in Korea,” Noah said. This is true of course, but it worries me. I don’t foresee a day when American soldiers are not being attacked in Iraq, or Afghanistan. I don’t think Korea and Germany are good models (in fact, I don’t think we should have troops in those countries, anyway). I argued that Iran already had some de facto control over southern Iraq, and that they would take it over when we left, anyway. But Noah seemed to think that we could leave a strong Iraqi government behind. This I doubt, and so it seemed we would not reach any agreement here.

Mark said something which put everything in perspective. Over the last 15-20 years (and I would argue, even longer), when the US has seen a geopolitical problem in the world, it has resolved to do something about it. We have gone into countries, or engaged with countries, in a way which we determined would solve the problem. We’ve taken decisive action. But most of the time, there have been unforeseen consequences that have either made the original problem worse, or created wholly new problems to deal with. Perhaps, in the future, we should endeavor to do less, to be more passive, and to let things play out before we act.

***

What are your thoughts? If you were there, fill in my account with points I missed. If you weren’t, what would you have added?

Wrap-Ups iran, israel, nukes, oil, politics, usa

WNYC carried a story this morning about American companies doing business in Iran. While technically it is illegal under American law for companies to deal with Iran, business successfully lobbied to be allowed to subvert the embargo by using their foreign subsidiaries. This is how, for example, Honeywell is able to sell Iran technology to refine oil into gasoline.

The SEC used to compile a list of companies that were evading sanctions in this manner. Lobbyists fought successfully to end that practice; however, the New York Times carried a story over the weekend listing 74 companies doing business with Iran despite US laws and national security strategies that aim to stifle such business. So who is really in charge? Uncle Sam or the oil and gas corporations? (For it is mainly energy companies on the list).

What’s more, the companies in violation (in spirit, if not in letter) are also recipients of major government contracts—totaling over $100 billion in the past decade. So not only do they flout the national policies of their government, but they aren’t even ostracized for doing so. Sounds like a compelling case for the pointlessness of sanctions.

In the News business, iran, politics, sanctions, usa

George Friedman of STRATFOR is a prescient voice on global affairs, and as it happens he has just penned an article on Iran, which is timely for our upcoming discussion.

What is to become of the standoff between America and Iran? According to Friedman, sanctions cannot be effective against Iran, as the only meaningful one would be on gasoline (Iran imports 35% of its gasoline – I’d love to know why they need to do this when they have so much oil – can they not refine it?), and China and Russia will not play along with that particular sanction. Military strikes carry too much risk: they require good intelligence and massive bombardment with undoubtedly high casualties, with no guarantee that nuclear facilities will be destroyed. Plus, should such attacks occur, Iran is certain to launch counterattacks on Israel via Hezbollah, and on American forces in Iraq via its proxies there. Worst of all, Iran has the power to drive global oil prices through the roof by mining the Strait of Hormuz and launching missiles at any ships in that vital passage. For all of these reasons, STRATFOR does not find US or Israeli military strikes on Iran likely.

With diplomatic and military options ruled out, can America prevent Iran from developing nukes? Friedman argues that this is not as important as checking Iranian power in the region. We need Iran’s help, much as we needed the help of some other unsavory characters in the past:

Roosevelt and Nixon both faced impossible strategic situations unless they were prepared to redefine the strategic equation dramatically and accept the need for alliance with countries that had previously been regarded as strategic and moral threats. American history is filled with opportunistic alliances designed to solve impossible strategic dilemmas. The Stalin and Mao cases represent stunning alliances with prior enemies designed to block a third power seen as more dangerous.

It is said that Ahmadinejad is crazy. It was also said that Mao and Stalin were crazy, in both cases with much justification. Ahmadinejad has said many strange things and issued numerous threats. But when Roosevelt ignored what Stalin said and Nixon ignored what Mao said, they each discovered that Stalin’s and Mao’s actions were far more rational and predictable than their rhetoric. Similarly, what the Iranians say and what they do are quite different.

Could the Roosevelt-Stalin and Nixon-Mao alliances provide a model for an Obama-Ahmadinejad/Khomeini Khamenei [oops, confused my mullahs there] rapprochement? Friedman’s whole article is worth a read.

