It’s pretty typical for op-eds, editorials, and blog posts to be lackluster during the month of August. People go off on vacation (or haven’t returned to school yet as the case may be) and output and quality drops. Like the economy the quality of opinion writing seems to be going sideways. The typical August doldrums have extended into September.
Partisans of both major parties are convinced that their candidate will win decisively. At least one of those grouips must be wrong, seriously wrong. I think they’re both wrong. Most of what I’m seeing in the blogosphere these days is at the intellectual level of “Oh, yeah?”. My eyes glaze over when I read things that blame all of our problems on Republicans or “the Left”.
Blog posts are inspired by newspaper articles, editorials, op-eds, and other blog posts. With such lousy material to work with it’s hard to get inspired.
Maybe I’m just going through seasonal adjustment.
Lately there are a number of ideas I’ve had for posts I just haven’t been able to get fired up about. For example, I started working on a lengthy historical and policy defense of public education. Regardless of how necessary it may be it’s difficult to get worked up enough to spring to the defense of something that’s so bad.
I also thought about posting on religious tolerance. What it is and what it isn’t. What Richard Dawkins and the guy who produced the movie trailer that’s causing so much furor around the world do may be offensive to adherents but it’s not intolerant. However, religion (like race) is a topic that I find signally unrewarding to write about. There’s just no upside. Whatever you write it won’t result in greater understanding for anybody.
As should be apparent to anybody who hasn’t covered his eyes with a blindfold and plugged his ears with his fingers, singing “La, la, la”, the economy is going sideways. No measure proposed by either President Obama or Gov. Romney is very likely to change that.
The world situation is just awful. Europe is just desperate to maintain the present order of things but it’s the present order that has to go. Blaming the debtors is fashionable but the lenders are at least equally at fault for the present state of affairs and they have benefited mightily by the present arrangement. That’s why they’re so reluctant to see it go. Sideways is now their best case scenario.
The tensions between China and Japan are really worrying and show some signs of spilling over into a a general Boxer-style anti-foreign fervor. The U. S. ambassador was attacked driving into the U. S. embassy. Some of the protesters were chanting “Return the money!” which demonstrates a remarkable lack of understanding of the relationship between China and the U. S. Things are not going sideways in China. They’re deteriorating.
The mutual saber-rattling between Israel and Iran continues unabated. Sideways moves us ever closer to war.
We should have left Afghanistan (at least) two years ago. Our departure now or, heavens forfend, in two years will bring back memories of our departure from Saigon nearly 40 years ago. The Obama Administration does not seem to have recognized yet that the president’s dream of a successful conclusion there through applying more force was an illusion.
There is a large contingent of Korean and Chinese students at my son’s school. We have taken him and some his friends out to dinner a few times. Had a chance to talk with them on visits. They are quite open about their dislike/hatred of Japan. We think of them as an ally. Much of Asia thinks of them as invaders. While these are students, the Chinese and Koreans I work with seem to hold the same feelings. Not much love or trust for Japan.
While I had some idea about the feelings against Japan, I was surprised that all of the students we have talked with were anti-Israeli. From my POV, the Palestinians are at least equally responsible for the discord in the area. My N was small, so I dont know if it is meaningful. On Afghanistan, I find it worrisome that the latest out of the GOP is the group pushing Romney to stay in Afghanistan. Heaven knows, we certainly dont want to appear weak, and what better way to do that than to stay in a country where they dont want us.
Steve
Sure. They buy the colonialism narrative they’ve been taught, which is mostly hooey.
I’ve spent some time in Asia and what I found is that the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese are pretty nationalistic and racist compared to the US. The ill feelings, especially toward the Japanese are real. There is also a strong sense of cultural superiority. When in Korea, it was common for Koreans to point out to me how the US was only a couple of hundred years old, whereas Korea and its culture goes back many centuries. It was a major point of pride for them.
Anyway, that’s one reason why I’ve got mixed feelings about the US “getting out” of Japan and Korea. We end up restraining them through our presence.
The mutual saber-rattling between Israel and Iran continues unabated.
Don’t worry about that, it’s all just noise.
Something else getting worse at the moment is the use of the English language in the USA. I don’t mean because of immigrants, either.
