Thursday, June 26, 2003
Pipelines and Profits--the Impact on Bush's Overall Success
So I'm wondering how the seemingly-organized sabotage of Iraqi oil pipelines affects the grand scheme of things. Presumably, the saboteurs are Ba'athist loyalists, Al Quaeda-connected operatives, or some such other power organized against the administration. This is not to say that all of the violence recently has been propagated by such organizations--I think much of it can be traced to opposition on the part of Shi'ite fundamentalists, Shi'ites in general, or just people who had family killed by stray bombs and DU and now have had it with the lack of electricity and running water--all of these people would have good reason to oppose American occupation.
Anyway, assume the saboteurs are organized by someone who is fighting a longer, guerilla war against American hegemony. Obviously, the attacks will 1) make it harder for the US to claim victory and ensure security in the country and 2) postpone the time when the US can expect to get reimbursed for its "salvation" of Iraq. You could even argue that, from a long term perspective, forcing the US to fund its Iraqi occupation will create widespread opposition to said occupation within the US and Britain.
So this strategy assumes that you are going to win your guerilla war by forcing the US to pull out of Iraq, thereby preventing it from pulling off its hegemony-grabbing moves in the Middle East and Central Asia, which will not only achieve your short term goals of freeing the hold Saudi cities from US influence, but will leave the US weaker than before it started. Without said hegemony in the Middle East and Central Asia, the US will not be able to forestall moves against it on the part of oil-producing states, will therefore not be able to control petroleum costs long terms, and will therefore not be able to sustain its consumer way of life. Knock the consumer way of life out from underneath the Republican and Democratic parties, and you've got an entirely different ball of wax on your hands in the US. So, by turning the cakewalk of Iraq into the predicted quagmire, you score a strike against the US.
But that ignores the role of private corporations in the equation--it assumes Bush's power comes from the electorate, not from a selection of campaign donors who largely determine elections through virtue of their generous donations.
I'll explore this notion later--the replacement of sovereignty with corporate control of elections, later. But if you assume that Bush derives his power from corporations, than doesn't the quagmire theory result in a different outcome? Halliburton, after all, will get rich rich rich if the pipelines need continual rebuilding. The contract that was originally 7 million, then got smaller after no oil fields blew up, then got bigger for god knows why, will get bigger bigger bigger. Pipeline fix of the week, you know. And this will result in even more money in Bush's pocket/power base. It will certainly help Bush get through the election (after which it may not matter as much).
So you could argue that the sabotage strategy will hurt the anti-US cause in the long run.
And if my guess is correct, it may also hurt the cause of those--like me--who hope that, whatever other outcomes it has, Bush's Iraq adventure will result in a little more humility on the part of the US. It's a tough gamble, one that Rove is probably calculating as we speak. Setbacks in Iraq could result in an electoral setback, or it could simply empower Bush's real base (crony corporations) more.
Anyway, assume the saboteurs are organized by someone who is fighting a longer, guerilla war against American hegemony. Obviously, the attacks will 1) make it harder for the US to claim victory and ensure security in the country and 2) postpone the time when the US can expect to get reimbursed for its "salvation" of Iraq. You could even argue that, from a long term perspective, forcing the US to fund its Iraqi occupation will create widespread opposition to said occupation within the US and Britain.
So this strategy assumes that you are going to win your guerilla war by forcing the US to pull out of Iraq, thereby preventing it from pulling off its hegemony-grabbing moves in the Middle East and Central Asia, which will not only achieve your short term goals of freeing the hold Saudi cities from US influence, but will leave the US weaker than before it started. Without said hegemony in the Middle East and Central Asia, the US will not be able to forestall moves against it on the part of oil-producing states, will therefore not be able to control petroleum costs long terms, and will therefore not be able to sustain its consumer way of life. Knock the consumer way of life out from underneath the Republican and Democratic parties, and you've got an entirely different ball of wax on your hands in the US. So, by turning the cakewalk of Iraq into the predicted quagmire, you score a strike against the US.
But that ignores the role of private corporations in the equation--it assumes Bush's power comes from the electorate, not from a selection of campaign donors who largely determine elections through virtue of their generous donations.