Articles iran, iraq, israel, oil, usa, war

As we were planning our Iran session, Jeremy and I discussed whether we would be able to find someone with direct experience of Iran – well, that is, find someone and get them to accept our invitation – given the difficulties of traveling there. Today the LA Times published a piece about the costs and benefits of reporting on Iran from inside the country. Its title sums up the analysis: “Inside view is worth risk, reporters in Iran say“. [hat tip: Cyrus Farivar]

Despite the threat of arrest, despite the government shutting down newspapers and explicitly warning the media away from certain topics, the journalists quoted (mostly anonymously) all agreed that it was still better to be there on the ground than to cover Iran from afar. Which I suppose is rather unsurprising, since if they felt differently they obviously wouldn’t be there.

Journalists have to find a balance between doing their jobs – which requires that they independently investigate the government’s claims – and preserving the access they must have to do their jobs. Even in our own country, where no journalist would ever be imprisoned for a story, think of the run-up to the Iraq war. Government claims which were being easily debunked by independent journalists and bloggers were published uncritically and repeatedly by the Washington press corps.

Valid comparison? Discuss in the comments.

Articles iran, journalism, politics, usa, writing

Robert Baer, formerly a CIA operative, published a book in 2008 called The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower, which I’m reading in preparation for our meeting next week. His theory is that Iran is rising and has imperial ambitions, that it has basically been at war with the United States for 30 years, and that the Iranians have already “half-won” the war. While America sees a country in the grips of Islamic fundamentalism, Baer says that underneath the religious veneer is nationalism and “a deep, abiding defiance of colonialism.” While we have been concerned with preventing Iran getting nuclear weapons, they have perfected the art of warfare by proxy, defeating Israel in Lebanon and hampering our own efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What it comes down to is this: Iran is the most powerful and stable country in the Middle East – a country the United States must either fight in a new thirty-year war or come to terms with.

I wouldn’t throw around the “superpower” label as easily as Baer, but he’s really using it as a rhetorical device. And he makes a key point early on (and I’m sure I’ll have more to say about this as I continue reading). The US has unwittingly aided Iran’s rise by smashing its chief rival: Saddam Hussein’s Sunni-dominated Iraq. Baer believes that Iran has designs on Iraq’s oil, which if they came to pass, would see Iran producing more oil than Saudi Arabia. Not likely to happen soon – but remember that we will eventually have to withdraw our troops from Iraq, while Iran will remain right next door. The Saudis may be seeing the future that Baer envisions, because they’ve started making efforts at rekindling relations with Iran.

Baer talks about visiting the Nabatiyah martyr’s school in Lebanon, where the Iranian proxy Hezbollah trains children to become suicide bombers. He had come as a journalist (after retiring from the CIA) making a documentary, and listened to the teacher of a girls’ class explain why martyrdom is so important in Shia Islam. And yet when Baer asked the girls if they watched American TV, they all giggled and said they loved Oprah.

The sooner we understand how a girl from Nabatiyah’s martyrs’ school can watch Oprah, then strap on a suicide bomber’s vest and blow herself up in the middle of an Israeli patrol, the better prepared we’ll be to face what’s coming our way.

Meetings global jihad, hezbollah, iran, iraq, lebanon, saudi arabia, usa

Are the Greeks likely to secede from the EU because of their sovereign debt? John Mauldin, a financial investor and writer who claims 1 million+ email subscribers, says its not as fanciful as it sounds:

The third option is that they could vote to leave the European Union. While this is unthinkable to most Europeans, it is an option that may appeal to some Greeks. They could create their own currency and effectively devalue their debt. It would make their labor and exports cheaper…

Most people scoff at this notion, but money is flying out of Greek banks into non-Greek ones, and to my way of thinking that is a suggestion that some Greeks think secession might be a possibility. It is also causing severe stress at Greek banks.

Mr Mauldin’s letter is worth reading in its entirety (he requires an email address to access full letter). It’s a 20min read but explains the reasons behind the Greek financial crisis and the possible ways out, and along the way showing the parallels with the rest of Europe and America.

Greece is being told that it must cut its budget to an 8.7% deficit this year and down to 3% within three years.

