The Turning of Tables

I am curious as to what brought about the turn of perspective.

clipped from www.strategypage.com Saudi Clergy Turn On Al Qaeda December 20, 2007: Three years ago, Saudi cleric Salman al Awdah, and 25 like-minded preachers, issued a religious ruling, that it was justifiable for Iraqis to fight American "invaders." Al Awdah had also been a supporter of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. But now al Awdah has changed his tune, as have many of his supporters, and he has come out against Islamic terrorism. This has ignited a controversy on pro-Islamic terror web sites, because al Awdah has long been seen as a major supporter of bin Laden among the senior Saudi clergy. While the Saudi government has been pressuring senior clerics to at least stop encouraging Saudis to support al Qaeda, the switch to being anti-al Qaeda appears to be a recognition that most Moslems have come to view the slaughter of so many Iraqis by terrorists as beyond the pale. In that respect, al Awdah is simply reflecting what most Moslems believe, and what he can no longer defend.

How Big of a Sci-Fi Geek are You?

I'm a huge Geek...

Your Score : 85 creditsYou're an extreme sci-fi geek! You're probably wearing your very own homemade TRON costume right now!

	I received 85 credits on The Sci Fi Sounds Quiz How much of a Sci-Fi geek are you?
Guess the Sci-Fi Movie Sounds hereCanon powershot

Winning the Oil Endgame

Amory Lovins, while at TED, talks about how to wean the US off of its oil dependency. He makes a very reasonable argument about how to do so while both helping the economy and maintaining national secuirty.

Download the book "Winning the Oil Endgame"

Source: TED

Enjoying the Arts

Found a website called FFFFOUND. Has an assortment of contemporary art and images. A number of pictures that caught my eye:

CIA Agent Talks About Waterboarding

Former CIA Agent John Kiriakou talks about his use of waterboarding:
--------------------
John Kiriakou told US broadcaster ABC that "water-boarding" was used when his CIA team questioned suspected al-Qaeda chief recruiter Abu Zubaydah.

He said it might be torture but that it "broke" the detainee in seconds.

US authorities are investigating the CIA's destruction of tapes of al-Qaeda suspects being interrogated.

Mr Kiriakou told ABC the day after water-boarding was used on Abu Zubaydah, the detainee told his interrogator Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate.

'Principles compromised'

"From that day on, he answered every question," the retired agent said.

"The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks."
But he added:

"Like a lot of Americans, I'm involved in this internal, intellectual battle with myself weighing the idea that water-boarding may be torture versus the quality of information that we often get after using the water-boarding technique. And I struggle with it."

He said he felt water-boarding's use had "compromised [American] principles in the short term" and was unsure the technique would be justified any longer.

"At the time, I felt water-boarding was something we needed to do," he told ABC News.

"And as time has passed, and as September 11th has, you know, has moved farther and farther back into history, I think I've changed my mind."
--------------------

Source: BBC News

Bona Fide

Ibn Khaldun Didn't Predict the Future...Did He?

One of the most brilliant thinkers of the Islamic world, and in all of history for that matter, is Ibn Khaldun. The man was an historian, philosopher, sociologist, and political theorist. One of his most famous works is the Muqaddimah (known as Prolegomenon in Latin). The selection below is one of the more well known pieces and talks about the natural ages of the state. This concept was a precursor to the idea of cyclical nature of history and society.
--------------------
....And the ages of the state, too, may differ according to astronomical conjunctures. Nevertheless, generally speaking, it is rare that the age of the state should exceed three generations, a generation being the average age of an individual, that is forty years or the time necessary for full growth and development....

We said that the age of the state rarely exceeds three generations because the first generation still retains its nomadic roughness and savagery, and such nomadic characteristics as a hard life, courage, predatoriness, and the desire to share glory. All this means that the strength of the solidarity uniting the people is still firm, which makes that people feared and powerful and able to dominate others.

The second generation, however, have already passed from the nomadic to the sedentary way of life, owing to the power they wield and the luxury they enjoy. They have abandoned their rough life for an easy and luxurious one. Instead of all sharing in the power and glory of the state, one wields it alone, the rest being too indolent to claim their part. Instead of aggressiveness and the desire for conquest we see in them contentment with what they have. All this relaxes the ties of solidarity, to a certain extent, and humility and submissiveness begin to appear in them; yet they still retain much of their pristine spirit because of what they have seen and remembered of the previous generation, with its self-confidence, pursuit of glory, and power to defend and protect itself. They cannot entirely give up all these characteristics, even though they have abandoned some of them.

They still hope to regain the conditions prevailing in the previous generation, or even have the illusion that these virtues are still to be found in them.

As for the third generation, they have completely forgotten the nomadic and rough stage, as though it had never existed. They have also lost their love of power and their social solidarity through having been accustomed to being ruled. Luxury corrupts them, because of the pleasant and easy way of living in which they have been brought up. As a result, they become a liability on the state, like women and children who need to be protected. Solidarity is completely relaxed and the arts of defending oneself and of attacking the enemy are forgotten.

