Thursday, June 21, 2007

Floyd Norris: Notions on High & Low Finance


The attempted bailout of the Bear Stearns hedge fund that lost money in mortgage securities is taking place largely behind closed doors, with big banks acting both as creditors — who want their money now — and as owners of similar securities — who do not want to see prices plunge.

Because there is so much leverage involved, both in the securities themselves and in the funds that bought them, even a modest decline in the underlying asset could threaten to wipe out capital, forcing sales at any price. Eventually, fear can take over, and prices can fall to ridiculously low levels.

We are nowhere near that level, but this serves as a reminder that the American capital market is less regulated than ever. The largest players used to be investment banks, commercial banks, insurance companies and institutional investors, all subject to varying levels of regulation, and they traded stocks, bonds and futures in regulated markets.

Now the big players are hedge funds, which face virtually no government regulation, and they trade collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps in unregulated over-the-counter markets.

Those who assert that all of this will work out say the banks are the real regulators, as they extend and withdraw credit, and arguably that is what is going on in the Bear Stearns fund. If it is unwound with no damage to others, it will be hailed as a new Amaranth, proving that hedge fund collapses are not to be feared by anyone except hedge fund investors.

Hedge funds have become faddish among institutional investors and rich individuals, who crave high returns. With a lot of leverage, a fund that gets one thing right can show impressive returns. This incident is a reminder that leverage works two ways.

Read full post and comments:
"Floyd Norris: Notions on High & Low Finance" >>


The Opinionator: Tobin Harshaw & Chris Suellentrop

Bloomberg, good for the Democrats? First Read, the blog of the NBC News political unit, speculates that a Michael Bloomberg presidential candidacy would help the Democratic nominee in November 2008: “Why? It’s simple — the South. The irony of a Bloomberg candidacy is that it could make the Democrats more competitive in the South because their 35 percent base vote in the South is made up of die-hard Democrats.”

The Bloomberg-helps-the-Dems argument presumes that Bloomberg’s appeal will resemble Ross Perot’s in 1992, notes The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder. “Perot managed to sap as many liberal independents from Democrats as he did conservative independents from Republicans,” Ambinder writes. “But Bill Clinton’s base was solid enough in the South; more solid than the Republican base. Perot’s other demographic strongholds included younger voters, unmarried Midwesterners, rural voters, evangelicals and protestants.”

But Bloomberg’s appeal is not very similar to Perot’s, as Ambinder explains. He writes:

Perot appealed to downscale Reagan Democrats, to economic populists, to opponents of NAFTA and free trade. He tapped into a vein of populist discontent with both parties, but particularly those branches than ran through Republican arteries once Bush abandoned his no-tax pledge. His technocratic appeal — “I’ll do what works; I’ll balance the budget” — stole a page from the G.O.P. The foreign policy debate was mostly about the peace dividend; it did not, as it does now, overshadow the domestic political environment.

Bloomberg wants something different. He’s hinted at broad, programmatic solutions to intractable problems. He is, at the same time, a cultural liberal with an anti-libertarian streak; ask any New Yorker who smokes, or who enjoyed their trans-fats [cheeseburgers] whether Bloomberg left them alone. Health care, education, the environment — Democrats have an enormous edge right in attracting voters who care about these issues. If Bloomberg somehow offers an alternative, it’s not hard to suppose that many Dem-leaning independents will be attracted to his candidacy.

Point two: independents are overcommitted to Democrats right now, giving them as much as 70 percent of their generic presidential support in certain surveys. A conservative Republican candidate wouldn’t attract too many independents anyway, in theory, and Democrats have many independents to spare, and lose. Why assume that Bloomberg wouldn’t take more votes from the Democratic candidate?

Read full post and comments:
"The Opinionator: Tobin Harshaw & Chris Suellentrop" >>


The Opinionator: Tobin Harshaw & Chris Suellentrop

This is still CNN: Joshua Levy, co-founder of the blog techPresident, which tracks the role of the Web in the 2008 campaign, is disappointed by the rules for the two presidential debates co-sponsored by CNN and YouTube (the first one will feature the Democratic candidates next month in Charleston, S.C.). Because all of the questions will come from YouTube videos created by Internet users, the debate is being advertised as “a revolution in citizen participation in presidential politics,” Levy notes.

“But there’s a glaring omission,” he objects. “CNN will be the sole arbiters of what videos are shown and questions are asked. This format is contrary to what YouTube’s community of users — and other online communities like it at Digg, Facebook, MySpace, and elsewhere — are used to.” Levy continues:

Members of the YouTube community upload a video hoping that it will be seen, commented on, responded to, and virally spread by their peers. This behavior functions as a kind of distributed voting mechanism, in which those videos the community likes most float to the top (though as Micah [Sifry, the blog’s other founder] suggested earlier today, it doesn’t always work that way).

But if CNN has total editorial control over what videos are shown to the candidates, it’s pulling the rug out from under the so-called “user-generated content” revolution. This stuff is much less fascinating if a third-party gatekeeper comes in and tells us what is interesting and what is fluff. Instead, YouTube and CNN should let YouTube users decide what the best questions are, and then use those questions in the debate.

Read full post and comments:
"The Opinionator: Tobin Harshaw & Chris Suellentrop" >>


TWO FOR THE ROAD: In Africa With Nick Kristof

Fear
By Will Okun

I can hear the music pulsating in the thick Congo night, inviting me. “Come over, dance, drink, have a good time, enjoy life.” But I am scared to leave the hotel at night.

The breaking news is just over those mountains, the stories that will bring attention to the horrific conflicts of the Congo. But I am too scared to go. There is fighting in the hills, and everyone says the soldiers on both sides are immoral, unpredictable and without remorse.

It is terrible to feel such fear, it shakes you to the core. It controls your days and your nights, your security, your freedoms, and even seeps into your dreams. I do not have to live in such fear; in one week I can go home. But such is life in parts of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where various conflicts have killed four million people and displaced one-and-a-half million more since 1998.

Imagine living in a rural community where your daughter could be raped, or even sodomized, by soldiers every time she leaves home. Recently, Nick Kristof asked a village leader to speak with a woman who had been raped, and the line continued to grow and grow at a sickening rate.

Imagine living in a rural community where you do not grow crops to feed your family, because the soldiers will simply eat all the fruits of your labor anyway. Imagine hiding the fact that you have a job, because the soldiers will ransack your house first. Imagine leaving your village and home with your family in the dark of night for places unknown, because the soldiers’ violence devours everything in its path.

The gripping control of fear is not exclusive to the Congo. I know families in Chicago who do not let their kids outside to play. I have seen children scatter when it was only a car backfiring. I have taught high school gang members who know any day could also be their last day.

People do not appreciate security until they experience fear. Fear is so encompassing that it can become a person’s driving force. It is ludicrous to expect a person, community or even a nation to prosper and progress when they are in the throes of instability, insecurity and fear. Basic human rights like education, health, liberty, etc. cannot be developed and obtained until security is established, whether it be in the Congo or in Chicago.

And yet most of us, including myself, are only truly concerned about the security of our loved ones. We do not care about the other side of town, nonetheless the other side of the world. How can I care about wars in Africa when I do not even care enough to combat gang warfare, bad schools, inadequate health care, unsafe water, etc. on the Southside of Chicago? How do I change this mindset, for myself and for others?
******



Visiting the “Misery Camp” (Leana’s words), a relocation camp for people who have lost their land and homes to conflict, was a breaking point in sadness for me. To meet a beautiful human being like Nzahi Kukukiza and realize his living conditions was all but unbearable.

He had no money, no clean water, and little access to health care. There was no school, no electricity, no jobs or fields to farm. His family of four was crammed into a six-foot by six-foot hut, their few belongings scattered on the floor. He had no friends; his father and brothers were killed in a war that does not exist. His children were malnourished and very sick. But still, it was not enough for Nick Kristof.

