Obsidian Wings

Türkmenbashi Saves The Planet!

by hilzoy

Everyone's favorite appalling megalomaniacal dictator, Saparmurat Niyazov (aka Türkmenbashi), is back in the news. A few days ago he banned lip-synching:

"Unfortunately, one can see on television old voiceless singers lip-synching their old songs," Niyazov told a Cabinet meeting in comments broadcast on state TV on Tuesday. "Don't kill talents by using lip synching… Create our new culture."

(I guess Milli Vanilli won't be stopping in Ashgabat on their next world tour. Türkmens everywhere must be crushed.)

Today comes word of an even greater service to humanity:

"Turkmenistan's idiosyncratic President, Saparmurat Niyazov, has found an unusual way to spread his message - by sending his writings into space. Part One of the Ruhnama was blasted off on a Russian Dnepr booster rocket from Kazakhstan's Baykonur launch site on Wednesday, local media said. (...)

"The book that conquered the hearts of millions on Earth is now conquering space," said an article in the official Neitralny Turkmenistan newspaper."

You might be inclined to think of this as just another one of Türkmenbashi's pointless grandiose gestures. But I think it's actually the beginning of a new and extremely significant move towards protecting the planet from alien invasions. -- I have a friend (who sometimes reads this blog -- hi, Steve!) who once had a jacket of a peculiar purply color, which he claimed was bulletproof: according to him, any bullets in his vicinity would take one look at the color of his jacket, start to giggle uncontrollably, and fall harmlessly to the ground. Obviously, bullets can't either see or giggle. But space aliens can! If they intercept the Kazakh rocket and start leafing through Part One of the Ruhnama, they'll find passages like this:

"In "Ruhnama" the Türkmen people's historical consciousness, matured over thousands of years, and their moral power and strength are drawn together.

"Ruhnama" is a ship. This ship is chartered to bear the news of the past to the future over the vast sea of Türkmen history.

Ruhnama is a courier. This courier transmits the past's secret and necessary news to the future.

Therefore, I say: If the spirit of Türkmen is the universe then "Ruhnama" cannot replace or fully represent it. At least this is impossible in terms of its breadth.

Nevertheless, "Ruhnama" must be the centre of this universe. In this universe, all the current and the future cosmic matters should go on spinning, in Ruhnama's attraction, centripetal force and orbits."

They'll look at each other and say: No kidding, a book cannot "replace or fully represent" the universe "in terms of its breadth". That would have to be one really broad book! They'll start to giggle: But hey: at least everything else in the universe can be explained in terms of "Ruhnama's attraction, centripetal force and orbits." Maybe one of them will try running round and round the Ruhnama, trying to see whether he can feel its attraction, and another will say: Silly alien, you're obviously not spinning fast enough! And eventually, they'll be laughing so hard that their spaceships will careen out of control and smash into the asteroid belt, and humanity will be saved!

And all thanks to the magnanimous heart and gracious spirit of Türkmenbashi! (Don't laugh: it's a lot more plausible than SDI.)

Now Is The Time For Your Tears

by hilzoy (h/t Body and Soul)

"The wrongdoers will be brought to justice"
-- George W. Bush

"Mr. Chairman, I know you join me today in saying to the world, judge us by our actions, watch how Americans, watch how a democracy deals with the wrongdoing and with scandal and the pain of acknowledging and correcting our own mistakes and our own weaknesses. And then, after they have seen America in action, then ask those who teach resentment and hatred of America if our behavior doesn't give a lie to the falsehood and the slander they speak about our people and about our way of life."
-- Donald Rumsfeld

"Watch America. Watch how we deal with this. Watch how America will do the right thing."
-- Colin Powell

"The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days.

Mr. Dilawar asked for a drink of water, and one of the two interrogators, Specialist Joshua R. Claus, 21, picked up a large plastic bottle. But first he punched a hole in the bottom, the interpreter said, so as the prisoner fumbled weakly with the cap, the water poured out over his orange prison scrubs. The soldier then grabbed the bottle back and began squirting the water forcefully into Mr. Dilawar's face.