For my American readers, let’s put that into perspective. That is the equivalent of a $560-billion-dollar US budget cut this year and another such cut next year. That would mean huge cuts in entitlements, Social Security, defense, education, wages, subsidies, and on and on. And repealing the Bush tax cuts? That would just be for starters. No “let’s freeze the budget” and try and grow our way out of it, as we effectively did in the ’90s, or gradually cutting the budget a few hundred billion a year while raising taxes. That combination of tax increases and budget cuts would guarantee a US recession. Unemployment, already high, would climb higher.

And yet, that is what the Greek government is being asked to do as the price for a bailout.

[...]

Whether it is Japan or Portugal or the US or (pick a country), the body of evidence clearly shows that there is a limit to the amount of debt a sovereign country can handle without a crisis developing. That limit is different for each country, but there is a limit that the bond market will impose. And there are many countries in the developed world that are approaching that limit.

I highly recommend subscribing to his newsletter. It’s free.

In the News financial crisis, greece, sovereign debt, usa

Earlier in the day yesterday, I tweeted that I’d like to hear Obama admit the truth about the state of our Union. While he couldn’t come out and put it the way I did, I noticed that he avoided the traditional opening of the speech, “The state of our Union is strong.”

Obama opened with a frank assessment of the tough times we’re facing, but put them in a historical context so as to soften the blow of bad news. It was not until the twelfth paragraph of his speech (six minutes into it), as he concluded his introduction and came to specific proposals, that he affirmed the strength of the country.

It’s because of this spirit — this great decency and great strength — that I have never been more hopeful about America’s future than I am tonight.  Despite our hardships, our union is strong.  We do not give up.  We do not quit.  We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit.  In this new decade, it’s time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength.

I found the speech uplifting, and welcomed the return of Obama the Force. Throughout 2009, it seemed the strong, eloquent man I had voted for was taking a back seat too often, and not standing up for important principles. Despite the power of the speech, I still find fault with his policies on the war, national security, and the prosecution of war crimes which were clearly committed by our government. I will still fight him on that. But this was a welcome return of a strong leader with the right ideas on jobs, energy and education.

One of the high points was when he said we need to reject those who say his program is too ambitious, and “that we should just put things on hold for a while.” Obama’s response channeled Martin Luther King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail, where the civil rights leader wrote, “For years now I have heard the word ‘Wait!’ … This ‘Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never.’”

As the President put it:

For those who make these claims, I have one simple question: How long should we wait?  How long should America put its future on hold?

You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse.  Meanwhile, China is not waiting to revamp its economy.  Germany is not waiting.  India is not waiting.  These nations — they’re not standing still.  These nations aren’t playing for second place.

I’m looking forward to the ways in which Obama might rally his party to avoid a monstrous November defeat. It will be difficult. But as he said, they still have the largest majority in decades, and we the people expect them to pass some meaningful legislation.

What did you think of the speech?

Articles, In the News obama, politics, usa

Good for Google, finally standing up to China, I hope this embarrasses the Chinese government. The Chinese government has been extraordinarily effective at censoring the internet, contradicting many who thought initially that the internet would be the trojan horse through which more liberal ideas circulated through to the people. I don’t care about the justifications about keeping order, or the tired story about protecting people from pornography, any regime afraid of ideas is a bad one.

I’m the benefactor of a smart colleague who is a voracious reader and, like I occasionally do, leaves magazines around the office for others to read after he finishes them. Among the mags I got today was Foreign Policy, just read Walter Russel Mead’s excellent piece that has gotten a lot of attention this past week for really exploring the comparison between the foreign policy of Obama and Carter.

In the News carter, china, google, obama, usa

Monday night’s Junta was well-attended despite coming off a holiday weekend, and produced great conversation.

Our out-of-town guest was Jarrett Wrisley, an American living in Bangkok and a longtime friend of mine. He spent the opening part of the discussion bringing us all up to speed on the situation in Thailand, including the story of how he arrived in the country with his wife and dog the day protesters shut down the airport. His was probably the last plane to land before the weeks-long standoff.

The basic outline of the arguments in Thailand is the serious divide between educated urban elites and simple rural folk. The country dwellers feel they are looked down upon and marginalized by city know-it-alls, and those living in the concrete jungle see their farmer cousins as being manipulated by crooked politicians.

