The reformers behind the rebels in Libya
"Assessing Egypt's First Ballot Box"
Syria has greater strategic importance than Libya
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Where is the Line in Libya?
Rebels in Libya are back on the offensive after an extensive air campaign led by the United States. Last night President Obama outlined the American role in Libya. The noise pollution coming from the 24 hour news channels & the Republicans distracts from the serious issues we should be discussing about the U.S.'s role in Libya. The U.S. has taken sides with the rebels and unless Muammar Gaddafi is removed from power, he may lash out at American citizens in the same manner as the Lockerbie Bombing.
The President said that the intervention by the coalition does not entail regime change, citing Iraq as an example of regime change leading to a power vacuum that will lead to more bloodshed. The president also indicated he is hoping that the Libyan military will turn against Gaddafi. This is the best case scenario considering the operational constraints imposed by American interests and the rebels' limited capabilities to wage war. Starting with the most important in descending order: loss of American lives, the American reputation abroad, costs, and American ideals. The first and third are relatively obvious, I'll explore the second and fourth more.
I consider the American reputation second most important because the reputation of the U.S. is irreversibly stained in many countries that are key to national interests. Whether it be deposing Mosadegh in Iran in the 1950's, replacing drug crops with cows in Lebanon, or the Iraq WMD debacle, many residents of countries that undergo American intervention suspect that the U.S. has something up its sleeve and it will only be a matter of time before naked self interest becomes apparent. In the world of psychology, the phenomenon is called confirmation bias. Let's say a person has an inkling that people with red hair are bad drivers. If they get cut off and see the driver has red hair, the person will take it as further reinforcement of their belief and add up anecdotes to prove their theory. When a person with dark hair cuts them off or a redhead avoids such vehicular transgressions, the biased person is also unlikely to fairly adjust their previous belief to match reality. In the modern world, the U.S. military no longer faces a uniformed enemy with the accompanying tanks and fighter jets but now engages enemies without uniforms who use asymetrical tactics (IED, ambushes, suicide bombers, etc), nestled amongst the civilian population. These groups also elicit civilian support, and the line between soldier and citizen is deeply blurred. In this new setting, winning hearts and minds is the keystone to our success. This matters in Libya, particularly, because loss of innocent civilian life in an oil rich, muslim country does much to fuel the belief that American self-interest trumps all other values, and undermines alliances with countries that want to avoid appearing similarly uncompassionate.
The fourth constraint is a wild swing from the pragmatic to idealistic. Gaddafi's penchant for bizarre clothing, lady-ninja bodyguards, and marathon rants have shifted focus on his persona as a merciless tyrant to that of international laughing stock. Military intervention is likely to have saved thousands, if not tens of thousands, from certain doom. Our American sense of justice and perhaps the responsibility inherent in power make intervention to prevent a massacre very appealing to many Americans. But history has taught us that seemingly simple interventions can turn out to be very expensive endeavors. There is no single rule that can be universally applied to every country. Instead, decisions are made based on a cold calculation contrasting beneficial outcome with American casualties.
The most important question not being discussed concerns the extent of our involvement. What outcomes would be acceptable for a U.S. withdrawal? What if Gaddafi were to agree to a ceasefire and then waited for international attention to wane before quietly beginning to cull dissidents from Eastern Libya? Is there a situation that the U.S. and the allied forces would be compelled to restart air strikes? Gaddafi is the living embodiment of a pariah, he is reviled across the Arab world as well as the West. Even his title as the, "King of Kings of Africa," gets little traction with African rulers who do not need his handouts. Left to his own devices, Gaddafi will most likely return to business as usual, abusing his citizens, making Western countries bend over backwards for access to Libyan oil, crazy speeches, and crazier outfits. But if he remains in power, he will have an ax to grind will the coalition countries.
The President said that the intervention by the coalition does not entail regime change, citing Iraq as an example of regime change leading to a power vacuum that will lead to more bloodshed. The president also indicated he is hoping that the Libyan military will turn against Gaddafi. This is the best case scenario considering the operational constraints imposed by American interests and the rebels' limited capabilities to wage war. Starting with the most important in descending order: loss of American lives, the American reputation abroad, costs, and American ideals. The first and third are relatively obvious, I'll explore the second and fourth more.
