The Long Post

Not sure fencing off the Muslims and taking their guns (as Steve puts it) would be even remotely possible. We're talking about dozens of countries, billions of people, and God knows how many weapons left over from many years of warfare. I don't think you can cut them off from the world - you have to deal with them in some way or other.

I just wonder - if we're going to deal with them, as many prefer, diplomatically and economically rather than militarily, just exactly WHO the hell are we supposed to deal with? You can make peace with one faction, but as soon as you do some other faction starts killing you AND the first faction. Even if Israel and the PA signed a treaty that would give the Palestinians all the water and electricity they wanted, open up all the roads, remove all the checkpoints, tear down the wall, and let the Saudis build some condos, some group or other would be murdering Jews again before the ink was dry. Has this not been the history of Mideast peace efforts since the whole business started? Can you name an instance where a Palestinian group or government said "Wait, let's talk" and the Israelis said "OK," and then the IDF immediately blew up a refugee camp? (That's a serious question, too - I don't know as much about the conflict as Steve an some others, so I really need to know.) Given this apparently endless cycle, I don't think it's unreasonable for people to believe the Palestinians are basically intractable and, by extension, most of their Muslim brethren - who use Israel as the excuse for everything they do.

Fact-based people, tell me if I'm missing something here...


Bugs: I will make an attempt to set out my perspective on the matter.

As far as Israel-Palestine goes, peace has not always been top priority for either side.

As far as the Islamic world is concerned, it's a complication of demographics and collapsed ideologies and superstructure.



Bugs: I will make an attempt to set out my perspective on the matter.

As far as Israel-Palestine goes, peace has not always been top priority for either side.

As far as the Islamic world is concerned, it's a complication of demographics and collapsed ideologies and superstructure.

To take the second part first.

What typically happens when there are large population fluctuations is that it puts strain on the infrastructure. There are two types of infrastructure. There's the infrastructure that involves roads, schools, hospitals, and so on, and there's the infrastructure that involves people's attitudes about
their surroundings.

When you get a large population spurt, the infrastructure gets over-taxed and people become primed for rebellion. Exactly what causes the transition to rebellion is unclear, but there's no question that there were (at least) large population spurts in France prior to their Revolution, in Russia prior to theirs, and Europe in general prior to the World Wars. (America absorbed a lot of the excess Euro population between the end of the Civil War until WW1, but all we got out of it was the IWW and a few terrorist incidents. Probably because we were so huge and largely unpeopled.)

When the physical infrastructure starts to break down, people get pissed. They become, among other things, alienated. They want changes, not just more roads. They stop being passive, they are ripe for all kinds of revolutionary leadership. They start questioning the status quo. This is also what happened in France, Russia, Europe after WW1.

What's happening in the Muslim world is that population growth has over-taxed the existing material infrastrure. It has also over-taxed the social infrastructure. It is well on the way of creating "secular" Islam.

But there are many problems there.

The first problem is that the over-taxed infrastructure means that people are not being adequately taken care of. The second problem is that the population growth is interfering in the social infrastructure. It was common, for example, for farmer or herdsman to marry at a certain age, and have many children. IOW, a young man gets some assets, gets married, has kids, end of story. But there's a tremendous number of what the Russians used to call "superfluous people" who have no real assets, and if they have a job, it's some kind of BS bureaucrat job. Read Dostoevsky or Gogol to get a handle on what I mean. These guys have little hope of acquiring assets, little hope of acquiring social standing, little hope of marrying, and settling down. These people may, or may not be, poor. But their advancement is blocked because their social infrastructure is overloaded and there's no room to move. Most of the 9/11 guys came from this frame of reference.

A third problem is taking people away from their villages, putting them in big cities, and putting them to work in factories. This always happens when there's a big demographic bump. Typically, two things happen here. First, any city has a multitude of frames of reference. There's no "one explanation" for reality anymore. So, people become secular. When they become secular, they start asking questions. Questions like, "Why am I working in this crummy factory/refinery while that guy drives a Mercedes and has six wives?" In short, in the Muslim world, they are asking the kinds of questions we Westerners asked before our revolutions, which also involved the overthrow of nobility. (Remember that much of the power in the Gulf is princely power.)

There are reactions to this process of urbanizing, secularizing, and industrialization. One reaction is fascism. That covers Syria, the former Iraq, and Egypt. The attraction of fascism is that it gives everyone an identity, that is, a national identity, and it tells a single story, so people have something to believe in again. Another reaction is retreat, but a calculated retreat. That is Iran. Iranians are not really religious fanatics, but they go along with the mullahs because it gives them a simple set of rules and interpretation. It's easier than wide-open secularization, which is what we have in the US and Europe today. A third reaction is simple maintenance of the royal status quo, by force. That covers Saudi Arabia, and most of the rest. Of all the Arab countries in the region, Egypt, which is sort of post-fascist, and Jordan, which is sort of post-monarchical, are I think the most stable.

