These three paragraphs by Lynch perfectly sum up exactly what’s been wrong with the Bush administration’s approach to the War on Terror, and leaves you to contemplate just how dire the consequences will be:
…I’ve written at length about how al-Qaeda has developed what I call a "constructivist strategy" - working primarily at the level of ideas, identity and public discourse. Osama bin Laden’s April speech could not have been more clear about al-Qaeda’s goal of promoting a "clash of civilizations" as the defining frame governing world politics. In what Gramsci might have called a war of position, al-Qaeda seeks to define the "common sense" of Arab and Muslim politics. Its metrics for success from this perspective are less the number of dead Westerners than the number of Muslims who have increased their identification with Islam or have accepted key elements of the al-Qaeda political narrative. Key elements such as: the idea of equating Israel and America as partners in the Zionist-Crusader Alliance against Islam; the idea that the West does not value Muslim lives; the idea that the West will never allow Islamist parties to win democratic elections; the idea that Islam and the West are locked in an eternal struggle which can only be decided by power rather than by dialogue or diplomacy, and that peaceful co-existence is impossible. I’d reckon that such ideas look a lot more common-sensical today than they did a month ago across the Arab and Muslim worlds…
While Bernard Haykal (whose work I respect) may be right that al-Qaeda fears Hezbollah’s competition, I wouldn’t take this too far: in this wider constructivist war of position, the Lebanon war has been a godsend for al-Qaeda (as they might phrase it). The Lebanon crisis could never be contained - even if the war does not physically spread to Iran or Syria, the images of the war have already done their work throughout the Arab and Islamic world. Just as Iraq served al-Qaeda’s strategy by supplying an endless stream of images of "heroic mujahideen" fighting against "brutal Americans" - and became less useful as images of dead Iraqi civilians began to complicate the picture - the Lebanon war offers an
unending supply of images and actions which powerfully support al-Qaeda’s narrative and world-view… without the complications posed by Zarqawi’s controversial anti-Shia strategy in Iraq. (In that regard, al-Qaeda’s open support for Hezbollah might even help to heal that Sunni-Shia breach which Zarqawi worked so hard to open against bin Laden and Zawahiri’s advice).
For Israel this may be a matter of defending itself against a threat on its northern border, but the United States should be able to see things in a wider global framework. I seem to recall something about a war on terror? And a war of ideas? The Bush administration and supporters of Israel’s war against Lebanon have been arguing that it is part of the war on terror. (Zawahiri, in his tape, agreed… for different reasons.) But I think this gets things directly and dangerously backward, and - like Iraq - demonstrates the bankruptcy of the hawkish approach to the war on terror. Winning the war on terror means discrediting al-Qaeda’s ideas and building a global norm against terror (the use of violence against civilians for political ends). It requires constructing a positive narrative - of shared interests and support for reform - which can compete with al-Qaeda’s narrative. The unilateral use of force, particularly when it resonates so intensely with the narrative frame you are trying to discredit, simply doesn’t help in this real war of ideas. The war on terror is a strong reason that the United States should have acted to
contain the crisis rather than giving Israel a free hand, not a reason for it to support the war’s continuation.
Cross-posted to TPMCafe
I don’t have a deep enough knowledge of Hezbollah or Lebanon to feel comfortable holding forth in a substantial way on the current conflict. But I do know enough to spot ill-informed commentary when I see it, and there’s an awful lot of it out there right now. It comes from people who should know better, like our President, who was caught on an open mike saying to Blair last week “See, the irony is what they really need to do is to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s***.” And Tom Friedman, who is billed as an expert on the Middle East, had a different but equally simplistic formulation, telling Tim Russert a few nights ago that Hezbollah was a “wholly owned subsidiary of Iran.”
Chas Freeman, former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and former Asst. Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, has provided the most concise and, I believe, accurate analysis of Hezbollah’s relationship with Syria and Iran. Understanding this relationship correctly is critical, as there is likely to be no workable solution to the current crisis if the US proceeds with faulty assumptions. His statement was published at The Washington Note:
The assumption in Israel and here is that Iran and Syria put Hezbollah up to its provocative gesture of solidarity with the beleaguered Palestians in Gaza. The assumption in the Arab world is that the U.S. put Israel up to what it is doing in Gaza and Lebanon. Both assertions remain politically convenient assertions that are almost certainly wrong. There is no evidence for either.