He wanted to push on to a different relocation camp or village where the conditions were even more abysmal (which is unimaginable to me). Nick’s purpose in reporting about the Congo is to open the eyes of the international community and the American public to the travesty that is unabatedly devastating the Congo and their people. I assume that he believes that the American public will only take notice of an African problem when the atrocities have reached beyond the lowest depths of human misery. Only when the previously unimaginable occurs will attention and action result.

Sadly, it is not enough for a human woman to live in squalor, to be malnourished, to be uneducated, to have no access to clean water or health care. This is not news. Only when she is raped, her children dead and her family killed in war, then we will finally take heed and demand intervention.

And so these are the people we have been seeking in decimated villages throughout the Congo in hopes of having someone finally notice this deadly war. However, these stories come at a cost.

I am leaving the Congo very dispirited and depressed. But I have no idea if my impressions are unreasonably tainted. Out the truck window, I see vibrant, beautiful men and women leading normal lives: laughing, working, dating, dancing, shopping, etc. But we are not stopping here, we are headed for misery.

****************************************************

Will Okun has taught English and photography for eight years at Westside Alternative High School in the Austin community of Chicago. He is also the sponsor of the weightlifting club and, at 5' 5" (in boots), claims to still be the best basketball player in the school (unconfirmed). Will spends the rest of his waking hours operating wjzo.com, a Web site that features his portraits of high school students and documentary photographs of the West Side communities of Chicago. The site offers a unique perspective on inner-city youth culture and averages 30,000 views a week from all over the world. Will proudly hails from Carrboro, North Carolina.

Read full post and comments:
"TWO FOR THE ROAD: In Africa With Nick Kristof" >>


TWO FOR THE ROAD: In Africa With Nick Kristof


We went back to HEAL Africa to visit Yohanita, the 41-year old woman we had found in the village of Malehe to be suffering from infection and severe malnutrition. I was relieved to see that she was lying in bed, fully conscious, and able to speak in full sentences. Feza, the girl who came down from the village, was at her bedside and feeding her some porridge and potatoes, which Yohanita was eating in big spoonfuls.

“How are you?” I asked Yohanita. She responded that she is fine. She misses her family, but said that she is glad to be in the hospital and eating.

Yohanita’s fever was done. Since she was severely dehydrated, she is continuing to receive saline by IV. She is also being treated with antibiotics for her bedsores. The plan is to continue the refeeding and wound care, and to address any other underlying problems that may complicate her recovery. She will probably remain at the hospital for a month, possibly longer, to get her nutritional status back in order and her wounds tended to.

Through a translator, we found out more about Yohanita’s story. Some time late last year or early this year, she had a miscarriage. In March, she fell and probably fractured her pelvis. Because she had spent the family’s money on her last hospital stay, there was no money left to send her to the hospital this time. She could not move, and for three months, had been lying in her home in terrible pain. The bedsores are a result of her immobility. At the same time, she has not been eating because the family had no food, and since the villagers had similar problems, the family has not had help. Yohanita’s rapid deterioration is likely a combination of immobility and starvation.

As Yohanita’s story unfolded, our translator, a man my age named Patient, burst into tears and left the room. Outside, he told me that seeing Yohanita reminded him of so many people he knew who were in the same plight.

“The soldiers go, but they take all your things, and then you have no money, no food, no house,” he said. “And they rape you and kill your family. Then they might come back tomorrow, the next day, the next week, and do it all over again. Things are just like this. There are no more human values in this country.”

Yohanita wanted us to visit her village and let family members know that she is better, and that she misses them. We did that this afternoon, and her mother was thrilled to hear that she is now eating. We have tried to assist her to the best of our abilities with food and hospital payment. But there are many more like her who are out there, who have nothing, who get sick and die an excruciating but silent death. Who will know of their pain and suffering? Who will care?

In this war-torn country that has not known peace since before its colonial days, perhaps even the basic level of compassion is too much to ask for.

P.S. I continue to be impressed by the work of HEAL Africa. Not only do they provide medical services to people in need, they use a holistic approach to address issues like education, employment, and community-building. To assist with Yohanita’s care, or to contribute to their organization, please visit www.healafrica.org.

Read full post and comments:
"TWO FOR THE ROAD: In Africa With Nick Kristof" >>


TWO FOR THE ROAD: In Africa With Nick Kristof

Not everyone approved when we took Yohanita, a severely malnourished woman, from her village to the hospital. Dr. Lisa Dillabaugh, a Pediatrics resident, posted an opposing view:

“…It is so natural for a doctor to feel the immediate need to intervene when seeing someone so ill, but this need to intervene is the reflection of your Western medical education…. It is so important to also consider what your actions will affect in the long run.

While this woman may very well recover in the hospital, she may also die there away from her family and community. Did she actually want to go an hour away from her home with a neighbor? If the community was reluctant for her to go, what happens if she dies there? Will they think hospitals are a place you go to die and be reluctant to allow others to follow.…

But probably most importantly, that community still has no medical care and no transport and no empowerment to change it. All they have are caring, but transient muzungus who dropped in and helped one and left the others. I truly believe this is always the wrong approach and that as physicians committed to improving global health we have to empower people to improve their health, not save them.”

I disagree with Dr. Dillabaugh, but she raises two important points. First, is it appropriate to impose our values on Yohanita and treat her? Second, even if we helped her, there are still larger problems in the community, and many others are left ill and in need.

Regarding the first point, I agree that to simply whisk Yohanita away in a car while her parents and neighbors opposed the treatment would be akin to kidnapping. However, that’s not what happened.

Her parents were initially reluctant, and her fellow villagers had doubts, for good reason: they didn’t know if her condition was really that serious, and they hadn’t had the means to pay for her care. Once we explained the gravity of the situation, and helped them overcome the barriers to her care, they were glad to have her be treated. Most importantly, Yohanita herself consented to the treatment. The warm reception we received when we went back to Malehe to update her parents on Yohanita’s condition gave me confidence that we did right by her family.

Regarding the second point, as a public health-oriented doctor whose goal is to shape international policy, I cannot agree more that there are larger issues to address. Yohanita is far from the only person in the Congo, and not even the only person in her village, whose life is in severe danger from disease. Of course it would be preferable to address the larger issues: to stop the war, provide food for everyone, and institute universal education and healthcare. Of course it is better to “empower people to improve their health, not save them.”

But what happens if you come across someone who is dying in front of your eyes? Do you say to that person, “Sorry, we need to have global reform, so because we don’t have it yet, we should just let you die”? I can’t imagine any doctor, or any human being, saying this to Yohanita.

Was it fair to help her and not the rest of the people in the community? We can only do what’s within our abilities. We didn’t go the village to “save” someone, but I don’t think there was any other choice but to help her once saw the severity of her illness.

Thanks for contributing your comments. We have had limited Internet connection, and I am just now getting to see your thoughts. I am glad to know that you are reading. Keep the comments coming!

Read full post and comments:
"TWO FOR THE ROAD: In Africa With Nick Kristof" >>


TWO FOR THE ROAD: In Africa With Nick Kristof




Today we visited Jomba, a town that was attacked by rebel soldiers about a month ago. A local priest was killed during the attacks, and the villagers left and recently returned.

We talked to a teacher at the religious school. There were children running around outside the school, and as usual, once they saw the “muzungus” (white people), especially muzungus with lots of camera equipment, they came flocking over. “How do you feel about the future?” I asked him, leaving the question deliberately vague. “Il n’y a pas d’espoir,” he responded (there is no hope). “I do not have hope for these children. We don’t even know when is the next time we will be attacked. We do not know if we will be living tomorrow. How can we think about the future?”

It was striking that many villagers we’ve spoken to have said that life was better before. A 21-year-old father of three told us that he thought his grandfather’s life is better than his life now. A principal of a school told us that he liked life better under the despotic rule of Mobutu than now, “At least there was security then, and people were not always worrying about being raped and killed.”

Aya Shneerson, the World Food Program provincial director who accompanied us to Jomba, related another story that illustrated to her just how bad the situation in the Congo was getting.