"Come on, drink!" the interpreter said Specialist Claus had shouted, as the prisoner gagged on the spray. "Drink!"

At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.

"Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying.

Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time."
-- NYTimes

Sentences in the death of Dilawar:
"Before a military judge in Fort Bliss, Tex., the soldier, Sgt. Selena M. Salcedo, 24, pleaded guilty to dereliction of duty and assault, admitting that while at an American military detention center in Bagram in 2002 she kicked the prisoner -- a 22-year-old taxi driver -- grabbed his head and forced him against a wall several times after he avoided her questions. Military prosecutors agreed to drop two related charges. She was reduced in rank to corporal or specialist, given a letter of reprimand and docked $250 a month in pay for four months." (NYT)

"The most serious charges in the case were levied against Pfc. Willie V. Brand, a reservist and military police officer, who initially was charged with Dilawar's death. A military jury convicted Brand last week of assault, maltreatment, maiming and making a false official statement. The same jury spared Brand jail time, instead ordering that he be reduced in rank and pay to a private, the Army's lowest rank.

Spc. Brian E. Cammack pleaded guilty in May to abuse charges and was sentenced to three months in prison. (...)

Sgt. James P. Boland, also a reservist from Ohio, was given a letter of reprimand citing him for dereliction of duty for his work at Bagram. Boland, who has left the Army, was initially charged with chaining Dilawar's hands above his head and other abuse charges." (cite)

"A military intelligence interrogator was sentenced to two months in prison after admitting that he abused an Afghan detainee who later died. The interrogator, Specialist Glendale C. Walls, pleaded guilty to dereliction of duty and assault. In addition to the prison sentence, he was reduced in rank and pay and will receive a bad-conduct discharge." (cite)

Number of military officers over the rank of sergeant who have been charged in connection with detainee abuse: 1

Number being considered for a fourth star: 1

Number of civilian leaders involved in the formulation of detention and interrogation policies who have been investigated or charged in connection with detainee abuses: 0

Number nominated and confirmed as Attorney General of the United States: 1

Number nominated for an appellate judgeship: 1 2

Number described by the President, after Abu Ghraib, as "doing a superb job", and by the Vice President as "the best secretary of defense the United States has ever had": 1

***

"In the courtroom of honor, the judge pounded his gavel
To show that all's equal and that the courts are on the level
And that the strings in the books ain't pulled and persuaded
And that even the nobles get properly handled
Once that the cops have chased after and caught 'em
And that the ladder of law has no top and no bottom,
Stared at the person who killed for no reason
Who just happened to be feelin' that way without warnin'.
And he spoke through his cloak, most deep and distinguished,
And handed out strongly, for penalty and repentance,
William Zanzinger with a six-month sentence.
Oh, but you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
Bury the rag deep in your face
For now's the time for your tears."
-- Bob Dylan, 'The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll'

Explanation, Justification, Blah Blah Blah

by hilzoy

I was so hoping not to write anything about Brad DeLong's post on explanation v. justification -- it is, after all, my day job. But since we have started talking about it in comments, I decided that perhaps I should. It's below the fold, since it's long.

Tin Foil Hats

by von

WHEN EVERYONE SEEMS to agree on the answer to a particular problem, there are usually two possibilities:  (1) Either each individual has applied facts to logic and generated the same answer, or (2) everyone but you was invited to a double-secret conspiracy to agree on an illfactual and illogical answer. Tellingly, Michelle Malkin's (anti)Immigration Blog chooses the latter possibility:  Because various pundits and policymakers disagree with it, it must be because they are seditious multiculturalists and Derrida-lovers, ready at a drop of a hat to accept the dhimmitude offered by our Mexi-Cali overlords.  Clearly, then, there was a secret meeting among the High Priests of the (so-called) "Open Borders Lobby" to write and distribute a new hymnal, from which the "Elite" will now sing. 

