Shop and Awe
[Kris Alexander,
Wednesday March 1, 2006 at 7:29am ]
Note: This post was originally supposed to run in the Washington Monthly, but the piece got killed. It has been kicked around for a while to other publications with no takers so I decided to blog it instead. It was growing stale, and I wanted somebody to actually read it. Another random act of journalism committed by yours truly. Enjoy.
Shop and Awe
During 2003, I was an intelligence officer assigned to CENTCOM in support of Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. I worked hard to win, but the military machine of which I was a tiny part can only secure a partial victory. If U.S. trade policy were better adapted to the post 9/11 world, we might ultimately win by dropping more currency than cruise missiles. Call it “shop and awe”.
I spent the initial phases of Iraqi Freedom in Qatar. Right after, we had declared “mission accomplished”, CENTCOM lowered the force protection level enough for a few of us go exploring the in the souk, or market, in Doha, Qatar. Two of us wandered into a shop selling beautiful Persian silk rugs.
“You are American soldiers?” the proprietor asked in accented English. Damn, the haircut gives us away every time.
“Yes sir,” I replied. “Where are you from in the world?”
“Iran,” he stated glaring defiantly from under his turban--a challenge probably borne from watching too much “reality” TV on Al Jazzera.
“Really?” I replied. “It’s too bad our two countries don’t get along better. My grandfather spent some time in Iran, and he loved it.” (After thirty years in the Air Force, his military adventures are so much better than mine.)
It wasn’t the reply he was expecting, and the glare turned into a quizzical stare. I started looking around. My family has several nice rugs from my grandfather’s travels so I know a little about them. I showed my buddy how the weave in the silk makes them appear to change colors based on the angle you look at them.
I told the proprietor that we didn’t make anything like this in America, and that I was impressed. He smiled, and hate gave way to him offering me a special price. I almost bought one, but even with the discount they were still a couple grand. I told him that I couldn’t buy one without asking my wife first. He laughed. Some truths are universal.
For a brief moment, I was an ambassador of American consumer culture. And who knows, maybe the money from the sale would have gone to the “right” Iranians. I could have helped fund some nascent democracy movement.
But, that’s the problem isn’t it? How do we put money into the hands of the right people spurring growth and development in countries whose main export commodity is suicide bombers? The answer to the terrorism problem is a multi-faceted one, but so far, we’ve mostly sought military solutions.
Our country has not pursued a strategy that capitalizes on all our assets. We have the most powerful military in the world and have not been hesitant to use it. We also have the world’s most powerful economy but haven’t leveraged it into the fight. We should be pursuing policies that capitalize on the success of several private sector companies and jump start the economy’s of strategically important regions helping to create a bigger middle class in the Middle East. But, myopic US and European trade policy is standing in the way of total economic commitment.
Last year, Bob Dukelow, a now-retired senior civilian pentagon intelligence analyst with on the ground experience in Afghanistan, began looking into new strategies to win the GWOT. He heard about an area on Overstock.com called “worldstock” where they sell goods from developing countries like Afghanistan. Bob concluded that Overstock, and companies like it, had a role to play in our counter-terrorism strategy.
“Venues like this create better opportunities for local craftsmen in remote areas to get their products to markets they normally would not reach,” Bob says. “We can pull these craftsmen and their families into the functional core of the world's economy lessening the chance they will fall prey to the rhetoric of fundamentalist terrorist recruiters.”
Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne agrees that he and his company have a role to play. Overstock’s niche is normally selling large volumes of discounted goods over the internet. They are the web equivalent of an outlet mall. But, with worldstock, Bryne seems to be committed to using a large part of his business for purely altruistic goals. Plus, he actually travels to the locations where worldstock gets its products.
“I was in Afghanistan 15 months ago. One day through a misunderstanding I found myself stranded in a Hazara village west of Kabul, and after a little bit in the open I was getting way too much attention paid to me. Just about then a convoy of tanks and military vehicles came driving up. I never thought I’d be so happy to see a tank in my life.”