I consider the American reputation second most important because the reputation of the U.S. is irreversibly stained in many countries that are key to national interests. Whether it be deposing Mosadegh in Iran in the 1950's, replacing drug crops with cows in Lebanon, or the Iraq WMD debacle, many residents of countries that undergo American intervention suspect that the U.S. has something up its sleeve and it will only be a matter of time before naked self interest becomes apparent. In the world of psychology, the phenomenon is called confirmation bias. Let's say a person has an inkling that people with red hair are bad drivers. If they get cut off and see the driver has red hair, the person will take it as further reinforcement of their belief and add up anecdotes to prove their theory. When a person with dark hair cuts them off or a redhead avoids such vehicular transgressions, the biased person is also unlikely to fairly adjust their previous belief to match reality. In the modern world, the U.S. military no longer faces a uniformed enemy with the accompanying tanks and fighter jets but now engages enemies without uniforms who use asymetrical tactics (IED, ambushes, suicide bombers, etc), nestled amongst the civilian population. These groups also elicit civilian support, and the line between soldier and citizen is deeply blurred. In this new setting, winning hearts and minds is the keystone to our success. This matters in Libya, particularly, because loss of innocent civilian life in an oil rich, muslim country does much to fuel the belief that American self-interest trumps all other values, and undermines alliances with countries that want to avoid appearing similarly uncompassionate.
The fourth constraint is a wild swing from the pragmatic to idealistic. Gaddafi's penchant for bizarre clothing, lady-ninja bodyguards, and marathon rants have shifted focus on his persona as a merciless tyrant to that of international laughing stock. Military intervention is likely to have saved thousands, if not tens of thousands, from certain doom. Our American sense of justice and perhaps the responsibility inherent in power make intervention to prevent a massacre very appealing to many Americans. But history has taught us that seemingly simple interventions can turn out to be very expensive endeavors. There is no single rule that can be universally applied to every country. Instead, decisions are made based on a cold calculation contrasting beneficial outcome with American casualties.
The most important question not being discussed concerns the extent of our involvement. What outcomes would be acceptable for a U.S. withdrawal? What if Gaddafi were to agree to a ceasefire and then waited for international attention to wane before quietly beginning to cull dissidents from Eastern Libya? Is there a situation that the U.S. and the allied forces would be compelled to restart air strikes? Gaddafi is the living embodiment of a pariah, he is reviled across the Arab world as well as the West. Even his title as the, "King of Kings of Africa," gets little traction with African rulers who do not need his handouts. Left to his own devices, Gaddafi will most likely return to business as usual, abusing his citizens, making Western countries bend over backwards for access to Libyan oil, crazy speeches, and crazier outfits. But if he remains in power, he will have an ax to grind will the coalition countries.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Egyptian and Tunisian Revolutions in Carl Sagan's "Earth the Pale Blue Dot"
This is incredible, and very touching.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Coverage of Japan
24 hour news channels are a funny thing. It is not unreasonable to expect that there will be some basic level of journalistic standards, and having different opinions and perspectives from a range of staff is to be expected. With the proliferation of news sources comes an incentive to be first to break a story with little regard to reporting events accurately. With the 24 hour news channel, there is rarely enough news to fill the cycle. What is both a disservice to the viewers and simply disgusting behavior is the sensational manner in which CNN and Fox have been covering the tragedy in Japan. With over 10,000 dead, thousands more injured, homes destroyed, livelihoods lost, not to mention the radiation issue and the psychological trauma suffered, there is no shortage of topics worth discussing. Japan is also the world's third largest economy in addition to hosting over 26,000 American military personnel on the island of Okinawa alone.
The over the top graphics and ominous music belong in trailers for Michael Bay movies, not reports of a disaster that is going to have generational consequences. It seems that stations that try to add drama and tension to what are already highly dramatic situations are more concerned with keeping viewers on the hook with mini cliff hangers and fear mongering. I also find it unbelievable that every disaster necessitates that Anderson Cooper report on site in his smedium, black t-shirt and present himself as the locus of the suffering of millions of people. I fail to understand what it adds to news reporting to have a famous talking head on site instead of a field reporter.
What's sad that all the concerned facial expressions and reverent tones will be gone as soon as people's lives are out of immediate danger. The cameras will not be there to cover the rebuilding process or the individuals piecing their lives back together. Just in the same way that they ignore the construction of democratic governments in Tunisia and Egypt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)