Here’s an example from one of Mitt Romney’s latest ads: “My plan is to help the middle class.” Uh, no. That would be your (stated) goal. It is not a plan. Grrr. More and more I’m thinking everyone ought to be forced to have the same kind of education that US Grant got as a boy.
@Dave Schuler
… I started working on a lengthy historical and policy defense of public education. …
I think this is a discussion that is long overdue in the US. This would help to reorder the priorities if any changes are needed.
The mutual saber-rattling between Israel and Iran continues unabated. Sideways moves us ever closer to war.
Ain’t gonna happen.
Netanyahu is getting Israel mentally prepared to live with a nuclear Iran. His rhetoric is making his threats less and less credible, and his worries are numbing many listeners. The usual Israel support is mostly toned down.
Good Lord, how pessimistic. Hold tight, Dave. Things always change.
I think there are a number of factors behind this. Among these are the decline in memorization of classic poetry, the related insistence on relevance interpreted as contemporary vernacular prose, and, as you mention, the large number of non-native English speakers in the U. S.
Oh, they’re changing all right. The reason that so many things are moving sideways is that the Powers-That-Be are doing everything they can to maintain the unsustainable status quo.
I would add technology which enables individuals and groups to alter language as they see fit. There’s no way to close that box.
Yeah, it is pretty much just noise. The fundamentals with respect to Iran have not changed. Added to the cyclic flow of war rhetoric we have an election this year which brings out the usual ignorati (see what I did there?) and propagandists.
@steve
… Heaven knows, we certainly dont want to appear weak, and what better way to do that than to stay in a country where they dont want us.
Occupation of another country is not usually taken as a sign of weakness. It is usually the result of a stronger country imposing its will on a less strong country.
Half-assed military operations are a sign of an unwillingness to do what is required to win, and this is a sign of weakness. Either all-in or all-out, there is no middle ground.
In Afghanistan, I am not sure what it would take to conduct a proper occupation, but the US could have kept a small force to conduct anti-terrorism missions and monitor the region.
President Bush started this half-assed policy (Iraq & Afghanistan), and President Obama has continued it somewhat. Without President Bush, I think President Obama would have been all-out for any occupations.
@steve, I am not sure how my “anger with Obama” fits here. I always thought I was angry with Bush.
I have found many of the words I use are “archaic”. The spell checker flags them, and when I look them up, it has them under archaic usage.
Afghanistan isn’t really a military problem. The military instrument isn’t suited to achieving our strategic goals (which are also incoherent) and so a discussion of “all in” or “half-assed” military operations is beside the point.
@Andy
The military is being used to facilitate whatever the Afghanistan strategy is. Calling that strategy “incoherent” is being kind. Afghanistan became an abortion shortly after the take down. The half-assed use of the military is what concerns me.
If democracy is the objective, there needs to be a large military force to take and hold ground. Democracy is going to take at least one generation, and it is going to require holding the ground for that time.
Among these are the decline in memorization of classic poetry, the related insistence on relevance interpreted as contemporary vernacular prose, and, as you mention, the large number of non-native English speakers in the U. S.
I don’t see how this explains Romney, though, except maybe the lack of poetry. But Romney went to private schools, BYU (which I don’t believe to be awful) and has a joint JD and MBA from Harvard. Furthermore, as a Big Swinging Dick and God of Private Equity, he should understand and be able to elucidate the difference between goals and plans.
I have found many of the words I use are “archaicâ€.
Keep it up.
@Tasty- I can see being angry with both of them, or just not being pleased with either (I am not into the outrage thing). Neither has had perfect foreign policy, meaning what I think they should do. OTOH, the enemy does have a vote in things. Sometimes it is just not possible or practical to achieve what we want. If we occupied Afghanistan for a hundred years and devoted all of our resources to it, could we make it a functional, pro-Western democracy? Maybe. Not worth finding out.
@Andy- Did you read McMaster’s Dereliction Of Duty? I think some of our flag officers should have told the SecDef and POTUS that the military really cannot achieve what they want done. Goes against the old can do spirit, and could be a career ender (see Shinseki), but they should have done it.
