Kirsty MacColl is Still Dead

Kirsty was a talented singer who wandered musically all over the UK scene in the 1980s, both performing her own work and as backup or guest singer to other artists. She worked with many UK country bands... but, being UK country music, they are virtually unknown to anyone save British country music fans. She also worked with many UK rock bands, many of which were considerably more famous than their country counterparts. She performed with The Smiths, Simple Minds, The Pogues, Billy Bragg, and far, far more. She grew more popular during the 1990s, but worked almost exclusively with the Pogues and her solo efforts during that time period. By all reports, she was friendly and pleasant.

And in 2000, she was run over and killed.

She wasn't run over in the normal way, however. Safe from the cars or trucks which are the usual culprits in hit and run accidents, Kirsty was killed by a powerboat while swimming with her sons. Her sons escaped physical injury.

So far, this sounds tragic, but not exactly fodder for a political blog. There is a point to be made, however.

Kirsty MacColl was deeply into left-wing politics. She decried the crass devotion to capitalism of the United States and UK, and adored the rampant socialism available in South and Central America. The cover to her final album of original material featured a picture of her dressed in a classic Fidel Castro uniform and lighting a cigar with a flaming dollar bill.
She was not a stupid woman; she was aware of the corruption endemic to the governments she adored. That corruption, however, did not diminish her love of the countries, and the people. Like many, she believed that the corruption was not a necessary byproduct of socialism, and that the people would be better off in the long run under a Marxist style of government.

The fact that all historical evidence has shown that not to be the case was not, apparently, enough to sway her viewpoint.

On December 18th, 2000, Kirsty was in one of her beloved countries... actually, one of the least corrupt of the lot, Mexico... swimming, as mentioned before, with her two sons. The place where they swam was restricted, with no boats of any type allowed. The law did not prevent a powerboat driver from killing her.
And, unsurprisingly to anyone who has dealt with a South or Central American government, the law was unable to locate the guilty party. Whoever the culprit was, they were Mexican... one strike against the foreigner... and they were rich enough to be able to afford a powerboat and a beachfront docking location, which means they were undoubtedly rich enough to be able to bribe the local constabulary, the second strike against the foreigner.

Her mother has been trying ever since to get some answers, and a prosecution. The poor woman deserves some justice, as do Kirsty's family and friends. There's even a web site devoted to it: http://www.justiceforkirsty.org/

Ultimately, this isn't particularly surprising. Kirsty knew the way the law was enforced in the tropical socialist countries she adored, and she supported it.

But the justice she ignored for others is now being denied to her family and friends.

Real vs. Ideal

A very bright man I know was recently told his job would be going away. He's worked at his place of employment for a number of years, and the reason his job is disappearing is that the manufacturing for his company is going to shift to China.

He was angry and frustrated. He's worked there for years, after all, and doesn't look forward to finding a new position elsewhere. But that much, he could stand; what steamed him was the fact that the decision was, blatantly, a suicidal one for the long-term prospects of the company. The place he works is consistently on the cutting edge of developmental tech, and the domestic plants had, in the past, has Chinese scientists quit suddenly, only to have a nationalized Chinese organization pop up with identical new tech a few weeks later. Industrial espionage is always damaging to a tech company; moving the company's research into a place where the espionage will be constant is akin to jumping into a pool without knowing how to swim. If you're surprised that damage ensues, you've made the ghost of Charles Darwin happy.
Meanwhile, the CEO and the Board received not only their standard huge paychecks, but raises and bonuses as well.

My acquaintance, a hardcore right-wing conservative, was trying to square his belief in the success of free markets with the contemporary robber baron aspects of some CEOs. There has to be something, he said, to keep them from killing a company and profiting off of it. And, he pointed out, while the investors theoretically fill that role, in reality they don't, for two reasons. First, a majority of investors don't vote, because their investments are small and diversified; and Second, the institutional groups who control large percentages of stock automatically vote with the CEO.

And here's the point where it gets important.

THERE IS NO IDEAL SOLUTION. There are only a few less than ideal solutions, and we may well have the best one possible in place. Right now, if the investors get motivated (and the institutional groups change their policies) the people with the most to gain or lose by the inept decisions of the business heads are the ones who have the ultimate power. But when they're not paying enough attention, the opportunity for malfeasance or ineptitude is raised. That won't be fixed simply by transferring power to the corporate heads, or to a governmental agency with no stake in the system outside of its own aggrandizement.

We're such a solution-oriented society that we either forget, or never realize, that some problems simply can't be absoutely solved. It goes against our natures to think like that. But most of the time we're simply faced with a variety of choices, none of which is perfect.

Idealism is a wonderful thing. But when it inspires you to abandon or denigrate successful courses of action because they're not perfect, idealism becomes nothing more than a reason to complain without accomplishing anything.