They deceive people by their insignia, dress, horse-riding and culture; yet all the while they are more cowardly than women. If then a claimant or aggressor appear, they are incapable of pushing him back. Consequently, the head of the state is compelled to rely on others for defence, making extensive use of clients and mercenaries, who may to some extent replace the original free warriors....
--------------------
I think one can draw an analogy to the 'first generation' being the generation that survived the Great Depression and WWII ("The Greatest Generation"); the 'second generation' being those who grew up in the 60s and 70s ("Baby Boomers"); and finally the 'third generation' being those who grew up in the 80s and late 90s ("Generation x").

Many people have questioned whether today the citizens of the US are becoming too apathetic and allowing for their resolve to expire too easily. The US already relies heavily on private armys, such as Blackwater, to fight in Iraq. This seems as it is going as Ibn Khaldun had predicted. Lets hope he is wrong, for our sake.

Source: http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/Chapter3/Ch_3_12.htm

Muslim Population in Europe

This is a rough draft to a small research paper I did sometime ago on the Muslim population in Europe. Although it is somewhat old, I think it still is very apropos.

Today, there are around 15 million Muslims in the continent of Europe (Douthat 1). The Muslim population is the largest minority group within Western Europe. Immigrating from not only Africa and South West Asia, but also coming from the Balkans and Central Asia. With the rise of bombings and riots in Western Europe recently, the European conscienceness has been focused on this large Muslim minority.

To fully understand the Islamic tensions within Western Europe, one must examine the Muslim groups in its historical and current context. The Muslim population first appeared as a noticeable group in Europe post-World War II. Western Europe, in order to accelerate the rebuilding process, permitted groups of Muslims from around the world to come into the different European states and work. Much of the Muslims hailed from a former or what was a current colony of a European state. In other words, much of Britain’s Muslims came from Pakistan while much of France’s came from North Africa (most notably Morocco and Algeria). To the European countries, this situation was permissible believing the Muslims workforce would only be temporary. But soon the Muslim groups began to settle in. For various reasons, the rich Middle-Eastern states began investing its oil money in the Muslim infrastructure, financing mosques and other Muslim organizations, making the Muslim population more integrated within Western Europe (Grillo 863). This led to the 1980s, where Muslims slowly started to push Islam into the public sphere. The push was, and still is, resisted by the Western Europe, seeing it as an expansion of ‘fundamentalism.’ But mostly, these issues include: the effective integration of Muslims into European society, participation in local and national government, equal representation in education, separate schools and cultural institutions, separate burial sites in cemeteries (Karic 440).

Examining the Muslim group as a whole is very problematic. Islam, like Christianity, is very diverse religion giving way to alternate views. Someone who claims to be ‘Muslim’ might be contested by other Muslims. But even with this problem, there seems to be a ‘Transnational Islam,’ or a larger Muslim community. “Transnationalism refers to social, cultural, economic and political relations which are between, above and beyond the nation-state, interconnecting, transcending, perhaps even superseding, what has been for the past two hundred years their primary locus” (Grillo 864). This concept connects Muslim migrants who live across borders with something higher than a seen government or a society.

There are three different ways which Islam may be defined as transnational. The first is Islam within transnational circuits. Meaning those who are involved are circulatory migrants with families in Asia or somewhere else rather than Europe. These people, mostly all men, live and work temporarily in Europe on a long term basis, eventually returning to their country of origin which they maintain social, economic, and religious ties. The second is Islam within a bi-national/plurinational framework. Meaning those who work “abroad and are bound-legally, economically, politically-by the circumstance of two nation-states: where they reside, and whence they came” (Grillo 865).

The third and most important concept of transnational Islam is the idea of the umma. The umma is “the imagined community of Muslims at large either within one society or across many,” making it “a global socioreligious fraternity without a normative structure” (Grillo, 866; Malik, 2). Even the non-Muslims have inherited the concept of the umma. In the past, Muslims were often identified by their ethnicity, where as now, Muslims are classified as ‘Muslim’ (Malik, 70). The umma is especially important for Muslims in Europe who have little else to relate to. Since the umma is based solely around being ‘Muslim,’ it allows relationships outside ethnicities. In fact, European Muslims rather marry a Muslim not of their ethnicity, than to marry a non-Muslim of their own ethnicity (Malik, 3). Not only is the umma a source of identification for new migrants and old people, but also for second and third generation youths who are trying “to find their place between the culture of their parents and the indifference, rejection and sometimes outright racism of their country of birth” (Statham 3).

Within the umma, many Muslims are slowly moving to uniting Islamic ideals and European values forming what has been called ‘Euro-Islam’ (Karic 437). In Islam, some critics argue, lies the notion of compromise or negotiation called dar-al-sulh. With the dar-al-sulh, Muslims can use ijtihad or “independent judgment,” which involves two conditions: one, he must devote time and energy to study the Quran; and two, he has to be familiar with the customary law of the land and “exigencies of human life” (Malik, 8). But the Islamic fundamentalists believe the Shari’ah, Islamic law, always overrides the concepts of dar-al-sulh and ijtihad. Overall, most European Muslims are “reconciled to the idea of working and operating within the system” (Grillo, 837). In fact, some “Turkish Muslims often report finding it easier to live as a Muslim in Germany […] than in Turkey” (Grillo, 875).