Not something that you’d find on the curriculum of the average MBA program, but then again, neither are Byrne’s goals. He wants to use his company to do the same thing for third-world craftsmen that he is doing for discount electronics and apparel.
“We don't make a big deal about it, but our Worldstock is not about making profit,” Byrne says. “The goal is the artisans.”
Byrne believes that by giving a venue to craftsmen he has helped create 15,000 jobs worldwide —1,500 in Afghanistan alone. Byrne believes that the private sector is uniquely suited for roles like this. He says that he has not coordinated his activities with any government organizations, but would like to see the government “help raise awareness of the successes/achievements of organizations such as Worldstock.”
And Overstock in not the only business doing this. A small chain of stores called Ten Thousand Villages does the same thing but with a lower profile. Run on Christian principles by the Mennonite Central Committee, these stores sell craft-goods from the developing world. It’s the same stuff that you’d find at a Pier1 or Cost Plus with one difference. These stores operate under the ideal of fair trade and are “designed to benefit artisans, not to maximize profits”. Cruelty-free consuming.
Company marketing director Doug Dirks has worked at Ten Thousand Villages for twenty years. “Our goal,” Dirks says. “Is to give people work and steady incomes to create stable communities. We are not donation driven or subsidized. We operate like a business, and try to help connect people to larger businesses.”
When asked if his company has a role to play in combating terrorism Dirks says “that’s not a specific goal, but we have noticed an increase after 9/11. People come to us saying that they came here because we’re trying to work with other cultures and bridge the divide.” Dirks also sees his company assisting the economic enfranchisement of people in the countries where Ten Thousand Villages operates. “We can’t do massive programs, but we can help connect people who are left on the economic fringes. We help connect them into the economy and plug them into the influential circles in their own countries.”
And Ten Thousand Villages operates on the fringes like those it is trying to help. “We aren’t plugged into other systems,” Dirks says. “We haven’t worked with USAID because there are too many strings attached. People know what they need to do with their money, and they don’t need extra assistance deciding what is best for them. Just like in our society. We actually end up cutting ourselves off from our supplier base because most people spend money on education so their children move beyond being craftsmen.”
Of course, crafts goods don’t drive powerful economies, but if the trends that Doug Dirks is seeing hold true, then the economic enfranchisement of artisans may help to create a middle class in developing nations. This middle class could form the nucleus of an investor class that may spur industrialization and further economic development. And this is the point where the developing world runs afoul of our trade policy. We haven’t pursued policies that capitalize on ideas like worldstock.
Brink Lindsey, an economist with the Cato Institute believes our policies ought to change. He says that agriculture and textiles manufacturing are the bottom rung of industrialization, but that US and European trade practices are hindering countries that are strategically important in the war on terror from getting on to that bottom rung. “US trade barriers are bad on September 10, 2001,” Lindsey says. “But they are brain dead and ridiculous today.”
Lindsey points to the success of a US/Jordan trade policy known as “Qualified Industrial Zones”. Started under the Clinton administration, this policy gave duty-free access to certain Jordanian goods. From 1999-2002 benefits from this trade policy represented 4% of the Jordanian GDP. But, this policy is not part of any greater plan or policy implemented since 9/11.
“Inadvertent consequences of US trade policy have impacted Muslim countries,” Lindsey says. “The Bush administration has signed free-trade agreements with smaller countries like Bahrain, Jordan, and Morocco. And, Bush has announced that he would be willing to sign more free trade agreements with countries like Egypt as long as they open up to US products and implement reforms.” But, Lindsey says that will take too long and is too dependent on actions from other countries that may not move at the pace we need them too. He advocates unilateral duty free agreements with countries in the greater Middle East.
Economist Edward Gresser of the Progressive Policy Institute agrees. “In trying to pick winners with our trade and tariff policy, we’ve created losers,” Gresser says. “In 1980 Muslim countries accounted for 13% of the World’s exports. Now it’s about 4%.”
