Is the U.S. alone against ISIS?

This old semi-satirical article from The Atlantic disturbed me:

Defeating ISIS: The Board Game

I read this and ask myself, who is our ally against ISIS?  Nobody.

(Granted, this was before Russia entered the picture; but it's surprising how little Russia changed things in the regional calculus).

This started by asking myself, why is our #1 ally in the Mideast, "the only democracy in the Middle East," Israel, not helping us against ISIS, at least not openly?  I read the news; I read nothing about Israel in the fight against ISIS.

This thought alone disturbs me.

It disturbs me even more that countries in the region don't see ISIS as the biggest threat, but rather their neighbors, or homegrown groups.  Or the Kurds, whom Russia and the U.S. love to love but can't really support too much, because of Turkey.

What disturbs me the most, I guess, is that the world's #1 military power seems to care a lot about ISIS while all the countries where ISIS actually exists don't seem particularly bothered by it.  

It bothers me when I'm feeling manipulated. I don't like being jerked around. I think that's what's going on with ISIS.

War Nerd: Praise Gen. Sherman for burning Atlanta!

For personal reasons I've been remiss not to post this sooner. Without further ado, here is Gary Brecher, aka the War Nerd, at his best. I admit it, I love his sentiments [emphasis mine]:

Sherman was trying, in everything he did, to wake these idiots from their delusion. That’s why they hate Sherman so much, 150 years after his campaign ended in total success: Because he interrupted their silly and sadistic dreams, humiliated them in the most vulnerable part of their weird anatomy, their sense of valorous superiority. Sherman didn’t wipe out the white South, though he could easily have done so; he was, in fact, very mild toward a treasonous population that regularly sniped at and ambushed his troops. But what he did was demonstrate the impotence of the South’s Planter males.

And here's what Sherman said of himself at the time in his "Letter to Atlanta," quoted by Gary:

“You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country…

“The only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride.

“You have heretofore read public sentiment in your newspapers, that live by falsehood and excitement; and the quicker you seek for truth in other quarters, the better. I repeat then that, by the original compact of government, the United States had certain rights in Georgia, which have never been relinquished and never will be; that the South began the war by seizing forts, arsenals, mints, custom-houses, etc., etc., long before Mr. Lincoln was installed, and before the South had one jot or tittle of provocation. I myself have seen in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi, hundreds and thousands of women and children fleeing from your armies and desperadoes, hungry and with bleeding feet…But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect an early success.”

And then there's this golden nugget of truth from Gary, still apropos today, (I'm thinking of Ferguson, MO and many, many other places...):

Of course, this is all lost on the Phil Leighs of the world, who—for reasons that cut deep into the ideology of the American right wing—always take burnt houses too seriously, and dead people far too lightly. To them, burning a house is a crime, while shooting a Yankee soldier in the eye is just part of war’s rich tapestry. 

Unlike most other "Northerners" today who don't give the Civil War a thought, I am so, so glad that we beat the Confederacy and preserved the Union, aka the United States of America, and sent those pompous Foghorn Leghorns home in caskets or with their traitorous tails between their legs. I tip my hat to Sherman, Grant, et al and the 300,000 truest American patriots who ever lived and kept the USA the USA by facing down and defeating the greatest existential threat we ever faced: our meaner, more prideful selves.

The War Nerd: Why Sherman was right to burn Atlanta

By Gary Brecher

November 20, 2014 | Pando Daily

URL: http://pando.com/2014/11/20/the-war-nerd-why-sherman-was-right-to-burn-atlanta/

Zakaria: ISIS wants U.S. '800-pound gorilla' to fight them

I've been saying this from the start, nevertheless, here you go, an expert opinion:

Remember, ISIS has gone from nothing to becoming the replacement for al Qaeda, the most well-known jihadi organization in the world. How? By taking on the 800-pound gorilla of the world, the United States of America.

How exactly then would that create recruitment for wannabe jihadis?

Because if you are one of the many jihadi organizations or one of the many radical Sunni organizations in Syria that is sort of struggling for market share and adherents, that's one thing. If you become the organization that battles the United States, the crusaders, the West – if you become the face of radical Islam that is up against this new crusade – now, all of a sudden, you are the place everyone wants to come to. You're the place everyone wants to send money to. There's a lot of this that has to do with fundraising.

Breaking down the latest ISIS message

By Jason Miks

November 14, 2014 | CNN

URL: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/11/14/breaking-down-the-latest-isis-message/

Canadian takes down GOP, midterm elections, pines for their own Obama

[HT: JC]. Well said, eh!

Unfortunately, it would never occur to our President or the Democrats to brag, they're much too timid for that... because somebody, somewhere doesn't like them!  [Gasp! Shudder!]

Americans don't know how good they have it with Obama

By Richard Brunt

November 10, 2014 | Detroit Free Press

Many of us Canadians are confused by the U.S. midterm elections.

Consider, right now in America, corporate profits are at record highs, the country's adding 200,000 jobs per month, unemployment is below 6%, U.S. gross national product growth is the best of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries.

The dollar is at its strongest levels in years, the stock market is near record highs, gasoline prices are falling, there's no inflation, interest rates are the lowest in 30 years, U.S. oil imports are declining, U.S. oil production is rapidly increasing, the deficit is rapidly declining, and the wealthy are still making astonishing amounts of money.

America is leading the world once again and respected internationally — in sharp contrast to the Bush years. Obama brought soldiers home from Iraq and killed Osama bin Laden.

So, Americans vote for the party that got you into the mess that Obama just dug you out of? This defies reason.