The relationship between Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran is analogous to that between Israel and the United States. Syria is the quartermaster and Iran the external financier and munitions supplier to Hezbollah; we play all three roles in support of Israel.
There is no reason to believe that Hezbollah, which is an authentic expression of Lebanese Sh’ia nationalism birthed by the Israeli occupation of south Lebanon in 1982, is any less unilateralist or prone to consult its patrons before it does things it sees as in its interest than Israel, which is an authentic expression of Jewish nationalism birthed by European racism, is in relation to us.
Remember the assertions that Vietnamese expansionism was controlled and directed by the Chinese? similar stuff. Chinese backing for the Viet Minh and the Hanoi regime did not equate to Chinese control or direction of North Vietnam, its armed forces, or its agents in South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Consider the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese war.
The irony now is that the most likely candidate to back Hezbollah in the long term is no longer Iran but the Arab Shiite tyranny of the majority we have installed in Baghdad. But that will not mean that the successors of Nouri Al-Maliki control Sheikh Nasrullah. Sometimes clients direct the policies of their patrons, not the other way around. This is a point exemplified by the dynamic of Israeli-American relations but far from unique to them.
To gain an understanding of the Arab world’s perspective on the current conflict, I recommend Prof. Marc Lynch’s blog, Abu Aardvark. He has frequent posts summarizing what he sees on the Arab TV networks, which - as you might expect - have a very different perspective than US news shows. Be warned that he sometimes includes screenshots of bombing victims, which are apparently shown frequently on Arab newshows (on the one hand, you could call it anti-Israeli propaganda, but on the other hand, our news coverage of the conflict is almost completely sanitized, which can have its own misleading affects - even Condi Rice was unaware of the extent of the destruction in Lebanon until she saw it herself, as evidenced by her expressed amazement). To be clear, I’m recommending this for his coverage of the Arab perspective, not as a source for comprehensive coverage.
Prof. Lynch also provides his own commentary, and I find myself in agreement with much of it, particularly his thoughts on the US role:
I don’t know anyone who will be surprised that the Rome conference failed - it seems to have been designed to fail, to give the US the chance to appear to be “doing something” while giving Israel the time it wants to continue its offensive. But this policy is so transparent, such an obvious stalling mechanism, that it is probably making things even worse for the United States and for Israel: when you are faking it, you’re supposed to at least try to maintain the pretence so that others can at least pretend to believe you. The call for an immediate ceasefire has become more or less universal now, other than from the United States and Israel: even the pro-American Arab states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, which initially blamed Hezbollah for the crisis, are now loudly demanding an immediate ceasefire.
America is totally alone on this. And more than most Americans might realize, America is being blamed for Israel’s actions. The shift in Arab public discourse over the last week has been palpable. For the first few days, the split between the Saudi media and the “al-Jazeera public” which I wrote about at the time. Then for a few days, horror at the humanitarian situation, fury with the Arab states for their impotence, speculation about the endgame, and full-throated condemnation of Israeli aggression. But for the last few days, the main trend has been unmistakable: an increasing focus on the United States as the villain of the piece. (That the Israeli bombing of Beirut stopped just long enough for Condoleeza Rice’s photo op certainly didn’t help.)…
Perhaps this negative focus on America was inevitable, given Iraq and the war on terror and al-Jazeera?
No. This wan’t inevitable. Real American leadership, such as quickly restraining the Israeli offensive and taking the lead in ceasefire negotiations, could have created a Suez moment and dramatically increased American influence and prestige (especially if the Saudis had delivered Iran in a ceasefire agreement, as I’ve heard that Saudi officials believed that they could). But by disappearing for the first days of the war and then resurfacing only to provide a megaphone for Israeli arguments and to prevent international efforts at achieving a ceasefire, the Bush administration put America at the center of the storm of blame. I think that the Lebanon war will go down in history as one of the greatest missed opportunities in recent American diplomatic history - not because we failed to go after Iran, or whatever the bobbleheads are ranting about these days, but because we failed to rise to the occasion and exercise real global leadership in the national interest.