When she was visiting a village with a foreign dignitary, an elderly woman came up to them and begged. “Please colonize us,” she said. Both Aya and her visitor were aghast that someone could think that the colonial days were better, especially since the Belgians had such an atrocious history in the Congo. Yet, this is how bad things had become.

How is it possible that the situation has gotten so bad that people wish for the past, and not for idyllic good times, but for pasts dominated by corrupt leaders who exploit the local population, and neglect heir people while amassing treasure troves of billions? Right now, the people’s needs are not just neglected—their everyday life is threatened. Recall Maslow’s hierarchy. A person needs to have the most basic needs fulfilled, like food and shelter, before they can think about other needs. In this case, a basic level of security needs to be in place before people can even start thinking about health and education. Without the security, daily existence is tenuous. Il n’y a pas d’espoir. There is no hope.

Read full post and comments:
"TWO FOR THE ROAD: In Africa With Nick Kristof" >>


Home Fires: Five Iraq War Vets On Their Return To American Life

One Year Later


I have never cried much. In fact, I could probably count on one hand how many times I had really cried, as an adult, up until the time I came home from Iraq. During my tour, I couldn’t even shed a tear at my mom’s memorial service. I felt cold and numb because of everything going on around me. Not callous, just gifted at compartmentalizing emotions. I’ve cried more in the last year than I have in a lifetime. But here’s the catch. They have all been tears of joy, in moments where I am simply overwhelmed and feel so very lucky to be home with my kids.

June 21 is my one year anniversary in a couple of ways. One year ago today I walked out of a plane and onto the tarmac of my future. The crowd was going absolutely nuts here in Salt Lake City as we exited the aircraft. The sun was in my face and my heart was a percussion instrument. I scanned the crowd for my kids. And then suddenly they were at my feet — my 6-year-old daughter, Chloe, and my 3-year-old son, Little Lee — grabbing my legs and yelling, “Daddy, Daddy!” So many of us have experienced this, and I personally count it as one of the best moments of my 35 years on this planet. I remember my daughter trying to understand her feelings as I held her in my arms, “Dad? I’m happy but I think I’m going to cry now.”

Out of respect for my ex-wife and in the name of privacy I’ll just say that the kids heard, saw, and experienced a lot while I was gone that little kids should not have to go through. And these were things that never would have occurred had I been there. The standards in my household changed drastically, and the kids felt it. My whole family was emotionally wrecked when I got home. That same night I took full responsibility for raising them, even though it would take a couple of months to get through the actual divorce and be granted full custody. So I have been a single parent for one year today as well. It’s a symbolic day, then, a milestone, and I’ve been thinking about it all morning.

While in Iraq many of us milbloggers do a “Day in the Life” piece. I did one myself and thought it would be illuminating to do another one now:

5:30 a.m.: Alarm goes off. Hit snooze for a while. Maybe wake up and write for half an hour.

5:45 – 6:00: Get up, shave, turn on coffee machine. Gently wake up the kids. Shower.

6:00- 6:45: Get dressed. Make sure kids are getting dressed instead of falling back to sleep on the couch. Brush their teeth and hair. Make some breakfast. Feed and water both cats and both dogs. Let dogs out of garage into yard. Turn off sprinklers.

6:45: Drive to daycare. Walk kids in. Kisses and hugs.

7:00: Commute to Camp Williams, where I work as a company commander in the Utah National Guard.

5:00 p.m.: Leave work, drive back to daycare. Pick kids up.

5:30: Arrive at home. Change clothes, get kids a snack. Start dinner.

6:30: Feed the kids. Maybe let them watch a little TV or go outside and play with the neighbor’s kids for a while.

7:30: Give kids a bath or shower. Pick up the toys, clothes, and miscellaneous items strewn all over the house. Start getting their clothes ready for the next day. (I can’t wait until the morning for this. My daughter is very picky about her clothes and I will inevitably be late for work.)

7:45: Put a load of laundry in. Try to put away some clean laundry.

8:00: Tell the kids it’s time for bed, at which point they subconsciously think, “Yeah, right,” and ask to watch TV and eat some more snacks.

8:30: Tell the kids it’s really time for bed. Turn off the TV. They ask me to read them some books or play with them. I go upstairs and read to them for a while. Kids ask to sleep in my bed. Quite often I say yes.

9:00: If they’re still awake, I turn out the lights, tuck them in, and say good night. They plead for more time. I try to stand firm and say no. Quite often I give in.

9:15: Feed animals again. Put dogs in for the night. Brush teeth. Get uniform ready for next day. Turn on sprinkler. Make sack lunch (maybe). Switch clothes from washer to dryer.

9:30 -10:30: Try to get some writing done. Check e-mail. Turn off lights. Try to still my mind and actually sleep.

Of course this simplified example illustrates a rare day in which no surprises occur, neither kid bangs their head on the wall and needs to go to the emergency room for stitches, no friends call or stop by, there are no Girl Scouts or parent teacher conferences on the schedule, no doctor or dentist appointments, and none of us are sick. I am not shopping for food, clothes, cleaning the house, the yard, or buying toys for a birthday.

One year into this lifestyle, I feel pretty proud. Life just keeps getting sweeter. But honestly I still don’t think I’ve processed everything I experienced in Iraq, the death of my marriage, or my own mother’s passing. Who has the time?

The kids still ask me if I’m going back to “the war,” and they still don’t fully understand the divorce, but they are happy and safe. I don’t have to call them from 8,000 miles away. I get emotional sometimes just looking at them, being with them. I actually laugh at myself sometimes during these moments because I’m not used to it. And I’m not too proud to admit it either. For example, last night I was reading “The Cat in the Hat” to the kids and out of the blue my daughter said, “Daddy? I’m so glad you aren’t at the war anymore. You are the best Dad.”

“Me too, honey. Thank you.”

My son chimed in, “Daddy? Are you going back to the Army?” He meant the war.

“No buddy. I’m not.”

I sat up so I could see both of them, and to begin my exit so I could get them to bed. It was 9:15. I vividly remember being gone for those 18 months, and that feeling of having my hands tied, painfully frustrated that I was so far away when they needed me.

“Let me just tell you guys something, O.K.? If anything bad ever happens, or you get scared, or hurt, or lost, you just find a phone and call me. You both know my number, right? No matter what happens to you, and no matter where you are, I’m coming, O.K.?”

They both said okay, and their eyes were searching mine because they could hear my voice breaking. I was not sad. I was overjoyed to be able to speak these words. I hugged them so they couldn’t see my face.

“Just don’t be scared. No matter where you are, your Daddy is coming.”

My daughter patted my back and said, in a soft little whisper, “It’s O.K. It’s O.K. Dad’s can cry too.”

Read full post and comments:
"Home Fires: Five Iraq War Vets On Their Return To American Life" >>


Home Fires: Five Iraq War Vets On Their Return To American Life

Google Earth Vacation


I was killing some time with Google Earth last week and decided to look around my old stomping ground in Iraq. The imagery of the area was surprisingly good, and I had many a chuckle and a sigh as I perused the landscape of AO Raleigh, the area of operations that includes Falluja and its outlying areas.

I started with Camp Falluja where I was stationed and found the trailer and 10 by 10 foot room where I slept the majority of nights (or days, if I had been awake all night) inside the wire. I think I could even see the air conditioning unit that was both a source of comfort and frustration depending on whether the camp’s power had failed. It’s slightly difficult to sleep in an enclosed room during the middle of an Iraqi summer day, so the next place I scrolled to was my workplace where I would seek refuge to sleep when the power failed. It’s amazing what types of nooks and crannies one can crawl into and sleep inside when the next best option is the equivalent of a huge crock pot.

Next I scrolled over to the junkyard where we would search for “upgrades” to our Humvee. Many days did I defiantly stare tetanus in the face and dodge heaps of unexploded ordnance (discarded mortars, artillery shells, R.P.G.s, etc) to procure turret cover plates, fasteners, and storage bins for my team vehicle. Additionally, I found the ponds, the chow halls, the airfield, and many other places that I frequented during my deployment.