Steve
@steve
If I were to be angry with either, it would be Bush, but the reason is not flattering.
… Sometimes it is just not possible or practical to achieve what we want. …
This is my problem with most of the US foreign policy for the last 10-20 years. If something is worth doing, do it right, and if you cannot do it right, do not do it. When trying to determine how to do it right, use the worst, worst case as the basis.
Democracy in Afghanistan was always going to take a long time, and if the US is not prepared for one generation, it should never have started. I am not in favor of any democracy project, but if it going to be done, do it right.
That’s as good a summary as any for why I opposed the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq. I always thought it was a foregone conclusion that we wouldn’t “do it right”. To “do it right” getting the government to collapse or surrender is not enough. The people must surrender. To accomplish that we would have needed to inflict the sort of damage we did on Germany or Japan, killing a quarter or more of the population. I don’t believe that is politically possible in the U. S.
The implication of that is that we can punish governments but we should never, ever invade countries. We should find other alternatives.
steve,
You won’t see me defending flag officers, but their careerist tendencies don’t exist in a vacuum. In Iraq, for example, the military was told not to plan for an extensive phase IV (occupation) because the State Department was going to handle the transition and rebuilding efforts. We sure can fault flag officers specifically and the Department of Defense generally for not expressing skepticism at that “plan” but what about the State Department, whose failures were even more epic? And then there was the CPA and all the errors it made – if it did not create the insurgency, it certainly worsened it. The military was left holding the hot potato after f-ups across the US government, incoherence at the policy level, and the lack of leadership by President Bush. In short, I’m all for the idea that flag officers should fall on their swords on matters of grave national incompetence, but at the same time I can’t hold them responsible for non-military failures nor can I hold them completely accountable for failures of national strategy and policy.
Similar criticisms could be made with respect to Afghanistan – the military achieved most of the objectives they were given, which was to overthrow the Taliban and destroy AQ in Afghanistan. Post Taliban the military was supposed to provide security until a new government formed, conduct demining, and assist in the demobilizing, disarmament, and reintegration of the remaining militia forces. People forget there was no insurgency for a couple of years after the Taliban were routed, the demining efforts were a great success, and the DDR effort was mostly successful. The problem was that a new government was never ready to take over even basic security like policing, a condition which still exists today. It wasn’t a military failure which resulted in a flawed, over-centralized Afghan government structure that’s proven incapable of governing. Again, the problem here was not about military strategy, but national strategy and policy along with the State Department’s failures.
Given their positions as clearly and Constitutionally subordinate, we cannot expect flag officers to save us from our own national incompetence when all the other senior government officials are busy drinking the koolaid. It’s a nice idea and we should applaud it when it happens, but there should be a lot more than a few flag officers standing between us and policies that will lead to gross strategic blunders.
Just to add, a major problem with our policymaking is that we are ignorant of other cultures and countries and make false assumptions when formulating policy. So in the case of Iraq, there were two factions in the Bush cabinet – those who wanted to simply replace Saddam with a more compliant despot (Chalabi) and those who were true believers that Iraqi’s wanted “freedom” and “democracy.” These two factions both agreed on the need to overthrow the existing regime, and both their assumptions proved horribly wrong when it came to rebuilding Iraq.
Similarly, we’ve promoted the “Arab Spring” believing that the peoples of the MENA value “freedom” and “democracy” like we do. As we are seeing, “freedom” and “democracy” in the MENA will not result in governments that actually embrace the terms as we understand them, nor does it mean that those governments will be friendly to the US or our interests….
Andy brings up a critical point. The reason that I keep harping on the dangers of the Israel-Iran-US situation is the inevitability of miscommunication. Every war game of a conflict between Iran and the U. S. of which I’m aware has seen the situation spiral out of control into serious war because each side misinterprets the intentions and actions of the other. I’m not worried that we’ll deliberately set out to bomb and invade Iran. I’m worried that we’ll “oops” into it.
Additionally, we can’t depend on experts to set us straight. Too many of the experts who understand, say, Iran beautifully don’t understand the U. S. at all. A great example of the shortcomings of experts is Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Dr. Brzezinski was born in Poland and grew up there, in Germany, and in Canada. He came to the U. S. as an adult.
