security and insecurity

Whew! I, too, am in the financial industry, and I barely have time to read
such thorough posts - much less write them... How do you do it? :) At any
rate, it deserves a small commentary in return:

> > Well said, all in all, TangoMan. Just how is it that you have such
> > an in depth understanding of the middle-east?
>
>Thank you for that observation.
>
>Because I'm a child of the world. Growing up I lived all over the
>world and was schooled in many different countries where I was
>exposed to the children of other expatriates. As an adult I have
>also lived and worked in Europe, Asia and North America. As an adult
>I'm not swayed by nationalistic fervor for I wasn't indoctrinated by
>culture nor propoganda. I never had to swear allegiance to the flag
>as a child and I'm glad of it, for how is a child to know the
>meaning and significance of such an act. I like to think that this
>in part allows me to see a European perspective as well as an
>American one. Of course it allows me to also be a crumudgeon and
>find fault with both :)

As should we all - that is the beauty of free society: all get to contribute
their ideas.

>
>At work I have access to geopolitical risk assessments as part of
>investment due diligence. Our firm subscirbes to these intelligence
>reports in order to get an unvarnished assessment of events and
>trends. While we have no investments in the Middle East, we do
>manage funds for citizens of the region, and it pays to know what is
>really going on.
>
>I also have a childhood friend who works with the French Ministere
>des Affaires Etrangeres. He's posted in Doha. Our families vacation
>every year and I always get a good sense of 'how things are' that
>just can't be conveyed in journal articles or newspaper stories.
>
>I studied International Relations/International Economics in
>Bologna, Italy as part of a joint degree program. While there I met
>a friend who is still in the US Army, and who went to the Monterey
>Defense Language Institute, and because he was willing to study
>Arabic, he somehow finangled Bologna into his deal. His job
>certainly gets more interesting as he is rising in rank and he
>always brings fresh insights to our conversations and I always get
>to raze him about his hoo-hah gung-ho military perspective. We both
>like the cross-fertilization of perspective we bring to our
>relationship.

I spent a large portion of my adult life in the military, and maitain
numerous firends there. They routinely contribute timely and, ironically,
often different observations than our media. In addition, I spent two years
in the current troubled areas, and time in Central and South America - and
not as a tourist. Those experiences opened my eyes to some very interesting
things, not the least of which is an appreciation of how very differently
some view and interact with the world.

>
>Of course I don't get classified information from these two friends
>but I do get their personal opinions and I take their views
>seriously because they have so frequently in the past been prescient
>about forming trends, even if its the same event and they've each
>predicted an outcome different from each other, the predictions have
>been true. Think about how that is possible :)
>
>It was interesting to talk with them in the lead up to the war, for
>as you would imagine they were holding two different opinions but
>both pretty much agreed on the facts. I came to the conclusion that
>Bush was going in to Iraq even if Saddam cooperated fully. Both of
>my friends agree that the Mid-East is a region of the world that is
>a basketcase, look to my past post on why I hold that opinion. My
>American friend thought that something needed to be done to get them
>on a different path, while my French friend thought that it was for
>them to work out their own destiny. I happen to think that we should
>make a concerted effort to rid ourselves of dependence on the
>region's oil and then we can have no involvement with the region AT
>ALL. If you look at my previous post on this matter you'll see that
>if you discount the trading of oil, the amount of economic activity
>coming from the Middle East is negligible. The region is going to
>explode in the coming years, from a variety of causes, and if the US
>has no involvement nor presence in the region, so much the better.

Well, as they say, it may turn out there was no need for pressing the issue
as quickly as we did, though genocide cewrtainly seemed to be sufficient for
Bosnia - why not here? Remember, WMD were only one of the reasons given. In
addition, you say that we were to hasty, that more political efforts were
needed? I think 10 years of giving the UN the finger should have been
enough. Also, waiting gave him more time to prepare (and thus more
casualities on both sides), and possibly hide what we were lookin for. The
UN should have looked at the whole thing favorably - we gave them teeth
instead of continued existence as an impotent and therefore largely
irrelevant body. BUT - we didn't know for certain that the WMD did not exist
(even France and Germany thought it likely), and we knew darned well that if
he got 'em, he'd use 'em. However, I suggest we wait and see about the WMD
thing - it may turn out the intel was right after-all.

>
> > And especially your comments on other countries (especially Europe
> > (read: France and Germany) shucking their own defensive
> > responsibilities.
>
>You have to keep in mind that the need to influence foreign affairs
>for a leader is greater than the need for the followers. The US
>economy is the largest in the world so the US has the greatest
>interest in maintaining stability. Therefore it has a different
>perspective than other countries.
>
>France and Germany aren't really shucking their defenseive
>responsibilities because, in terms of defense, they are fairly
>secure within the borders of Europe. I think it highly unlikely that
>member states of the EU are going to wage war on one another. I also
>think it unlikely that Morocco is going to invade the Netherlands.
>So from a European perspective they're probably thinking that
>they're spending too much on defense.