Gresser believes that our protectionist trade policy is hurting us strategically. “What’s galling about the policy is that we’re protecting industries without jobs,” Gresser says. According to Gresser, there were about 2.4 million US workers in the garment and textiles industries in 1970. Today, globalization has forced these jobs offshore, and there are only a few hundred thousand US workers in these industries—less that .5% of the total work force—and the numbers decrease every year.
Compare this to Pakistan where 4 million workers are in these industries. Currently Pakistani garments and textiles are subject to 10-20% tariffs giving a trade advantage to countries like China. Gresser says that Europe is more lax on textile and garment tariffs but notoriously protectionist on agriculture goods—an economic one, two punch for developing nations.
In 2003, U.S. Senators Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) introduced legislation that would have created a trade preference program for countries of the Middle East. The legislation didn’t go anywhere. Edward Gresser thought it was a great idea. “McCain-Baucus didn’t depend on any other country for action, and it would have made a difference in strategically important countries,” Gresser says.
Tom Friedman may be right. The world is getting flatter, but there are still some steep hills between the developing world and the standard of living and personal freedoms that we enjoy in our country. People stuck down in the valleys get angry and that makes violence just as much a commodity of globalization as Indian call centers. But some guy like my Iranian friend who believes that he is getting a fair shake out of the New World Order is less likely to end up needing a JDAM parked on his head by some guy like me.
For instance, we are spending millions trying to eliminate opium in Afghanistan without providing enough of an alternative. Pistachios used to be one of Afghanistan’s main crops, so why doesn’t the president have a bowl of “freedom nuts” on his desk to promote Afghani agriculture? Hell, it worked for jellybeans.
So, four years after 9/11, why did our government spend so much political energy promoting CAFTA while ignoring trade with the Greater Middle East? Is the economic development of Guatemala more important than Pakistan? And why aren’t we demanding that the Europeans open up to agriculture imports? Currently the Iraqi and Afghani economies are clawing their way back into life. When they re-enter the global economic stage, will they run aground on Western trade policy?
The countries where we are trying to spread democracy need concrete evidence of our commitment to their long-term well-being. Last summer, the Bush administration fumbled around with the idea that we are no longer in the Global War on Terror, or the GWOT. The new term was GSAVE, the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism. It’s all empty semantics without real changes in our policy. Parts of the private sector are getting it right. Why can’t our government?
After 9/11, we were told to keep spending and traveling so the terrorists wouldn’t win. With some adjustments to our trade policies, we might have been on to something. So go buy a rug, and strike a blow for freedom. I know a guy in Doha who will give you a deal.
Shop and Awe
During 2003, I was an intelligence officer assigned to CENTCOM in support of Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. I worked hard to win, but the military machine of which I was a tiny part can only secure a partial victory. If U.S. trade policy were better adapted to the post 9/11 world, we might ultimately win by dropping more currency than cruise missiles. Call it “shop and awe”.
I spent the initial phases of Iraqi Freedom in Qatar. Right after, we had declared “mission accomplished”, CENTCOM lowered the force protection level enough for a few of us go exploring the in the souk, or market, in Doha, Qatar. Two of us wandered into a shop selling beautiful Persian silk rugs.
“You are American soldiers?” the proprietor asked in accented English. Damn, the haircut gives us away every time.
“Yes sir,” I replied. “Where are you from in the world?”
“Iran,” he stated glaring defiantly from under his turban--a challenge probably borne from watching too much “reality” TV on Al Jazzera.
“Really?” I replied. “It’s too bad our two countries don’t get along better. My grandfather spent some time in Iran, and he loved it.” (After thirty years in the Air Force, his military adventures are so much better than mine.)
It wasn’t the reply he was expecting, and the glare turned into a quizzical stare. I started looking around. My family has several nice rugs from my grandfather’s travels so I know a little about them. I showed my buddy how the weave in the silk makes them appear to change colors based on the angle you look at them.