My fingers are in my ears; I can't hear you.

We refuse to acknowledge terrorism in realistic ways in this country. Like many other contentious issues, there are a few reasons. Here are some of them:

1) The Republicans in power wish to continue to take credit for their domestic success. How often have you heard someone on the right mention that there haven't been any terrorist attacks since September 11th? That claim goes right out the window if any of the attacks by young Muslim men are determined to be terrorist attacks. In an effort to keep their record spotless, the Republican leadership takes a very specific, and inaccurate, definition of terrorism. The historical definition has been associated with assaults on civilian targets for the purpose of creating a political or social change. But, no, the Republican leadership believes it has to be accomplished via a web or network of people who can be linked directly to terrorist organizations. This is the only way they can continue to claim undiminished success domestically.

2) The Democrat leadership wish to convince as many people as possible that terrorism is not a threat. Their actions since shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan have been directed toward minimizing the appearance of that threat. Merely admitting that an aggressive war against terrorism is necessary, because terrorist organizations have already declared war on us, was enough to get Joe Leiberman kicked out of his party. If terrorism does still threaten us, and the Democrats consistently want to appease, surrender, or flee from terrorists, they are not going to be trusted with national security, and they will lose elections. As they are deeply opposed to violent physical conflict with people, even people attempting to kill us, the only recourse is to convince people that the threats aren't particularly noteworthy... and that's tough to do when US citizens are being killed by domestic terrorism.

3) Both sides wish to protect peaceful Muslims. Honestly, the US is one of the world's greatest repositories of Muslim reformers. There are many in the country who reject the more literal interpretations of the Koran's passages calling for violence, and there are yet more who call themselves Muslim, but whose devotion to their holy writings extends merely to attending service once a week, or perhaps stopping by once or twice a year during key events, or who simply call themselves Muslim because that's how their parents were raised, but who haven't been to a mosque in ten years. Muslims are no different from Christians in that regard.
But, there are still a lot of people who do believe that the Koran calls for violence. Those are the ones who either approve, support, or even commit destructive or homicidal acts in the name of Allah. Failing to call them out for their views and actions would be like failing to call out the KKK and its supporters after a lynching in 1950, because to bring it to everyone's attention might cause negative views on the non-racists in that town. The only way pressure can be brought to bear for positive change is to demand the truth.

4) The international political scene is tricky; it's always changing, and allies are often needed to lend a hand in the completion of a goal. Even though they are not firm allies, countries like Kuwait, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are often willing to take action on our behalf, just as they often take action against us. There are large factions in most countries in the middle east... and, in fact, in most countries in Europe as well... who are willing to promulgate any negative story about the US, without any proof whatsoever. These groups are always willing to put out the word that the US is unfairly accusing a sucidal gunman of being a terrorist, while at the same time they praise the gunman for being a proper Muslim and killing Americans. Giving an excessive benefit of the doubt takes away kindling for the fires they wish to stoke.

5) Lastly, there's simple denial. Many people don't want to face the fact that they could be targeted for random death for no reason beyond their citizenship. It's far more comforting to believe you're generally safe, and that vehicular attacks and shootings are merely random, isolated incidents.

The Blue Whale in the Room

March 3rd, 2006: Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, an Iranian student, drove a vehicle through the busiest part of his former school campus, University of North Carolina. He hurt six people badly enough to send them to the hospital, and provided minor injuries to three others. He had rented a larger vehicle, to do more damage, and was charged with multiple counts of attempted murder. His statement when he was questioned was that he wanted to avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world. In court, he explained that he was thankful to spread the will of Allah.

August 29, 2006: Omeed Aziz Popal, an Afghani immigrant, drove his car over some of the sidewalks and through inhabited crosswalks in San Francisco. He killed one person, and injured fourteen others. After being removed from the vehicle, he admitted he was a terrorist.

July 4, 2002: Hesham Mohamed Hadayat, an Egyptian immigrant, walked into LAX and started shooting, targeting people working for El Al, Israel's airline. He was killed by security, ending his rampage. Being dead, he had no statement.

February 11, 2007: Sulejman Talovic, a Bosnian immigrant, walked into a mall in Salt Lake City and started shooting people. He killed five and injured four more before being shot dead. He also had no statement. Thankfully, his aunt explained for him: "We are Muslims, but we are not terrorists."

Of course, it isn't merely immigrants:

2002: John Allan Mohammed, the Beltway sniper, killed 10 and severely wounded three. His identity baffled the FBI for a long time, because they were hunting for a person who typically fit the identity of a serial killer; Mohammed did not fit that profile. He is considered a case study in massive deviation from serial killer patterns. The fact that he was a Muslim convert, and that his actions follow the pattern of Muslim terrorists, is deemed extraneous.