Next, I decided to venture outside the confines of Camp Falluja. I was pleasantly surprised at my ability to recall landmarks, roads, and even individual buildings and houses. In preparation for missions I always studied imagery of the area we would be operating in, and I explicitly studied imagery of target houses for raids we conducted, but I had no idea I would remember the places in such detail.

First I found the hospital in Falluja where an R.P.G. sailed over top of my Humvee, almost singing the hair of my turret gunner. I was even able to pinpoint within one or two houses the gated driveway where we later caught and detained the three fleeing insurgents that conducted the attack. I scrolled further west and found the area where I witnessed Iraqi soldiers in a skirmish with insurgents as my convoy traveled to Ameriya. There I saw an Iraqi civilian weeping as he sat by the side of the road with a bandage over his bleeding forehead. That was a bizarre sight. What’s even more bizarre is that I saw another Iraqi civilian with a bandaged forehead sitting in a similar place as I traveled the opposite direction almost a month later.

I then scrolled south of Ameriya to Ferris Town, a very large upscale apartment community. There I found the apartment building that housed the most villainous insurgent I’ve had the privilege of yanking out of bed at 2 a.m. — and that’s not a short list. I remembered that his wife was pregnant, and the corpsman with our patrol gave her medical assistance and checked her vital signs while we detained her husband. Our patrol leader promised to have a corpsman return in a couple weeks during a routine patrol to check up on her. After I mistakenly relayed the information in Arabic as “we would return in one or two years” instead of “one or two weeks” the insurgent’s sister mentioned that she understood English, which would have been helpful to know before I started stumbling through the message in Arabic. I wonder what became of the child.

I laughed out loud as I scrolled northeast and managed to find the individual house of a local national that we tried to take in for questioning at least three times but could never catch at home. I chuckled, thinking of all the resources, time, effort, and money spent on trying to question that one Iraqi. I sure hope he would have had something informative to say.

From the comfort of my desk I then traversed the 30 miles east to Baghdad, a trip that would take merely a half-hour via road — if that were a safe way to travel. Unfortunately, it actually requires a few days notice, a ten-minute ride in a helicopter, and a lot of waiting for your helicopter to arrive. There I found many landmarks that I remembered from my trips to Baghdad. The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier (an Iraqi monument in remembrance of a martyr from the Iran-Iraq War) is huge, even on satellite imagery! I found the Hands of Victory nearby. A family had set up a gift shop at the base of the monument where they took advantage of the fact that many Americans — like me — want their pictures taken inside the monument. I left my camera with the shop owner and after his son led me through the monument to the portal, he took our picture. I was very happy to have their help and I tipped them well.

I also found the pool that I swam in at the Embassy and the guard tower that I climbed to take my picture next to the Tigris as I had done next to the Euphrates outside of Falluja. Lastly, I went back west and tried to find the road I had been on when an I.E.D. struck my Humvee. I found a few roads that looked like the one in question, but I couldn’t be sure. Zaidon, a farm community southeast of Falluja, is a repetitive lattice of farmland and criss-crossing canals and canal-roads that all look so similar it’s difficult to pinpoint locations on a map.

One of the most surprising parts of my trip down memory lane via Google Earth was the revelation that I actually miss that place in some strange capacity.. Much like memories of initial training at Officer Candidates School and The Basic School, I think the “suck” factor tends to fade over time leaving you with a preponderance of good memories. As unnerving as it was to travel Iraqi roads with the constant threat of I.E.D.s, even having been on the receiving end of one, there was something strangely fulfilling about doing it successfully.

Very similarly, being shot at is actually a little bit of fun when nobody gets hurt. It reminds you you’re alive, and immediately unites everyone in a worthwhile task: finding the guy that shot at you. Whether you think it’s sick, naïve, or just plain stupid…that’s the way I feel.

Now that I am home, I mostly thank God that part of my life is over. But for a few minutes each day I remember lying in the mud behind a tree in Zaidon as machine gun fire beat the earth 10 feet in front of me. I remember sighting through my EOTech red-dot scope and desperately trying to find the guy behind that machine gun so I could line the dot up center-mass. For a few minutes I think about that, and some perverse part of me wishes I was there again.

Read full post and comments:
"Home Fires: Five Iraq War Vets On Their Return To American Life" >>


Basic Instincts: Behavior on Two, Four, Six, and Eight Legs


Call me shallow, but I am fond of those little extemporaneous rules, like Murphy’s Law or the Peter Principle, that allow us to recognize and ridicule familiar patterns of social behavior. And I’d like to propose one of my own.

I call it the Rule of the Decent Interval. It holds that the value of a good deed decreases in direct proportion to how badly you need the resulting good will.

From left to right: Chung Mong Koo, Sean John Combs, Richard Scrushy

This rule first occurred to me several years ago during the criminal trial of rap impresario Sean John Combs, on weapons charges in connection with a 1999 shooting at a New York nightclub. Mr. Combs was eventually acquitted, and he later settled a civil lawsuit brought by his driver in the incident.

But what caught a lot of peoples’ attention was a $50,000 donation he tried to make a few weeks before his trial, to a scholarship fund run by the think tank 100 Black Men. The group turned down the donation because the timing made it look like an attempt to buy support. That is, Mr. Combs was violating the Rule of the Decent Interval.

Other examples soon turned up — acts of philanthropy that were not merely self-interested, but also just a little too timely — and they made Mr. Combs’ proffered Benjamins look strictly nickel-dime.

For a while, former HealthSouth chief executive Richard Scrushy seemed to be setting a splashy new standard for this sort of thing after his indictment in a $2.7 billion securities fraud case. Facing trial before a largely black jury, Mr. Scrushy suddenly found Jesus and brotherhood with the African-American community, neither of whom had been much in evidence around the executive suite at HealthSouth. On many Sundays, the pre-jailhouse convert drove from his 20,000-square-foot house in a white neighborhood to worship, and contribute, at a largely African-American church.

And God is great, or anyway, pretty good: With his new-found fellow parishioners in court to back him up, Mr. Scrushy beat criminal charges in the case, and settled a civil suit. But he faces the likelihood of jail time this month on a bribery, conspiracy and mail fraud conviction in a separate case.

Even Mr. Scrushy looks like a piker, though, compared to Hyundai Motor chairman Chung Mong Koo. In 2006, Mr. Chung and his son, also an auto industry executive, apologized and pledged to donate $1 billion “to society” even before prosecutors in South Korea were scheduled to question them about shady financial dealings. Mr. Chung was subsequently convicted of embezzlement and sentenced to three years in prison. But he is appealing his case, and on Tuesday he reiterated the $1 billion pledge in a bid for clemency. Not only has he continued to run the company, but a recent poll named him the second most admired business person in South Korea.

Coincidentally, Lee Kun-Hee, chairman of Samsung Group, who ranked first in the poll, got caught last year trying to finagle the inheritance tax, and Samsung had to make an $825 million donation (also “to society”) by way of apology. (Let me get this straight. Mr. Lee was 20 percent less charitable than Mr. Chung, and still managed to rank number one. Oh, the injustice!)

All this reminds me of a lesson I learned growing up in New Jersey. The nuns at St. Cassian School used to tell us about an imaginary mob boss who’d led a wicked life but went to heaven anyway because of a sincere deathbed confession. They meant to show us that confession is powerful, and God forgiving. But some of my classmates took it to mean they could get away with murder, as long as they managed to eke out a good Act of Contrition at the end. Others (possibly including some of the nuns, behind those starched white wimples) felt that God was no fool and would pack the mobster off to roast in hell regardless.

I would humbly suggest that the latter attitude is entirely appropriate for violators of The Rule of the Decent Interval.

Everyone understands that there’s an element of self-interest in philanthropy. Recent brain studies have suggested that acts of charity produce a powerful sense of well-being for the donor (perhaps more than for the recipient). Doing good is also a way of gaining status within a community. It may even encourage zoning boards or college admissions officers to smile on us a little more willingly. But the nice thing about traditional philanthropy is that we have no way of knowing if there’s a quid pro quo down the line. Meanwhile, we get drawn into the sense of belonging and mutual support that are fundamental to any community — and these things often turn out to be the real quid pro quo.

