Afghanistan & Obama 08/22/2009
The more that I think about U.S. policy in Afghanistan, the more that I wonder about Obama's motives.
Moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan was good politics for the presidential campaign. It spoke to people who felt that the War in Iraq was a mistake from the start, while ameliorating hawks' concerns that Obama was a pacifist. But now Obama can't change his Afghanistan policy without a lot of political fallout.
Is increasing our military commitment to Afghanistan the right policy? It's a close call. I sense that Obama is privately much more apprehensive about it than he is letting out.
- Jon
Moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan was good politics for the presidential campaign. It spoke to people who felt that the War in Iraq was a mistake from the start, while ameliorating hawks' concerns that Obama was a pacifist. But now Obama can't change his Afghanistan policy without a lot of political fallout.
Is increasing our military commitment to Afghanistan the right policy? It's a close call. I sense that Obama is privately much more apprehensive about it than he is letting out.
- Jon
2 Comments
Domestic Violence Across the World 08/22/2009
Go to Childinfo.org for the full data. It is shocking that 90% of women in Jordan believe that it's ok for their husbands to beat them. This was for reasons such as leaving the house without informing their husbands, neglecting the children, arguing, not having sex, or burning food.
In Turkey, 4 out of 10 women surveyed thought that wife-beating was acceptable, and half of their Azeri counterparts agreed. These types of beliefs cannot be allowed to hide behind the guise of multiculturalism-- they need to be eliminated.
In Turkey, 4 out of 10 women surveyed thought that wife-beating was acceptable, and half of their Azeri counterparts agreed. These types of beliefs cannot be allowed to hide behind the guise of multiculturalism-- they need to be eliminated.
What Not to Believe 08/22/2009
Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan
In the continuing evolution of the What Not to Read category, I'm going to rebut President Obama's recent proclamation about the war in Afghanistan:
"But we must never forget. This is not a war of choice...This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again."
It was a war of necessity. But the decision to continue indefinitely is a choice.
Afghanistan was a necessity because Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is now based in Pakistan, and has been based there for the past few years. The only real interest the U.S. has in Afghanistan now is to prevent it from again becoming a haven for terrorists who are committed to attacking America.
But this does not require occupation or democracy. Furthermore, even if Afghanistan is sealed off from being a terrorist haven, and if Pakistan successfully evicts Al Qaeda from its frontier provinces, there are still many places that Al Qaeda could regroup to-- such as Yemen or Somalia.
Click to "Read More" to continue --->
"But we must never forget. This is not a war of choice...This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again."
It was a war of necessity. But the decision to continue indefinitely is a choice.
Afghanistan was a necessity because Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is now based in Pakistan, and has been based there for the past few years. The only real interest the U.S. has in Afghanistan now is to prevent it from again becoming a haven for terrorists who are committed to attacking America.
But this does not require occupation or democracy. Furthermore, even if Afghanistan is sealed off from being a terrorist haven, and if Pakistan successfully evicts Al Qaeda from its frontier provinces, there are still many places that Al Qaeda could regroup to-- such as Yemen or Somalia.
Click to "Read More" to continue --->
Corruption in Iran 08/22/2009
The conservative think tank crowd loves to use the phrase "Mullahcracy" to describe Iran. This neologism conjures up a fantastic images of crazed mullahs with nuclear weapons eagerly plotting the destruction of the West (i.e. these guys). The reality is that behind the veils of nationalism, religion, and opposition to the Western influence, the defining characteristic of domestic politics in the Islamic Republic of Iran is good ol' fashion corruption.
Muhammad Sahimi, USC Professor and regular columnist at tehranbureau.com, recently wrote an excellent article on this issue (here).
Widespread corruptions in Iran's elite is a serious problem for US policy makers. It has tainted every promising reform movement and sullied some of Iran's most pragmatic politicians. This isn't to say that there aren't genuine reformers in Iran. There are, and their influence has been increasingly significant, but even these folks have to take money from corrupt sources.
Muhammad Sahimi, USC Professor and regular columnist at tehranbureau.com, recently wrote an excellent article on this issue (here).
Widespread corruptions in Iran's elite is a serious problem for US policy makers. It has tainted every promising reform movement and sullied some of Iran's most pragmatic politicians. This isn't to say that there aren't genuine reformers in Iran. There are, and their influence has been increasingly significant, but even these folks have to take money from corrupt sources.
Are Democracies Better for Development? 08/19/2009
The Asian Tiger
Siegle et al contend that democracies do a better job of development than autocracies- except for the case of East Asia. They summarily dismiss this unwelcome fact:
"Although exceptional cases exist [East Asia], it is the preponderance of experience that should guide development policy [and democracies have a better record]."
I'm afraid that Siegle et al are missing the forest for the trees. The issue is not what kind of government these countries had, but the type of economy that the government supported. The Asian tigers committed themselves to introducing capitalism. India, a democracy, suffered from the "Hindu rate of growth" until the 1990s, when Monmohan Singh's reforms turned India capitalist. China, an autocracy, did not experience exponential growth until after Deng Xaioping's capitalist reforms.