The concepts of ‘Assimilation’ and ‘Integration’ for the Muslim and non-Muslim population raises many issues. Assimilation involves the cultural and structural merger of ethnic or religious categories, while integration involves cultural but not structural blending (Malik, 4). Assimilation into Western European societies has never appealed to Muslims. Most Western societies today do not demand assimilation, while the umma helps resist any pressure that does remain. What is ironic is the fact that most European Muslims resist the idea of assimilation, but have a very faint concept to “many cultural norms and values of the Muslim world” (Malik, 7). With integration, Muslims are allowed to acquire full political rights while retaining some cultural, ethnic, and/or religious identification.

But even today, much of Western Europe is having a difficult time integrating the Muslim population. There having been strives to allow some rights to Muslims, but “the presence of Muslims has often been depicted by politicians and commentators as a challenge to the norms, values, and principles of liberal democracy” (Statham 1). In fact several radical right populist parties, such as the Front National in France, the Lijst Pirn Fortuyn in the Netherlands, the Vlaams Blok in Belgium, and the Det Konservative Folkpartei inn Demark, have made Muslim immigration an electoral issue (Statham 2). Even though European societies see themselves as secular, the Christian religion plays an important institutional social and political role (Statham 3).

Each Western European state has taken a different stance with the issue of the Muslims with in their boundaries. Before 2000, migrants had no political rights in Germany; and Muslims today, have little access in the political process, except for the local foreigners’ councils which is considered powerless. Germany remains relativity against any open to public expressions of Islam.

France on the other hand, is one of the few countries who is trying to have the Muslims assimilate into “Frenchmen.” Muslims must “renounce all particular identities in favor of allegiance to secular values of the French republic” (Statham 4). France values its stance of being aggressively secular, seeing public displays of faith a challenge to French ideology. In fact, President Jacques Chirac passed a bill in 2004, banning Muslim headscarves and other religious symbols from schools (Statham 4).

The British and the Dutch have been relatively opposite from their German neighbors when it comes to Muslim polices. Migrants are allowed to publicly express certain aspects of their identities, and are sponsored to do so by core institutions, including local authorities, schools, the military, and the media (Statham 4). Britain has anti-discrimination laws but they are based on ethnic minorities not religious ones. Lately, Britain has decided to start funding Islamic faith-based schools, which before was only allotted for the Judeo-Christian schools. The Dutch has allowed a great deal of autonomy for their Muslim minorities. For example, the Dutch government has an Islamic broadcasting network, Islamic school board, and Islamic schools.

Cultural isolation experienced by European Muslims is a problem facing every European state. The Muslims, keeping themselves segregated, try to stay away from the decadence of Western society and its temptations (Grillo 870). Seven in ten French people, two in three Germans, and nearly as many of the British and Dutch believe a sense of separation is growing among Muslims in their country (Stokes 2). The Economist reports:

“Muslims tend to come from poor, rural areas; most are ill-educated, many are brown. They often encounter xenophobia and discrimination, sometimes made worse by racist politicians. They speak the language of the wider society either poorly or not at all, so they find it hard to get jobs. Their children struggle at school. They huddle in poor districts, often in state-supplied housing. For all these reasons they tend to withdraw into their own world, which is relatively easy, since their numbers are great enough to enable them to form a fairly self-contained community”

This isolation, especially in the ghettos, leads to a group of angry Muslim youth, who find the country they live in responsible for their problems. The youth see Islamic extremism, nurtured by radical clerics, as the answer to their problems.

According to Walter Laqueur, Western Europe has become the main base of terrorist support groups or “jihadist” (Leiken, 1). The tedious process has been facilitated by growth of tensions within Muslim communities and the relative freedoms with which radicals could organize (55). A “feeling of deep resentment” grew within the second-generation of immigrants because they felt they could not compete with the rest of the country. With these mind-set and feelings of being excluded, the young Muslims began to take out their aggression against the authorities and its supporters, often called inscurit by the French (a code word for the combination of vandalism, delinquency, and hate crimes stemming from Muslim immigrant enclaves) (Leiken 2). This only led the government and non-Muslims to isolate and restrict the Muslims more, adding to the cycle of violence.

The jihadist networks span all across Europe, but mostly in Western Europe where freedom allows for free association and movement. According to Leiken, there are two types of jihadist in Western Europe: “outsiders” and “insiders”. The outsiders are typically asylum seekers or students, among them are radical imams. The insiders are the alienated citizens, and the second generation children of immigrant Muslims. Within these two groups there are two social classes: the educated who are the leaders, and the ghetto dwellers who provide the muscle to the movement (4). These extreme groups are not just limited to traveling freely around Europe, but they also can visa-free travel to the United States.

Examples of large attacks against Western Europe include the July 7 bombings of London, the Madrid bombings, and the assassination of van Gogh. Theo van Gogh, a film-maker, who made an anti-radical Islamic film, was assassinated by a Muslim Dutch extremist. The act was a shock to Europe, especially to the Netherlands, which made them toughen certain social policies related to the Muslim population. The London bombings of July 7 were carried out by four British citizens who were connected to Al Qaeda (Powell 2). After this attack, in a backlash against the Muslim community, support for Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Iraq policy greatly increased (Baker 1). Ironically, much of the Muslim animosity for the West comes from the conflict in Iraq, thus perpetuating the circle of violence. The British government, in reaction to the bombings, enacted legislation that would be able to expel preachers who expel hate speech (Yew 1).