As a Soviet specialist he might be fabulous (I disagree with his hardline anti-Soviet stance but whatever) but his instincts about the U. S. are horrible. Many of the problems we face today are due to the lousy advice he gave to President Carter regarding Afghanistan, Iran, and the Soviet Union. I honestly don’t believe the man has any instincts about U. S. interests.
@Dave Schuler
I still do not see an “oops” starting a war. The US does not want to go to war and will do anything to avoid one. Iran does not want to go to war with the US, but they will do anything they can without getting the US involved.
A mistake will get worked out with some conciliatory statement and money.
Israel wants airstrikes by the US against Iran, and they are trying to do everything to achieve it. Iran does not need to worry about overt military action from Israel. Israel cannot mount a ground campaign against Iran, but Israel is engaged in a clandestine war with Iran.
Iran has Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist groups to conduct a ground war against Israel. If Iran interferes with ship traffic in the Straits of Hormuz, any military action will be local. The US is tired of war and anything warlike.
Mitt Romney says little about military action, and there is a reason. He wants to be elected President.
@Andy- Yes, State was weak. Strategy was poor. Many of the purely “military” operations went well. Still, as McMaster pointed out, senior flag officers have an obligation to their troops to speak truth to their civilian overlords. They took on an ever increasing load of duties that should have been handled by State, or that we should never have attempted. AFAICT, no one was telling the civilians that the military is not designed or trained to do what was wanted. Someone needed to tell them we cant do this, or maybe we can if you give us a couple of generations and learn to act like something other than soldiers.
Nobody was willing to do this during Vietnam. I think military historians will look back and note the same thing about these two wars. Now, if they did indeed tell them this, and they were told they had to do it because they were the only ones who could, then that is a bit different, but that is not coming out in anyone’s version of the two wars.
Steve
@steve
The purpose of the military is to shoot the enemy and blow up things. This allows a unit to take, hold, and defend ground. When the military is in charge of the civilians, martial law is to provide a civilian-like structure, but it is to facilitate holding ground.
Using the military for non-military purposes is what started this mess.
“Civilian overlords” – really.
The military follows orders. The military’s job is not to offer unsolicited advice. An unsolicited offer for advice can be made, but if refused, that is it.
@Tasty-I am not advocating the military tell civilians what to do, I spent enough time in it that I really do understand how this works. What I am suggesting is that when the civilians tell military they want them to do something, they need to have the integrity to tell them that, when appropriate, it is not something the military can or should do. That it will lead to unnecessary military deaths with little or no likelihood of success. (I thought civilian overlords was funny. Guess I need a better writer to help me.)
Steve
I was watching Tony Danza on C-Span last night talking about his recent year of teaching in Philadelphia and he said the line — that the adults can’t want it more than the kids.
Its a sad point; kids often don’t know what they want and their thoughts are easily distracted. And I think kids these days have even less margin for error than I did, and I think the opportunities are fewer. And to the extent educational achievement has zero-sum benefits which advantage some before then enroll in kindergarten, maybe the kids know something that adults find too cruel to admit.
And its probably paternalistic to say, America can’t want something more for other countries, than what other countries’ citizens want. Which is also sad, because I don’t believe people in the Middle East want to be ruled by dictators, and I don’t think they want the chaotic violence that they’ve experienced in Afghanistan and Iraq. In part, its a collective action problem; all it takes are groups of the young with guns to destabilize society; nobody gets to vote for that. But its also a problem that countries exist within the parameters of geographic, economic and cultural limitations, that can be as cruel as genetics and family.
I was watching Tony Danza on C-Span last night ….
!!!!
I would like to re-title my piece as . . . Meditations on Tony Danza.
And end with a poem.
A cut-up and a screw-up;
The money I made would make you throw-up;
Teachings tough;
Writing Tougher;
Alyssa Milano is quite a looker.
LMAO!
For the record, I like Tony Danza – he was great in Taxi!
Hey, it isn’t all sideways. Some of it is just plain down.
@Dave Schuler
I think the oops will happen in the Pacific. In addition to the China and Japan tension, Taiwan and US should be included. The Philippines, North Korea, and South Korea could also be included.