A Serious Suggestion for Iraq: The Middleman

A source told me that the Arab world often uses middlemen to coordinate outcomes. I suppose since you can't trust others (rightly so said Hobbes) then the use of a middleman can come in handy.

Maliki need not and should not go right now. No leader should step down under such conditions.

What is needed is the right diplomacy. Example: the US or the UN should use an ambassador to Iraq or a special one to shuttle between the various contenders. With some initial confidence building measures at first and then leading to something like an Office of the Purveyor to continue the Middleman role.

More likely is a de facto partition of Iraq with ongoing low level violence.

Sending in US spotters or spies will piss off someone. If they spy on Iran from Baghdad to see what it is doing in Syria that will piss off Baghdad too. If they spy on Sunniland to bomb targets that will piss off the Gulf States.

You see the goal of the US is instability: don't let anyone win, not Maliki (would help Iran), not Assad (helps Russia), not ISIS (helps Saudi and ould scare Israel).

But the backers involved want these factions to WIN. Unlike the USA, they dont want the pot to just keep on simmering forever.

Keep in mind too the track record of the US in that region has been a general failure. Things always seem to backfire over there.   

The Bergdahl Event

In postmodern thought, an event is singularity, either of one major theme or (more likely) of them all. It would be for example the coming together in thought or politics or writing all of the extant ideologies at once…i.e. a hot mess. The Bergdahl debate is such a happening. It has all that can be thought about war and POW’s in one spot. Traitor or patriot? Was too much given up for the trade? Were the exchanged only Taliban officials or warriors? Can Qatar be relied upon? Let’s look past the truth of these questions for a moment.  

But Bergdahl will mean nothing in terms of the outcome in Afghanistan. He will not provide much help either on the campaign trail. No Republican will talk it without undermining the ‘support the troops’ idea. No Democrat will talk it without the worry of what the exchanged might do. A wash. But a fluorescent one. A singularity which fits perfectly in no one narrative.

dumb Goodluck, dumber boko haram

The location of the 200+ Nigerian girls was not known. But the CLAIM that that location was known elicited 'chatter' from the kidnappers, the location of which was then triangulated. Cool. The mere use of publicized speech did the trick, not physical sleuthing nor tracking.

Unfortunately while the Nigerian army is good at burning down Hausa villages, it is not able to do a surgical operation. And most of the girls have been married off or ransomed by now anyway.

Edward Snowden wasted his life

Sorry to say but the NBC interview with Snowden shows a technically savvy guy but an historically idealistic and naïve one. He sacrificed his life for an America that no longer exists.

No one cares about privacy anymore! Has he not heard of Facebook and Twitter? You might counter that we intentionally share in such forums while the NSA scoops up our secrets or even incidents from our seemingly banal, everyday life. But so does Google and all the rest. And so too would any observant person you meet downtown or in Home Depot.(However, neither Google nor Home Depot can slap handcuffs on you and throw you into a dungeon, unlike a government apparatus). 

Baudrillard says we are in a world of obscenity....if so, we would like to flaunt ourselves more if we could. As the age of Metanarratives fades, including Snowden's beloved ideal, it becomes more and more necessary to prove that we are real or that we exist.

It is about time to think about enjoying life without privacy. For example, we should consider legal immunity from prosecutions or being fired for our cyber profiles. Otherwise the potential of cyberspace will be stifled.

National interests

The fight over  the future of Ukraine between Russia and America is most interesting as a test of the value of national interests. Policies which enhance the power of a State in the World should be pursued and those which do not should not be pursued. It is the simple and cold logic of the realists. But that was for a modern, Westphalian globe. Now the interests of the State are only one of many policy considerations, not the main one. On Ukraine, Russia has major interests at stake while the US has relatively little, other than denying it to Russia. But ,as S. Walt noted the costs for the US to support  Ukraine far outweigh the benefits. It is one thing to put on the requisite show of disapproval for the sake of NATO allies but another to risk damage on an array of pressing political and economic issues. Finding asymmetric sanctions is not the question. Knowing what and who you need is. But in a postmodern age, pushpin is a good as poetry. Thus, a bit of self-interest, some sanctions, some posturing can all happen together. If so, the response should be muddled too. No retreat from Russia but no invasion either; no breakup of Ukraine but no national solidarity either....a frustrating, exciting, incremental political world

Eric Holder, US Attorney General, on Too Big to Jail

Let's get a bit deep again and consider the future meaning of Holder's statement. In a recent video he stated that Too Big to Jail is a wrongheaded theory that banks and other financial firms that are highly interconnected will never be criminally prosecuted due to their size. 

Cynics might chuckle at Holder's view as either lie or doublespeak. Certainly the facts would seem to confirm their view since none have been charged with a crime. Also it is late in the game. Not only has the crime festered since 2007-8 but Holder is about ready to exit.

But what if the statement is genuine? How? Assume no difference between theory and practice, i.e. that it is always possible to read politics, speech or acts, as text. Then Holder's statement is the accusation and it has melded into the blogosphere and been disseminated to others listening (less cynical listeners) will assume the guilt of Wall Street. That is bound to constrain their future actions.

Why? The post-Mandeville days when commerce could be deemed good, clean, and virtuous become then more difficult to sustain. Slightly more anyway. 

Ukraine and the May 2014 Clash of Democracies

May will see two momentous elections for two decisions. One election on the 11th will be for the liberation of E. Ukraine. The other, two weeks later, will decide upon a new leadership for the State of Ukraine. Is this what Kant envisioned regarding perpetual peace when he claimed that democracies do not clash? But Kant was a modern. In a postmodern field, where everything possible can happen simultaneously, (quantum-ness) tensions are ever-present not only between the old democracy and dictatorship binary.

Ukraine's present history may point the way to a new form of democracy as electionism.