I told the proprietor that we didn’t make anything like this in America, and that I was impressed. He smiled, and hate gave way to him offering me a special price. I almost bought one, but even with the discount they were still a couple grand. I told him that I couldn’t buy one without asking my wife first. He laughed. Some truths are universal.
For a brief moment, I was an ambassador of American consumer culture. And who knows, maybe the money from the sale would have gone to the “right” Iranians. I could have helped fund some nascent democracy movement.
But, that’s the problem isn’t it? How do we put money into the hands of the right people spurring growth and development in countries whose main export commodity is suicide bombers? The answer to the terrorism problem is a multi-faceted one, but so far, we’ve mostly sought military solutions.
Our country has not pursued a strategy that capitalizes on all our assets. We have the most powerful military in the world and have not been hesitant to use it. We also have the world’s most powerful economy but haven’t leveraged it into the fight. We should be pursuing policies that capitalize on the success of several private sector companies and jump start the economy’s of strategically important regions helping to create a bigger middle class in the Middle East. But, myopic US and European trade policy is standing in the way of total economic commitment.
Last year, Bob Dukelow, a now-retired senior civilian pentagon intelligence analyst with on the ground experience in Afghanistan, began looking into new strategies to win the GWOT. He heard about an area on Overstock.com called “worldstock” where they sell goods from developing countries like Afghanistan. Bob concluded that Overstock, and companies like it, had a role to play in our counter-terrorism strategy.
“Venues like this create better opportunities for local craftsmen in remote areas to get their products to markets they normally would not reach,” Bob says. “We can pull these craftsmen and their families into the functional core of the world's economy lessening the chance they will fall prey to the rhetoric of fundamentalist terrorist recruiters.”
Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne agrees that he and his company have a role to play. Overstock’s niche is normally selling large volumes of discounted goods over the internet. They are the web equivalent of an outlet mall. But, with worldstock, Bryne seems to be committed to using a large part of his business for purely altruistic goals. Plus, he actually travels to the locations where worldstock gets its products.
“I was in Afghanistan 15 months ago. One day through a misunderstanding I found myself stranded in a Hazara village west of Kabul, and after a little bit in the open I was getting way too much attention paid to me. Just about then a convoy of tanks and military vehicles came driving up. I never thought I’d be so happy to see a tank in my life.”
Not something that you’d find on the curriculum of the average MBA program, but then again, neither are Byrne’s goals. He wants to use his company to do the same thing for third-world craftsmen that he is doing for discount electronics and apparel.
“We don't make a big deal about it, but our Worldstock is not about making profit,” Byrne says. “The goal is the artisans.”
Byrne believes that by giving a venue to craftsmen he has helped create 15,000 jobs worldwide —1,500 in Afghanistan alone. Byrne believes that the private sector is uniquely suited for roles like this. He says that he has not coordinated his activities with any government organizations, but would like to see the government “help raise awareness of the successes/achievements of organizations such as Worldstock.”
And Overstock in not the only business doing this. A small chain of stores called Ten Thousand Villages does the same thing but with a lower profile. Run on Christian principles by the Mennonite Central Committee, these stores sell craft-goods from the developing world. It’s the same stuff that you’d find at a Pier1 or Cost Plus with one difference. These stores operate under the ideal of fair trade and are “designed to benefit artisans, not to maximize profits”. Cruelty-free consuming.
Company marketing director Doug Dirks has worked at Ten Thousand Villages for twenty years. “Our goal,” Dirks says. “Is to give people work and steady incomes to create stable communities. We are not donation driven or subsidized. We operate like a business, and try to help connect people to larger businesses.”
When asked if his company has a role to play in combating terrorism Dirks says “that’s not a specific goal, but we have noticed an increase after 9/11. People come to us saying that they came here because we’re trying to work with other cultures and bridge the divide.” Dirks also sees his company assisting the economic enfranchisement of people in the countries where Ten Thousand Villages operates. “We can’t do massive programs, but we can help connect people who are left on the economic fringes. We help connect them into the economy and plug them into the influential circles in their own countries.”