When you are done with Obama, could you send him our way?

Richard Brunt

Victoria, British Columbia

Conservatives, do you want the good old days back?

When conservatives implore America to return to the good ole days, they don't understand what that entails.

For instance, a 90 percent top marginal tax rate. Check it out:

But hey, it was the golden age of America, right? So let's try it again and see what happens!

Economists Say We Should Tax The Rich At 90 Percent

By Ben Walsh

October 22, 2014 | Huffington Post

URL: http://huff.to/1FC9ZQL

Putin could destroy NATO, and NATO knows it (Forbes)

Gregory's description of Putin's possible next move -- a hybrid war in the Baltics that could fall short of an Article 5 attack, if NATO wants it to -- is frightening to read, even more so knowing that NATO and the West, collectively, would like nothing more than to appease Putin and hope he's happy with his bloody spoils in Crimea, Donbas, not to mention South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria.

NATO's members surely know that Putin could destroy their alliance -- not physically, but rather by crossing the all-important "red line" of Article 5, the sine qua non of NATO. Once Article 5 is breached, say, in Latvia, without a NATO military reaction then all bets are off and it's every country in Eastern Europe for itself.

But of course... who cares about NATO? We should concentrate on bearded loonies riding around in the desert on captured American hardware, making threats at us on YouTube from 6,000 miles away....

Ukraine Is More of An Existential Threat Than ISIS, Because It Could Destroy NATO

By Paul Roderick Gregory

September 23, 2014 | Forbes

URL: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/09/23/ukraine-is-more-of-an-existential-threat-than-isis-because-it-could-destroy-nato/

Gessen: What comes next 'will be bloodier and more frightening'

Here's the meat of Gessen's essay [emphasis mine]:

This narrative [of essentially blaming the Ukraine crisis on Western-NATO expansion into Russia's traditional sphere of influence] is not without merit. The bombing of Yugoslavia enabled an unprecedented rise in nationalist politics in Russia. And NATO expansion confirmed Russians’ worst suspicions about the West. Ukraine’s attempted move westward last year terrified the Kremlin, as did everything that has happened in that country since the protests began in Kiev last November.

But the sleeping-bear story is missing two essential components: the role of Ukraine and its people, who have been fighting to choose their own destiny – indeed, this story tends to ignore the existence of Ukrainians altogether – and, ironically, the fact that Putin has his own agency.

It is tempting to view Putin as merely the embodiment of Russia’s reaction to the actions of Western powers. It creates the illusion that he can be managed, or contained. If all he wants is a buffer zone between Russia and NATO, then the way to prevent a large European war is to give it to him, whatever the people of Ukraine might want. Let him keep Crimea, make Ukraine grant significant autonomy to its eastern regions and promise not to enter into any military alliances – and the Nobel Peace Prize is on its way.

The only problem is that portraying Putin as an unlikable but, essentially, Western politician – one who formulates his strategic objectives in a way Western analysts can understand – misses the point entirely. Russia’s behavior over the past week of a fragile cease-fire in eastern Ukraine has shown this very clearly. Russia kidnapped an Estonian security officer on Estonian territory – the Russians claim he was arrested on Russian soil while spying – and is holding him in Russia. It has re-opened Soviet-era desertion cases against a large number of Lithuanian men. And Russia has ratcheted up its nuclear saber-rattling.

All this points to the possibility that, rather than the beginning of the end of the conflict, the cease-fire is a stepping stone to the next stage of the crisis. That stage may or may not involve Ukraine, but it will definitely involve the use of force and, as it always happens in warfare, it will be bloodier and even more frightening than what came before.

First, brava to Gessen for an important point about the Maidan Revolution and Russia's ensuing military action in Crimea and eastern Ukraine: many analysts and journalists dismiss the role of Ukrainians altogether, and portray them as helpless pawns of either the West or Russia. What do most Ukrainians want their government to do; and what kind of country do they want to live in? These basic questions often get overlooked, because we've become accustomed to thinking of Ukrainians as pawns in outsiders' game.

Second, contrary to what some have argued, Putin did have a choice whether to invade Crimea and destabilize eastern Ukraine with weapons and fighters. His hand was not forced. This is what Gessen meant by "Putin has his own agency."

Third, kudos to Gessen for acknowledging that Putin "isn't like us" in the West. To many Western leaders' recent astonishment, Putin has no compunction telling one lie today, and a contradictory lie tomorrow. Why? Because he is a former KGB agent and homo soveticus; for him lying is like breathing: second nature. (See Russian writer Mikhail Shishkin's excellent essay on this topic.) 

P.S. -- U.S. conservatives keep crowing that "Romney was right!" and Obama was wrong to criticize him when Romney said in March 2012 that Russia was "without question our number one geopolitical foe."  They have some cause to gloat... although I didn't hear their concern back then, or until March 2014, about Russia's intentions. My only clarification here would be that Russia is not Putin. On the world stage, for all intents and purposes, the two are now one in the same. Yet it is not destiny that the West finds itself opposed to Russia, it is because of Putin. 

Let's recall that in March 2012, Putin was Prime Minister and Dmitry Medvedev, his protege, was President. Putin had not yet become President again in May 2012, although many feared he would when Russia amended its constitution in 2008 to extend the president's term to six years. Nor had Putin yet cracked down on Russian media, NGOs, opposition political figures and public events. Prior to 2012, there was some hope among liberal Russians that Putin would let a new generation of modern, pragmatic politicians reform Russia. When Putin didn't, there were the most massive and violent street protests that Russia had seen in many years. 