So what's going to happen? It depends on where the demographic pressure is most severe. Off the top of my head, I think, today, the pressure is worst in the Persian Gulf region, comprising Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and the fertile crescent along the Mediterranean, including Israel/Palestine. I think Iran is feeling its oats. I don't think it wants to conquer anyone, but I do think it wants to dominate the region. That is not in our interest, and it's not in Israel's interest. However, it's another question as to whether we (or Israel, if they could) would fight a war over it, because it would threaten to dislocate the global economy, which could create economic problems and the possibility of creating revolutionary situations all over the world.

First thing I should say, is that the likelihood of a western style democracy is not in the cards. The economic reality, and the historical tradition, do not support a democracy emerging for many decades. What you are likely to get is more countries like Egypt and Jordan.

There will probably be civil wars and/or revolutions in many of these states. These will be about jockeying for power. There will probably be many dead. There will also probably be many refugees, giving a strong Muslim flavor to both Europe and America. After 20-30 years, things will calm down.

The $64 question is, what's going to happen to us, to Europe, to Israel.

9/11 proved that we Americans have an interest in the Muslim world. We have to guide, and backstop, them. What is the likelihood of a small terrorist group like Al Qaeda getting a nuke and blowing it in the US? I would say, first, a nuke is a bit of a step up from a box cutter: let's not make these freaks into supermen. IF we work on our intelligence, and we maintain our security, we should be able to nip something like this in the bud. We aren't going to make ourselves safer, however, by bombing various Muslim countries. All that will do is radicalize more people, swell the ranks of Al Qaeda, and create more refugees.

Obviously we can't beat them if we don't even know what they're saying. I heard Ken Adelman say we have SIX Arabic language experts in our defense establishment. That's absurd. We should have six thousand. Spend the money. It's not hard a language, it's no harder than Hebrew.

We have to integrate the Muslims. That's not a problem for the US, we integrate and assimilate very well. It is a problem in Europe -- where most of these plots are hatched -- and in Israel, where integration is officially not done (but of course, unofficially it's common.)

What is the risk of a state actor nuking someone? Well, let's put it this way. I wouldn't trust Ahmadenijad with an electric razor. The guy is seriously nuts. On the other hand, he's not the real power in Iran. I wouldn't be too concerned about him. He frankly should not be in power because he is deliberately inflammatory. Look for him to go in the next year or os.

Will Iran get nukes? Probably. Will the nuke anyone, esp Israel? No. Nuking Israel would end up making all of the Holy Places there, which are sacred to Muslims, radioactive, even a low yield bomb would kill as many Arabs as Jews, incidentally probably make large parts of the country uninhabitable. I doubt if if that would please the Palestinians much.

Iraq is probably going to descend into civil war, and that may lead to wars between Turkey/Kurds, Syria/Saudi/Sunni vs Shiite/Iran, and so on. But those won't be nuclear wars. If there are great casualties, and large numbers of refugees, the US will probably get blamed for it, because we deposed Saddam, but it won't really be our fault. We would probably end up taking in many hundreds of thousands of refugees, however. We're good at that.


What about Israel and the Palestinians? I think you are right, the Israelis cannot stop being vigilant, because there's always going to be someone ready to start shooting. The problem is that Israeli expansion has occurred in such a way that it is now thoroughly enmeshed around and in the Palestinians.

I think for the first 20 years after 67 the Israelis did not intend to give up the West Bank. I think they were hoping that the Palis would get tired and leave and/or accept Israeli suzerainty. What changed that was the first intifada. It was only after that, I feel, that Israel seriously entertained giving up land for peace. Of course, not all Jews nor all Israelis like that idea. That's why the first Israeli architect of the idea, Yitzhak Rabin, was assassinated.

Of course, the Palestinians haven't been interested in peace, either. Under Jordanian control, the Palestinians were hassled by the Jordanians, and the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from where Israel now stood (some of whom were forcibly expelled, see Rabin's memoirs) were confined to UN administered refugee camps, where they, and their descendants, still live today.

Arafat got his start way back in '65, when he tried to blow up an Israeli water line (yes, even then it was an issue.)

