A brief retrospective of Foreign Affairs articles on Afghanistan.
Month: December 2009
Tunku Varadarajan At The Daily Beast: ‘The Skeptic’s Guide To Copenhagen’
Full post here. (A-Z).
“I don’t believe it’s a conspiracy, or that it’s made up, or that there aren’t plenty of informed individuals who believe it entirely apolitically. However I also believe that the left desperately want it to be true, and would be crushed if some miraculous evidence came to light that disproved it beyond question.”
Worth a look. It’s entirely reasonable to be skeptical of the foolish idealism and re-sentiment being directed toward government action and economic regulation.
Related On This Site: Bjorn Lomborg saw this coming a while ago, pricking the mighty Al Gore (who is moving beyond satire): From The WSJ-A Heated Exchange: Al Gore Confronts His Critics
From Watts Up With That: Richard Lindzen On Positive Climate Feedback
From Chris Colose: Lindzen On Climate Feedback
Andrew Revkin In The NY Times: Global Warming Moderation From Bloggingheads: On Freeman Dyson’s Global Warming Heresy…From The WSJ-A Heated Exchange: Al Gore Confronts His Critics…From The Literary Review–Weather Channel Green Ideology: Founder John Coleman Upset.
Ayan Hirsi Ali At The CSM: ‘Swiss Ban On Minarets Was A Vote For Tolerance And Inclusion’
Rather than see the vote as a failure to allow Muslims their religious freedoms (populist response to the immigration wave?), Hirsi Ali suggests the ban rather should be thought of, in part, as a check upon the political ambitions that stem from Islamic theology:
“Islam is an idea about how society should be organized: the individual’s relationship to the state; that the relationship between men and women; rules for the interaction between believers and unbelievers; how to enforce such rules; and why a government under Islam is better than a government founded on other ideas. These political ideas of Islam have their symbols: the minaret, the crescent; the head scarf, and the sword.”
Because this fits into a view that many Europeans already have about how their own societies should be run:
“In their response to the presence of Islam in their midst, Europeans have developed what one can discern as roughly two competing views. The first view emphasizes accuracy. Is it accurate to equate political symbols like those used by Communists and Nazis with a religious symbol like the minaret and its accessories of crescent and star.”
According to Ali, it’s not an attack on religion per se, but rather a workable European solution to to Islam’s inability to separate politics from religion… because (what I think is the real target here) there’s another view of Islam in Europe:
“The second view refuses to equate political symbols of various forms of white fascism with the symbols of a religion. In this school of thought, Islamic Scripture is compared to Christian and Jewish Scripture. Those who reason from this perspective preach pragmatism. According to them, the key to the assimilation of Muslims is dialogue.”
and:
“These two contrasting perspectives correspond to two quite distinct groups in Europe. The first are mainly the working class. The second are the classes that George Orwell described as “indeterminate.” Cosmopolitan in outlook, they include diplomats, businesspeople, mainstream politicians, and journalists. They are well versed in globalization and tend to focus on the international image of their respective countries.”
As a good American, I don’t know where I stand on day to day European politics, I’ll try and leave that to Europeans. I have to say, though, Hirsi Ali is a pretty smooth political operator herself in a cosmopolitan, populist sort of way.
Are you convinced?
Addition: I think Hirsi Ali correctly points out how much room for improvement there is in Europe’s handling of Muslim immigration…
See Also On This Site: Ayan Hirsi Ali in The NY Times: Lee Harris’s ‘The Suicide Of Reason’ Theodore Dalrymple Still Attacking Multi-Culturalism In Britain From YouTube: Roger Scruton On Religious Freedom, Islam & Atheism…From The Middle East Quarterly Via A & L Daily: Europe’s Shifting Immigration Dynamic
William Finnegan At The New Yorker: ‘Gone South’
The administration and very few people in the U.S. have handled the Zelaya/Honduras situation well.
From NPR: Richard Holbrooke-‘Strong Support For Afghanistan’
Full interview here (audio and transcript included).
While he points out that there may be the broadest support he has seen from the international community in many years for a campaign (and I think correctly identifies the stake we all have in this decision), he didn’t exactly inspire confidence when it came to Afghan corruption and sanctuary:
“In the past, there was no real follow-up or oversight on these things, and we just have to hope there’s going to be now. Not hope, that’s not fair. We can’t just hope. It’s our job and we would do a better job than our predecessors; of that I’m sure.”
I still give credit to Obama for recognizing what needs to be recognized, as his policies unfold.