Just-in-time philanthropy, on the other hand, says flout the laws and damn the community. If you get caught, you can just make the whole mess go away with a well-placed act of contrition, or rather, “charity.” Perhaps I am being obtuse, but it’s hard to see how this is any different from bribery.

Philanthropic organizations, and just-in-time donors, ought to be nervous about that. Violations of the Rule of the Decent Interval tend to remind people of the terrible alternative — not hell, perhaps, but almost as ominous: Enforce good laws, punish violators, and instead of depending on the whim of self-serving donors, make basic social services a function of government — even if that means you have to tax wealth more heavily.

Meanwhile, I like to imagine that Sister Immaculate’s take-home on the Rule of the Decent Interval would sound like this: Do good deeds now. Do lots of them. You never know when you will need the good will. But pray to God it won’t be any time too soon.

Read full post and comments:
"Basic Instincts: Behavior on Two, Four, Six, and Eight Legs" >>


Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Carmela Got Gold Jewelry. Hillary Wants a White House.

By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: June 20, 2007


WASHINGTON


Would Carmela, she of the pans of baked ziti and casseroles of veal parm, ever deny the omnivorous Tony onion rings?

Nah.

But the Carmela-Tony pact was a lot less strict than the Hillary-Bill pact.

Besides, this is a Hillaryized Carmela, or a Carmelized Hillary, so Bill Clinton must munch carrot sticks in their diner scene.

Actually, Hillary’s probably playing Tony, since she’s the one studying the songs on the jukebox and checking out a cruel-looking stranger at the counter.

Either way, the Clintons joined forces yesterday in a comic sendup of that last scene of “The Sopranos,” complete with a Journey soundtrack and an exchange about how Chelsea would be joining them once she got past her parallel-parking problems.

The satire was a video on Hillary’s Web site to whip up attention for the winner of her online contest to choose a campaign song.

Unfortunately, the winner, “You and I,” is definitely not for you and me. (I look forward to Obama’s new campaign ditty, “I Am Thou.”) It doesn’t bode well for the cultural health of the country that Hillary picked a song by Celine Dion, who combines the worst of Vegas and Canada.

It was an acid flashback to the cultural wasteland of Bill Clinton’s reign, when, instead of Pablo Casals, we got Kenny G.

During the 1992 campaign, young Clinton aides obsessed on how they could get the boss to change from Fleetwood Mac’s “Don’t Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow)” to something hipper and less baby-boomer middlebrow. Even Christine McVie, one of the band’s singers who wrote the song, said it might be better as a jingle for an insurance company.

Maya Angelou, the poet of the first Clinton inaugural, is back as well. With the campaign trying to shore up support among affluent, educated, over-35 women — women like Hillary — Ms. Angelou offers a taped testimonial to Hillary on the campaign Web site, saying that people “have profound affection for you, ever since you stood up as a woman and said: Yes, I’m a woman. Phenomenal woman. That’s my mother and all your mothers and my grandmothers and all your grandmothers. And my great-grandmothers and yours. And great-greats and great-greats and all you women here, along with Hillary Rodham Clinton and me!”

She said that she was proud that Hillary, who has dropped the “Rodham,” “gives herself the authority to be in her own skin, to be who she is.”

But Ms. Angelou gets it exactly backward. Hillary never seems at ease in her own skin, and she always gives herself too much authority.

A Los Angeles Times article notes that the paradox of the race is that voters want a Democrat to win, but when they are offered a head-to-head contest between Hillary vs. Rudy, John McCain or Mitt Romney, many switch allegiance to the Republicans. There is, the article said, “a sour aftertaste from controversies of her White House years with President Clinton.”

“Who wants four or eight more years of the Clintons’ marital disputes, paid for by the United States, we the people? I certainly don’t,” Carol Bendick, a 63-year-old Democrat, told the paper.

Whether Bill and Hill actually had a formal 20-year pact entailing two terms for president for her after two terms for him, as some suggested in “Her Way,” the Hillary bio by Don Van Natta Jr. and Jeff Gerth, they certainly had an understanding.

The Clintons’ “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy seems so similar to that of the Sopranos, that it could be a bit risky to play the mob couple, even for a gag.

Like Carmela, who was rewarded with jewels, watches and building permits for her husband’s infidelities with his goomahs, Hillary, too, found a way to profit from her husband’s failings and flaws.

At a lunch Carmela had with her girlfriends at Vesuvio, the women spoke admiringly of Hillary as a role model, someone who was able to turn a sow’s ear of a marriage into a silk purse.

And like Tony, Hillary is so power-hungry that she can justify any thuggish means to get the prize.

In the Clintons’ mob spoof, as a rather wooden Hillary is about to announce her song choice to a loose and funny Bill, the screen suddenly goes dark.

In the case of “The Sopranos,” this was cause for perplexity. In the case of the Clintons, it’s an unwittingly satirical moment, because if there’s one thing we know about this tough New York family, it is that they will never, ever go dark.

Where’s a black screen when you need one?

Read full post and comments:
"Carmela Got Gold Jewelry. Hillary Wants a White House." >>


Behind the Masks

Published: June 20, 2007

Every war has THE picture that captures its essence, and the Palestinian civil war in Gaza is no exception. My nominee would be the photograph of a Hamas fighter in Gaza, lounging in a senior Fatah official’s office over which he has just taken control. The masked Hamas fighter in jeans is relaxing in an ornate chair, holding a rifle in one hand and speaking — through the opening in his mask — on a telephone in the other. It has the weird feel of a Gap ad for Halloween.


In his essay on this page yesterday, Fouad Ajami described the two sides of the Palestinian civil war as “the masked men of Fatah” and “masked men of Hamas.” Indeed, the fact that masks were worn by the fighters on both sides is one of the unique things about this civil war — and it raises, for me, two questions. First, why were both the Hamas and Fatah fighters wearing ski masks? And two, where do you buy a ski mask in Gaza?

Oscar Wilde said: “Give a man a mask and he’ll tell you the truth.” So what truth does it tell us when fighters on both sides in this civil war (and in Iraq’s) are wearing masks?

The first answer is habit. Hamas fighters always wore masks when confronting Israel, so that Israel could not identify them for retribution. On June 16, though, Reuters quoted a Hamas spokesman as saying masks should not be worn in the intra-Palestinian war. “Wearing masks should only be near the borders and in fighting the Zionist enemy, not in the streets and near people’s homes,” said Khaled Abu Hilal.

But certain habits, especially bad ones, die hard — and they can end up warping your own society as much as your enemy’s. You can see what’s happened here: If it’s O.K. to wear masks when confronting the Jews, it eventually becomes O.K. to wear masks when confronting other Palestinians. If it becomes O.K. to use suicide bombers against the Jews, it eventually becomes O.K. to use suicide bombers against other Muslims. What goes around comes around.

Beyond old habits, though, there is also some new shame. These masks are worn by fighters who not only wish to shield themselves from Israel’s gaze, but also from the gaze of their parents, friends and neighbors.

After generations of Arabs highlighting the justice and nobility of the Palestinian struggle for statehood, there was surely an element of shame that Palestinian brothers were killing brothers, throwing each other off rooftops, dragging each other from hospital beds and generally ripping apart Palestinian society in a naked power struggle. There was nothing noble about this fight, which is why, I would guess, many wanted to wear masks. The mask both protects you against shame and liberates you to kill your brothers — and their children.

Putting on a mask is also a way to gain power and enhance masculinity. People in black masks are always more frightening — not only physically, but because their sheer anonymity suggests that they answer to no one and no laws. In our society, it’s usually only burglars, rapists or Ku Klux Klansmen who wear masks — either to terrorize others or make it easier to break the law. The mask literally says: “I don’t play by the rules. Be afraid, be very afraid.”

Think of how relieved you’d be to be captured in war by someone in a uniform and how frightened you’d be to be captured by someone in a mask. But given the breakdown in society we see in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian areas, that may be a luxury. Wars against masked men and gangs — whose true identities, agendas, rules and aspirations are never clear — will be the norm.