Even former Kremlin insiders say that, since 2012, Putin has become more insular, impulsive and unpredictable. And it wasn't until 2014 that Putin started describing the "Russian World" and Russia's "right to protect" ethnic Russians and Russian speakers wherever they may be; when he started substituting the word russkiy (ethnic Russian) for rossiskiy (regarding matters of Russian state and national interest). 

Essentially, in Russia we are witnessing the frightening metamorphosis of a young, semi-reformist autocrat into a paranoid, bitter old dictator. Indeed, Putin first came to power in 2000. If we count Putin's term as ministerial "gray cardinal" under Medvedev and his likely re-election in 2018 and 2024, Putin will have been in power almost as long as Josef Stalin, and outlast at least three U.S. Presidents.

Russians love their children, too – but that alone won’t stop a nuclear war

By Masha Gessen

September 15, 2014 | Reuters

URL: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS219326889120140916

Former UK Defence Sec.: ‘Putin as bad as Stalin'

[HT: AU].  Here's the most relevant bit in my view, as it goes for the U.S. as well as EU and NATO [emphasis mine]:

No sensible person wants, in the face of the many other challenges, to be forced to find money for increased spending on arms. No one wants the economic consequences that extensive sanctions against Russia will have on our own economies, but Putin will not be deterred by resolutions passed at Nato or EU summits.

So unless we want to gamble that this systematic aggression will fizzle out in the face of inactivity, and history tells us that doesn’t happen, we must find effective ways to deter him.

Both Nato and the EU have made a start but the small and reluctant steps taken so far sadly are not likely to be nearly enough.

All Nato countries should commit to reverse the recent decline in defence spending.

At the European level there is an urgent need to develop a strategy to decrease our heavy dependence on Russian energy.

Finally, Europe is realizing that Russia is not a reliable partner, since there is no separation of business and politics in Russia -- where everything is political, and politics is subordinated to one man, Vladimir Putin. Europe cannot abide the whims of one man in the vain hope of ensuring its economic and military security.

‘Putin as bad as Stalin’, claims former Defence Secretary Ainsworth

By Paul Dale

September 15, 2014 | The Chamberlain Files

URL: http://www.thechamberlainfiles.com/putin-as-bad-as-stalin-claims-former-defence-secretary-ainsworth/

DC Johnston: End insurance co-payments

Here's another one from David Cay Johnston, this time on the outrageous inefficiency of U.S. hospitals:

American hospitals spend a huge and growing share of their revenue on overhead, a study published today in Health Affairs shows. Getting those costs down should be a national priority.

U.S. hospitals on average spend 25.3 cents out of each dollar of revenue on overhead, with for-profit hospitals spending 27 percent and nonprofits a bit below the average.

By contrast, the Netherlands and England, which have the next highest overhead costs, spend 19.8 percent and 15.5 percent, respectively. Both are moving toward market-based financial models, so, as with the U.S., overhead costs are likely to rise.

[...] The new study helps explain why for every $1 the 33 other countries with advanced economies spend per person on universal health care, the United States spends $2.64 — and yet more than one-fifth of Americans have no or poor health insurance.  A significant reason the U.S. health care system is so expensive and inefficient turns out to be those annoying co-pays. 

Here's one suggestion: eliminate co-pays. Here's why:

In economics “rational” is a term of art. It means groups of people consistently making choices that maximize their benefits and minimize their costs. 

By this definition, the promotion of co-pays by employers and insurers fails the rationality test. Why? Because co-pays discourage people, especially those with meager incomes, from seeing doctors and obtaining medications. That reduces immediate spending on doctor visits and drugs but not total costs over the longer term. Instead, when people who are squeezed financially do not pick up their medications, thus avoiding the co-pay, they later will need more intensive and costly care, which drives up total costs for health care as well as increasing human misery and shortening lives.

When co-pays discourage getting drugs and visiting doctors, which results in more costly medical problems later, the system is irrational. When those payments eat up as much as or even more than they bring in, the system is more so.

Here is a suggestion: Get rid of co-pays. Instead let’s just add a prominent line on paycheck stubs that reads, “Your health care is paid separately, and it cost X dollars this pay period.” That would help make the American economy more efficient and more humane.

Time to end co-pays

By David Cay Johnston

September 8, 2014 | Aljazeera

URL: http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/health-care-costscopaysoverhead.html

Bergen: Americans fighting for ISIS will die over there

We're all gonna diiiiieeeeeeee!  Mobilize the army! Scramble the bombers!  DEFCON 1!  Kill 'em all! Kill, kill, kill!  Aaaaaaaaaaa!

Now that I've done the obligatory Scaring The Shit Out Of You, followed by the customary Let's Kill Them All First that you've become accustomed to on cable and talk radio, here's some more sober analysis of the actual threat to America posed by Islamic State, from CNN's resident Islamist terrorism expert Peter Bergen (and some other dude).

ISIS threat to U.S. is mostly hype

By Peter Bergen and David Sterman

September 5, 2014 | CNN

ISIS has Americans worried. Two-thirds of those surveyed in a recent Pew Research poll said they consider the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria to be a "major threat" to this country. But are such fears really justified?

Despite the impression you may have had from listening to U.S. officials in recent weeks, the answer is probably not really.

For a start, U.S. officials have been inflating the numbers of Americans fighting for ISIS, which has muddied the issue for the public. U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, for example, told CNN's Jim Sciutto on Wednesday, "We are aware of over 100 U.S. citizens who have U.S. passports who are fighting in the Middle East with ISIL forces." (ISIS is sometimes referred to as ISIL and now calls itself the Islamic State).

