Politics

I should note that my tentative approval of the current multilateral diplomatic efforts should not be taken as approval of the rumored methods by which the war might be prosecuted. Nor am I unaware of these issues. It is simply necessary that any war plans include a serious, concerted effort to minimize the impact of the war on the Iraqi people, for all kinds of reasons. But if we condemn the possibility of torture on the part of the US — and I do — we must be at least as concerned with Saddam’s practices. That’s not just propaganda. Saddam is well documented as a torturer.

The theme of US policy over the last few days, despite Bush’s tough talk in the State of the Union, has in fact been multilateralism. (Which is driving some people nuts.) I think the most important speech delivered in the last week was by Colin Powell at Davos. That’s the administration speaking for an international audience, not for a US audience, and that’s where we need to look for the administration’s real position. ...

Who knew the Pentagon had a futurist? Wired interviews Andrew Marshall (original), who has been Director of the Office of Net Assessment since Nixon. Interesting stuff. My favorite quote: A friend of mine, Yale economist Martin Shubik, says an important way to think about the world is to draw a curve of the number of people 10 determined men can kill before they are put down themselves, and how that has varied over time. His claim is that it wasn’t very many for a long time, and now it’s going up. In that sense, it’s not just the US. All the world is getting less safe. ...

“Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.” “For nearly three years, Iraq refused to accept any inspections by UNMOVIC. It was only after appeals by the secretary-general and Arab states and pressure by the United States and other member states that Iraq declared on 16 September last year that it would again accept inspections without conditions.” ...

Some commenters below were pretty skeptical about the viability of non-state sponsored terrorism. (By the way, I appreciate the time all of you took to post, especially the ones I disagree with. Thank you.) Strikes me as a good time, therefore, to talk a little more about the likely progression of terror technology. This is gonna tie into some of the stuff I’ve said about NGOs, by the by. ...

Says Mr. Reynolds: “This is also why I prefer a Mussolini-style ending in which Saddam is lynched by his own people to exile, or even a trial. I think that would provide a valuable lesson.” Yes, that’s what I always think about lynchings. They’ll provide a valuable lesson. Precisely. People get uppity, you know? But you know, I think Den Beste is right (original) when he says the world political order is about to change. He’s wrong about a bunch of other things; he clearly doesn’t understand the concept that international legitimacy may be important for any other reason than the immediately practical. I’ve written before about the sheer folly of assuming that the United States will always be in the privileged power position we currently enjoy, and I’ve discussed why enlightened self-interest leads us to the conclusion that we must not encourage a world in preemptively securing one’s own position by invading other countries is wise. Ah well. ...

[This article](http://web.archive.org/web/20110721182206/http://web.archive.org/web/20110721182206/http://gummibear.netfirms.com/oj/oj_marches.html (original) “OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today”) (original) is about the funniest parody I’ve read in some time, and makes it mercilessly clear why you can’t just invert protest numbers to determine the number of people who support the status quo. It’s pretty obvious, by the by, that the numbers of people protesting are important. You can tell, because people who support whatever’s being protested generally aim for the low end of the possible range. Nathan Newman makes an interesting argument against mass protests (link via Electrolite), but I don’t think the math is as simple as he does. A really sizable protest makes it psychologically easier for those who might support the cause but be uncertain of themselves to come out the next time; humans have a lot of herd animal in them. It’d be nice if it were otherwise, and perhaps someday, but right now? Perceptions of numbers matter. ...

OK, I think I figured this one out. And you thought I’d forgotten all about it… Without further ado, the Population: One two axis predictive political graph. Axis one is still freedom vs. safety. Which matters more in your personal calculus? Will you give up safety for freedom, or vice versa? Axis two is privileged position vs. one among many. Do you think that your club/state/nation/special interest group has a privileged position vis a vis the rest of the world, for whatever reason? If so, perhaps you think God granted said status; perhaps you think it’s been earned by means of a sterling diplomatic record. The question is whether or not you think it exists, not why it exists. ...

Kevin Drum challenges us to come up with a two-axis system of political temperament classification that makes sense. OK, I’ll bite. Preferatory, I’ll note that I think it’s important that the ends of the axes are non-pejorative. The Libertarian quiz fails because the questions are slanted. Any useful system can’t be biased towards one result. That’s propaganda, not political science. So: axis one is Freedom vs. Safety. What’s more important to you? There’s no “right” answer to this question, in my book. I have my own strong preferences. That’s me. Someone else might have different preferences. Note that this isn’t a question about rights; I might think that everyone has a natural right to be safe but personally prefer to give up that right for the sake of freedom. ...

Turns out the Sharpton fire was just an overloaded extension cord. My cynicism was unwarranted, too. I’m glad.