July 28, 2006: Naveed Azal Haq forced his way into a Jewish center and began shooting, killing one woman and injuring five others. He claimed it was because he was Muslim, and angry at Israel.

Now, of course, the question becomes, What do all of these people have in common?

ANSWER: The local police and federal government cannot find a motive for these crimes.

Huh?

Okay, here's a thought: Accept that terrorism doesn't have to be part of a grand, orchestrated plan. Most places which have encountered suicide bombers have managed to grasp that concept, but apparently the US hasn't.
Another thought: We know that all Muslims aren't terrorists. Hell, we know that the majority of them in the US and other Western countries aren't even terrorist supporters. And we know that not all Muslims even sympathize with terrorists; many of them, particularly those that ascribe to reformed versions of the religion, hate the bastards.
But PLEASE, stop insulting us.

And that's exactly what's happening. Because the obvious answer is that it is at least reasonable and possible that terrorism inspired all of these attacks. It would be wrong to say, without evidence, that it is the reason, but it is equally wrong to say, without evidence, that it isn't.
It is, if nothing else, a possibility; and some would argue (I would be one of them) a probability. Denying that is foolish and unreasonable.

So, why would anyone deny it?

See the next post.

Economic reality

While I'm on the subject of the economy, there's a simple truth out there which doesn't seem to be getting much play. We're currently experiencing one of the greatest economic times in the history of the country.

The future forecast is bad; but it's been bad for 40 years. The primary reason it's bad is because of the potential Social Security collapse. A secondary reason is because individuals have been relying more on Credit than ever before, resulting in a greater individual debt. A third reason is because we've been shifting away from a production-based economy toward a service-based economy, leaving us vulnerable to foreign pressures on physical goods. That combination could be lethal to our future economic stability.

But the present is wonderful. We've come back from the double hit of the September 11th attacks and the Corporate Board scandals which had grown steadily after the pay restructuring of 1994 and beyond (that's when massive quantities of stock options became typical, instead of prearranged monetary outlays, inspiring many board members to play games to manipulate their stock value.) We have an unemployment rate which has remained at near-record levels for years. We have record levels of average individual wealth, of government tax receipts, of corporate profits, and of individual worker efficiency. We've had steady wage growth, outstripping inflation. Interest rates are remarkably low. The record-high deficit is shrinking, despite the dramatically increased spending seen both under the Republicans and now the Democrats in their respective budgets. The Dow has been hitting record high after record high, with the S&P 500 hovering near its own record high. And there is no significant "bubble" seen in the investment fields, such as was seen in the 1920s or in the late 1990s, the collapse of which often creates a recession or depression; the closest we've seen is an overburdened sector, housing, which has been called a "bubble" primarily for sound bite purposes.

The primary cause of hardship today is not desperation, it's overconsumption. That's not to say desperation isn't there; if you think about it, the lowest known unemployment rates (outside of during a draft-infused war) have been now and during the late 1990s, and in both of those cases roughly one out of every 25 people were out of a job, and were at least theoretically looking for one. If you know 25 average people, you probably know one who is hunting for a new job, and during that time, they're desperate to cover their bills.
But there are more people complaining about their funds, or running into fiscal problems, than one out of 25. That leads to the impression... the wholly inaccurate impression... that the economy is weak.

It isn't. It's absolutely great, hitting on all cylinders without a serious stock market bubble, and with new transparancy rules to minimize any future CEO accountancy games.

The World is Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

I spoke with someone who is relatively bright but not particularly knowledgeable recently. I gave him two periods in the past 40 years, and I asked him to rank the relative strengths of the economy during those two times.

He said that the economy was great at one of those points, and bad at the other point. In reality, the economy was roughly equal during both periods. When I pointed this out to him, and gave him some of the documented numbers, he was surprised.

The reason is simple. During one of those periods, the economy was being covered extensively in the media; during the other period, it wasn't. With a lack of national coverage, he simply gathered facts the way most of us are inclined to do so: we look at the stuff around us and assume it extrapolates to the rest of the country.

This is an obviously faulty way of doing things. If you're in a bad section of an inner city, or a small town dependent on an industry which is in decline, it doesn't matter what the country's general economy is like, it's going to be bad in your area. If you're in a place where economic development in on the increase and businesses are cropping up all over, it doesn't matter if the country is in dire straits, in your area the economy's going to be good.

It's not just the economy that works this way. Attitudes toward just about everything can be different locally compared to the national stage. Views toward abortion aren't going to be the same in Berkely, California as they are in the rest of the country any more than they're going to be the same in a heavily Catholic town than the rest of the United States. Gun ownership, voting patterns... very little, in fact, can be accurately extrapolated from one town or city to the remainder of a state, much less the entire country.

This also holds true in attitudes seen in a particular group of people. Most of us think we're reasonable people, and our friends and coworkers are generally reasonable people, too. And we think the US is full of mostly reasonable people. So we assume that attitudes of our associates are more-or-less reflected by the majority of the educated country. It's flawed reasoning, though.