I mean really: It's simply not possible that we simply think that Ms. Malkin and her blog are wrong.  Misguided.  Passionate but ill-informed.  Mistaken on the basic economic principles involved.  Guilty of lack of vision and foresight.  Nor is it possible that we think that our tax money is better spent tracking terrorists, rather pouring money into an increasingly farcical "defense" of a 2000-mile long border. 

**********

Look, saying that the current immigration laws are not working is not decreeing that the laws should not be enforced.  It is not asking for "open borders."  It is not "anti-enforcement" (whatever that means).  It's saying that the current immigration laws are not working.  It's proposing that we enact laws that will work -- laws that will make all our lives better.

So:  Let's bring illegal immigrants into the light, where they can be regulated, taxed, and subject to (and protected by) the same rules and regulations that govern everyone else.  Let's not mindlessly spend money to expand the federal bureaducracy.  Let's, in short, level the playing field and spend our money fighting the terrorists -- not chasing mom-and-pop manufacturer and the odd migrant worker. 

And let's also, please, recognize that immigration has made the U.S. the rich and righteous place that it is today -- a place where, if you're willing to work hard, dreams can come true.  Those who would shut the door to the next group of immigrants are not standing up for our history and culture; they are fighting them.

The Flypaper Theory Is No More.

Gregory Djerejian has written the definitive rebuttal to the so-called "flypaper theory" of the Iraq War. 

Do take a look.

Open Thread Thursday

What you got?

Nothing.  What you got?

Someone pointed me to a transcript of Cyrus' speech at the start of The Warriors.

That's hot.  The Warriors are totally in fashion.

People don't say "that's hot" anymore.  In fact, I'm pretty sure that they never did.

Well, that sucks. 

Tell me about it.  Anyway, what are you doin' this weekend?

This.  Pray for my survival.  And for a time under three hours.

Will do.

(This is your multiple personality open thread.)

Balance

--Sebastian

One of my key watchwords is "balance".  For instance I believe that temperamental conservatives and temperamental liberals both have excellent things to add to society and that they need each other to be most effective.  I'm not all about splitting the middle, I'm often quite sure that there is a right and wrong answer, but I'm sure that there are multiple fruitful approachs to a question.  This post by Joseph Britt (guest writing for Daniel Drezner) reminded me of one of things about foreign policy analysis that tends to get out of balance:  the alleged duality between "realist" and "idealist" concepts of foreign policy.  Now I realize that international relations professors use the two terms in highly specialized ways that are not closely related to how everyone else uses them.  I think it is a mistake to choose your jargon in such a way as to make such confusion easy, but that is a rant for another day.  In common parlance (and that may actually have more of a political effect than the international relations jargon anyway) the discussion seem to treat "idealist" foreign policy and "realist" foreign policy as opposite.  Carter is usually cast in the role of "idealist" and Nixon as "realist" for instance.  The problem is that the terms, especially as loosely used, are not opposites.  The reason they are sometimes seen as in tension is that realists often offer a pragmatic check on what idealists want to do.  It isn't a bad thing to try to know what you can and cannot do.  But focusing exlusively on means doesn't tell you what ends you ought to be striving for.  It is perfectly proper to be driven idealistically and let realistic assessments of the situation influence your methods. 

It isn't wrong to be an "idealist" unless you just ignore pragmatic concerns.  It isn't wrong to be pragmatic so long as you are willing to let idealism guide your general direction. 

