Iran, USA, and Peace

Well lots of talk about diplomatic breakthroughs lately. These have some observers already speculating about a different Near East. I can say this: modern peace is based upon interests of industries and States. You find an equilibrium that suits all parties well enough. Modus vivendi. On that basis there is little chance: none of the actors and industries want peace enough. But a postmodern peace is de-referenced peace. Interests would not drive it. So it is always more possible than modern peace. But are we there now? Answer: not yet. Need more media 'peace' hype and more regime 'peace' hype. Enough of that, for long enough will overwhelm the old modern (anti-)peace model in this case.

Shutdown: causes and aims versus what it really means

Fake, fake and more fake means gearing for a resurrection of some real politics. This show about a government crisis is not even convincing acting. No Oscars here. But you can bet that when the dust settles more austerity will be negotiated. It was the goal from the start but there was no excuse to do it. Now the Prezident can appear reasonable when benefits for seniors are cut and tax breaks handed out to the more fortunate. More interesting perhaps, is how policy is conducted nowadays: by overblown virtuality (and theatrics). As the Virtual world becomes more prominent, (e.g. drone wars fought on monitors not tanks or amphibious landings like D-day, wall street not main street, facebook not bars, amazon not jc penny, etc.), physical politics is diminishing. More and more, politicians seek ways to work through the virtual (they must!) in order to impact upon physical politics (Machiavelli, power, deal-making, constituency services, etc.). But their effort will fail. No, physical politics will not disappear but the Virtual space is becoming less and less connected to it. Soon politicos will not be able to make changes, no matter how much they holler on Sunday morning talk shows.

Why it is too late for a U.S. government shutdown

The government of the US 'shut down' long ago as of many other governments across the globe. This outcome is not from any actions that they have taken (e.g. no not from overspending, too much debt nor neglect of the poor). They have rather all been de-referenced or unmoored thanks to a wave of communication which equalizes all deep ideas and values. What it means to be American has faded to the point where the US government has been pursuing counter-national interests such as giving Iraq to Iran and gutting its manufacturing base through tariff-destruction. Even the anti-America, aka Iran, is detached from its religious roots and likely rapidly which is why their new President seeks some quick successes before its irrelevance is complete. The EU governments pursue policies that do not help their majorities while claiming to defer to the even more distant government in Brussels. In the face of these trends, the looming shutdown is strangely anti-climactic. Washington DC has already been detached from the nation. A congressionally mandated shutdown only certifies the trend.

Obama, War on Syria, Assad: Four Predictions from bad to worst...

Despite what they say, Americans are fascinated with the Middle East. In keeping with this tradition I offer the following predictions for that hungry audience about a war on Syria by Obama. The first two have non-terrible results, the third is unclear, and the fourth is catastrophic. 1. Obama-United States-France (former colonial power!) attacks Syria in a perfectly scripted way, just as he said he would, with little retaliation from Assad and Hezbollah. The targets are precisely those announced publicly resulting in few losses that could change the outcome of the civil war. This is the most postmodern, hyperreal outcome. It is exactly what Baudrillard wrote of the Gulf War but this time it would be even more perfectly staged (requiring Russian help). Probably no one would be wholly satisfied with the aftermath because it would be little changed from the present (9/6/2013). The same grumblers would still grumble. 2. US Congress says no and Obama sets a precedent to restrain future presidents from adventurism and wag-the-dog scenarios. This result is the liberal favorite. 3. Obama-United States-France (former colonial power!) attack Syria and Hezbollah massively (not in a limited way as he said he would) destroying the deterrents set up by Assad and Hezbollah. Retaliation is impossible. This is the AIPAC favored outcome. 4. Obama-United States-France (former colonials!) attack Syria but forewarned on the timing by Russia, Assad and Hezbollah launch everything they have at every enemy in sight (following a use-it-or-lose-it logic). The reprisals and counter-reprisals lead to full scale war or even world war. (You may notice that none of these predictions have anything to do with the use of gas). END

Civility triumphs in Asia!

I know little about Asia. There are tensions and historical grievances that could get inflamed easily. But the Asians have agreed to some new protocols on addressing differences at the ASEAN meeting. It is not consensus on the differences. But they are deferred, for awhile.

West attacks Syria? What could happen. The Credibility Factor

Lots of talk about credibility at stake for the US and Obama if there is no response to the alleged gas attack near Damascus. But the problem is that there is too much credibility; that the West seeks regime change. It happened in Iraq and in Libya already so you can bet Assad and Nasrallah (head of Hezbollah) believe it. So if they think they are going to die today from British and French today or tomorrow from cannibals, the question is what will they do if attacked. That is why there has been a delay in Western action: Uncertainty about their response not about any gas attack (about which no Western leader cares about). Will Syria and Hezbollah go all out, knowing that their regimes are about to be changed? The ideal, theoretical Western attack would be so limited that there would be no real response from the defenders. That would require much communication, trust, and you guessed it, credibility (but a different sort). Here is what is needed: 'Hi Assad, this is Obama. Hi I'm going to bomb you in a very limited way that will not tilt the balance of power to the cannibals, is that cool?' Do you promise it will be limited in that way? Yes. Ok go ahead.' This is the conversation, more or less (perhaps with the Russians as guarantors) that needs to happen for surgical strikes to receive little response. Think it is possible? If not, then it is time to swallow your pride and eat crow about crossing some red line...

U.S. Embassies closing to prepare for new War

All American embassies in the Islamic world are closing...who is Obama planning to attack? Invasion of Syria?