A great example of this lies in the music industry. Rock artists tend to overwhelmingly tilt liberal in their thinking; Country artists tend to overwhelmingly tilt conservative. To some extent, that seperation extends to their listeners as well. Listeners hear their values and beliefs reflected in many of the songs they hear, and assume that this indicates something about society as a whole.

It doesn't. It only reflects the views of a majority of the artists you listen to.

And that's the important thing to get from all of this: if you're living in a town in Tennessee, the state, the country, the world isn't all like your home town. It seems obvious when it's put like that, but it's easy enough to forget.

Explaining Iraq, pt. 5

Question #5: Can I support the troops but not the mission?

A: Yes.

Oh, I'm sure a lot of people would disagree with me on that one, but let me explain. Hell, I'll even give an example.

Kathy Griffin does not support the war. She has been vocally anti-action over there. This is partially because she tends toward being a pacifist, and partially because she is a strong believer in leftward philosophy.
That said, she has gone on tour with the USO on multiple occasions to support the troops. And, unlike some others who went over their for personal gain, her forays did nothing but interrupt her moneymaking gigs.

She is undoubtedly supporting the troops and not supporting the mission.

HOWEVER, something many fail to realize is that by not supporting the mission, you are undermining the morale of the troops, and also increasing the morale of the enemy. That is not to make a judgmental call on that position; there is honor in defending a position in which you firmly believe. But you should be willing to admit the ramifications of your activity.

If that sounds like I'm saying someone can both be supporting and not supporting the troops at the same time, that's because it's exactly what I'm saying.

If it helps, picture in your mind a kitchen sink. If the water is running from the faucet, and the drain plug is in, then you have water entering the sink. If you then take the drain plug out and turn the faucet off, you have water exiting the sink. If you then turn the faucet on again, you have water entering and exiting the sink at the same time.

Support is like that sink. You can add support, and you can drain away support, and sometimes the same person can do both things simultaneously, like Kathy Griffin. Too many people believe it's purely an either/or proposition, incorrectly.

It's worth noting, however, that the most vocal of the anti-war critics are NOT representative of the majority of the population, no matter how much they, or some of the people featuring or interviewing them, wish to promote that image.
In the latest large rally in Washington, many of the attendees were not Democrats, or Republicans, or even members of the major Independent parties, but rather avowed Communist Party members or Socialist Party members. This is not representative of the average US citizen. The spray-painting of grafitti on the Capitol building's steps was also not something the average American would encourage.
There were also counterprotestors, some of which were former military, or even current military on leave. The police eventually had to cordon them off, because the anti-war critics were running over and spitting on them. Again, this is not typical of the majority of Americans, but according to interviews with some of the counterprotestors, it is typical of the demonstrators.

Calling for the troops to come home because you want them safe, and then spitting on them when you see them, is more than contradictory, it is dishonest. The unavoidable fact is that some of those who say they support the troops, but not the mission, are simply trying to put an amenable face on their dislike or even hatred of the US military. And these seem to be the people who are most incensed, and therefore most likely to attend the rallies.

What the percentages are is undeterminable. Unless you can see people take action to undermine or bolster their credibility, I believe in taking people at their word. Most people who say they support the troops but not the mission, I believe them. But I expect them... especially politicians... to disavow the anti-war protestors if I'm going to believe they intend for an overall positive effect on the troops. And if they don't intend for an overall postive effect, they're being duplicitous in their wording.

Explaining Iraq, Pt. 6

Question #6: What is Congress doing, with these nonbinding resolutions?

A: They're trying to lose the war.

That may seem a little harsh or unfair, but it's true. And the reasoning primarily falls into one of two camps; one camp is politically grandstanding, in reaction to the dropping poll numbers of the war's popularity, and one camp firmly believes that we need to lose this war.

The second camp's motivations can be explained simply by their belief that the war is unjust, and has been unjust from the beginning. They do not agree with Bush's assessment that states which actively sponsor terror groups who have a stated goal of attacking America should be dealt with by any means necessary.
Some of them feel that we should engage the terrorist-sponsoring regimes in a dialogue, and bargain with them to change their positions. They believe that military action should not be an option. That's wonderful idealism, but it supposes that dialogue or payoffs can always work, while in historical practice those two activities generally delay a combat, not avert one; and often the delayed combats are more violent, because the side who isn't trying to honestly deal, or who is getting appeased, spends the time preparing for war.
A smaller group of those claim that military action should be a last resort, and that we still had options in Iraq... but that argument fails beneath the weight of history, between the multiple UN resolutions, the declaration of intent by President Clinton that said that regime change in Iraq was a priority of the US, and the year provided by Bush after his final warning to Saddam, to allow Saddam to come clean. The people who insist that military options were viable as a last resort would not have accepted any last resort situation short of a direct military attack on the US. They're simply couching their comments in a way to seem acceptable to others. If you hear someone actually trying to sell you that line, ask them for their specifics on what would constitute a "last resort". Then go back and look at the history. If you're feeling petty, you can find them later and deride them.