Interestingly enough (because I'm sure the comparison will offend almost everyone) both Carter and Bush II offered policy directions which seemed to be largely idealistic, and also unwilling to adequately address the pragmatic concerns of their critics.  The key problem with both presidents is that they knew where they wanted to go, but didn't spend enough energy figuring out how to get there in an imperfect world.  Bush's key problem in Iraq is that he saw where he wanted to go, and (in my view correctly identified the first step) but did not plan further than that.  His strategic aim was correct (with Saddam presiding over a festering Iraq in the Middle East, the likelihood of needed change happening was slim) but he approached the problem from a purely tactical consideraton of getting rid of Saddam without implementing a strategic vision of what to do after Saddam was gone.  He did not address the concerns of cautionary realists.  It is possible to have a successful foreign policy without convincing the realists around you to do what you want, but that is very different from not even addressing their concerns.  Instead of saying "I will address the limitations you worry about in the following ways, and though you think it isn't enough to make it worthwhile, I am definitely addressing the area of concern", he basically said "I'm not going to worry about it".  Interestingly enough, the flip side of the problem is found in Bush I and Clinton.  Neither could get past momentary pragmatic concerns enough to really lead in foreign policy .  They might start on a problem, but would get so bogged down in technical concerns that they were often paralyzed into inaction or gave up too quickly.  Bush I gave up on crushing Saddam far too quickly.  Even if he didn't want to conquer Baghdad, he could still have supported the revolutionary attempts (which he had encouraged) when they finally came or at the very least destroyed Saddam's armies while they were fleeing (as opposed to the ones that were surrendering).  But both choices would have involved making things difficult for the 'coalition' of the First Gulf War.  Instead of trying to move forward and change coalition goals into a more idealistic vision, he basically gave up and let Saddam become the Arab hero who was able to successfully stand up to the US and walk away from it (leading to the dangerous myth of US lack-of-will which contributed to Osama bin Laden's miscalculations later). 

Idealistic foreign policy visions and realist concerns ought not be considered separate schools of thought which are distinct methods of forming policy.  Both are crucial ingredients to a well formed foreign policy. 

Not all complaints about the limited vision of self-identified "realists" are wrong, nor is it evident that the current administration's "idealism" is the wellspring of its policies as opposed to an ex post facto justification for them. Effective foreign policy requires an understanding of what you want to do, a strategy for getting it done, and the ability both to distinguish the battles that can be won from those that cannot and to distinguish the situations where America can impose its will from those in which we must respond to events. It is not an accident that the period of greatest American success in foreign policy have come when the people running it -- Marshall, Acheson, Nixon, Kissinger -- have had these things and something else that is mostly lacking today, an understanding that a foreign policy made with one eye on campaign politics is bound to run into trouble regardless of what doctrine it proclaims. The people, not their doctrines, make the policy.

(From the danieldrezner link above.)

Fundamentalists on Fire

Pat Robertson's latest failure to think before he spoke has ignited the sort of firestorm across the blogosphere one would expect (in case you missed it, he suggested on the air that the US should assassinate Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez). The number of posts and diaries, on leftest sites at least, is phenomenal. According to Madman in the Market Place on Liberal Street Fighter: "A search on Technorati brings up nearly 50K posts discussing “Pat Robertson” today." The responses from the State Department, DoD, and the administration have been a bit milder than I would have liked, but at least they're being clear that what he suggested is illegal.

But the award for the most disappointing response has to go to some of the organizations that really ought not choose this moment to be ambiguous about what Robertson said. I'm talking of course about Pat's political and spiritual allies, the organizations that claim to stand for traditional American values. From The New York Times:

Some of Mr. Robertson's allies distanced themselves from his comments. The Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council, released a statement saying Mr. Robertson should "immediately apologize, retract his statement and clarify what the Bible and Christianity teaches about the permissibility of taking human life outside of law."

The Rev. Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals said he and "most evangelical leaders" would disassociate themselves from such "unfortunate and particularly irresponsible" comments.

"It complicates circumstances for foreign missionaries and Christian aid workers overseas who are already perceived, wrongly, especially by leftists and other leaders, as collaborators with U.S. intelligence agencies," Mr. Cizik added.

But other conservative Christian organizations remained silent, with leaders at the Traditional Values Coalition, the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition saying they were too busy to comment.