Actually, I am speaking here in evolutionary terms since WWII. The massive
defense efforts in light of the Soviet threat were largely funded by the
US. This was necessary at first in order for Europe to rebuild their
economies. And let's not forget the Balkan fiasco(s) - when force proved
necessary within Europe, who had to provide a large part of it?

>
>War is an expensive activity. France and Germany perform the
>calculus and decide that little is to be gained, not just in Iraq
>but also in other situations, to warrant war for their economies
>won't benefit that much. The calculus is different for the US for
>its economy can gain and the price of war may be worth it. Here is a
>prediction: if the Strait of Malacca is bottlenecked by terrorists
>or a regional government the US would become involved where France
>and Germany would probably sit out. Why: because a slowdown in the
>Japnese, Chinese or Taiwanese economies would have far deeper impact
>on the American economy than those of France or Germany. The US is
>more dependent on a stable international economy.

While I agree to some extent, you more than anyone would probably agree that
the world is one big interconnected economy, and Europe is certainly not
isolated from that. Being as the standards of living in the Western world
are largely dependent on cheap access to large amounts of energy (thank God
for the Grid! :) ), and that, of course means oil. Europe is much more
dependent on Middle Eastern oil than the US (aside from the impact a dent in
oil flow to Japan would make). So, stability in the Mid East is of paramount
importance to the free world, France and Germany included. I wonder if there
might not be a little collusion between big business in these countries (who
were profiting in Iraq legal and otherwise) and the gov'ts. Chirac seems to
have been into that a bit - and therefore a conflict of interest when it
comes to making the right decision in Iraq. Just speculating :)

It becomes quite clear that SPS should be more than a thought experiment on
the web.

>
>The price that is paid for world stability is one that is borne by
>the US, and it is in the US interest to maintain order even if other
>countries are reducing their defense budgets. For those who resent
>the role of the US as the world's policeman they can look to
>themselves to do more. The atrocities in Yugoslavia are a testament
>to Europe's inability to influence foreign affairs through
>persuasion, even events that take place within Europe.

EXACTLY - why don't you see that kind of analysis in the news???

>
>These countries believe in the mirage of "soft power" and resent
>that it doesn't have the same influence as "hardpower." If they
>truely want the same ability to influence affairs then they need
>only look to increase their "hard power" otherwise be content with
>the limits of "soft power" for it can have influence in its own
>right, but it is ineffective in many instances.
>
>Of course their are different philosphies that underlie national
>character. Some countries aspire to a human condition that
>transcends past behaviors, other countries are testament to human
>brutality, and yet others aspire to betterment but are prepared to
>recognize baser human instincts and respond in the only way that the
>brutal understand. It is this last characterization that I find
>troubling for the future for the gentler nature of the society tries
>to remake the military to be representative of the gentler cultural
>values and this is not the culture that is best suited for the
>reality of warfare. The soldier ethos must be allowed to flourish
>within its own domain.

When Clinton assumed office, there were many different ripples (and large
breakers) that ran through the services. I remember talk of a 'kinder
gentler army', jokingly of course, but the civies don't see it that way. I
responded a bit harshly to Paul in an earlier post, but i think that one of
the quotes I gave him was fitting even here: "People sleep peacefully in
their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on
their behalf." Can't remember who said that... However, I can tell you that
when it comes right down to it, and the military has to do its job, it had
better be able to do it well, and it isn't pretty or easy. I worry a great
deal about future generations being able to provide people who are physicaly
and mentally tough enough to do it.

>
> > Don't people realize that these countries can afford these pie-in-
> > the-sky quasi-socialist utopias because they DON'T have the fiscal
> > resposibility of maintaining their own defense??? It's pretty
> > clear that, without the US, they would either be speaking German
> > or Russian right now.
>
>Perhaps, but gratitude can only live for so long. How long should
>Europe be thankful to America for salvation during WWII? Let's also
>not forget that Germany was defeated mainly by the Soviet Union, and
>not the US. Americans don't like to hear this assessment for it runs
>counter to propoganda, but the Eastern Front was far more brutal and
>resource intensive. If Hitler had fought only on one front, the
>price the Western Allies would have paid would have been far more
>severe. If the price was indeed that high, would America have
>willingly suffered the casualities for a war overseas?