And Ten Thousand Villages operates on the fringes like those it is trying to help. “We aren’t plugged into other systems,” Dirks says. “We haven’t worked with USAID because there are too many strings attached. People know what they need to do with their money, and they don’t need extra assistance deciding what is best for them. Just like in our society. We actually end up cutting ourselves off from our supplier base because most people spend money on education so their children move beyond being craftsmen.”
Of course, crafts goods don’t drive powerful economies, but if the trends that Doug Dirks is seeing hold true, then the economic enfranchisement of artisans may help to create a middle class in developing nations. This middle class could form the nucleus of an investor class that may spur industrialization and further economic development. And this is the point where the developing world runs afoul of our trade policy. We haven’t pursued policies that capitalize on ideas like worldstock.
Brink Lindsey, an economist with the Cato Institute believes our policies ought to change. He says that agriculture and textiles manufacturing are the bottom rung of industrialization, but that US and European trade practices are hindering countries that are strategically important in the war on terror from getting on to that bottom rung. “US trade barriers are bad on September 10, 2001,” Lindsey says. “But they are brain dead and ridiculous today.”
Lindsey points to the success of a US/Jordan trade policy known as “Qualified Industrial Zones”. Started under the Clinton administration, this policy gave duty-free access to certain Jordanian goods. From 1999-2002 benefits from this trade policy represented 4% of the Jordanian GDP. But, this policy is not part of any greater plan or policy implemented since 9/11.
“Inadvertent consequences of US trade policy have impacted Muslim countries,” Lindsey says. “The Bush administration has signed free-trade agreements with smaller countries like Bahrain, Jordan, and Morocco. And, Bush has announced that he would be willing to sign more free trade agreements with countries like Egypt as long as they open up to US products and implement reforms.” But, Lindsey says that will take too long and is too dependent on actions from other countries that may not move at the pace we need them too. He advocates unilateral duty free agreements with countries in the greater Middle East.
Economist Edward Gresser of the Progressive Policy Institute agrees. “In trying to pick winners with our trade and tariff policy, we’ve created losers,” Gresser says. “In 1980 Muslim countries accounted for 13% of the World’s exports. Now it’s about 4%.”
Gresser believes that our protectionist trade policy is hurting us strategically. “What’s galling about the policy is that we’re protecting industries without jobs,” Gresser says. According to Gresser, there were about 2.4 million US workers in the garment and textiles industries in 1970. Today, globalization has forced these jobs offshore, and there are only a few hundred thousand US workers in these industries—less that .5% of the total work force—and the numbers decrease every year.
Compare this to Pakistan where 4 million workers are in these industries. Currently Pakistani garments and textiles are subject to 10-20% tariffs giving a trade advantage to countries like China. Gresser says that Europe is more lax on textile and garment tariffs but notoriously protectionist on agriculture goods—an economic one, two punch for developing nations.
In 2003, U.S. Senators Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) introduced legislation that would have created a trade preference program for countries of the Middle East. The legislation didn’t go anywhere. Edward Gresser thought it was a great idea. “McCain-Baucus didn’t depend on any other country for action, and it would have made a difference in strategically important countries,” Gresser says.
Tom Friedman may be right. The world is getting flatter, but there are still some steep hills between the developing world and the standard of living and personal freedoms that we enjoy in our country. People stuck down in the valleys get angry and that makes violence just as much a commodity of globalization as Indian call centers. But some guy like my Iranian friend who believes that he is getting a fair shake out of the New World Order is less likely to end up needing a JDAM parked on his head by some guy like me.
For instance, we are spending millions trying to eliminate opium in Afghanistan without providing enough of an alternative. Pistachios used to be one of Afghanistan’s main crops, so why doesn’t the president have a bowl of “freedom nuts” on his desk to promote Afghani agriculture? Hell, it worked for jellybeans.
So, four years after 9/11, why did our government spend so much political energy promoting CAFTA while ignoring trade with the Greater Middle East? Is the economic development of Guatemala more important than Pakistan? And why aren’t we demanding that the Europeans open up to agriculture imports? Currently the Iraqi and Afghani economies are clawing their way back into life. When they re-enter the global economic stage, will they run aground on Western trade policy?