The rest of the people in the second camp simply feel that American action was inherently unjust because we shouldn't confront those who are trying to kill us. These are people who belive that the American system is evil, and that we deserve to be attacked; or that we should simply concentrate purely on a defensive posture, and ignore what happens beyond our borders; or that it is wrong to impose American values upon non-American nations, or a variety of other reasons. The only common thread to all of these arguments is that they're stupid and easily refuted.
As examples: while the US system is certainly not perfect, it remains a beacon to the remainder of the world, as evidenced by the huge number of people who attempt to emigrate here every year as opposed to any other country on Earth. A purely defensive posture is both a recipe for economic disaster as trade plummets and would also require a crackdown on civil liberties which would dwarf FDR's internment camps. The US has happily refrained from imposing its values on other nations, but cannot survive if it allows another culture to violently impose its values upon us.
You'll undoubtedly encounter other variations on the theme. Some try to split hairs, insisting that the current US government (i.e., Bush) is evil while the country itself is good. Okay, fine... then a) provide some proof, and b) explain how you can maintain that stance when the country has twice elected Bush. These people will delve deeply into conspiracy theory just to try to justify a position that they like, and refuse to abandon in light of easily researched facts. Try to get them into a fact-based discussion. If they can work through it without getting furious and having them stalk off, you might reach them.

The first group of Congressmen voting for the resolution are those who are influenced by the polls. Ironically, there is a corresponding relationship here... people hear the bad things about Iraq, then their Congressment hear their complaints, and decide to react.

You want an accurate poll result? Ask the following question: DO YOU WANT THE US TO WIN IN IRAQ?

My money says that much more than 50% of the US says yes. If they say no, then, fine; pull out, and we get what results. But until then, stop pretending that the question of how people feel about the war is the same as whether or not people want to win the war. They are NOT the same question, no matter how much some try to portray them as being equivalent.

We've done fantastically well over there, as previously illustrated in this blog. We may be bogging down, in large part due to Iranian influence. But encouraging our enemies and demoralizing our allies is not a way to continue through to success; it's a way to grab defeat from the jaws of victory.

And that is exactly what almost every Democrat in the US Congress, and a few handfuls of the Republicans, are doing with these resolutions.

Explaining Iraq, pt. 4

Question #4: Isn't there rampant corruption going on?

A. Hell, yes. But before you get too upset, it's time to go through a little fun stuff I call subatomic physics.

No, don't stop reading. This isn't hard, and it makes sense. Just give me a chance. I promise not to use too much science to make my point.

There are these tiny things called atoms; that much you probably remember from your school days, even if you were asleep in your science classes. They are made up of three things: protons, neutrons, and electrons. And there are a bunch of smaller particles you only really care about if you're a physics geek, so we'll leave them be.
Hell, we'll even leave out the protons and the neutrons for a minute. Just the electrons, those tiny little buggers whirling around the nucleus, that's all we care about for this analogy.

We face a problem when studying this stuff. It's so damned small that even the light we might use to see it will zap it full of energy. So, we can either determine the charge of it, or determine where it is. The more we try to see exactly where it is, the less accurately we know how much energy it has. It's a give and take. You get something at one end, you've got to give at the other.

Now that we've got the notion of give and take out of the way, it's time to consider the money in Iraq. Or, if you prefer, the money in Katrina relief, because the two concepts are identical.

The more accountability you have over money, the slower its transfer. Anyone who'se ever applied for a home loan, a car loan, and a credit card will understand this. You can get a credit card approved while you're at the register at some department stores, if your credit rating is high enough. For a car loan, you're probably looking at anywhere from a half hour to four hours as all of the paperwork is processed. For a home loan, you're likely looking at days of processing, even if you're ready ahead of time.

When things are needed immediately, like during post-war reconstruction or when dealing with refugees from a devastating storm, the people with the money have two options: screen for those trying to scam the system, and in so doing risk letting the needy be further injured, perhaps even die, but drastically minimize waste and fraud; or just get the money out immediately, and in so doing recognize that the waste and fraud is going to be rampant, but that the money is going to get to the needy as well.

This is a fundamental truth. It has nothing to do wish someone intervening and skimming off the aid, such as happened with various warlords during Live Aid's attempt to curb African hunger; it's just a choice made at the onset. Everyone sensible recognized that there would be waste and fraud, and they were willing to accept it in order to get aid to the needy. That's true whether you're talking about wads of cash handed out to Iraqi citizens or emergency cash cards handed out to hurricane survivors.