How true! If you find you have the time, read 'Panzer Battles' by General
Von Mellinthin. He served in most of the general staffs and in every theatre
in WWII on the German side. It is quite clear that miscalculations in Russia
allowed us to win the war. In fact, he says that the only time the Allies
faced first string German troops was in North Africa with Rommel.

>
>With reference to the socialist Utopias, their days are numbered.
>Consider these statistics:
>
>US - POPULATION: 290 million; GDP: $10.4 trillion; MEDIAN AGE: 35.8;
>BIRTH RATE: 14.14/1000; ANNUAL POPULATION GROWTH: 0.92%; MILITARY
>EXPENDITURES: 3.2% GDP.
>
>GERMANY - POPULATION: 82 million; GDP: $2.2 trillion; MEDIAN AGE:
>41.3; BIRTH RATE: 8.6/1000; ANNUAL POPULATION GROWTH: 0.04%;
>MILITARY EXPENDITURES: 1.38% GDP
>
>FRANCE - POPULATION: 60 million; GDP: $1.54 trillion; MEDIAN AGE:
>38.3; BIRTH RATE: 12.54/1000; ANNUAL POPULATION GROWTH: 0.42%;
>MILITARY EXPENDITURES: 2.57% GDP
>
>German and France don't match the GDP/capita of the US. Each of
>their populations is older than the US. Their birth rates are both
>lower than the US. The US population is growing 2.2x as fast as
>France and 23x as fast as Germany. It is also asssimilitating its
>immigrants into the dominant culture far better than is done in
>Europe. Of ocurse this causes problems for the US that are best left
>for another post :)
>

Intersting numbers... I wonder just how many days?

>Everything has to be paid for in one fashion or another. How will
>the generous social programs in Europe be paid for? Trimming the
>military is one source of revenue, but even that is nowhere near
>sufficient. US workers are more productive because they have fewer
>alternatives than their European friends. This productivity can pay
>for the existing US social programs without making as many
>sacrifices as are necesary in Europe. What discriminates between the
>US, France and Germany are the nature of the social programs. How
>many of the programs rob the nation of productivity and how generous
>are they? Are they a viable replacement for work, or a temporary
>helping hand? In my opinion the difference is crucial.

Again, the shouldering of many a burden for Europe allowed them to spend on
themselves... Probably closer proximity to Soviet psyops as well with
Marxist programs in effect. That may sound nuts, but its true.

>
>Can Europe sustain its policies? Look at Germany. It has the lowest
>birth rate, the lowest population growth and the highest median age.
>The retirement years are fast approaching for its most productive
>workers and there aren't enough younger workers in the pipeline to
>carry the economic burden. France is doing pretty well with its
>birth rate, but if you delve into the statistic, the fastest growing
>segment of its population are the Muslin & North African immigrants
>who aren't integrated into the French body politic. In the coming
>years its going to be difficult to finance the retirement of white
>French people on the taxes of a *generally* poorer, non-integrated
>Muslim community.

And they're going to start fixing it by banning muslim head scarves in
schools. Can't they learn from our blunders during the civil rights era? It
be nice to think that someone else could learn vicariously from our
mistakes, thus giving them value instead of just being wastesof time and
energy.

>
>Europe is heading for trouble in the coming decades. US power will
>only increase vis a vis Europe. The competition will be an ever more
>powerful China. Hopefully as China's power grows so too will its
>assumption of responsibility for world stability. Right now, and in
>the past, it is selling missile technology and nuclear secrets to
>Pakistan. Of course, right now its primary goal is to thwart the US
>exercise of power and influence. Later it may feel its own interests
>are better served by being a guarantor of peace.

And the Chinese are playing to win. They want to be the economic power. One
strong advatage they may have over the US is their seemingly unique ability
to plan for the very long term, and their willingness to include sacrifices
as part of that goal. I wonder what they have in mind for their space
prgram? I am quite sure it is long range and ambtious. Maybe that's just
what we need to get off our butt's and get moving with it - a new space
race.

>
> > By-the-way, what aid has any European country given the US? What
> > blood have they shed for us? Have they expressed any desire what-
> > so-ever to help us out in time of need (except for the Brits)?
> > Sounds like a bunch of smack talking, spoiled, selfish brats to
> > me :)
>
>The US got itself into the mess in Iraq on its own. I think that how
>things went down in Iraq is what would have happened eventually, but
>Bush rushed in too quickly. If more internaitional politics had been
>played, the US would have either gotten more token participation
>(keep in mind that militaries in Europe have shrunken since the last
>Gulf War) or would have shown more effort in exhausting all other
>avenues before taking the last step of war. If I was a European
>citizen or politician, I'd be feeling that the US is reaping what it
>has sown. At the same time I think it is hypocritical of the
>Eurepeans to be bemoaning the fact that their companies cannot bid
>for Iraqi reconstruction contracts that are financed by the US
>taxpayer. If they want to play in the game they have to be willing
>to pay the price.