But the Pentagon soon corrected Hagel's comment, saying the 100 count is the total number of Americans fighting for any of the various groups fighting in Syria, some of which are more militant than others -- and some of which are even allied with the U.S. Indeed, Matthew Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center -- the government office tasked with assessing terrorist threats -- also confirmed that 100 is the total count of the various Americans fighting in Syria and not a count of those fighting for ISIS.

Hagel's comment is only the latest inflated claim regarding the number of Americans fighting with ISIS. Last week, the Washington Times cited anonymous official sources who said there are 300 Americans fighting with ISIS, despite the Pentagon estimating the figure to be more like a dozen.

True, a dozen is still too many. But it is important to remember that just because these Americans are fighting with ISIS, it doesn't necessarily translate into a significant threat to the American homeland.

One need only look at the example of Somalia to see why.

The last sizeable group of Americans who went overseas to fight with an al Qaeda-aligned group are the 29 Americans known to have traveled to fight with the Somali terrorist group Al-Shabaab after the 2006 invasion of Somalia by the Ethiopian army. However, none of those 29 subsequently planned or conducted a terrorist attack inside the United States, according to a survey of more than 240 jihadist terrorism cases since September 11 conducted by the New America Foundation.

Indeed, for more than a third of the American militants who fought with Al-Shabaab, going to Somalia was a one-way ticket. In 2008, a missile strike in Somalia killed Ruben Shumpert, a resident of Seattle. A year later, Burhan Hassan, a 17-year-old from Minneapolis, was killed in the Somali capital, Mogadishu. Abdirizak Bihi, Hassan's uncle, reportedly said at the time, "We believe he was killed because he would have been a key person in the investigation into the recruitment (of young Somali men) here in Minneapolis."

Al-Shabaab militants also are said to have killed Alabama native Omar Hammami, who joined the group in 2006 and took a high-profile position in its media operations before his death last year.

At least two Americans fighting for Al-Shabaab died while conducting suicide attacks in Somalia.

Shirwa Ahmed, a 26-year-old from Minnesota, became the first known American to conduct a suicide bombing for an al Qaeda-associated group when he drove a car packed with bombs into a government compound on October 28, 2008.

In 2011, meanwhile, the FBI confirmed that Farah Mohamed Beledi, a 27-year-old Minnesota man who was born in Somalia and moved to the United States at age 12, was killed while attempting to detonate a suicide bomb in Somalia.

In addition to the American militants who died in Somalia, six were arrested, four when they returned to the West and two in East Africa. Kamal Said Hassan, a 28-year-old Minneapolis man who traveled to Somalia and attended an Al-Shabaab training camp before returning to the United States, was arrested and in 2009 pleaded guilty to supporting Al-Shabaab.

In another case, Mahamud Said Omar, an American resident who helped organize Al-Shabaab's recruitment pipeline and visited a training camp, was arrestedin the Netherlands in 2009. Omar was extradited to the United States and in 2012 was convicted on terrorism charges.

Of course, the fact that 13 of the 29 American militants who fought in Somalia remain at large is a reminder that the CIA and FBI also need to pay attention to the potential threat posed by American foreign fighters in Syria. But this is no reason for U.S. officials to overhype the threat posed by ISIS to the United States.

Yes, Americans should always be mindful of the threats posed by extremists. But as the case of U.S. citizens in Somalia suggests, Syria could very well end up being a graveyard for Americans fighting there rather than a launch pad for attacks on the United States. 

Gessen: NATO and the West are in denial about Putin

Yes, Gessen's key point is correct: The West's staggering of diplomatic and economic sanctions against Russia was a strategic error; their blow should have been hard and sudden. Indeed, the West needed to punch Putin in the nose, if not militarily then by other means, to compel the bully to stop fighting. Instead the Western strategy has been "death by 1,000 cuts," with only a few cuts on Russia so far.

Notwithstanding today's ceasefire agreement in Minsk, I am skeptical of any peace efforts in which Putin is involved. Why? Because Russia is the aggressor, and it doesn't seem to me that Russia's aims in Ukraine have yet been achieved.  

So let's hope that the EU and US both continue to impose further sanctions against Russia, despite this apparent olive branch. After all, Putin has continued to lie about his actions and intent in Ukraine; there is no reason to start believing him now.

P.S. -- It's not accidental that I say Putin instead of, or in lieu of, Russia, since there does not seem to be any counterweight to Putin or any advisers who have strong influence on him. Nor can any so-called "insiders" predict his actions. Russia is currently a cult of personality. That's dangerous!

Plans to stop Russia show NATO and the West are in denial

By Masha Gessen

September 4, 2014 | Reuters

For more than six months now, since Russia annexed Crimea, Western politicians and analysts have been asking what can make Vladimir Putin stop or retreat. It’s the wrong question, and the policies that have flowed from the resulting debate have been misguided, because they are based on the fallacy that the West can do something to influence Putin’s actions.

Putin has always been a master of the public lie, both of the bold-faced variety and the mixed-message variety, and for the last six months he has used this skill to keep the West playing catch-up in Ukraine. It’s a game the West is losing.

Western politicians, for their part, have heeded only those of Putin’s statements that they want to hear — or at least ones that make sense in their picture of the world. Leaders have chosen to believe that Russia invaded Ukraine to protect vital strategic interests: the need for a “buffer state” between itself and NATO. They have validated Putin’s avowed concern about the fate of ethnic Russians in Ukraine. And right now, they are going along with a charade Putin is playing out regarding cease-fire negotiations with Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko – negotiations that Putin’s press secretary managed to disavow minutes after the fateful telephone conversation concluded on Wednesday.