The countries where we are trying to spread democracy need concrete evidence of our commitment to their long-term well-being. Last summer, the Bush administration fumbled around with the idea that we are no longer in the Global War on Terror, or the GWOT. The new term was GSAVE, the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism. It’s all empty semantics without real changes in our policy. Parts of the private sector are getting it right. Why can’t our government?
After 9/11, we were told to keep spending and traveling so the terrorists wouldn’t win. With some adjustments to our trade policies, we might have been on to something. So go buy a rug, and strike a blow for freedom. I know a guy in Doha who will give you a deal.
20 Trackbacks /
Truly outstanding piece. The fact you couldn't get a publisher speaks directly to our society's focus on "kinetic" and high-tech solutions at the expense of options that have a real chance at long-term stability (you know, that whole "drain the swamp" thing.)
By fortuitous coincidence, this week's Economist has a piece on the new business of international philanthropy. A great complement to Kris's piece, and well worth your time.
Ray
My only problem with this idea is that there is a downside domestically. The U.S. already has a frightening trade deficit, and our manufacturing and agricultural base is eroding and has been since the 1960's. I'd love to give a hand to Afghan pistachio farmers, but who loses that market share? Who ends up on the dole in Wayne, IN because of the Caterpillar plant in Jerusalem?
Again - it's a great idea but we should look at it evenhandedly. The Marshall Plan money we spent in the 40's help rebuild the countries that are now some of our biggest trading partners. But they are also some of our biggest trade rivals. Airbus, anyone...?
This plan of yours would economically and politically enfranchise hundreds of millions of people world wide, while putting out of work thousands of hardworking, and loyal Americans in the defense industry!
Next thing that'll happen is peace breaking out all over, and we all saw what happened after the Soviet Union collapsed!
Hundreds of thousands of loyal Americans kicked to the curb from their defense jobs, forced to take their skills to the private sector so that we go through another economic growth like we did in the 90's.
Do you really want to go through that again?
And the poor military pilots, Kris, these guys and gals will be forced, literally forced to earn larger salaries in the civilian sector flying, basically buses with wings (yawn!), from one boring place to the other.
How can you live with yourself knowing that some family in the thirdworld will be making rugs and earning a decent living, while our nation looses interest in all things military?
And I'm sure there would be far more economic and social fall-out as the impact of such a ridicuously insane idea were to be implemented.
Kris, you really need to show some restraint with these radical ideas of yours lest someone takes an interest in them, and then the cat will really be out of the bag.
Kris
At the risk of contradicting myself about domestic production problems, I will say that Kris has a hell of a point re: promoting replacement crops for stuff like coca in Bolivia and poppy in the 'Stan. I was in SOUTHCOM when "Operation Snowcap" went after the Bolivian coca growers back in 86-87. We took down some crappy little operations, pissed off the locals and did f-all to dent the operations of the big cartels, who just paid off the government, laid low while the Blackhawks were buzzing around, and then went back to business. If the entire thing had included a replacement crop with a guarenteed market - let's say high-end coffee beans for Starbucks (let's call it "Junta Grind" or "Basuco Breakfast") - the campesinos might have thought twice...as it was, I'm sure coca is still the crop of choice.
Although many US jobs (like the textile jobs mentioned) have been forced overseas, there are still some good American jobs (like sock manufacturers) that are obviously important to the Americans that hold them and to local economies. While I think "Shop and Awe" is a great idea, like FDChief said, we need to mindful of the impact here at home.
Add my congrats for a great post. And by the way, great stuff at worldstock and 10K-villages also, my wife is already happily shopping away. It is a shame that Washington Monthly pulled the article, don't know what they were thinking.