“These masks are the uniforms of the new armies of the 21st century and the new kind of violence,” which in Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza “no longer distinguishes between war against the stranger and war against members of your own society,” argued political theorist Yaron Ezrahi. “Just as this new violence doesn’t have a front, it doesn’t have a face. It doesn’t have boundaries.”

That is why these masks announce one more thing: These young men do not report to anyone above them. They have no ranks. No leader can ever be sure of their allegiance. Every masked man is a general, and every militia is a cross between a self-funded criminal gang and a modern army.

Get used to it. In today’s environment, where the big divide is between the world of order and the world of disorder, you can expect to see a lot more confrontations between armies in uniforms and helmets and armies in blue jeans and masks.

Correction from Sunday’s column: While head scarves are banned in French public schools, French universities are exempted.

Read full post and comments:
"Behind the Masks" >>


The Opinionator: Tobin Harshaw & Chris Suellentrop

Hillary Clinton may or may not make a good president, but there’s near unanimity in opinionland that you shouldn’t let her DJ your next party. The selection of Celine Dion’s “You and I” as the winner of Sen. Clinton’s online campaign-song contest has received denunciation across the political spectrum.

Mother Jones’s Jonathan Stein presents the leftist critique: “great if you like shrieking Canadians and awful if you have taste.” The New Republic’s Michael Crowley advances the unconventional neoliberal/neocon slant: “pretty lame.” And National Review’s Jonah Goldberg adheres to the conservative line: “really bad.”

The “Sopranos” spoof starring both Clintons ­and Johnny Sack that the campaign uses to introduce the choice, on the other hand, garners nearly unanimous praise. (Although this Ron Paul supporter/blogger, who must embrace the Tony-was-shot school of “Sopranos” exegesis, dislikes what he perceives as the “foreshadowing of the Clintons’ political assassination.”)

Some commenters are playfully jabbing Sen. Clinton for “outsourcing her campaign theme song,” in the words of The Chicago Tribune’s Frank James, because she picked a Canadian singer.

More damning, however, is the Joe McGinnis-like discovery by TPM Cafe’s Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld: “The song was originally written for…an ad campaign for Air Canada.” Who says presidential politics is indistinguishable from marketing?

*********************************************************


  • Iraq is a conflict between warring bands of true believers: The evangelical atheism of Christopher Hitchens includes an intellectual orientation that is not unlike that of militant jihadism, argues Villanova humanities professor Eugene McCarraher in a review in Commonweal of Hitchens’ book “God Is Not Great.”

    “Hitchens’s uplifting predictions about the God-less future are most savagely belied by the catastrophe in Iraq, where the bogus distinction between religious and secular violence can be seen in all its ideological duplicity,” McCarraher says. Hitchens sees the war’s Iraqi victims as merely “the collateral damage of enlightenment,” McCarraher suggests. He writes:

    While pointing to the sanguinary unreason of “fundamentalists,” the war’s advocates have offered up the lives of thousands in sacrifice to a future of Market and Democracy. An Iraqi killed by a U.S. Marine is just as dead as if she were dispatched by a jihadist. Both Hitchens and the jihadist would contend that her death is part of a larger struggle between the forces of light and darkness.

  • National Journal columnist Jonathan Rauch has a theory for why the immigration bill is going nowhere: “The most basic decision any immigration bill needs to make is this: How many immigrants does the country need and want? Bizarrely, this was the one question that the debate over the Senate bill did not seem to concern itself with.”

*********************************************************


A lot of liberals blame Colin Powell for persuading them to support the notion of getting into the Iraq war, but is Colin Powell also to blame for the Bush administration’s inability to get the United States out of the Iraq war? In a roundabout way, yes, suggests Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor of history and international relations at Boston University, in The Boston Globe’s “Ideas” section.
In a long essay arguing for the abolishment of the position of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Bacevich says Powell is indirectly to blame for the nation’s poor military leadership since he stepped down as chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Bacevich writes:

Having learned from Powell’s tenure that a talented, high-powered JCS chairman can produce big-time political headaches, the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have opted for officers who could be counted on not to make waves. They have done so by selecting anti-Powells to serve as JCS chairmen — officers who, whatever their other admirable qualities, have possessed few of the attributes that made Powell so formidable. Since 1993, the position of JCS chairman has been filled by a succession of colorless, compliant generals — honorable and good soldiers to the man, but none demonstrating anything approaching Powell’s smarts, flair, and shrewdness. Mediocrity can be a cruel word, but as a description of those who have succeeded Colin Powell as the nation’s top military officer, it is apt.

One of those mediocrities, Bacevich says, is the soon-to-depart General Peter Pace. He writes:

History will render this judgment of Pace, who succeeded General Richard B Myers as chairman in September 2005: As U. S. forces became mired ever more deeply in an unwinnable war, Pace remained a passive bystander, a witness to a catastrophe that he was slow to comprehend and did little to forestall. If the position of JCS chair had simply remained vacant for the past two years, it is difficult to see how the American military would be in worse shape today.

Almost without exception, Bacevich writes, Gen. Pace “has loyally accommodated himself to whatever the boss has wanted, even to calamitous policies that have done immeasurable harm not only to the country but to the armed services to which he has devoted his life.”

Perhaps Gen. Pace comforts himself, however, by telling himself that it’s all Colin Powell’s fault.


Read full post and comments:
"The Opinionator: Tobin Harshaw & Chris Suellentrop" >>


When Dollars Trump Compassion

By BOB HERBERT

Published: June 19, 2007


You won’t see these stories on television, but Marian Wright Edelman and Dr. Irwin Redlener could talk to you all day and all night about children whose lives have been lost or ruined because they didn’t have health insurance.


This is not a situation one associates with a so-called advanced country. That you can have sick children wasting away in the United States, the wealthiest nation on the planet, because medical treatment that could relieve their suffering is withheld by men and women with dollar signs instead of compassion in their eyes is beyond unconscionable.

Ms. Edelman is the president of the Children’s Defense Fund, and Dr. Redlener is president of the Children’s Health Fund.

Both are appalled at the embarrassing fact that nine million American children have no health coverage at all. Among them are children with diabetes, chronic asthma, heart conditions, life-threatening allergies and so on. In many instances they are left untreated until it is too late.

Leaving children uninsured is a form of Russian roulette, Dr. Redlener said.

All children should be covered,” said Ms. Edelman.

Congress and the president could do something about this right now. Of the nine million children without coverage, six million are already eligible for either Medicaid or the popular State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or S-chip, which covers children whose parents earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to afford private health insurance. The bulk of the funding for S-chip comes from the federal government.

S-chip, which had strong bipartisan support when it was established 10 years ago, is currently up for reauthorization in Congress. The program should be expanded as part of a broader effort to cover as many of the six million eligible-but-uninsured kids as possible.

Eligible children remain outside of S-chip and Medicaid for a variety of reasons, including the following: because there is insufficient funding to cover them; because families do not realize their children qualify for coverage; because red tape and complicated regulations discourage families from signing up.

A number of S-chip re-authorization proposals are being developed. The best-case scenario would be legislation — costing as much as $50 billion in additional funding over the next five years — that would cover millions of additional youngsters from poor and working-poor families. This would put the U.S. on the road toward universal coverage for children.

Ten billion dollars a year is considered a pittance when it comes to funding wars and tax cuts for the very wealthy. But it’s suddenly a lot of money when the subject is the health of American children.

One of the worst scenarios has been offered by President Bush in his White House budget proposal. That calls for just $4.8 billion in new funding for S-chip over the next five years. The result, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would be a net loss of coverage for 1.4 million children.

The old expression was “taking candy from a baby.” The White House is ready to take away vitally needed medicine.

Negotiations over the reauthorization of S-chip are under way. It will be interesting to see whether the Democrats who crowed so much about their newfound power when they took control of Congress will stand tall for the kids of the poor and working poor, and whether there are enough caring Republicans to resurrect the spirit of bipartisanship from a decade ago.