And then there are the statements and actions that Western politicians have chosen to ignore: the threat to use nuclear arms, which Putin has taken to repeating casually; the military exercises intended to menace the Baltic states and, most recently, Kazakhstan; the testing of a nuclear-tipped missile for the first time since such testing was banned by a bilateral U.S.-Russian treaty in 1987.

Putin, his television channels, and his ideological emissaries have explained this saber-rattling in no uncertain terms. It is a clash of civilizations, nothing less than a confrontation with the West over the very values at the core of “the Russian world.” The current view is that international law and all Western alliances are parts of a conspiracy to limit Russia’s ability to protect and spread traditional values. So-called strategic interests and the fate of ethnic Russians are merely pretexts for battles in the new worldwide conflict.

Is there anything that can be done to stop a man driven by the idea of fighting such a conflict? Can we really expect Putin to change his mind about his historic mission because of banking or visa restrictions? No.

There are certain things that simply cannot be changed; the mind of a despot is one such thing.

All human beings at times encounter insurmountable difficulties. We generally deal with them in one of two ways: either we pretend they’re not happening, or we find ways to minimize the damage and remain whole in the face of adversity. The former never works, yet somehow the entire Western political establishment refuses to acknowledge the difficulty with Russia’s leader is insurmountable.

The West hopes its actions can change Putin’s. Negotiating with Putin, trying to second-guess him, validating his bad-faith negotiations, searching for a solution that can mollify him – all of these approaches are willfully based on a false assumption. The very premise of realpolitik in this situation is a lie.

So what would be the right thing to do in the face of this hostile, aggressive, and reckless reality?

First of all, face the facts.

Then, use the entire arsenal of financial and political sanctions at once – the idea behind staggering them is based on the faulty premise that they can influence Putin’s behavior. Staggering the application of sanctions gives him, and the Russian economy, time to adjust. Instead, sanctions should be imposed for the simple reason that it is wrong to enable Putin’s Russia by doing business with it; the right thing to do is to stop.

After that, do what can be done to physically protect those who are being attacked and those who are at risk: Ukraine, the Baltics, and – the most important criterion of all – anyone who asks for protection from this scourge. That probably means arming Ukraine and taking up positions in the Baltics. Yes, this puts the West on the verge of actual military engagement, but it is not only strategically dangerous but also morally corrupting to stand by and watch while Putin pounds unprotected neighbors.

It is likely that none of this stop him. But at least it may keep us from falling into an abyss of lies and helplessness.

Globalization is over; or, Tom Friedman is a dope

Yes indeed, the Tom Friedman conception of globalization (The Lexus and the Olive Tree; The World Is Flat).was always too glib, optimistic and it cherry-picked success stories to paint a rosy picture.

Now we see how useless was Tom Friedman's "Golden Arches theory of conflict prevention," with Russia attacking its neighbors and fellow McDonald's countries Ukraine and Georgia, and threatening to further destabilize or attack a third McDonald's country, Moldova. 

And several more "McDonald's conflicts" -- Vietnam-China, Japan-China, EU-Russia, and US-Russia -- are starting or now underway.

Leonard's article is worth reading in full, wherein he describes how the globe is moving:

• From free trade to economic warfare
• From global governance to competitive multilateralism
• From one Internet to many.

Leonard redeems the post-Cold War analysis of military strategist Edward Luttwak, who predicted that "as in earlier generations, the driving force of international relations would be conflict rather than trade. As he put it, we would have 'the grammar of commerce but the logic of war.'"

Here is Leonard's conclusion [emphasis mine]:

Interdependence, formerly an economic boon, has now become a threat as well. No one is willing to lose out on the benefits of a global economy, but all great powers are thinking about how to protect themselves from its risks, military and otherwise. China is moving toward domestic consumption after the threat of the U.S. financial crisis. America is moving toward energy independence after the Iraq War. Russia is trying to build a Eurasian Union after the euro crisis. And even internationalist Germany is trying to change the EU so that its fellow member states are bound into German-style policies.

In the years after the Cold War, interdependence was a force for ending conflict.  But in 2014, it is creating it. After 25 years of being bound together ever more tightly, the world seems intent on resegregating itself. 

To be fair, Leonard's conclusion might also be too glib; one could argue that globalization was never happening to the extent that it was hyped. A lot of economic globalization -- more than 1/3 of economic activity -- has been intra-company and inter-company trade, i.e. companies trading with themselves across borders to access cheaper labor markets and other cost efficiencies, tax preferences and laxer regulation. 

Meanwhile, rival countries have not forgotten their historical and geopolitical grudges in the name of "free trade;" they have simply adopted new strategies of conflict management.

UPDATE (09.08.2014): Here's Anne Applebaum in the Washington Post a couple weeks later cribbing Mark Leonard's column, complete with the same McDonald's analysis: "Russia's blow to globalization." 

Clashes with Russia point to globalization’s end

By Mark Leonard

July 30, 2014 | Reuters

URL: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS47478603920140730

U.S. offers up 'war reserves' to rearm Israel's killing machine

From the standpoint of U.S. security against terrorism, this is the stupidest policy imaginable: supplying the Israelis with "emergency" munitions to help them finish their slaughter of Palestinian civilians (over 1,300 and counting... meanwhile Israel has lost 3 civilians).

The Arab-Muslim world sees Israel's crimes in Gaza and it outrages them.  Meanwhile, the U.S. does not stand innocently apart from this killing; and we're not an honest broker. We are an accessory before the fact to Israel's murder and violation of international laws and norms (such as demolishing crowded schools and shelling street markets).