I'll explore this notion later--the replacement of sovereignty with corporate control of elections, later. But if you assume that Bush derives his power from corporations, than doesn't the quagmire theory result in a different outcome? Halliburton, after all, will get rich rich rich if the pipelines need continual rebuilding. The contract that was originally 7 million, then got smaller after no oil fields blew up, then got bigger for god knows why, will get bigger bigger bigger. Pipeline fix of the week, you know. And this will result in even more money in Bush's pocket/power base. It will certainly help Bush get through the election (after which it may not matter as much).
So you could argue that the sabotage strategy will hurt the anti-US cause in the long run.
And if my guess is correct, it may also hurt the cause of those--like me--who hope that, whatever other outcomes it has, Bush's Iraq adventure will result in a little more humility on the part of the US. It's a tough gamble, one that Rove is probably calculating as we speak. Setbacks in Iraq could result in an electoral setback, or it could simply empower Bush's real base (crony corporations) more.
No Polling Data
The MoveOn.org "online primary" has generated a lot of justifiable attention. I think it might serve as a model for nodal voting in the future: that is, a series of organizations who run similar "primaries" as a way to identify and form viable--but fluid--alliances between interest groups. Perhaps more on that later.
But what amazes me immediately, at least so far, is the silence. The voting has been closed for 7 hours already. Presumably, MoveOn has an unverified poll count, subject to verification by their third party certification.
Yet not a peep about who has won.
I think this reflects:
1) how small an organization MoveOn is
2) the integrity of the organization
3) an amazing management coup
But I do think it refreshing that results from Monday weren't announced before, say, all of West Florida or the state of California had voted.
But what amazes me immediately, at least so far, is the silence. The voting has been closed for 7 hours already. Presumably, MoveOn has an unverified poll count, subject to verification by their third party certification.
Yet not a peep about who has won.
I think this reflects:
1) how small an organization MoveOn is
2) the integrity of the organization
3) an amazing management coup
But I do think it refreshing that results from Monday weren't announced before, say, all of West Florida or the state of California had voted.
Tuesday, June 24, 2003
New Polarization
And they're off.
Now that the US has clearly announced to the world that it intends to act as if it exists in a unipolar world, the rest of the world is beginning to form another one, or ones. Most interestingly, the high profile meeting between China and India. Imagine, 2+billion people, including some of the best technical minds of this and the next generation, lining up against the United States. And China with its announced intention to send a man to the moon.
As Derek pointed out today, is it any wonder that Pakistan's President stopped by today to pick up an aid check for $3billion?
Now that the US has clearly announced to the world that it intends to act as if it exists in a unipolar world, the rest of the world is beginning to form another one, or ones. Most interestingly, the high profile meeting between China and India. Imagine, 2+billion people, including some of the best technical minds of this and the next generation, lining up against the United States. And China with its announced intention to send a man to the moon.
As Derek pointed out today, is it any wonder that Pakistan's President stopped by today to pick up an aid check for $3billion?
Falling Academics
Several years ago, scientists and literary critics got into a nasty fight about postmodernism. The (postmodern) literary critics claimed that the arbitrary nature of language prevents us from describing reality (and therefore, from claiming to speak the truth). Scientists mocked this view, arguing that the scientific method allowed them to develop testable, repeatable descriptions of reality. As they liked to point out, we need no more proof that gravity is "real" than inviting a postmodern literary critic to step out of a very very tall building.
Gravity or not, the debate was a canard. And one that distracted a lot of postmodern literary critics while some of their opponents--people associated with Lynne Cheney, if you can believe it--demonstrated the postmodern argument to be just as valid and ripe with consequence as gravity.
I'm not sure whether we have access to the Big T Truth. But I do know that what counts as the truth in public debate (and therefore what has results that are just as striking as gravity ) consists of competing narratives. The people who are best able to manage "what counts as truth in public debate" are those that understand that there is nothing but a soup of competing narratives out there. They understand that, and make sure their narrative wins the competition.