The politician in question is Thaksin Shinawatra, the deposed Prime Minister accused of all sorts of corrupt practices, but beloved by the poor and dispossessed for delivering them basic health care and cracking down on Thailand’s drug problem to some degree. Wealthy Bangkokers see him as threatening the status quo – not only because he “spreads the wealth around” but because he is a blatant nepotist who has enriched himself and others by milking the state. They see his largess in the countryside as vote-buying. Some claim he would put an end to the monarchy in Thailand – though I personally question whether that would be popular, since Thais famously love their king – but certainly the throne quietly assented to his removal from power or it would never have happened. The army doesn’t move without the king’s approval.

That last point became an important one for us. According to Jarrett (and most agreed), this one thing is central for democracy to work: the military must be controlled in a nonpolitical manner, otherwise it can be used as a fig leaf for authoritarianism. The American system, which places a civilian as the ultimate Commander-in-Chief and (at one time, anyway) places war-making authority within the representative body, is a prime example of this working well. (Except for all the times the president has gone to war without bothering to get approval, of course…)

Mark, who was an officer in the Army and attended West Point, discussed his experience there with regard to the military’s respect for the executive branch. Most of the officers he knew at the time were not enamored of President Bill Clinton, but they did have a very healthy respect for his office, and understood that their duty was to carry out its orders. Without that discipline, the institution would quickly break down. But that begged the question: would democracy be protected by a military which blindly followed an executive’s order to act against the people? Is the essence of democracy actually marshal law?

The situation in Honduras was broached, but there were no real experts present, and that thread quickly dissolved into speculation. No one had an informed opinion as to whether the president or the military was on the side of democracy; however, that segued into a point much agreed upon when it came to the official US stance on such matters: America supports democracy when it furthers our interests (such as in Iraq), but not when it doesn’t (such as in Gaza).

Soon we got back into the question of the vote itself. The urbanites in Thailand are starting to think the rural people shouldn’t have a vote at all, on account of their lack of education and perceived susceptibility to simple bribes. The question was raised: should there be minimum standards for voting? How would it go over in America if, say, you had to have a high school degree or equivalent to vote? We concluded that that would be arbitrary: there are plenty of MBAs and PhDs out there who don’t bother voting, as there are likely many people who never finished high school and yet are politically astute and involved. There is no simple way to separate those who “should” be able to vote from those who “shouldn’t,” and it would be a form of discrimination anyway. The ignorant have just as much a right to their opinion as the wise.

In fact, the Founding Fathers saw this as a problem to be overcome. The first thing they did was limit the vote to white, land-owning men – so already the right to vote was very restricted and included only those they considered worthy of deciding matters of state. But even with those severe restrictions, they still thought that unfettered democracy could be a very bad thing – James Madison had some choice words about the need to temper the emotions of the people:

An increase in population will necessarily increase the proportion of those who will labor under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings. These may outnumber those who are placed above … indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage, power will slide into the hands of the former.

(Sounds like my dad complaining about the welfare state today, minus the F-bombs).

It was sentiments like this which led to the bicameral legislature, in which it was hoped that the hot-tempered representatives, closer to the emotions of the people as a result of their having to be elected every 2 years, would be cooled by the more rational (and establishmentarian) senators, who were not directly elected in the original Constitution. In fact, a review of almost any recently passed law will find this pattern again and again: the House passes some wildly radical motion, only to see it watered down by the Senate if not outright rejected.

The situation in Xinjiang, China, was touched upon briefly, but as we have another thread going about that, I’ll exclude it here. Jeremy also tried to bring up the “benevolent authoritarian” models of Singapore and Malaysia, but seemed to be the only one who wanted to discuss those countries.

At a certain point, we got sidetracked talking about interesting ideas for future meetings. These included:

• The nature and history of the judicial branch, and specifically the US Supreme Court
• The history and future of the American health care system
• The case for legalizing drugs and prostitution

Finally, we tried to sum up our thoughts. We considered how even in advanced democracies like the US and Western Europe, the will of the people is not often carried out. Many studies, for instance, have shown popular support for national health care in the US, something that has yet to come about. The European and American protests against the Iraq war failed to prevent that conflict. And I think we can lament the fact that our leaders can go to war without our consent. But perhaps in most cases, pure democracy doesn’t actually work. Government by referendum is probably not the greatest method – look at California, for example. As Jarrod Y put it, people tend to react with their emotions – we elect our leaders to put more thought into their actions on our behalf.

Wrap-Ups democracy, politics, thailand, usa