If my American friends -- especially conservatives -- could do the mental heavy-lifting to put themselves in an Arab's shoes for a minute, then perhaps they would understand why $ billions of U.S. military aid to Israel is nowadays an awfully dangerous (not to mention immoral) policy for America.

The blowback potential is enormous. Right now, Uncle Sam is recruiting hundreds if not thousands of soldiers for al Qaeda and other Islamist groups.

UPDATE (31.07.2014): Here's another Reuters article that shows the desperation of Palestinian civilians that have nothing to do with Hamas or attacks on Israel, yet they are being targeted by Israel's military: "Under fire and out of cash, U.N. overwhelmed by Gaza crisis." Meanwhile, UN officials are in tears, powerless to help them all.

U.S. resupplies Israel with munitions as Gaza offensive rages

By Phil Stewart and Patricia Zengerle

July 30, 2014 | Reuters

URL: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0FZ2EY20140730

U.S. State Dept.: Russia firing artillery over border at Ukraine's military

Anybody who thought that "worldwide condemnation" for shooting down flight MH-17 was going to alter Putin's plans should think again.

Russia's President Putin respects only one thing: force.  Or the economic equivalent of getting punched in the nose. That's why US-EU sectoral sanctions against Russia must be put in place now. 

Meanwhile, the U.S. should start sending fuel, supplies, and defensive ammunition and weapons to Ukraine's military.  A good sign: ateam of U.S. military advisers is being sent to Ukraine to assess what kind of U.S. assistance they need. But Obama must accelerate the pace.

U.S. says Russia firing artillery across border at Ukrainian military

By David Storey

July 24, 2014 | Reuters

URL: http://www.trust.org/item/20140724180345-xplag/

5 hysterical myths about U.S. 'border crisis'

Lately I've had the possibility -- nay, the privilege -- to listen to a lot of AM talk radio, and lemme tell you, it's all "border crisis" all the time.

Naturally, since Obama is the Anti-Christ, a cypto-Muslim/Marxist and America-hater, not to mention he's trying to seed America with future America-hating Democratic voters, there are a lot of conspiracy theories surrounding the unfortunate surge of thousands of South American children at our southern border.  

If you're interested in facts, can manage to catch your breath and count to 10, then please read this fact check, courtesy of The Guardian.

Illegals and gangsters and Ebola, oh my! 5 conservative immigration myths of the moment, made sane

By Megan Carpentier, Kayla Epstein, Lauren Gambino, Nadja Popovich and Matt Sullivan

July 15, 2014 | Guardian

URL: http://gu.com/p/4vxyg

How competitive is the U.S., globally?

The Switzerland-based IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook 2014 results are in.  The results are "based on hard data statistics (2/3) and a business executives' opinion survey (1/3)." 

Here's the top 10... What jumps out at you?

10. Norway (population: 5.1 million)  (GDP *: $516 billion)

9.   Denmark (pop.: 5.6 million)  (GDP: $324 billion

8.   United Arab Emirates (5.6 million)  (GDP: $390 billion)

7.   Canada (81 million)  (GDP: $1.8 trillion)

6.   Germany (34.8 million) (GDP: $3.6 trillion)

5.   Sweden (9.7 million)  (GDP: $552 billion)

4.   Hong Kong  (7.1 million)  (GDP: $272 billion)

3.   Singapore (5.6 million)  (GDP: $296 billion)

2.   Switzerland (8 million)  (GDP: $646 billion)

1.   USA (318.9 million)  (GDP: $16.7 trillion)

* All GDP figures are given at official government exchange rates, most from 2013, not GDP based on purchasing power parity, which for all these countries except the United States was much, much lower, sometimes by half. (Source: CIA World Factbook).

The first thing that should jump out from the list is that America's population is almost double the other top 9 combined.  Meanwhile, our GDP is more than double the other top 9 countries' combined. If we would take GDP by purchasing power, ours would probably be triple theirs combined.

I point this out in order to repeat that: 1) the U.S. economy is not "going socialist" -- at least not according to business people -- and 2) everything is relative, so when critics say, "The U.S. is going to hell in a hand basket" economically, the question immediately should be, "Relative to what country?"  (So no, my Tea Partying friends, there's no place on Earth to "go Galt" to, I'm sorry.)

Our quiet neighbor in the frosty North, Canada, is the only country in the top 10 that even comes to close to the U.S. in terms of population size, diversity and GDP.  

(And as I've already posted, the more popular/recognized annual competitiveness rankings for 2013-14 by the World Economic Forum put the U.S. in 5th place behind Switzerland, Singapore, Finland and Germany, respectively.  But these are apples to oranges.)

IMD World Competitiveness Ranking 2014

May 22, 2014 | IMD

URL: http://www.imd.org/news/2014-World-Competitiveness.cfm

What makes 'Murica, land that I love

Most Americans have never left the United States, and those that have, usually to Canada or Mexico. Most Americans do not even have a passport. To understand America, as an American, you must understand how exceptional this fact is, especially among developed nations. Indeed, Australians are arguably even more isolated than we are, geographically, yet they are massive world travelers.  (And Aussie tourists are loved pretty much the world over.)

As a Midwesterner by culture (technically part of the South) who now resides once again in "flyover country" after having lived and traveled abroad extensively, I can tell you that having been abroad does not carry with it here the same cache as it would on the coasts.  Nay, here it even breeds some suspicion.  For instance, I can remember a hysterical family member asking me at Christmas, "Why do you hate America so much?" I was shocked and bemused. I guess it was because I had chosen to live abroad for so many years, and, at that time, I had been a vocal opponent of Dubya's administration and especially his foreign wars of choice.