I'm all for fiscal responsibility, but there's also importance in recognizing that when four people are starving and a fifth is just scamming a meal, you feed them all and try to ferret out the conniving bastard afterward.

There's where we have gone wrong in Iraq. The overwhelming amount of government contracts have been profitable for both citizenry and foreign workers, but even with that, some have engaged in fraud. The immediate fingers go toward Halliburton, and they deserve some of the blame: their subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown and Root was involved in a few shady dealings early on, and rather than divest themselves of the company or even change out the leadership, they simply conducted internal sanctions against the subsidiary. This pissed off some Americans, who wondered why fraudsters weren't being prosecuted.

(The answer, for those who got upset but didn't bother to actually investigate, is that KBR is heavily staffed by Kuwaitis, including Kuwaiti nobles, and we really didn't want to alienate a significant political ally in the region. So we basically wrote off the money as aid money, or payoffs. Yes, that is offensive, but it's also done with dozens of other countries in the world, so it's not as unusual as one might like.)

Halliburton's no-bid contracts and ties to Dick Cheney made them an easy target for further attacks; the only problem is that it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Halliburton is earning a smaller profit in Iraq than just about any of the company's other projects, worldwide. It's not a cash cow for the company. Truthfully, we've pretty much forced them to stay there, under penatly of cancelling some of the company's other long-term governmental contracts. And those, many of which have been running for more than twenty years, ARE cash cows for Halliburton.

In a situation truly representative of American politics, they're being slammed for being sleazy in the one area where they're being upstanding, and given a pass for the areas where they're making exceptional profits due to sweetheart deals. The American public isn't dumb, but we are very inattentive.

But it's not just KBR. Other, smaller firms have conducted fraud as well... and been given a pass. The attitude seems to be that because of the danger posed in some of the provinces of Iraq, especially around Baghdad, we're afraid to prosecute examples of fraud for fear it will put off other outside contractors.

This is foolish. Fear of being nailed for fraud will only prevent the fraudulent contractors from working over there... and we don't want them there! They rip us off, and they do substandard work for a people we're trying to convince to give up their aggressions. It's a stupid policy decision, and has aided criticism by providing examples of unlawful behavior which have not been punished.

So, what's the upshot?

There's been a lot of corruption, but we knew there would be, and accepted it because we knew the alternative would be devastating. But when we found evidence of it, we haven't pursued the perps, and that has weakened support among the very people who are providing the money.

Explaining Iraq, pt. 3

Question #3: Are the Iraqis in a civil war? If so, what are we doing in the middle of it?

A: Maybe. More accurately, the answer is both yes and no, but that sounds even more wishy-washy than "Maybe." Which sucks, because it's true.

One of the suggestions as to what to do with Iraq after Saddam's fall has been to parcel it out into three areas: Shia Muslim could have one place, Sunni Muslim another, and Kurdish the third.

That sounds good on its face, but in terms of practicality it's moronic. While most of the Kurdish towns are pretty much exclusively Kurdish, and there are some Sunni-only and Shia-only towns, most of the larger cities have both Sunni and Shia populations and Baghdad has members of all three groups. In order to parcel it off, you would have to figure out where majorities live and forcibly move minority populations from areas where they live.
This sort of thinking has led to interminable demands of the "Right of Return" in Israel; there is absolutely no reason to think the same thing would not happen again.

Moreover, the establishment of a Kurdish state would almost certainly trigger an armed conflict in neighboring Turkey. In fact, fear of exactly that result was cited as the primary reason they refused to allow us to stage out of Turkey for the original invasion.

So, parcelling it off is out. But not doing so results in people living side by side, many of whom harbor grudges akin to those held by the Jews against the Nazis. Saddam's regime killed tens of thousands of citizens per year and tortured even more; there is no reason to expect that the relatives of those killed, in toto, will be happy to let bygones be bygones. Instead, some of them strike back, which causes retaliation from the other side... just like in any mob war, gang war, or even the Hatfields and McCoys.
These strikes were shrinking as the unity government formed, and the Iraqis were getting a sense of value in their government as well as their religion. Then the Golden Mosque, a Shia holy site, was bombed, and it was on again.

In case you're wondering how important the mosque was, imagine someone blowing up the Statue of Liberty, or arguably even the Capitol building.

Since then, the violence has been continual, with occasional upticks and downturns corresponding to tactics and forces deployed. But, really, the violence has been almost completely isolated to four out of the 18 provinces in Iraq, those where Sunni and Shia live close together. In the remainder of the country, things have calmed down dramatically.

So, is there a civil war? Some say no, some say yes. Primarily, those that say yes are those who live in or interact with the four provinces where bombings and attacks are daily events. Those that say no live in one of the many other parts of the country.