Certainly I am cherry-picking examples. But I believe it's clear that countries with properly functioning capitalist systems develop fastest, regardless of the form of government. This is what really separates the former dictatorships of South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore (still a one-party state), and Indonesia, from the regimes in North Korea, Laos, and Burma in terms of development.
- Jon
"Although exceptional cases exist [East Asia], it is the preponderance of experience that should guide development policy [and democracies have a better record]."
I'm afraid that Siegle et al are missing the forest for the trees. The issue is not what kind of government these countries had, but the type of economy that the government supported. The Asian tigers committed themselves to introducing capitalism. India, a democracy, suffered from the "Hindu rate of growth" until the 1990s, when Monmohan Singh's reforms turned India capitalist. China, an autocracy, did not experience exponential growth until after Deng Xaioping's capitalist reforms.
Certainly I am cherry-picking examples. But I believe it's clear that countries with properly functioning capitalist systems develop fastest, regardless of the form of government. This is what really separates the former dictatorships of South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore (still a one-party state), and Indonesia, from the regimes in North Korea, Laos, and Burma in terms of development.
- Jon
Currently Reading 08/19/2009
"Why Democracies Excel" by Joseph Siegle, Michael Weinstein, and Morton Halperin
Money quote: "Economic development makes democracy possible," asserts
the U.S. State Department’s Web site, subscribing to a highly
influential argument: that poor countries must develop economically
before they can democratize. But the historical data prove otherwise.
Poor democracies have grown at least as fast as poor autocracies and
have significantly outperformed the latter on most indicators of social
well-being. They have also done much better at avoiding catastrophes.
Dispelling the “development first, democracy later” argument is
critical not only because it is wrong but also because it has led to
atrocious policies—indeed, policies that have undermined international
efforts to improve the lives of hundreds of millions of people
in the developing world."
Money quote: "Economic development makes democracy possible," asserts
the U.S. State Department’s Web site, subscribing to a highly
influential argument: that poor countries must develop economically
before they can democratize. But the historical data prove otherwise.
Poor democracies have grown at least as fast as poor autocracies and
have significantly outperformed the latter on most indicators of social
well-being. They have also done much better at avoiding catastrophes.
Dispelling the “development first, democracy later” argument is
critical not only because it is wrong but also because it has led to
atrocious policies—indeed, policies that have undermined international
efforts to improve the lives of hundreds of millions of people
in the developing world."
Nabucco Review 08/19/2009
Pipeline Spaghetti
The Economist has an excellent and optimistic audio-visual summary of the politics surrounding the embattled Nabucco pipeline here.
So, How's That Smoking Ban Going? 08/18/2009
Smoking Ban Protests in Ankara (Photo: AFP)
Proponents of the smoking ban in Turkey are claiming early success. Based on my recent trip to Istanbul, I'm inclined to believe them. The true test will be when winter comes.
-Evan
-Evan
Thought for the Day 08/16/2009
It is the province of feeble minds to make long-term predictions by extrapolating current trends. For events that are readily predictable have never changed the world.
- Jon
- Jon
Yogi Berraoglu 08/15/2009
"In Turkey, things either change slowly or all at once" a Turkish friend recently told me.
Behind this Yogi Berra-esque comment lies a profoundly simple message: development in Turkey, as in many other countries, is asymmetrical. This is a reality that many analysts in the US can't seem to deal with. They look for smooth patterns--the rise of Islamist elite, the fall of the secular elite, etc.--to the determent of their analysis.
Take, for example Soner Cagaptay's February 2009 article in the Washington Post. Cagaptay uses a cadre of carefully massaged facts and misrepresentations to drive home his assertion that AKP is pulling Turkey away from the West. It’s a simple, streamlined argument that is fundamentally wrong.
To be clear AKP is not perfect; their excessive use of patronage networks is a slap in the face to democracy and the rule of law in Turkey. But they are not out to turn Turkey into Saudi Arabia. Moreover, they are far more interested in globalism than the old secularists Cagaptay pines for.
To butcher a real Yogi Berra quote: Half the lies they say about Turkey aren't true.
- Evan
Behind this Yogi Berra-esque comment lies a profoundly simple message: development in Turkey, as in many other countries, is asymmetrical. This is a reality that many analysts in the US can't seem to deal with. They look for smooth patterns--the rise of Islamist elite, the fall of the secular elite, etc.--to the determent of their analysis.
Take, for example Soner Cagaptay's February 2009 article in the Washington Post. Cagaptay uses a cadre of carefully massaged facts and misrepresentations to drive home his assertion that AKP is pulling Turkey away from the West. It’s a simple, streamlined argument that is fundamentally wrong.
To be clear AKP is not perfect; their excessive use of patronage networks is a slap in the face to democracy and the rule of law in Turkey. But they are not out to turn Turkey into Saudi Arabia. Moreover, they are far more interested in globalism than the old secularists Cagaptay pines for.
To butcher a real Yogi Berra quote: Half the lies they say about Turkey aren't true.
- Evan
Loading