As the heat gets turned up on this issue, the White House appears to be falling into its old habit of creating its own reality.

The Congressional Budget Office and most researchers have agreed on the six million figure for the number of youngsters who are eligible for government-sponsored health coverage but remain unenrolled — roughly four million for Medicaid and two million for S-chip. This has not been controversial.

Yesterday, the Department of Health and Human Services began circulating a study that tries to make the case that the total number of eligible but uninsured youngsters is a mere 794,000, an absurdly low figure.

If you can wave a magic wand and make five million poor kids disappear, you no longer have to think about caring for them.

Advocates like Dr. Redlener and Ms. Edelman don’t have that luxury.

“Kids who grow up with poor access to health care carry a high risk of having underdiagnosed and undertreated chronic illness, both physical and emotional,” said Dr. Redlener. “We know what to do. We should fully fund this effort at the $50 billion level and make coverage mandatory for all children.”

Read full post and comments:
"When Dollars Trump Compassion" >>


A New Global Blueprin

By DAVID BROOKS

Published: June 19, 2007


A few weeks ago, the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia brought together some big thinkers to discuss the future of American foreign policy, and guess what? They couldn’t agree.


They couldn’t agree on whether China would replace the U.S. as the world’s leading power. They couldn’t agree on whether Islamic extremism would be central or peripheral in the years ahead. They couldn’t agree on the significance of America’s unpopularity.

But there were two competing papers that illuminated most of the issues roiling to and fro. The first was by John Ikenberry of Princeton. He argued that the U.S. will not face one big threat in the coming decades. Instead, there will be a “diffuse, shifting and uncertain” array of security challenges: collapsing nation-states, global warming, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, pandemics, energy scarcity and so on.

Therefore, the U.S. can’t pursue a grand strategy against a specific enemy. It has to embrace what Ikenberry calls a “milieu-based approach.” In essence, the U.S. would make itself the center of a series of new global institutions where nations could come together and solve common problems.

During the 1940s, the U.S. excelled at this, Ikenberry notes. Dean Acheson and others initiated the Atlantic Charter, the Bretton Woods agreements, the Marshall Plan and the U.N. The idea was that capitalism could be organized internationally. Problems could be addressed in common. The U.S. could leverage its power more effectively if embedded in multilateral institutions with broad legitimacy. This order has been torn asunder because the Bush administration refused to operate within it. And so it’s time to update. The new global architecture would have three features.

First, there would be a global social services sector, providing health care, education, shelters, emergency services and other parts of any healthy community. Second, there would be renewed security alliances, in part to enmesh China before it becomes so powerful that it’s uncontainable. Third, the U.N. would be reformed and a Concert of Democracies would be created, where the free world could respond as threats emerge.

Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment argues that this sort of global system would be workable if the great powers shared common political principles. But Russia, China and the U.S., among others, do not have common understandings or interests, so it will only lead to paralysis.

Instead, Kagan sees a world that will look as it’s always looked — a world of competing nations, vying for power. This world in his view will also have three main features.

First, continued U.S. dominance. Even events of the past few years have not undermined American economic and military supremacy. For the foreseeable future, the world will have one big global power, and a number of regional ones.

Second, increasing regional competition. Nationalism is back, Kagan argues, if it ever went away. And so in Asia, China competes with Japan and South Korea. In Central Europe, Russia competes with its neighbors. In the Middle East, Iran bids for dominance.

Third, an overarching rivalry between democracy and autocracy. A few years ago, democracy seemed on the march, but now authoritarian governments are confident and thriving. Russia, China and other nations have an interest in seeing autocracy spread and in staving off democratic reform.

In the future, Kagan concludes, the U.S. is going to have to stabilize regional conflicts and gradually push back against the autocratic tide. The U.S. will also remain the most ardent champion of liberty in the face of Islamist anti-modernism. American predominance is not a danger. It’s the only thing standing between us and regression to a more dangerous world.

For what it’s worth, I’d say Ikenberry underestimates the power of nationalism. There’s little evidence that different nations with their contradictory moral cultures can really cooperate, except in utter crisis. But I’d also say Kagan underplays postnational threats. More than in the 19th century, security threats come in the form of global guerrillas, loose nukes and disintegrating nations.

Instead, we’re trapped in a hybrid world, in which many problems are postnational but the social structures are unavoidably national. The interesting bright spot is that both Ikenberry and Kagan believe in a Concert of Democracies, an emerging body where countries that do share values can rebut autocracy and consolidate their common success.

It’s a start.

Read full post and comments:
"A New Global Blueprin" >>


TWO FOR THE ROAD: In Africa With Nick Kristof


I saw my first patient in the Congo today. Her name is Yohanita Nyiahabimana. She is a 41-year old woman who lives in the village of Malehe, about an hour from Goma. She was carried out of her house by her neighbors when they heard that we were coming. There she lay on some tattered blankets, all 50 pounds of her under the unforgiving African sun.

“Skin and bones” would not even adequately describe her. She was completely emaciated, with no body fat and no muscle. Her shriveled limbs were contracted, and her eyes sunken and scared. Her heart rate was in the 130s, and she was taking deep, raspy breaths. She felt warm to the touch, yet she was shivering and her teeth were chattering. Moving her from side to side elicited excruciating screams. On her groin and buttocks were multiple bedsores up to three inches in diameter. All of the sores were to the bone, and were oozing and teeming with flies.Who is Yohanita? How did she get like this? We were visiting the village of Malehe, whose 12,000 inhabitants had been driven out during recent conflicts and just returned in February. While they were gone, the rebel soldiers burned down houses, destroyed crops, and stole cows and goats. There had not been time to replant seeds before the harvest, and the returnees have been literally dying of starvation.

Villagers said that there was a woman not far away who was very sick. They did not know why she was sick, but we followed them up the hillside, past the rotting crops and burned buildings, to see her. Outside her house, there was a very thin older woman sitting under a tree. She was taking shallow breaths, had signs of leg ulcers, and appeared malnourished. “Before the war came to the village, we had enough to eat. We had many crops and cows and goats,” she told us. Now all of their crops and livestock are gone. She said that since May, she and her family have eaten nothing but bananas. The last time she had even bananas to eat was the day before yesterday. This is the mother of Yohanita. While she was talking, some men brought out a bundle from the house and deposited it near our feet. As soon as I saw Yohanita being carried out on the tattered sheet, her body all but a skeleton wrapped in rags, I knew that she was at death’s door. If I learned anything in medical school, it’s to recognize when to get help. I knew what needed to be done—she needed immediate medical help—but I was not sure how to do it. There was no way anyone could treat her in her village without any supplies. I certainly could not just leave her there, on the fast track to death.I began to explain the situation to her elderly parents. Yohanita is very sick, I said. She has fever and signs of infection, and her heart rate and breathing are very fast. She really needs to go to the hospital, or she will die. We can take her in our vehicle. Her parents seemed to understand the gravity of the situation, but were reluctant to have her go to a hospital. Their main concerns were that they could not afford it, and that nobody would be able to take care of her there (hospitals in the Congo require someone to accompany the patient to cook and clean for them). We offered to pay for the cost of her care (the total would probably be around $100), and found a local neighbor girl to accompany Yohanita.

Enough people consented that we finally began to move Yohanita down the steep hillside. I thought that the discussions had ended when we lay her down in the vehicle. It had already been at least an hour since we first saw her. I waited with her in the car thinking expecting for the driver and other passengers to jump in, but a large crowd was gathering outside. More issues had come up. The girl who was to accompany Yohanita disappeared. The head of the village disagreed with the choice of hospital.

I could not believe that such discussions were taking place while Yohanita was lying in the car, dehydrated, severely malnourished, and literally at death’s door! She felt hotter, and I could barely detect a pulse. The delay was unacceptable. Yet somehow I could not get this point across. As the decision was put off further, my frustration was mounting, my anxiety increasing, and my hope plummeting. Even if we removed some of the barriers to her care, more barriers seemed to come up. I felt I could help, and knew how to help, yet somehow was powerless and helpless.