What we're trying to do now is put a lot of police on the streets, and gather the heads of the rival gang factions to come together and talk peace again. It isn't made any easier by the fact that both groups are getting outside aid, whether from the Iranians or from the Saudis, and this has become, in effect, a proxy battle. And then, to make matters worse, we have terrorists, who hope to destabilize the country and afterward to use it as a base, playing both sides against each other by facilitating civilian, police, and military deaths for anyone in Iraq.

If this is sounding complex, I'll draw a quick analogy for those of you who have seen a lot of Mafia shows:
Two rival families are duking it out, taking each other down on the streets. Both have money and weapons coming in from their respective areas of Italy. The cops are trying to broker peace, and members of the Russian mob are picking off anyone and everyone, to increase chaos.

Now, most people understand. Almost everyone has seen Mafia shows. And hopefully, this will help give those who haven't been following everything too closely an idea of the broader picture.

Explaining Iraq, pt. 2

The post from yesterday sparked a question I hadn't anticipated answering. And the external questions come first.

QUESTION 2: If we're really losing the propaganda war, what can we do to win it?

A: Not too much, really. We have three huge hurdles to clear in the propaganda war, and I don't think we can deal with any of them.

First and foremost, there's Bush. When his cabinet members and policy advisors go out to talk about war plans, they simply don't receive much media coverage; certainly not enough to sway public opinion. The point man in that operation has to be the President.
In the U.S., the war on terror, and the war in Iraq, are both political battles. There are people who oppose the President's decisions, and have from the beginning; there are others who shift their opinions based upon the current polling numbers of the American people. Any statement by Bush will be picked apart by his opponents, whether they be in his own party, the opposition party, or those members of the press which are antagonistic toward him. He simply lacks the ability to speak convincingly about the situation without making minor errors which would give his opponents more ammunition against him. Rather than risk further undermining the U.S. propaganda effort, he stays silent, and in so doing continues to cede the battlefield to the opposition.
If we had a smooth talker, whether it be Blair or Clinton or Reagan, this would likely not be an issue. We do not, and nothing we can do can change that, prior to the the next election.

Second, there's the international response. Many countries in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa have significant quantities of both Muslims and even some non-Muslims who are more sympathetic toward the terrorists than they are the US. These sympathies arise either because of a shared religious vision or because of perceived injustices of wealth distribution. In any event, the countries which have large quantities of these people are starting off disinclined to aid us in our propaganda effort, preferring instead to stay neutral. Meanwhile, the pro-terrorist populations of those countries are able to exert pressure either by demonstrating or via sympathetic media outlets, resulting in another net loss for us.
Giving aid to these people does not buy friendship; they simply regard it as their due for the perceived injustices, and because there are no actual injustices being addressed, it is impossible to reach a point of equity beyond which our efforts would be seen as largesse. Simply put, we could give everything and they'd still expect more.
When your good works are not recognized as such, and negative responses bring greater negativity, there remains no way to consistently change opinion.

Third, there's our collective conscience.

You want really effective war? We'd have to do things that the majority of us believe are fundamentally wrong. During successful propaganda battles, the most effective tool is the dehumanizing of the enemy. The radical Islamists have managed this perfectly: we are not individuals, we are "The Great Satan". We are irreligious dogs. We reject Sharia law, and therefore the Koran says we must be killed, or converted. This is the dogma taught by the radical Islamists. If they find any Westerner in their controlled areas, those people are put on tape begging for their lives, and their heads are removed. Maybe, if they're lucky, they're simply shot to death or stabbed and left to bleed out. Men, women, children; civilian or military, it doesn't matter.

Meanwhile, in America, we worry about whether calling terrorists "terrorists" will potentially lead to unjustified bias against non-militant followers of Islam. We don't want to tap calls of known terror suspects going out of or into the country, because in doing so we might intercept a call from a regular person who is calling that terror suspect. We go absolutely wild over physical coercion, even if done in a method which will not leave permanent damage and monitored by a health professional. We supply prayer rugs and holy books and prayer time to prisoners who have admitted to ambushing and killing our troops.

We could influence opinion by painting with a broad brush; it's certainly been done before, whether you're talking about "Redcoats" and "Limeys" or "Johnny Reb" or "Jerries", "Nazis", "Japs", "Charlie", or a couple dozen far more derogatory terms. Our civility precludes us from doing that today, and apparently a few thousand dead in a terrorist strike wasn't enough to significantly budge us from our position of general civility.

The absolute best we can do to fight the propaganda war is with truth. Learn the facts, and then be confident enough to share them with others, and knoweldgable enough to win arguments which might arise.

ANOTHER THING:

If you happen to be perusing some Role-playing games in a used bookstore, or the horror section, keep an eye out for anything labelled "Delta Green" and put out by Armitage House. It was a horror RPG, and there were a few fiction books released in the series, afterward. One of the books, Delta Green: The Rules of Engagement is relatively easy to find, but everything else in the series is tough to find, and therefore proportionately expensive.