If you’re not sure about the “Suez moment” reference, he’s talking about the US intervention in the Suez crisis of 1956. Britain, France, and Israel attacked Egypt after Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal Company. President Eisenhower forced a cease fire. To compel the British to back down, he actually threatened to sell off US reserves of the British pound, which would have caused the British currency to collapse. If Bush were in Eisenhower’s place, can you imagine him taking a stand against Israel, Britain, and corporate interests, all at the same time?
Cross-posted to TPMCafe
Last year Karen Hughes assumed the office of Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. At the time of her appointment, the Christian Science Monitor said, “Karen Hughes would have some advantages her predecessors lacked. As one of Bush’s closest advisers, even after returning to Texas in 2002, she can pick up the phone and get him engaged. In addition, public diplomacy - communicating what the administration calls ‘American policies and values’ - is a top concern.” With the current conflict in Lebanon inflaming passions across the Middle East, one would think that she would be incredibly busy right now. But after doing a thorough Google News search, I found little sign of her, or of any US public diplomacy in the Arab world.
According to Professor Marc Lynch, who regularly monitors Al Jazeera and other Arab news networks, there has been only one appearance by a person from the State Dept on an Arab news show since Israel began air strikes on Lebanon. But that was over a week ago:
Unfortunately, I haven’t seen much follow-up on the one State Department guest I saw on an al-Jazeera program a few days ago… the Bush administration seems largely absent from the al-Jazeera universe, by its choice, much as it seems largely absent from the events themselves. …I’m pretty sure that al-Jazeera asked for an American to come and discuss Rice’s remarks, and didn’t get one. Whether Karen Hughes can’t figure out the urgency of getting someone on this kind of program - arguing about American policy in front of far and away the largest possible Arab audience - or just doesn’t have the clout to persuade anyone to do it, she should probably just quit on Monday…. this sort of thing defines “failure”.
Why does this matter?
I’ve always been an advocate of public diplomacy, but let’s be real: no public diplomacy in the world could overcome the fiasco which is America’s policy. But even now I think that an actual attempt to explain America’s position to the Arab media might have both made some slight difference in shaping Arab arguments and given American officials a stronger sense of how their rhetoric was playing in the Arab world. That feedback might have helped Rice avoid her steady string of disasters in the region, including her expressed surprise at the extent of destruction in Beirut and her spectacularly ill-considered formulation of the violence giving birth to a new Middle East (no single American remark thus far has earned more enraged scorn). But the Bush administration has completely punted on public diplomacy, demonstrating absolute contempt for Arab attitudes - it didn’t even send officials on to relatively friendly environments like al-Arabiya - and now it’s far too late. “Winning Arab and Muslim hearts and minds” has gone on the trash heap alongside “American promotion of Arab democracy” for the foreseeable future. If the Bush administration has any alternative grand strategy in mind, it’s carefully concealing its hand.
In a brief article in U.S. News and World Report last month, it was reported that Hughes “has won points for crafting a Rapid Response Unit, designed to help U.S. officials abroad respond to the day’s news… But critics say the effort is typical of Hughes’s quick-hit, political campaignlike approach to what is a years-long ideological struggle.” As Dr. Lynch said, no amount of public diplomacy could overcome the reality of US (in)actions in the current crisis. But it is nonetheless remarkable that there no evident plan from Hughes - not even a “quick-hit” one - to even try to put a good face on it for the many millions in the Arab Middle East TV audience.
Last Friday night we kept the boys up late so we could all go see Bugs Bunny on Broadway - the Philadelphia Orchestra performed live, accompanying Bugs Bunny cartoons projected on a big screen. Before it was dark enough to show the cartoons, the orchestra did a short performance, which - as you might expect - Kai found boring. So we lied on the lawn and looked for shapes in the clouds. This isn’t something I’ve taken the time to do with him before, and I can’t tell you how great it was. I continue to be astounded at how curious he is - after talking about the clouds for a few minutes, he asked about how the dinosaurs died, and then he wanted to know how the solar system was formed, and then he wanted to know where the first person came from. He understood my explanations for the first two, but he had a hard time wrapping his mind around evolution (sorry folks, I didn’t go with the biblical explanation). But he didn’t give up - he kept asking me about it in different ways until he felt he had a handle on at least some of it. I’m now a true believer in lying on your back and staring at the sky - it’s probably the best way to have a conversation without distraction. Given that we live in the Age of Distraction, this is no small feat.