The father of a friend of mine had also been stationed in Iran like your grandfather. He ran an Army Air Corps radio station near Bandar Abbas during WW-2. He loved the place and the people and the rugs also. It was part of the Lend-Lease program. There were just a handful of Americans there, himself and one officer were stationed at a P-39 final assembly plant managed by a couple of Douglas Aircraft engineers under a licensing agreement with Bell. The factory workers were local Iranians and he always said their workmanship was excellent. An American test pilot would take each bird up for a 2-minute checkout as it came off the assembly line and then turn it over to a Russian pilot who would immediately take off and ferry it north to Baku and then to the front.
My friend's Dad (Hal) said the Russky pilots jokingly called that plane the "razor" because they would be strafing the Germans with it in a ground attack role. Maybe not a true CAS role as we know it now but fairly close to it. He had asked a group of them if they were going use them in an air-to-air fighter role and they went ballistic. Apparently, Russian fighter pilots at the time were women - the thinking of the Soviet high command was that it did not take any cojones to shoot down Luftwaffe bombers over your own homeland and the male pilots were needed in a ground attack role at the front. So these ground attack guys were really insulted that Hal thought they were fighter pilots.
Also Kris, regarding rugs, as you probably know they are (or used to be) the second biggest export of the Muslim world. A great book on the subject is "The Carpet Wars - From Kabul to Baghdad" by Christopher Kremmer an Australian journalist who spent ten years in Afghanistan and Pakistan and other Islamic nations in the 1990s. It is not just about carpets. Kremmer was in Kabul in the early 90s when the mujahideen turned their guns on each other, he saw the Taliban take over, and he interviewed and drank tea with Ahmad Shah Massoud of the Northern Alliance. It is a good read. I picked it up for a few dollars off of the military history shelf of a used bookstore.
I wanted to say that in the US you focus on yourselves, which is ok, but the West as a group is a big problem. The building block of almost all economies in the third world is agriculture or oil, and while oil doesn't lend itself to trade agreements, (because it's an inegrated world-wide market) agriculture falls very short in the 3rd world. The biggest, easiest way to improve the life in the 3rd world is to remove trade barriers, particularly on agriculture and the US has been good at doing it, however there's a soft bigotry being practiced at the WTO in not allowing underdevolped nations in. Until someone like Nigeria can sue Japan for the 1500% tariff it places on rice imports of non-member nations going into Japan there will be no equity, (this is just an example).
Here in the US you need to get rid of the agriculture sunsidies if you want to help. They hurt the 3rd more than anything else you do, and it's not just in taxes you pay. Sugar here is 3x higher than anyplace in the world for instance.
Lastly I will say that you're dead on about the Middle East. In early 2002 I was at a clothing company in Pakistan and the owner was complaining that for all the help Musharraf was giving Bush they were seeing no benefit. Raising the textile quota the US has with them would have gone a long way to create good will.
Finally I like your big point. We need more people in business who understand that their biggist moral obligation isn't only to their shareholders.
Blue jeans and Visa cards would have freed Cuba a generation ago.
The Bacon Double Cheeseburger is a dangerous weapon to use.
The article demonstrates excellent thinking and it's very well written to boot. It's beyond me why it wasn't published. I intend to send it on to several folks I know will appreciate it.
Out of the mouths of babes.....not intended derogatorily at all, I assure you. Great work!
Tell that to the Miami Cuban community. I think the problem is partially that they don't just want Cuba to be free, they want to be in charge of the free Cuba. And if Castro is the one delivering the blue jeans and Visa cards, that isn't likely to happen.
The terrorist are not a result of poverty and inequality, and economic enfranchisement of people in the Middle East, while good for social justice, is irrelevant to the war with Islamic fundamentalism. No, we are not at war with Islam, but we are at war with Islamic fundamentalism. Economic inequality is not the root cause behind our enemies' grievances. In fact, greater wealth in the Middle East helped create this problem by leading to greater exposure to different cultures - cultures that threaten to change their way of life. Fear of change and xenophobia coupled with different cultural and religious mores led us here, not a lack of blue jeans and Visa cards. And more blue jeans and Visa cards will not defeat our enemies. The talk of "draining the swamp" ignores the fact that our most dangerous enemies are wealthy, lived in the west for years, and are well-financed. All the talk of the danger of Hamas does not mean that Hamas is a threat to the United States or the western world - it isn't. It is a threat to Israel. Palestinian terrorists rarely set out to attack American targets. The dirt-poor Palestinians (a "swamp" if there ever was one) are not waging a war on the west, or America, but on Israel. If the premise of economic equality being a factor in this war were correct, we would see Palestinian Al Queda members. We don't.