The recent ">Draft Report on the Environment is a perfect case in point. The Bush Administration issued the report as Christine Todd Whitman's last hurrah before leaving the EPA. It was supposed to summarize the state of the environment and identify the areas where we need to improve.
Problem is, the report scotched all mention of climate change and global warming.
It did so because folks inside the EPA could reach no consensus on how to describe the relation between human activity and global warming.
Mind you, even George Bush, after a long period of attempting to ignore all of the scientific evidence, has admitted publicly that human activity affects global warming. In spite of that (and the fact that all respectable scientists think the clarity of the relationship between human activity and global warming is beginning to rival that between gravity and falling academics), the Bush administration would not admit that in writing, in such a high-profile report. So rather than (1) admit the connection between global warming and human activity, or (2) try to present a counterargument to the human activity argument, using such tools as the American Enterprise Institute study that the administration solicited, the administration simply redefined the terms of the debate. No mention of climate change in such a report, no need to consider cutting back on some human activities (like oil drilling, selling, and consuming) to prevent it.
Now, an academic will point out--rightly--that my own argument disproves the postmodern claim. By simply accepting the results recognized by "all respectable scientists," I acknowledge that I, too, believe that language can sometimes be used to describe somethign that correlates with repeatable results in the "real" world. Fine, you win.
But I also recognize that precisely all this academic bickering has prevented people who care about such things (and I suspect that many of the scientists and postmodern literary critics could agree on this) from realizing that the quality of the science does not matter if they do not actively maneuver to make sure "respectable science" is a dominant narrative. Preferably the dominant one, if we are talking about global warming.
Several years ago, scientists and literary critics got into a nasty fight about postmodernism. The (postmodern) literary critics claimed that the arbitrary nature of language prevents us from describing reality (and therefore, from claiming to speak the truth). Scientists mocked this view, arguing that the scientific method allowed them to develop testable, repeatable descriptions of reality. As they liked to point out, we need no more proof that gravity is "real" than inviting a postmodern literary critic to step out of a very very tall building.
Gravity or not, the debate was a canard. And one that distracted a lot of postmodern literary critics while some of their opponents--people associated with Lynne Cheney, if you can believe it--demonstrated the postmodern argument to be just as valid and ripe with consequence as gravity.
I'm not sure whether we have access to the Big T Truth. But I do know that what counts as the truth in public debate (and therefore what has results that are just as striking as gravity ) consists of competing narratives. The people who are best able to manage "what counts as truth in public debate" are those that understand that there is nothing but a soup of competing narratives out there. They understand that, and make sure their narrative wins the competition.
The recent ">Draft Report on the Environment is a perfect case in point. The Bush Administration issued the report as Christine Todd Whitman's last hurrah before leaving the EPA. It was supposed to summarize the state of the environment and identify the areas where we need to improve.
Problem is, the report scotched all mention of climate change and global warming.
It did so because folks inside the EPA could reach no consensus on how to describe the relation between human activity and global warming.
Mind you, even George Bush, after a long period of attempting to ignore all of the scientific evidence, has admitted publicly that human activity affects global warming. In spite of that (and the fact that all respectable scientists think the clarity of the relationship between human activity and global warming is beginning to rival that between gravity and falling academics), the Bush administration would not admit that in writing, in such a high-profile report. So rather than (1) admit the connection between global warming and human activity, or (2) try to present a counterargument to the human activity argument, using such tools as the American Enterprise Institute study that the administration solicited, the administration simply redefined the terms of the debate. No mention of climate change in such a report, no need to consider cutting back on some human activities (like oil drilling, selling, and consuming) to prevent it.
Now, an academic will point out--rightly--that my own argument disproves the postmodern claim. By simply accepting the results recognized by "all respectable scientists," I acknowledge that I, too, believe that language can sometimes be used to describe somethign that correlates with repeatable results in the "real" world. Fine, you win.
But I also recognize that precisely all this academic bickering has prevented people who care about such things (and I suspect that many of the scientists and postmodern literary critics could agree on this) from realizing that the quality of the science does not matter if they do not actively maneuver to make sure "respectable science" is a dominant narrative. Preferably the dominant one, if we are talking about global warming.