The feeling of outrage by the non-Muslim British community can be seen in this excerpt of the British newspaper, The Weekly Standard:
“By far the biggest challenge the government will now face in this new phase of the war on terror will be to redress the damage done by years of a policy of politically correct multiculturalism that has allowed alternative subcultures to grow like tumors in British society” (Baker 3).

Works Cited
Baker, Gerard. “The London Effect” The Weekly Standard. Jul 25, 2005. Vol 10, Iss 42. pg 9

Douhat, Ross. “A Muslim Europe?” The Atlantic Monthly. Jan/Feb 2005. Vol 295, Iss 1. pg 58

Fetzer, Joel S. Muslims and the State in Britain, France, and Germany. 2005. Cambridge Press: New York

Grillo, Ralph. “Islam and Transnationalism” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. Sept 2004. Vol 30, No 5. pg 861-878

Karic, Enes. “Is ‘Euro-Islam’ a Myth, Challenge or a Real Opportunity for Muslims and Europe?” Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. 2002. Vol 22, No 2. pg 435

Laqueur, Walter. “The Terrorism to Come” Policy Review. Aug/Sept 2004. pg 49-64

Leiken, Robert S. “Europe’s Angry Muslims” Foreign Affairs. Jul/Aug 2005. Vol 84, Iss 4. pg 120

Malik, Mustafa. “Muslims Pluralize the West, Resist Assimilation” Middle East Policy. Spring 2004. Vol 11, Iss 1. pg 70

Pauly, Robert J. Islam in Europe: Integration or Marginalization? 2004. Ashgate: England

Powell, Bill. “Generation Jihad” Time. Oct 3, 2005. Vol 166, Iss 14. pg 56

Statham, Paul. “Resilient Islam” Harvard International Review. Fall 2004. Vol 26, Iss 3. pg 54

Stokes, Bruce. “Easing Muslim Alienation in Europe” National Journal. Jul 16, 2005. Vol 37, Iss 29. pg 2304

The Economist. “Europe: After Ven Gogh; Islamic terrorism in Europe” Nov 13, 2004. Vol 373, Iss 8401. pg 44

The Economist. “Leaders: Europe’s Muslims” Aug 10, 2002. Vol 364, Iss 8285. pg 10Yew, Lee Kuan. “Homegrown Islamic Terrorsists” Forbes. Oct. 17, 2005. Vol. 176, Iss 8. pg 37

Playing Games with Iran

I came across this when doing some research in game theory. Andreas Blume at the University of Pittsburgh gives an example, through game theory, of what courses of action the US could take with respect to Iran.
--------------------
Iran and the West
Iran seeks to go forward with work on uranium enrichment.
The US and Europe are worried that having a uranium enrichment facility will eventually enable Iran to build a nuclear bomb.
A coarse description of their respective strategic options might be as follows:
1. The West can ignore the problem, engage in diplomacy, or act militarily.
2. Iran can give up their nuclear ambition, slowly develop its enrichment capabilities, or opt for rapid development.

Some thoughts about payoffs for the West-Iran Game:

1.We will choose to model the conflict as a zero-sum game. A note of caution: This deliberately ignores that there are numerous dimensions of common interest between Iran and the West.
2. It suffices to keep track of the payoff of only one of players (we’ll choose the West); the other player’s payoffs are the same, except with the opposite sign.
3. If Iran decides to give up its nuclear ambition, then ignoring what they do is a valid option for the West, which will be indicated by a positive payoff, 5, for the West. Recall that Iran’s payoff in this case must be −5.
4. Ignoring Iran’s ambitions is less attractive if Iran chooses slow, indicated by a negative payoff, -2, for the West.
5. The worst outcome for the West is to ignore the problem when Iran proceeds rapidly, indicated by a payoff of -6.
6. The best outcome for the West with diplomacy would be if Iran gave up its ambition. The worst outcome in this case would be if Iran kept slowly developing its enrichment capabilities. In the case that Iran proceeded
rapidly, it would then be possible to convince others, e.g. Russia and China, that diplomacy has been exhausted.
7. Military action, in the game we will set up, is the preferred option only in the event that Iran proceeds rapidly.

Payoff Matrix for West-Iran Game

Iran
Give Up __Slow __Rapid

_____________________________Ignore______ 5__ _-2____-6
__________________West __ Diplomacy _____4 ____-1 ____1
_______________________________Act _____-5 ____-4 ____2

Game III-2

Consider the West’s decision problem first:

Unlike before, assume that the West is afraid that Iran will always discover its strategy choice and that, knowing the West’s strategy, Iran will always try to hold the West’s payoff as low as possible.

One may ask: What is the best strategy against an omniscient opponent who is trying to minimize one’s payoff?

1. Against an omniscient adversary with diametrically opposed interests, the West’s payoff from ignore is -6.
2. Against an omniscient adversary with diametrically opposed interests, the West’s payoff from diplomacy is -1.
3. Against an omniscient adversary with diametrically opposed interests, the West’s payoff from act is -5.