The Palestinians who left where Israel is today, or who were forced to leave, want to go back. It's impractical of course, but, since they're confined to refugee camps, what's the alternative? They really have no place to go, so, they have made the old homes an obsesssion, complete with wearing door keys around their necks. That is why, in any future peace, the Israelis are going to have to bite the bullet and say "I'm sorry" about those expulsions.

Of course the Israelis cannot actually allow the Palestinians to return, because then Israel loses on demographics, etc. etc.

Meanwhile, Israel has its own problems. 20% of their population is non-Jewish, but the whole concept of Israel is based on a country run by Jews for Jews. The non-Jewish minority is growing, in two ways: one, through native birth rates, and two, through the influx of Soviet Jewry (the main source of immigration, or aliyah, to Israel in the past 20 years.) About a million Soviet Jews came to Israel in the last fifteen years, after legislation was passed disallowing Soviet Jews from leaving Russia with Israeli visas and then coming to the US, instead (which is where they usually went, prior to that legislation.) This was engineered by Sharon, Shamir, and others, to beef up the Jewish population vis a vis the non-Jewish population. The problem however is that many of these Soviet Jews come from mixed marriages and their Jewishness is a bit tenuous.

Israel is also suffering from battle fatigue. I mean, Israel/West Bank together is about the size of New Jersey, which is the most densely populated state in the Union, but has 2 million more people, much less rainfall, significant deserts, water shortages, and few natural resources. It has intellectual capital to burn, but there aren't enough ways to employ that, which is why the trend for young Israelis is to wander to more moderate climes, more opportunity, less likelihood of violence (yes, that's a factor), and so on. They are still Israelis, they still love their country, they keep their visas, but ....

Israel needs significant donations. It gets them from governments, like the US, and it gets from private Jewish agencies. To get immigrants, and to keep immigrants, it offers them great real estate deals, in the West Bank (usually), and money to live in Israel. The pull is, "this is a nation for you, a Jew." Problem there is, Jews are just as secular as most Christians nowadays, so the religious pull of Israel is fading. What remains is, "Your fellow Jews need your help, because we are embattled, etc. etc." That still works, at least as far as donations are concerned. However, that appeal won't work, if Israel became a binational state.

Basically, if Israel is at peace, then it will get less support. But if it is threatened, it gets more. If it can continue to portray itself as a Jewish homeland (although only about 1/3 of the World's Jews live there), then it will continue to get support from World Jewry. But if it becomes binational, then it's appeal to Jews will also diminish. So they have a tough problem, not even counting the Palestinians.

The Palestinians are stuck. Realistically, I expect a lot of them will come to the US. I have known some. They are OK. They look very Jewish. ;-)

The key is breaking down the refugee camps, in the West Bank and Gaza.

Then the Israelis have to offer to make serious territorial concessions, behind closed doors, including Arab East Jerusalem.

Then the Israelis have to apologize.

Then the Palestinians have to apologize.

Then the US has to support both states. Shoot, I'd raise my taxes for that. Would you? I'm tired of it.

The Israelis are ripe for territorial concessions. I would almost say, that the Israelis are ripe for a binational socialist state. The Palestinians are not ready yet. They can be helped getting ready by:

a) systematically relieving overpop through emigration to the US,
b) rebuilding infrastructure destroyed since 2000,
c) gradually returning lands, and compensating the Jews who depart,
d) investing capital in Palestinian areas,
e) US financed desalinization plants throughout Israel/Palestine/Gaza,
f) empowering moderate factions in Palestine,
g) talking, yes, even to Hamas,

There are probably other things. The wall actually HELPS, short term, because due to that the Israelis have no reason to destroy Pali infrastructure as they did in, say, 2002. But I see no reason why we Americans can't have a significant portion of our consumer goods made by Palestinians. And that's the kind of infusion that could help them take off.


So, you see, there will probably be fighting, and a large loss of life, in the Muslim world in the next 20-30 years. But it need not go nuclear. What the US has to do is facilitate change while at the same time supporting stability. A difficult balancing act. It will cost more in terms of money, than in terms of blood.

What we as Americans can do is insist on a more involved position in the Muslim world, and that includes the entire Israel/Palestine situation. It will cost us a lot of money. And we should keep our powder dry, by increasing our armed forces accordingly. The threat is always stronger than the execution.

The end state we should be aiming at is social equilibrium throughout the Muslim world, and that includes Israel/Palestine and Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.

In this process, words are very important. Therefore, we should avoid the "A" word (used by Carter), the "R" word, the "A-S" word, and we avoid disrespecting Muslims, like it's a big joke to piss them off.