Finally, after what seemed like hours of discussion, our vehicle took off. Yohanita ended up going to a hospital in Goma, and is now in the capable hands of HEAL Africa. The doctor who accepted her into their intensive care unit agreed that her degree of extreme emaciation could be due to multiple causes, with AIDS and famine being the two most likely. Yohanita could very well have both. She had been raped during a previous conflict and has a 6-year old child from the rape. We found out that she had been well until April, when she became progressively weaker until she was bedridden. It was unclear as to whether she stopped eating because of her weakness, or just couldn’t eat because there was no food. The doctors are looking into her underlying diagnosis, and in the meantime are giving her fluids and antibiotics and starting a gradual refeeding program. I will be following up with her in the remaining days that we have in the Congo.As we left HEAL, I felt relieved that Yohanita is in the care of physicians. I also had a horrible realization that cases like hers occur everywhere. We just happened to pick one village of returnees, and found someone as emaciated and ill and without medical care as her. There are hundreds of villages like this one in the Congo, and dozens of resettlement camps where displaced people live in abject poverty with absolutely nothing but disease to rule their lives. We could have been in any village in the Congo and discovered a case like her.

Yohanita is a tragedy of war. When we think of the effect of war on people, we often picture civilians killed in crossfire. Next time I want you to picture Yohanita. She is the human cost of war. So are the families whose livelihoods are ruined when conflict destroys their farms and businesses, the elderly who die in epidemics caused by lack of basic sanitation, and the children who lose years of education. Are these consequences of war that we are willing to accept, in the Congo, in Iraq, or in the United States?

*************************

Leana S. Wen was born in Shanghai, China. She came to the U.S. on political asylum in 1991, and grew up in Utah, California and Missouri. Her experiences as an immigrant in diverse communities are driving forces behind her interests in public health and international health policy, and her commitment to fighting for social justice around the world. A recent graduate of Washington University School of Medicine, Leana has served as a Global Health Fellow at the World Health Organization in Geneva; as a National Security Education Program Boren Fellow in Kigali, Rwanda; and as National President of the American Medical Student Association, the nation's largest independent organization of physicians-in-training. Leana is a Rhodes Scholar-elect, and in the fall, she will begin two years of study at the University of Oxford to examine health systems in developing countries. After her return, Leana plans to enter residency training in emergency medicine.

Read full post and comments:
"TWO FOR THE ROAD: In Africa With Nick Kristof" >>


Monday, June 18, 2007

Small, Uneasy Georgia Praises the New France

Published: June 18, 2007

PARIS

Mikheil Saakashvili, the president of Georgia, was talking about Nicolas Sarkozy: "Things are so very different now in France," he said. "This optimism, this strong conviction. Everything is possible. Everything is open. There's something revolutionary here. It's the start of something grandiose."

For pure political rapture, not much in this register had been heard since North Korea recited anthems to Kim Il Sung, its old strongman.

Surely excessive, but certainly hopeful and sincere, Saakashvili's wild enthusiasm about Sarkozy's month-old presidency has at least a toehold in reality.

From the point of view of Georgia, a former Soviet republic of 4.6 million with both real concern for its security and ambitions to become a Western-type democracy, Sarkozy is already engineering French foreign policy away from the Chirac years' complaisant view of Russia's wanting a belt of limited-sovereignty countries at its borders.

In a conversation after he met here with Sarkozy last week, Saakashvili said that French officials once had a standard answer for almost any Georgian need or concern: "That's interesting." Now, when he asked about buying two frigates, a request previously turned down, the French response, Saakashvili said, was "Why not?"

By the standard of showing your convictions, this is not France saying "sure" to an order for patrol boats from Switzerland. Russian troops remain on Georgian territory, and Russia has banned all Georgian imports. Russia also supports independence movements in two regions Georgia regards as its own, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

On top of that, the Russians hardly like the idea of Georgia's joining NATO, but Sarkozy gave the plan (which goes for Ukraine, too) a no-ifs-or-buts yes during the campaign. While Saakashvili was in Paris, approval was also granted for French assistance to the Georgian Army and police and to a plan to help Georgia in developing nuclear energy.

This, of course, is not a New French Foreign Policy, whole and articulated. That's to be determined as a vast or partial makeover of several months duration.

But in dealing with a small country that irritates Russia, the Sarkozy team turned away from approaching Georgia as if it were to be handled by tongs in a stealth operation. When he was asked by a reporter if there was any symbolism in this early-days, top-of-agenda Georgian visit, the government spokesman, David Martinon, said, unhesitatingly, "Yes."

The world was meant to notice. In Paris last week for a meeting on Kosovo, the U.S. State Department's third-ranking official, Under Secretary R. Nicholas Burns, described France these days as "breaking the mold" in positive terms on a number of issues.

Indeed, there was more. After seeing Saakashvili, Sarkozy traveled to Poland to try to ease it toward more suppleness this week at the European Union summit meeting about the EU constitution - a trip that would have been unthinkable for Chirac.

Since the failed attempt by Chirac and Gerhard Schröder, bolstered by Vladimir Putin, to align the EU in opposition to the United States at the outset of the war in Iraq, Poland (like Georgia, an eager ally of America) has been extremely wary of any changes in EU statutes that would limit its prerogatives.

Now, the tone of French policy under Sarkozy has changed so much as to make a French conciliation mission welcome. Le Monde explained that Poland's unbending stance in defending its European interests, particularly in relation to Germany, was "in part the consequence" of its earlier experience - a clear reference to the Chirac/Schröder/Putin triangle.

Sarkozy's move away from some of France's old reflexes also extends toward more existential issues involving Iran and Russia.

With other NATO countries, France joined in tacitly accepting last week the American missile shield (Ségolène Royal, for one, opposed it), whose deployment Russia regards as an intrusion into the sphere of influence it's seeking to reassert over former Warsaw Pact countries like Poland and the Czech Republic.

During the election campaign, Sarkozy also made clear that he would consider additional sanctions against Iran to follow enactment of a third-round of UN Security Council measures scheduled for July. These supplemental sanctions would involve a group of countries willing to bypass the Security Council and Russia and China's potential blocking role there.

The new restrictions are described as hard enough to serve as an unmistakable warning to Iran against pursuing its nuclear drive.

With Paris presumably on board, Burns said publicly for the first time that work on these supplementary sanctions was moving forward among a group of unidentified countries.

Re-enter Saakashvili, who besides Sarkozy also saw the French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, and Burns. With Georgia bordering on Russia and sharing common neighbors with Iran, Saakashvili talked about how these areas of concern run together.

Of Sarkozy and Putin, with whom he spoke two weekends ago in St. Petersburg, Saakashvili said, "They are from radically different worlds," while declining to compare them.

Instead, he focused on Sarkozy, saying, "Europe can't miss the chance to profit from his energy" and willingness to be bold.

There was a quiet admonition here. When Europe engaged in what Saakashvili said was convincing itself of its "pragmatism or realpolitik," or drifted along with "romantic and sentimental" ideas, it often wound up being weak. Showing strength and unity was its best card, he said.

This was "specially" and "particularly" true in relation to Russia, he said, adding, very reasonably, that Russia wanted and deserved the Europeans' "acceptance and respect."

On the other hand, Georgia has some immediate Russian worries. If Russia vetoes independence for Kosovo in the coming weeks or months, and the United States and the EU recognize Kosovo, Russia has threatened to recognize Abkhazia's independence.

This would violate Georgia's sovereignty and create an explosive situation. "It would be folly," said Saakashvili, this time using a phrase not so far from what U.S. officials have told the Russians.

"We have strong support from France and the United States on this," Saakashvili said. "I think the Russians have the sense of realism to deal with it. But you've got to be vigilant."

Sarkozy's France newly agrees on this, and for a small, worried country on the Black Sea, that's a real reason for satisfaction. Not to mention a fact that well explains some hagiographic language to describe the new French president.

Read full post and comments:
"Small, Uneasy Georgia Praises the New France" >>