4. In this scenario there is an unambiguously best strategy for the West: Diplomacy.

Observe that the payoff of −1 is the highest payoff that the West can guarantee for itself in this game.

The West secures at least the payoff -1 by adopting the strategy diplomacy.

Assume that Iran is equally afraid that the West will have advance knowledge of Iran’s strategy and will limit Iran’s payoff as much as possible.

We can think of Iran as trying to minimize the West’s payoff. Thus, in our payoff matrix, Iran aims for low values.

One may ask: What is the best strategy for Iran against an omniscient West who is trying to limit Iran’s payoff as much as possible?

In this world, Iran will try to minimize the maximum payoff that the West can achieve against any of Iran’s strategies.

-The West’s highest payoff against Iran’s strategy give up is 5.

-The West’s highest payoff against Iran’s strategy slow is -1.

-The West’s highest payoff against Iran’s strategy rapid is 2.

Recall our assumption that Iran’s goal is to minimize the maximum payoff the West can achieve against Iran’s strategy.

This goal is achieved by adopting the strategy slow.

Iran’s strategy slow guarantees that the West can achieve no higher payoff than -1.

Observe that both the West and Iran can guarantee the payoff -1 in this game.

The West can guarantee that its payoff will be at least -1.

Iran can guarantee that the West’s payoff is no higher than -1.

--------------------
It appears as though Diplomacy is the best course of action.

Source: http://www.pitt.edu/~ablume/Game%20Theory%20Principles/game-slides-3.pdf

Iranian Media

Here is an 9 min compilation of Iranian media clips pulled together by MEMRI.

We Are the Knights Who Say NIE!

Sorry, I couldn't resist. I'd thought some Monty Python would lighten the mood. Speaking of the British, here is some more analysis of the NIE report, this time coming from the BBC:

Indeed, the new US intelligence assessment only lends strength to what many Western diplomats here already believe, and Iran consistently claims. There is no active Iranian military nuclear programme.

If not military, nor entirely peaceful, then why?

As one Iranian analyst once said to me, only half joking, if the Americans were not opposed to it, the Iranians would stop their nuclear programme tomorrow.

In other words, it is a power play.

By defying Washington, the Iranian regime is using the nuclear issue to strengthen its hand, just in the way North Korea did so successfully.

Conversely, there are those in Washington, probably including Vice President Dick Cheney, certainly including former UN ambassador John Bolton, who would like to use the nuclear issue to unseat the Iranian regime.

If that is the case, then whether Iran intends to produce a nuclear weapon is, in a strange sense, almost academic. It is the challenge to US power that is all important.


What does this mean for Israel?

Iran's main aim, according to this interpretation of events, is to secure the regime and strengthen its power in the world.

This is exactly the opposite of Israel's feared scenario, which is that Iran is building itself up for one last suicidal strike at the "Zionist entity".

And now for something completely different....

Source: BBC News

Shuffle the Deck and Pick a Card

Asia Times wrote an article on the recent NIE report and its role in Euro-US-Tehran relations. Here are some of the key parts:

But, too bad for Europe, the net result of the NIE is that, in effect, it makes Europe redundant in the nuclear diplomacy, by depriving it of the stick of US hard power that has constantly lurked in the background every time European officials met with the Iranians and pressed their (unreasonable) nuclear demands. These were that Iran should forever forego its right to peaceful nuclear technology simply because of unfounded allegations and hyped-up fears.

This is, indeed, the nub of the paradox of the new situation as a result of the NIE: it has raised Iran's expectations for a more proactive European role precisely when Europe is now deprived of the necessary muscle to deal with Iran, hitherto provided by the US's credible threat of military action. With the latter jettisoned from the equation for now, Europe's cards for dealing with Iran have diminished considerably. All the attention has been deflected from Vienna and other European capitals to Washington, which until now has "outsourced" its Iran nuclear diplomacy to Europe.

He goes on to write:

Another pertinent question deals with the US's own intentions behind the NIE, which apparently has been in the making more than a year. Is side-stepping Europe and the "embracing the dragon" approach one of the hidden intentions of this report? This would nail the US's hegemonic, leadership role, feebly questioned even by the pro-American Sarkozy, who wants to have his cake and eat it by putting Paris ahead of London as the US's most reliable European ally while, at the same time, charting an independent French Middle East policy.

Now, with the effective Americanization of Iran's nuclear dossier due to the inescapable implications of the NIE report, the US must decide how to shuffle the nuclear negotiation deck so that new trans-Atlantic fissures are not introduced that may threaten the well-spring of the Sarkozy- and Merkel-led pro-American drift of European politics.

Most likely, what will transpire is a European atrophy in which the formal EU role in the Iranian nuclear standoff increasingly becomes a shell of its past, with the US in total command, dictating even the mini-steps. Can it be avoided? Can Iran do anything to avoid it? A provisional answer, based on the trajectory of the present overall circumstances, is no.

Source: Asia Times

Assessing the NIE

George Perkovich at the Carnegie Endownment has released an assesment of the Dec 3 NIE report. Here are some of his findings:

[...]Many apparent ambiguities or contradictions in the NIE will be sorted in coming days and weeks. At this point the implications are more mixed than either disappointed hawks or relieved doves might think.