Aside from the military campaign (and the troops which need full support), perhaps this isn’t necessarily a Huntingtonian clash of civilizations (do we need a new framework?) nor certainly not as many radicalized Muslims would like it to be: a religious war. This seems to be as far as their anger and vision extends.
Hopefully without simply working towards a naive humanism we can come up with ideas from military engagement and use of force to get ourselves in more leveraged situations, and meeting on the points of contact with better understanding.
CSIS has more here.
Repost-Revisting Larry Summers: What Did He Say Again?
He may have been fired for many reasons, but Summers off-the-cuff Remarks at NBER Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce had a lot to do with it:
1. The first is what I call the high-powered job hypothesis-Summers notes that high positions demand high commitment. Science could be analogous to other professions like law. He appeals to a longitudinal study that suggests that fewer women may agree to, or be willing to, devote such time and energy to their jobs over their careers as do men. Changing the nature of these professions to higher female ratios may change some of the fundamental ways we arrange our society:
“…is our society right to expect that level of effort from people who hold the most prominent jobs?”
Perhaps…though the subtext might be: are some members of our society right to expect that the guiding ideas of diversity and equality won’t come with a host of other problems…?
***Charles Murray takes it a few steps further, asserting that our social sciences are leading us to become more like Europe (less dynamic and less idealistic in our pursuit of Aristotelian happiness) He also argues that there is a sea-change going on in the social science that will come to support his thinking.
2. The second is what I would call different availability of aptitude at the high end-The bell curve argument that there are more genius and idiot men. When you get to MIT, 3 and more standard deviations above the mean…means a lot.
3. The third is what I would call different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search-If discrimination is such an important factor in there being a lack of women scientists, then economic theory holds that there are going to be:
“…very substantial opportunities for a limited number of people who were not prepared to discriminate to assemble remarkable departments of high quality people at relatively limited cost simply by the act of their not discriminating.”
So if the theory holds…where are the science departments scooping up all women scientists at low cost…who’ve been rejected elsewhere due to discrimination?
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
I believe there is quite arguably discrimination against women in the sciences, and they have a harder road to reach success. But there is also substance here…and clearly politics was a factor in Summers’ firing as well; the women’s groups who viewed his ideas as an attack on their belief appealed to public sentiment in the worst kind of way.
Will social science ever be enough to address such an issue…or is it possibly changing to adapt to the demands people require of it?
On This Site: Charles Murray Lecture At AEI: The Happiness Of People
Addition: I always get an email or two that suggests I’ve joined the ranks of those who don’t fully understand the problem and seek to oppress women. I don’t think I’ve done such a thing, and if women are going broaden and deepen feminism, they may well have to answer to arguments like these.
It’s not like there aren’t women in the sciences either, Vera Rubin, Lisa Randall and Lise Meitner come to mind, but this debate is clearly not just about science. It’s also about feminism, the social sciences, money, politics, public opinion etc…
Other things on his plate-worldeconomicforum
From The Associated Press: The Text Of Obama’s Afghanistan Speech, December 1st, 2009
Worth a careful read. Here’s what’s likely the main reason Obama’s sending more troops:
“I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al-Qaida. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak.”
And:
“We must deny al-Qaida a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s security forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.”
He outlines why, and also discusses Pakistan and the bigger picture, including false analogies with Vietnam (though there are still lessons to learn). It strikes me as a good speech. Obama is able to focus on the need to prevent extreme and violent followers of Al-Qaeda from plotting and planning attacks on Western targets from within Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan.
However, we are still stuck with what is likely endemic corruption, a land of tribes united by Islam (and an extreme version of Islam that’s gained power in the wake of Russian and foreign occupation) extreme poverty and a war-torn infrastructure. We are in a hostile region with few good options and it’s reasonable to worry about getting in deeper.
Hopefully, we can stay aware of what’s at stake and what can go wrong going forward. There doesn’t appear to be a clear end in sight.
Any thoughts and comments are welcome.
Related On This Site: From Bloomberg: More Troops To Afghanistan? A Memo From Henry Kissinger To Gerald Ford?…From The NY Times Video: ‘A Schoolgirl’s Odyssey’…From The WSJ: Graham, Lieberman and McCain “Only Decisive Force Can Prevail In Afghanistan…From Commonweal: Andrew Bacevich “The War We Can’t Win: Afghanistan And The Limits Of American Power”
See Also: Philip Bobbitt Discusses His Book ‘Terror And Consent’ On Bloggingheads