I say all this as prelude, to establish some credibility, but also to make a point: We call ourselves exceptional but most of us don't know, or care to know, what we are exceptional to.  We have never gone out and seen the rest of the world.  What we know about the rest of the world we learn second- or third-hand, unfortunately. But this is mostly an accident of geography -- the same accident that has lent much to our greatness, granted. So it's a double-edged sword; but one edge gets sharper as the world gets more global... more on that later....   

This is not about me saying I'm superior. The fact that some Americans don't quite know what makes us great doesn't negate America's greatness; it's more of a pitiful lack of self-knowledge, really. And  I include myself in that group.  I feel the pull to travel not only to discover the world but also to patch over my ignorance and, more importantly, to re-discover my homeland. Regarding the latter, anybody who's spent significant time abroad knows what I'm talking about....

(I digress, but when foreigners start asking sincere but specific questions about your hometown, your home state, your country, your history, and suddenly you realize you cannot answer them well or completely.. you feel immensely foolish. You feel like you let your entire country down, like a flunky ambassador.  Here they are asking out of sincere interest and... you cannot answer them. This has happened to me so many times I can't tell you. But the truth is, you don't know what you don't know until somebody asks you to explain it.)

Nevertheless the bottom line remains: Americans don't need to be global citizens to be themselves, to be a great country. Our country is what it is.  On the other hand, what irks me is: We could be even greater if we did know.  More on this later....

So now let me get to the nitty-gritty. Why is America great?  Forgive me if I tell you what you already know....

1. Stuff works in America.  For all the complaints you hear about this or that in America, about inefficient government, lazy people, terrible customer service -- stuff gets done here. Things work.  And they work for the good of most people.  I'm talking about both the public and private sector here.  If you make a noise in America, stuff gets done.  Somebody reacts.  We take that as simply the way it should be, but it's definitely not the case in many countries.  Notice that I said, "If you make a noise."  Things don't always work like clockwork on their own. But Americans are responsive; and we have institutions that respond. Yes, we complain a lot. Thankfully there are people whose job it is to listen and react to those complaints. The mere fact that somebody sometimes must complain is often taken by us as a sign of disorder or neglect, but... compared to many other countries, I can say with 100% certainty this is not  the case. 

(An aside: many Americans simply don't know, or don't feel empowered, to complain and stand up for their rights as a citizen or a consumer; this is true more so for the poor, minorities and immigrants. It's a cultural thing, a parent-to-kid thing, and it's a shame because being capable of complaining effectively is a very important part of being a fully-fledged American!)  

Indeed I often cite this to foreigners as one of my favorite aspects of America. A cavernous pothole that is covered with a branch for 6 months while nothing is fixed; or an elected official who is obviously corrupt yet nothing happens to him; or a complaint to a reputable business yields nothing -- these are all cases when I've told my foreign friends, "This would never happen in America."  

2.  Americans are results-oriented, not process-oriented or hierarchy-oriented.  This gets back to point #1. And again, if you're an American who hasn't traveled much this won't make much sense to you, but believe me, many cultures/countries put much more value on process, hierarchy and consensus than on actually solving problems and getting things done.  I can't tell you how many foreigners have complimented me (well, Americans) for this aspect of our culture. Even they get frustrated with the slowness and tediousness with which they analyze and tackle problems, especially those foreigners who have visited America or worked in U.S. companies.  

This also jibes with our innovative spirit. You can't be innovative if you always adhere to strict procedures, hierarchies, castes or established ways of doing things.

Another point: In Eastern Europe, with which I'm most familiar, the adjective "democratic" is used in the sense of egalitarian. When a company or group or even an establishment is described as democratic, that's almost always a good thing, it means everybody's treated equally, and there's no putting on airs.  The mere fact that this needs to be said is significant.  In America, capability, expertise and hard work are accepted as anybody's pole -- if you are able to hoist it -- to vault over class, money or geography.  And almost everybody accepts this as right and just.    

3.  Most Americans are optimists.  I may sound like Rush Limbaugh here, but it's true: almost to a fault, Americans are optimistic about the future.  In many countries, pessimism is taken akin to being wise, street-smart or realistic. But with each new American generation, despite the f**k-ups of the past, Americans retain their optimism about better days to come. Sometimes, frankly, I don't get it.  Yet I'd much rather live among hopeful optimists in a mostly hopeless, pessimistic world, and the U.S. is one of the only countries where you can do that.

4.  Most immigrants to the U.S. want to, and do, assimilate.  If you listen to talk radio or watch Fox you might doubt this fact, but compared to many developed countries, where immigrants live for generations in segregated ghettos and never participate fully in the economic, political and cultural life of the country, America is light years ahead of Europe and the rest of the world. The reasons for this probably merit an entire book or anthology, but the fact remains: Our immigrants want their children to learn English and "be American" as fast as possible. Thankfully, our public schools, libraries, charities and other institutions offer them myriad types of assistance to do this. I can vouch for it firsthand. My daughter was an ESL student in first grade who couldn't speak proper English. In second grade she was one of the top readers-writers in her class. That wasn't my doing; that was her school and the "specials" (special classes), including summer classes, that they offered her. And it was all free of charge. Amazing. 