-This NIE takes the "nuclear weapons program" label off Iranian activities, but uranium enrichment and plutonium production pose potential threats no matter how they are labeled. The NIE does not say that there should be any confidence that Iran's nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes, as required under the NPT. Indeed, it says "Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so." It’s just that the key capabilities—uranium enrichment and plutonium separation—are not properly deemed nuclear weapon threats if they are not accompanied by clear evidence of nuclear weaponization work.

-The NIE exposes that the rules regulating nuclear technology need to be updated, but the NIE will help Iran resist being the first case for new rules to be applied. Under the NPT, countries may produce nuclear fuel and develop other capabilities that could put them within months of manufacturing nuclear weapons. Iran continues to pursue uranium enrichment and a plutonium production capability, even though it does not yet have a single operating nuclear power plant and there are other sources of fuel available. The NIE understandably and properly accepts the distinctions within current nonproliferation rules: something is not a "nuclear weapons program" unless there is proof of work being done on nuclear weapon design and weaponization. The circumstantial case that Iran's enrichment program at least began with the intention of fueling a nuclear weapons option is inadmissible in making a one-sentence judgment about the Iranian nuclear program. The reversal of U.S. intelligence assessments from 2005 and 2007 is so dramatic that Iran will be able to dismiss any effort to impose limits on its nuclear activities that go beyond the narrow interpretation of existing rules.

-The NIE takes U.S. military attacks off the table. The Bush Administration, particularly Secretaries of State and Defense Rice and Gates, and Admirals Mullen and Fallon, had been trying for months to dissuade the world that the U.S. was hell bent to attack Iran, but could never convey the position unequivocally. As long as Russians, Chinese, and perhaps most importantly IAEA Director General ElBaradei believed the Bush Administration planned to attack Iran, they would not follow Washington in escalating pressure on Tehran, for fear that this would lead ultimately to war. Had President Bush negotiated with Moscow, Beijing, and ElBaradei to "trade" a commitment not to attack Iran for greater support for sanctions, chances of obtaining some Iranian constraints on its nuclear activities would have increased. The NIE removes that negotiating option. Critics of the Bush Administration might celebrate, but this would be shortsighted. Leverage is still needed to persuade Iran to take measures necessary to reassure its neighbors and the world that it is not gaming the inadequate nuclear rules in ways that could enable it to change its mind, break the rules, and very quickly build nuclear weapons.

-Unilateral, U.S. congressional sanctions, such as HR1400, that are predicated on Iran having a "nuclear weapons program" become even more problematic. These sanctions tie the hands of the executive branch, alienate allies necessary to isolate Iran, and otherwise weaken U.S. policy. The NIE now renders them absurd: according to the U.S. government, Iran does not have the "nuclear weapons program" that is the predicate for the sanctions, and therefore Iran could not cease the program in order to relieve businesses and others who might be sanctioned. The approach could be pared down to requiring Iran to eliminate or permanently suspend its uranium enrichment program. However, given the NIE it would be extremely difficult for the U.S. to impose economic sanctions and possibly jail terms on European or other business executives dealing with an Iran that refused to shut down enrichment activities that the U.S. intelligence community does not say are weapon-related.

-The U.S. and other members of the UN Security Council will be compelled to revisit the sanctions resolutions they already have adopted against Iran. Technically the case can be made that the sanctions are still valid because they stem from Iran’s inadequate cooperation with the IAEA in resolving the outstanding questions related to its past violations of safeguards requirements. The same can be said for the demand that Iran temporarily suspend its enrichment program. But politically, Russia, China, IAEA Director General ElBaradei and others who never wanted the issue referred to the UN Security Council, will now heed Tehran’s call to shift the Iran case to the IAEA and narrow it.

-The NIE will not lessen Iran’s Arab neighbors’ and Israel’s concerns over Iran’s nuclear capabilities and intentions, but it will make it harder to pressure Iran to change its behavior in ways that reassure the region.

In sum, Iranian leaders appear to have recognized that by staying within the rules they can acquire capabilities sufficient to impress their own people and intimidate their neighbors, without inviting tough international sanctions or military attack. The NIE, in a sense, says that Iran is playing the game so well that stopping it may not be possible within the rules. The question then arises: who can muster the international political will to change the rules?

Source: The Carnegie Endownment

Playing Catch-Up!

Sorry I haven't posted anything in a while. I've been busy battling Rhinoviruses and doing research. I will try to catch up in posting some new material.... (But don't hold me to it). In the mean time, enjoy this video of the Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain playing 'The Good, the Bad, the Ugly'.

Retired Air Force Colonel Says Intel Operations Are Occuring in Iran

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Here is a program about Global Warming and the alarmists that aired, oddly enough, on the BBC. There are 9 parts:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

Former CIA Operative says US poised to strike Iran

Here is an article coming from Australian news services which has Bob Baer, a former CIA operative, stating that things are going to get hairy between the US and Iran.

What Poverty Problem?