Just remember that the UN's human rights commission includes Libya and
Syria... Both players that wouldn't want a precedent of US pre-emptive
action in the Middle East. The rest of the UN is structured in much the same
way. A large percentage of the countries in the UN are past and present
abusers of human rights, arms, and any number of things. They are certainly
alarmed at the prospect of being targetable by the US... So would we ever
have gotten the necessary cooperation in a manner that seemed timely enough
in light of the circumstances (without using 20/20 hindsight). I'd be
willing to bet no.

>
>In terms of what blood they've shed for us, the answer is none. But
>they aren't the country that is most dependent on a stable worldwide
>economic system, we are. We reap the greatest reward from that
>stability and this allows Europe to be free riders. This is the
>price of being a Hyperpower.
>
>In my opinion, Bush made a tactical error with respect to Iraq, not
>a strategic one. It was just the timing and how it appeared that
>there was a rush to war. They've given plenty of fodder to the anti-
>American forces around the world and the 'war for oil' argument. Bad
>chess playing on the part of the Bush Administration.

I disagree with the tactical error part. Also, if it is a war for oil, so
what? We all know that our economies, and therefore our abilities to pursue
the loftier things that will make the world a better place, depend on oil.

>
> > Except: Other countries are truly with us or against us... Because
> > if a country is not actively taking measures against terrorism
> > within its own borders, then it is, de facto, allowing it to
> > occur. This includes any of the following: training, harboring,
> > providing refuge through a 'neutral' stance, recruiting, and, not
> > least, financing.
>
>Yes, this is a Black or White question. There is no room for nuance
>here. Either you maintain law and order and the civil society that
>results or you allow cafe bombings to occur as a consequence of not
>stirring the waters.
>
>The 'proper' place for violence in international affairs should
>within the realm of armies. There are rules that are followed and
>the battlefields are fairly distinct. Of course, the US has such an
>overwhelming lead in this area that it would be foolhardy to engage
>in battle with the US, notwithstanding the Iraqi counterinsurgence
>which, while deadly, isn't dislodging the US from its Iraq mission.
>So the battlefield becomes a terrorist one, and the US must respond
>to quash such activities with the weapons it has at its disposal,
>namely those that can influence national governments which allow
>terrorist activity to take place within their jurisdictions.

The insurgency in Iraq has an effectiveness directly proportionate to media
coverage, and nothing maore. In fact, I'd bet they spent a great deal of
their capacity during the Ramadan months trying to pull something off. So,
the lost money, people, operations and operatives, exposed parts of their
networks, and accomplished nothing. Their days are definitely numbered.

>
> > SPS will distance us from the middle-east and its oil strangle
> > hold, allowing us to deal or not deal with their self induced
> > humanitarian problems as we see fit. They sure won't want to blow
> > us up if their oil ain't worth much and they need our money!
> >
> > Val
>
>Quite frankly, I don't think that there is a solution to the Mid-
>East problem. Take a look at their birth rate (it wasn't always
>exploding like it is now), then calculate how many jobs must be
>created every year to absorb the new adult population. The job
>growth would have to be phenomonal and this in a region that can't
>live on a dollar a day like they do in parts of Asia or Africa. I'm
>sorry to say that without oil revenue, the region's economy is a
>basketcase and there is to be more suffering in the future. As long
>as the US is involved in the region much ire will be directed at it.
>A complete withdrawal will save the US much grief and with SPS its
>security will increase thus allowing it to reduce the scope and size
>of its military while still maintaining the same level of security.
>
>TangoMan
>

You know, I hadn't looked at from a demographic perspective like that... It
actually seems quite a bit worse now. Very unfortunate. I agree in principle
that it would be beneficial to the US to escape invovment in all that, but
right now it a question of choosing the lesser of two bad situations. All
the more reason to start getting really hot on alternative energy sources.
Paul's way, our way, whatever. The sooner the better.

A thought: if the powers that be can be made to appreciate the economic
signifigance of things such as SPS, think of the spin offs for everyone
else... Surplus boosters, improved technology, new techmnology, all to get
into spce easier and quicker. Right now there is a signifigant number of
brilliant and capable minds dedicating their efforts to other things, things
where there is more demand. If those minds focused on SPS? Wow. I look
forward to it - again, for everything, and, not to sound like a beauty
contestant, world peace :)

Val

Cell phone switch rules are taking effect find out more here.