Kai wasn’t familiar with the old Bugs Bunny cartoons, as they’re not on TV much anymore. He loved them. Of course, he was probably influenced by the huge crowd around him laughing, and the fact that he was up way past his bedtime. If you’ve ever been around kids who are up too late, their behavior is indistinguishable from that of a drunk, except that they’re more frenzied. The same goes for Eidan - with everyone around him laughing, he had a big grin on his face most of the time. Fortunately, he fell asleep before having a meltdown (which is the big risk of keeping kids up too late).
Given the live orchestra, two “musts” for the show were The Rabbit of Seville and What’s Opera, Doc?. I laughed pretty hard at the “Rabbit of Seville” - I had almost completely forgotten this one, so the gags seemed new to me. But of course I hadn’t forgotten “What’s Opera, Doc?” from my childhood - as with many of my generation (and probably the generation before) it was my first exposure to opera. I will never be able to appreciate “Ride of the Valkyries” as it was intended. To me it will always be the “kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit!” song (and I’m sure I’m not the only one). I just learned from the Wikipedia page I linked to that many consider it the greatest animation short of all time. Seeing it for the first time as an adult, I can understand why - the scoring (dozens of hours of Wagner condensed into 6 minutes), the animation, the voice work, and the many satirical jabs are all brilliant.
Cross-posted to TPMCafe
UPDATE: the Editor of Technology Review posted a comment (apparently they’re watching their incoming links), saying that there was enough demand for the “scary chart” that they’ve now posted it to their site as a PDF (it’s much nicer than my scan).
Technology Review’s “Scary Chart” depicting the effects of greenhouse gases on climate over the past 400,000 years
Technology Review’s “Scary Chart” depicting the effects of greenhouse gases on climate over the past 400,000 years
Technology Review’s latest issue contains an excellent set of articles on global warming. Unfortunately, the online version is lacking “the scariest graph in climate science, a 420,000-year record of carbon dioxide and temperature, inferred from a 3.6-kilometer ice core recovered at Russia’s Vostok station in Antarctica.” I’ve taken the liberty of scanning it and posting it here (click it for a larger view, and then click the magnifying glass icon in the upper right for the full-size view). It’s the clearest illustration I’ve ever seen of the relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels, temperature, and sea level. While the article says that “atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased 32 percent since 1850,” you don’t get a gut-level feel for what that means until you see the CO2 level going way off the top of the chart at the end of the graph. Here’s the key portion of the inset text that accompanies the graph:
…Geological records show that in the past 400,000 years, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, average Earth temperature, and sea levels have risen and fallen roughly in tandem, in 100,000-year cycles paced by slight oscillations in Earth’s orbit. These oscillations affect the distribution of sunlight, hardly affecting the total amount reaching Earth; yet, scientists believe, this has been enough to set in motion chains of events that raise and lower temperatures, launch and end ice ages, and trigger vast changes in sea level.
What’s coming next? Carbon dioxide — the number one greenhouse gas — has much more power to affect Earth’s temperature than the orbital changes do. And in just the past 150 years, humankind has boosted carbon dioxide concentrations by 32 percent. NASA planetary scientist Jim Hansen says that if we continue to increase greenhouse-gas emissions, temperatures will rise between 2 and 3 ºC this century, making Earth as warm as it was three million years ago, when seas were between 15 and 35 meters higher than they are today….
The article that goes with the graph - The Messenger - is also highly worth reading. It covers the career of leading climatologist Jim Hansen, and among other things, describes the censorship of his work by the Bush Administration:
According to NASA memorandums provided by Hansen, senior political appointees at NASA headquarters in Washington quickly called career public-affairs officers at the agency and directed them to give headquarters advance notice of Hansen’s speaking schedule, his “data releases,” and his attendance at scientific meetings. The career officers also understood from the phone calls that the posting of all content on the GISS website, including scientific data sets, would now require headquarters approval; that no NASA employees or contractors could grant media interviews without approval; and that public-affairs officers had the right to stand in for scientists in all interviews. Hansen emphasizes that the political appointees made sure to leave no paper trail…He says he’s been muzzled before — during the Reagan and first Bush administrations — but that in more than three decades as a government employee, he has seen nothing to equal the recent clampdown.