The obvious parallels here are the Islamic clerics who don't condemn assassination fatwas or terrorism in rapid or clear enough terms for many Americans, but let's step back and give them a bit more credit than that. These folks have indicated they had other priorities. (they're busy...busy, busy...busy preachers...oh, oh...well, you know). What could be more important for such influential spiritual leaders than defending our values by condemning Robertson's blood-thirsty call for murder? Let's look and see, shall we?

The Traditional Values Coalition's frequently updated website reserves it's top spot today for an article titled "Of Liberals, Toads, And Growing Up In Middle America" and although it lists close to a dozen pieces on Roberts, there's no mention of Robertson. Top billing on the Family Research Council's website was reserved for "XXX Internet Domain Not Safer for Kids," and what kept the Christian Coalition so busy were news stories ranging from "Christian Doc: Parents Must Combat Media Vanity With Biblical Truth" to "California Court Declares One Child Can Have Two Moms."

That last story broke more or less the same time the Robertson story did. Conclusion: Liberals, porn, gay parents, and vanity are more pressing issues than murdering elected officials. Not only more pressing, but so incredibly pressing that despite the fact each of these organizations had made countless statements about each of these issues over the years, they couldn't interrupt that flow of thought long enough to say one way or the other whether Jesus wants us to kill Chavez...whether Jesus would even have an opinion about that.

There is most definitely something foul rotting in the hearts and minds of these people.

Tuesday Cat Blogging

by hilzoy

Below the fold.

Clark on Darfur (That's My Guy!)

by hilzoy

Yesterday, on NPR and his website, Wes Clark called on NATO to send troops to Darfur:

"After a series of UN Security Council resolutions on Darfur and a donors conference to boost the African Union Mission there, you could be forgiven for thinking the international community has responded adequately to the crisis. Sadly, this is far from the case. The international community urgently needs to take bold new action. The truth is, civilians are still targeted in Darfur. The pro-government Janjaweed militias still remain unchecked. Humanitarian access is still restricted along key transit routes and in areas where millions of displaced Sudanese have gathered. Women and girls are still being raped as they leave their camps to collect firewood and forage for food. It's a tragedy.

The African Union's priority must be to protect civilians. It must be able to take all necessary measures -- including offensive action -- against any attacks or threats against civilians and humanitarian operations. But the AU Mission's force numbers and mandate are simply not sufficient to cope with the reality on the ground in Darfur. The AU current plan is to deploy 7,700 troops next month, and possibly 12,000 troops next year. But this is far too slow. A minimum of 12,000 troops are needed on the ground right now, not six months from now.

The African Union should deploy a battalion task force of around 1,000 troops to each of Darfur's eight sectors and maintain another battalion task force in reserve. Each sector would then have close to 1,000 troops, twice as many civilian police, and 1,000 headquarters and other support staff. Even if the African Union can overcome the political obstacles to strengthening its mandate in Darfur -- and that's a very big "if" -- it's in no position to get such large numbers of troops on the ground in such a short time. Despite the European Union and NATO assistance, the African Union mission looks set to fall short of its target of 7,700 troops by September.

The UN Security Council, in consultation with the AU, should request and authorize NATO to deploy a multinational "bridging force" to bring the combined force level in Darfur immediately up to 12,000 to 15,000 troops while the African Union prepares and deploys its own forces.

This is not an easy recommendation to make for Darfur, where all multinational organizations have been at pains to keep non-African troops out of Sudan. But the notion that the atrocities in Darfur are solely African problems requiring exclusively African solutions has to be reconsidered. These ongoing offenses are crimes against all humanity. They demand an international response that gives human life priority over diplomatic sensitivities.

Working together, NATO and the AU can save the lives of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. They can demonstrate to outlaw regimes like the government of Sudan that the international community will not tolerate crimes against humanity.

And we must do this now."

He's right.

Meanwhile, I wrote a while back about Be A Witness, a group that's urging the news networks to cover Darfur. They produced an ad, but the TV stations have refused to run it. You can send a letter urging the stations to show the ad here.