The folks over at QandO found an interesting article on poverty. Here are some of the statistics from the article (source is the Census Bureau):

46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player. 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Source: http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=6771

Game Theory and The Iraqi Insurgency

Here is a great article from A Second Hand Conjecture that pulls together game theory and the use of the media in relation to the insurgency and counter-insurgency in Iraq.

Patton Is Not Dead But Pissed Off

Obama's Iraq Logic

All be it I don't agree with Obama on the issues, I do think he is a very articulate, intelligent person. That is why I was somewhat surprised when I read this in AP News:

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence
of ethnic strife — which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea," he said.

What Obama did was commit the Tu Quoque fallacy. When confronted with possibility of genocide in Iraq, Obama turns the focus to the uninhibited ethnic strife in the Congo as if it where justification to the outcome of his plan. Here is the simplified version of the argument that Obama is making to help point out the fallacy:

American: If the US pulls out troops in Iraq then ethnic strife and cleansing will occur.
Obama: Yes, but the status quo allows for genocide in the Congo.

See how the argument does not make sense, it doesn't address the issue. In other words, when people claim "Obama's plan will cause genocide", Obama responds "you already allow for genocide." That's not a suitable answer.

Thomas P.M. Barnett

The following 3 clips (sequential from top to bottom) are of a PowerPoint presentation by Thomas P.M. Barnett (author of The Pentagon's New Map and Blueprint for Action). If one is unfamiliar with him, Thomas Barnett synthesizes Huntington, Fukuyama, Clausewitz, and Friedman into what he sees as the future of international conflict relations. The lecture is 30 min total with a great deal of detail, but it goes by fast.

Trade, Not Aid

Bono, with the support of Hollywood and his 'One' campaign, has always been on the forefront of the African aid issue. There is no need to debate Bono's intentions, he comes across as honestly wanting to help the African peoples (Bono, surprisingly articulate, does makes a very persuasive argument). But there are a number of people out there --such as my self--who say he is not really helping, in fact, he is only harming Africa. These critics claim the West should be focusing on helping the Africans nurture their own wealth instead of giving them hand-outs. In a recent Los Angeles Times article, William Easterly writes:

The real Africa needs increased trade from the West more than it needs more aid handouts. A respected Ugandan journalist, Andrew Mwenda, made this point at a recent African conference despite the fact that the world's most famous celebrity activist — Bono — was attempting to shout him down. Mwenda was suffering from too much reality for Bono's taste: "What man or nation has ever become rich by holding out a begging bowl?" asked Mwenda.

An article written by Jennifer Brea at American.com gives a great analysis on the issue:

For the thousands of foreign-educated lawyers, businessmen, and architects from the Diaspora who are leaving cushy corporate jobs to return home with their skills and their dynamism to open businesses, it's about creating wealth, not reducing poverty. Africa is not a victim in need of saving: it's a land of opportunity.

She goes on to write:

We can continue the endless cycle of need and dependency, or you can create jobs, develop indigenous capacity, and build a sustainable future.

Aid not only crowds out local entrepreneurship, it makes governments lazy and deprives countries of the incentive to build effective institutions. Public revenue derived from taxes makes governments directly responsible to their citizens. Free money builds white elephants and bloated bureaucracies, it being far easier to create new government jobs than implement policies to fight unemployment, especially when someone else is footing the bill.

The overall message:

Aid can alleviate immediate misery and that is why we love it. Charity is a profoundly human response to all those images that pull on our heartstrings. But all evidence points to the maddening conclusion that, in the long run, aid not only has no positive effect on economic growth, it may even undermine it.

Does this mean the West should stop helping Africa? Absolutely not. One of the major problems in Africa, notably in Sudan, are the corrupt governments. Free markets can go only go so far, the political environment must be free also for any true change to occur. Bono's plan to keep aid going only perpetuates the problem of corrupt governments and impoverished Africans. The West has an opportunity to intervene in situations such as the Sudan and break the chains of exploitive, violent governments so the African people can go on to help themselves.

UPDATE: I soon as I was done writing this post, I took a gander at Thomas Barnett's blog and found this interesting post.

A Time Lapsed Vacation

I am always interested in time lapse film, especially of places I hope to someday visit. Here are two clips I've come across that were amazing. The first one is of Tokyo and the second is of Antarctica.

Should We Stay or Should We Go?

Warning: Dramatic Graphic Violence

The clip above is an advertisement that airs on Al-Arabiya TV denouncing Sunni-Shiite Terrorism in Iraq.

There was a New York Times editorial recently, The Road Home, that rattled my sense of logic and common sense. The premise of the article is that it is time for the United States to leave Iraq. This is the some of the usual rhetoric that is heard in most news coverage, but then the article goes into what happens if the US were to leave:

That conversation must be candid and focused. Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.

I agree with the analysis above, no argument there. But then the article goes on to say:

But Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse. The nation needs a serious discussion, now, about how to accomplish a withdrawal and meet some of the big challenges that will arise.

In other words, if the US stays it will get "worse." If the US leaves, Iraq will become a bloodier, more chaotic stronghold of terrorism and genocide which will probably devolve into a regional war. How is staying in Iraq "worse" than latter option? This doesn't make sense, if anything this should be an argument for why we SHOULD stay.