Explaining Iraq, pt. 1

There are a number of questions about Iraq. I'm going to take a few days and try to cover some of them. If you have a question, please let me know and I'll see about addressing it.

QUESTION 1: Is this a successful war?

A: It depends entirely upon your perspective. It's not inaccurate to describe this as one of the most successful wars in the entire duration of human history, although that's a take which few people hear. It's also an inherent failure, depending on your point of view. I'll explain.

Whenever you have anything as complex as a battle or a war, there are going to be a large number of elements you can compare. Here are some of the terms under which this conflict is successful:

1) Civilian casualties. Historically, most conflicts tend to run into high percentages of the locals being killed and/or displaced. The numbers in Iraq have been extremely small. The greatest damage to the civilians have been in the years since the original phase of the conflict was completed, both due to internal conflicts and terrorist targeting. And, while those numbers are large, they still don't equal the average civilian death toll per year under Saddam, which means that a) civilian casualties as a result of coalition military are minimal and b) civilian casualties as a function of living in Iraq are down. The only figures which have contested this was a poll under which people went door to door and asked how many friends and family had perished recently. All measures of actual bodies show lower figures than under Saddam. Iraq is, in this case, one of the most successful conflicts in history.

2) Speed of objective completion. This was a war to eliminate a sitting government. That task was completed in a time unheard of, historically. Later objectives, whether elections for the creation of a constitution or the creation of a coalition government, have consistently occurred ahead of schedule. That, despite the fact that naysayers continued to assert those goals as being impossible to reach. Think about it: we managed to overthrow an enemy government, clear the ground for free elections, provide protection during two contested elections, and hand over control. All of this was done while allowing the overwhelming population of combat-age males to survive. In places like Germany and Japan, where most of the combat-aged males had been killed in the conflicts, and where there were no bordering nations wishing to perpetuate the domestic violence, the transitions were far easier; even though there were residual attacks, there were few which resulted in fatalities in Germany and none which resulted in fatalities in Japan. But both of them took far longer, even with the comparative peace, to achieve what the US acheived in Iraq in terms of transition. Despite the continued targeting of police forces, training of the Iraqi police and military is running ahead of schedule. In this case as well, Iraq is one of the most successful conflicts in history.

3) Troop casualties. In most significant conflicts in the past, the US has lost in a single week more soldiers than we've lost due to a combination of combat, accident, and natural death over in Iraq since the initiation of hostilities. Barring Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield, this has been the most successful war the US has fought, in terms of damages both fatal and nonfatal to our own troops.

So... Civilian casualties and property damage, objective completion, and troop damage all rate this conflict as being among the most successful wars on the history of the planet. Where are the failures?

1) Monetary cost. This conflict has been incredibly expensive, beyond the ability for most people to comprehend. Not only have we had to support our own troops, as usual, we have also been building up a military which was drastically shrunk during the previous administration. We have been spending more money on both creation and distribution of cutting-edge weaponry and defensive materiel like body armor. On top of all of that, we have been propping up the Iraqi economy by funnelling cash into it, sometimes in disgustingly wasteful ways (more on that in a following post.) This is, quite simply, a war cost which is unheard of in terms of real dollars. As a percentage of the economy, it doesn't approach many conflicts in the past, so an argument can be made that it's not a significant amount of money in that regard. But when you're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars every year, that -is- a lot of money being poured into the conflict.

2) Morality. This is a shaky one, but it is among the most important. There are many people who feel that, because it was a pre-emptive war, it was and is inherently immoral. To those people, the moment we put the first boot on the ground in Iraq we failed. Everything afterward was simply a continued drill bit into their teeth, whether the news was good or bad for the US soldiers. There can be no victory in Iraq, because we lost years ago.


3) Propaganda. If you ask most Americans how the war is faring, they'll tell you it's going poorly. Now, there is solid evidence that progress has stalled, but that's as far as it goes. As an analogy, it would be akin to a marathon runner traversing 23 miles in only a half hour, but then standing there panting and drinking water before they feel comfortable continuing. On the whole, their activity would be nothing short of amazing, but if the only glimpse a person got was of the runner standing and drinking, the viewer would walk away suspecting the worst.
Most people don't pay attention to recent history: they hear the current sound bite, and go off of that. It's also true that bad news tends to lead broadcasts. As a result, people have been hearing bad news over and over, with only occasional spikes of positive news. And, while the levels haven't been proportional, their coverage has been roughly equal: the deaths of three soldiers over a day receives about the same amount of coverage as the Iraqi parliament approving the country's first Constitution. In this regard, this is an even worse failure than Vietnam. In Iraq, the propaganda failure has been nearly as great, but with far greater and more visible evidence of success.