5.  We have professional, contract-based armed forces.  Before you say duh, remember this wasn't the case until after Vietnam. Granted, most other Western countries also have professional armies, but our armed forces offer our troops what could only be described as socialist Big Government benefits: free education, health care, housing, disability insurance, etc.  Plus we have a federal system of employment preferences for veterans.  This makes us a country that takes men and women who might not be very well educated or disciplined in their teens or 20s and turns them into great leaders, great team workers, great students and, when they return to civilian life, great workers, technical specialists and managers.

Before I have criticized those conservatives like Michelle Malkin who, when pondering America's greatness, always cite the world's most powerful aircraft carriers, fighter jets, and the like -- as if our military might is what makes us great.  Firstly, it's our economic might that allows us the luxury to spend about a half trillion dollars a year on such military might. But secondly, and more importantly, its a very patriotic class of people who sign up voluntarily to fight and get killed or maimed overseas, often in the pursuit of doubtful political ends conjured up by feted and comfortable politicians back home.  This is not the case in most Western countries; there is not a very good chance you'l be sent into combat to die, unlike in America. And yet the fact that those Americans have not become, frankly, fed up and disillusioned with America and the politicians commanding them into battle is comforting, gratifying, humbling, mystifying and challenging.

So let me take this chance to say that "supporting our troops" with ribbons, a pat on the back or kind words is not nearly good enough. Our first and most sacred responsibility to our troops comes at the ballot box, and after that, in pressuring or elected leaders to send our troops into harms way only when it's absolutely necessary to defend our values and interests. To pretend otherwise is patronizing and disrespectful to our troops.

6.  Geographical diversity.  Many times I have heard foreigners describe their trip to America, and it's always so different. Cities, beaches, deserts, farms, borderlands, coasts and thriving metropolitan hubs.... Many foreigners visit a few places, most often New York, Miami, Las Vegas, San Francisco, Seattle, maybe the Grand Canyon, then draw conclusions from what they've seen there. Their conclusions about the U.S. are all valid; but they are incomplete. America is a vast and great country, geographically, by any standard, and extremely diverse culturally. It's all "America," but it's hard to generalize from just a few places. It's just as hard for native-born Americans to generalize about their country. That's OK.  That's our strength -- and our challenge. Bi-coastal, Southern, Midwestern, Western, Plains, Rockies, Appalachian, Red State, Blue State, urban, rural... It's all part of the great American pageant. The closest country I can think of in sheer size is Russia, (albeit much, much larger), but Russia is much less diverse, or at least, that diversity is much less accessible to the casual traveler.  

This always leads to the curious and interesting discussion, "What is the real America then?" Foreign visitors want to know. They want to experience it. It's a legitimate question. TV, popular culture and chain-franchise consumerism have certainly made America much less diverse (think what you'll find on any Interstate exit across the country). Yet the truth is there is no one answer. This is America's charm -- and its challenge. For just as visitors struggle to grasp its vastness, so do native-born Americans. For simplicity's sake we too fall back on geographical or political generalizations, yet the truth is much more rich and complex.  This question merits a whole series of books in and of itself.  The upshot is that there is no one "America." America is less a melting pot and more a patchwork quilt.  The charm and the challenge in understanding America is in understanding the stitches that bind that quilt together. And only Americans can tell that story.  

It also bears mentioning that America invented the concept of national parks and nature preserves, during the Progressive Era.  This has since become an accepted norm all over the world. This is something America contributed to the world.  

7.  Faith in technology and science.  This is becoming the norm the world over thanks to the Internet and globalization, but let's not forget that this was America's contribution to the world. Almost to a fault, Americans believe that technology can or will solve all the world's problems. Thankfully, we have very smart and daring people -- and an infrastructure of universities, government-funded basic science research, government-protected patents and IP, and venture capitalists -- who bring that technology to the world.  

8.  Great colleges and universities.  I'm not going to trot out statistics here. It goes without saying that, despite Americans' moaning about the decline in standards of education, American higher education is still the best in the world, both in terms of teaching quality and research (including government-funded basic science).  And many of them are public, land-grant universities.  The Internet was invented on an American college campus, the same with Facebook.  Need I say more?

    

9.  America is a work in progress.  This is true in so many ways: legally, culturally, scientifically, morally.  The true greatness of America is that it's not a country set in stone; it's a set of ideals in pursuit of their perfection and ultimate realization.  Most Americans share the same values, even if we express those values in different ways. This is how we are able to move the country forward, even when we disagree with one another. For instance, modern civil rights leaders appeal to Martin Luther King; Martin Luther King appealed to the Founding Fathers; and the Founding Fathers appealed to European Enlightenment thinkers and Greeks and Romans like Cincinnatus; and so on.  

Although some (a minority) in America would constantly call us to hark back to some mythical Golden Age that never existed; the tradition in America is to take older ideals and adapt them to present and future realities.  Hence America is more flexible than just about any other Western democracy.  "The past is prologue" applies least to America than any other major Western power.  

10.  Americans want to be liked.  This gets us in trouble sometimes ("We will be greeted as liberators" anyone?), but overall it's one of our great strengths. We don't want to rest of the world to fear us, or simply to respect us, we want the rest of the world to love and emulate us. Not always have we behaved in a way worthy of emulation; nevertheless, unlike most countries, the U.S. thinks in those terms. We see ourselves as a "shining City on a Hill." Maybe we have not always been a shining example; nevertheless, to be such an example is something we strive for.  

Now that we've enumerated our strengths, how can we augment them, and make America even greater?  That's how we should think and strive to be exceptional.

There are many more things I could add to this list, but these are the major points that come to mind. You're welcome to leave your own comments. 

I'll update and edit this list as time goes on. Peace out and happy 4th of July!