What is most interesting is the fact that people recognize that pulling troops from Iraq can lead to ethnic cleansing or genocide, but believe US should leave anyways. Yet, many of the same people turn around and say the US should intervene and stop the genocide in Darfur (the Democratic Debate anyone?). I agree the US (the help of NATO and the UN would be great too) should intervene in Darfur, but why shouldn't the US also stay and prevent a future Darfur-like situation in Iraq?

GOOD Nuclear Transparency

This excellent clip on nuclear weapons comes from GOOD Magazine. It sums up a great deal information with the use of graphics and vintage news clips. Plus, it uses one of my favorite RATATAT songs, "Gettysburg."

The Global Warming Religion

With the recent Live Earth concert and the continuous trend in "global warming awareness", light has been brought to the radical alarmist position many environmentalists and, now, quickly, the average person is taking on the issue. Many scientists and/or environmentalists have become very dogmatic in their belief that global warming is real and is an effect of human industrialism. I would liken this unquestionable belief in global warming to those who believe in radical Islam. Like the demonizing of non-believers in radical Islam, if one questions the validity of global warming they are called out as 'moron' or 'a corporate shill.' Moreover, the people who publicly question global warming are treated with disdain and are often shunned by the scientific community. For example, notable climatologist Timothy Ball who came out in being skeptical of the degree to which humans were affecting the climate has received numerous death threats.

This narrow-minded type of thinking is described as consensus science. If everyone said that global warming is real and the issue is settled, does that make it necessarily true? No. Science is based on facts... not on what everyone BELIEVES is true. Michael Crichton (yes, the guy who wrote Jurassic Park and directed Westworld) made an excellent speech on the issue of consensus science and global warming (here). The global warming theory is just that, a theory; it does not make it indisputable. The scientific community has an obligation to question its own theory of global warming and not to reproach those who do so.

But more apropos, the recent Live Earth event was organized in order to raise awareness of global warming and did so by playing music. What the hell? I am I supposed to be persuaded purely by admittedly good music (Say what you want about Bono, but The Joshua Tree is up there as one of the best albums ever). If one wants to raise my awareness on an issue, show me logical arguments based on objective data, don't serenade me. But the data for global warming has up to this point been dubious (refer to Crichton speech). Am I saying that global warming does not exist? No, if that was my position I would be as dogmatic as the alarmists. But AIDS, suitable drinking water, literacy, malaria, and malnutrition are issues that are occurring right now that we can do something about. Why not take our limited resources and instead of applying them on something that is so equivocal as global warming and apply them to where the are really needed and pragmatic (Check out an earlier post on the 2004 Copenhagen Consensus and global warming.)

Bikes+Crack=...

Bike Messengers. Although this looks insane, I want to do this. It gets close around 3:37.

4th of July means Fireworks, Parties, and Anti-American Proproganda...wait what?

I guess the 4th of July for some means using their free speech to piss on America. I don't understand this mentality...if you don't like capitalism or if the "US ruined your life," why not leave and live somewhere else? Anyways, the following pictures were taking at a gallery in San Francisco for a special 4th of July viewing. For the rest of the pictures of this leftist art propoganda go this site
Source (same as link above): http://www.zombietime.com/anti-july_4th_sf/

Some Hate Us, Some Love Us

The image above comes from the Pew Research Center's 47-Nation Pew Attitudes Study. One of the surprising turnouts of the study is that 56% of Venezuela has a favorable view of the U.S., even though Chavez seems to have a different opinion.

Source: Pew Global Attidues Project

The Iranian View on Star Wars

Iran likes Star Wars! No, I'm not talking about the missile defense system, but the film with Anakin and Padme (....and Jar Jar Binks?). After the release of Star Wars Episode III, many Americans found the story line to be analogous to the current Bush administration. This discourse in itself is nothing short of old. Surprisingly, though, is this line of thought hasn't solely been in the realm of American rhetoric but also in the Iranian media -- Ok, it's not that surprising. This translated video is an Iranian commentary on Lucas' latest space opera.

Source: MEMRI

US States Renamed For Countries With Similar GDPs

click image for larger view

The map above breaks down the U.S. GDP into individual state GDPs, and then compares those with countries around the world. One must point out the population of each state is not taken into account with this map. For example, just because Oregon has a GDP comparable to Turkey, the people of Oregon have a higher quality of living because the overall population is less. In other words, it is the same amount of money but just spread around to a smaller population.

Source: StrangeMaps

Global Warming should not be a Top Priority

If you took the top economists around the world, sat them down in a room, and had them list the world's problems by order of priority....what would you get? Well a list with Global warming at the bottom, apparently. Economist Bjorn Lomborg explains the findings of the 2004 Copenhagen Consensus and reveals that our priorities might not be the most pragmatic. (On a side note, BMW is paying for this lecture; although his premises may be valid, one might question whether he is a purely disinterested party)

Cheers!

While reading through the different posts, one might be confused as to the common link between them, as you should be. There isn't any real purposeful link between some of the these posts other than it is what I found interesting at that time.

But with that said, many of these posts will have the subject of global politics, society, and culture as a common theme because, for a large part, that is the area that interests me.

Welcome and please don't hesitate to comment on any of my posts or email me. Cheers!