What makes Hansen’s work compelling is that he uses multiple sources to check the accuracy of his models. You’ll need to read the article for a detailed explanation, but the bottom line is this:
Global-warming deniers like to complain that scientists base their predictions on faulty computer models. But Hansen’s calculations show that we don’t need a computer to know how temperature will respond to a given change in the greenhouse — or a change in dustiness, or forest cover, or the amount of ice on the Arctic Ocean. Solid geological field data give us everything we need — and provide a check for computer models. And lend credibility to Hansen’s predictions.
Here are the pictures from my trip to Newport with the boys last week. They had a great time playing with their cousins. Here are a couple choice Kai quotes from the trip:
- On our first day there my sister asked him, when I wasn’t around, what he wanted to do in Newport: “Well, I don’t really have a lot of options - I have to do whatever my dad what’s to do.” That’s me, the tyrannical father.
- After a long session of dancing (see the video below): “Daddy, I want to go home now. I’m really tired of dancing, but the music is still playing, and I can’t stop.”
Maria was in Japan for a conference while we were in Newport. She looked at the apartment I wrote about a few weeks ago, and she liked it. She’s checked on some other options as well, and so far this place seems to have the best combination of price, amenities, and location. The only downside is that it’s really small, but anything bigger that we could afford would require a long commute from the suburbs, and Maria doesn’t want to do that (she’ll be working long hours, and if she had a long commute, she’d never see the boys during the week).
Maria’s taking the boys back to Newport in a couple days, and they’ll stay there until the end of the month. I’ll stay in Philly and put a new tile floor in the bathroom (we only have one full bathroom, so this will be a good time to do it).
| 471|1 |
472|1 |
473|1 |
474|1 |
| 475|1 |
476|1 |
477|1 |
478|1 |
| 479|1 |
|
This is a good example of why the world needs the Japanese, because only they think of things like this. The complete collection is here - my favorite is the comb-over.
I’m in Newport right now with the boys, visiting my family. Maria is in Japan this week for a conference (and to look at some apartments for January). I remembered the camera, but as usual, forgot the memory card reader, so I’ll post pictures after we return on Wednesday.
467|3
Probably the only thing harder than herding cats is trying to change a cat’s diaper. Unless he’s asleep, Eidan simply does not sit still, and that means I often can’t change his diaper without getting into a test of will, strength, and agility (since I only win consistently on strength, the outcome is not always certain). Eidan is much more boisterous and expressive than Kai was as a baby, so Maria and I are getting a whole new experience in parenting. One if his favorite games is for you to get on your hands and knees and square off against him in several rounds of head-butting. He will wiggle and clap to any tune he hears, and he’s generous with hugs and kisses. But if you’re not giving him the attention he thinks he deserves, he won’t hesitate to crawl over and slap you in the face. He’s at an age that is quite challenging for parenting, in that he’s very active and adventurous, doesn’t fully understand the risks around him (stairs, electrical outlets, etc), and his ability to understand us and take direction is very limited. Kai has nicknamed him infanto destructo, as he will pull down, tear up, chew up, and throw around anything he can get his hands on. Books and toys are the things he most commonly leaves scattered behind him in his path of destruction. He was measured at 92nd percentile for height at his most recent checkup, which means even though he’s only 10 months old, he can reach up onto most tables now. So trying to keep things out of his reach is like trying to move things out of the way of a flood. Even though he’s a little guy moving on all fours, he is very, very fast. As the saying goes, you can’t stop him, you can only hope to contain him.
Back in May, Maria took the boys the Denver, and then made a short trip from there to San Francisco with Kai (I stayed home and worked on our 3rd floor bathroom). Here’s a random assortment of photos from their trip, from home, and Kai’s graduation from pre-school.
| 465|1 |
466|1 |
468|1 |
| 469|1 |
470|1 |
|