What we should not be doing is selling the American people a bill of goods about how we can cause these changes to occur magically by Shock 'n' Awe, and Democracy, in a war that will last no more than three months, that will pay for itself, and similar hogwash. The American people have to be leveled with as to the sacrifices we should make. Otherwise, a lot more people will die. And we should stop looking for military solutions, when, as I have tried to show, the problems are economic, structural, infrastructural, demographic, and ideological,
and have to be managed in that manner.

A Response to Jeff Goldstein and His Chorus Blog

This time, however, the media cannot control the entirety of the narrative. And we feckless keyboard warriors and chickenhawks will never let Americans forget,

You really are a talented writer. The problem is that America will forget, because no one hangs around to read keyboard warriors whose overriding ethos or tone is different from what they already believe. And that seems to be the problem with the blogosphere. Everyone seems content to hang out with people who agree with them, and slander anyone who disagrees, and in this way there is no persuasion, which means the numbers stay the same.

The only entre out of obscurity is a fact-based analysis (e.g., the expose of the fraudulent docs concerning Dubya’s service) and even then it bubbles up via MSM. Expressions of opinion, no matter how finely wrought, or magnanimous (an adjective tha applies almost no blog posts), just aren’t going to bubble up and propagate.

The problem is that the war has not turned out as it was advertised in late ‘02 and early ‘03. That’s just a fact. As a consequence of that fact, the American people are tired of the war, and just want it over. The polls on this have been solid for some time.

I watched the TV commentators (and their guests) today. They seemed to cover the spectrum fairly well. Most everyone is calling for “one last push”—ok, fine. Do it. But everyone agrees that this “one last push” is a final roll of the dice. And that if it doesn’t work, we gotta get out. That’s the broad carapace of common sense / conventional wisdom / received opinion which keyboard warriors would have to pierce.

Of course, failure in Iraq—we appear to be failing so far—is terrible for the United States and brutally cruel to our men and women in the armed forces of the United States, the dead, and the maimed. We could—in the opinion of those who think the whole project was a mistake—“throw good money after bad”, or “stay the course” for those who think there’s a light at the end of the tunnel. But that approach has to contend with the “you told us sumpin different!” attitude that is now widespread across the land.

_I_ think that at this point it’s a failure of political leadership. If we really want to go balls to the wall in Iraq, we have to go balls to the wall in the whole region, we have to have political leadership that points to the militarization of our culture, the notion of necessary shared sacrifice, but all of this with ABSOLUTE GUARANTEES of individual rights (inc. privacy, freedom of speech), and the notion that we cannot afford to allow a billion Muslims to go batshit, not only because of the oil that fuels the global economy on whose stability our country depends, but also because we cannot afford 1/6th of the population of the world to be unstable, to acquire nuclear weapons and destroy cities in accordance with a nihilist ideology.

However, there’s no way we can do these things with the relatively puny number of people we have in our armed forces. In World War Two, at one point or another, 25% of Germans were in uniform. Our armed forces, including recent veterans, probably is at about 1%. We cannot provide security to the world—our world—under those circumstances.

Nature abhors a vacuum and politics abhors a vacuum of power. There are vacuums of power throughout the Arab/Muslim world, and either we, Americans, fill those vacuums or someone else will. We need to orient our society towards armed service, mobilize the country, re-establish the draft, drastically increase our armed forces (especially ground forces), increase taxes to fund our defense establishment, and then pacify Iraq. Then, we act further on the basis of what the neighbors do. We do not act on the basis of our limited forces, we do not act on the basis of “what we think we can get away with.”

SHORT TERM, I think we are losing and will lose. Too many people have an almost superstitious faith in the efficacy of remote weapons systems. Short term, we cannot possibly put enough people on the ground. But LONG TERM (five years) we can do this. We simply need the political leadership to do it, and we aren’t getting it, and it is unlikely we are going to get it via blog posts here or there. If we don’t get the political leadership to do the things I have outlined, then we will in fact lose, regardless of the imprecations and gnashing of teeth.

NOTE: Although I have been calling for radical increases in the size of the armed forces for a long time, people always accuse me of being a defeatist, because, they say, I am only suggesting these alternatives because I “know” they are unattainable. Rubbish. We can do anything we want to do, we simply need the political leadership to spell out to the American people what’s going on and what needs to be done.

On the other hand, if people continue to insist that these problems can be solved by dropping more bigger bombs, or by killing more people and letting God sort them out, or by insisting we can turn the Iraq fiasco into a triumph by “controlling the narrative”, we will continue to fail. This is not something that can be solved by sending 20 K troops into Baghdad and letting them act like the Wehrmacht in Occupied Russia. We need a lot more people involved, and unless we get that, we will lose, lose, lose, and we are not getting the political leadership to get there.