Iran's economy and standard of living is higher than it was before the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Iran is not our enemy because Iranians are poor. They aren't poor.
Same for our Saudi and Egyptian enemies. The 9/11 hijackers were relatively wealthy, well-educated, privileged individuals. They were not the poor of Cairo's teeming, filthy streets, angry over their poverty and driven to Jihad through desperation and despair.
We must confront the nature of the enemy we face. Our enemy is waging a war against us not because we are free, or rich, or white. They have publicly proclaimed exactly what they want, and we pretend their motivations aren't based on their goals, but that is false. Al Queda wants an Islamic Caliphate and the destruction of Israel. They would be happy to wear blue jeans and drive Mercedes cars - but the lack of such things isn't what is driving them.
Thinking that economic imbalances and injustices would help defeat the ideology that confronts us is a result of seeing the enemy through our own prism of secular capitalism. But they aren't secular, and they aren't opposed to capitalism. Our enemy is composed of latter-day crusaders for the Muslim faith, opposed to western values of toleration and equality - and an increased standard of living is not part of their agenda. Greater trade is not the solution. It was greater trade and globalization that led to greater exposure to the western culture - the very thing that Islamic fundamentalism is so opposed to and is fighting against.
There are a lot of poor people in the world. Al Queda is not composed of the world's poor - or even the Islamic world's poor.
Often times the best policy for warfare is to deny your enemy a population to draw his troops from. This was often the case in the ancient world where one empire would make deals with the enemies city-states to "withhold" support of the war effort in exchange for either goods, services, or protection.
The same with us today.
If we can politically enfranchise vis-a-vis economic inclusion in the world market (remember, talk is talk, but money gets things done) one million poor muslims, we will have denied our enemy one million potential troops or supporters. And if we look at the societal cascade from those one million who will be purchasing goods from local vendors with the descretionary funds they've gotten from their sales will further decrease our enemies support by a factor of ten.
Where Islamicist always gain their support is not from others of like mind because they are few and far between, but from the malcontents who have nothing else to put their energies into. I'm sure there is a quotable phrase for this, but I don't remember what it's called.
That assumes that the political enfranchisement of these poor Muslims will also result in a lack of support for our enemies. It is a common assumption that democracies don't fight other democracies. That is a very dangerous assertion to make:
1) Iran is a democracy - it is true that the supreme leader is a cleric, but the Iranians elected their current president. Iran, make no mistake, is an enemy of the US. Political enfranchisement did not result in support for the US.
2) Hamas was just elected - did democracy result in a favorable outcome in the PA?
3) Pakistan's government is a military dictatorship. Were it overthrown and replaced by a government that reflected the will of the Pakistani people we would have an Islamic fundamentalist enemy in charge there - and armed with nukes.
4) the results of a free and fair election in Algeria in the late 80s was thrown out by a military junta. The winner of that election? Islamic fundamentalists.
5) Hitler was elected to office in a free and fair election.
6) Hugo Chavez was elected to office in a free and fair election.
The problem we face is not a lack of democracies or a lack of economic power. Our Islamic fundamentalist enemies are not necessarily enemies of democracy, or of capitalism. That is not what our war with them is about. The Cold War is over, and our way of thinking needs to change.
I wish that were true, but it clearly is not. The malcontents are not the idle poor. The 9/11 hijackers left good jobs, ignored family fortunes, they left wives behind. They were not social misfits or the unempowered/dispossesed/disenfranchised.
We can't win if we don't know - or won't admit - who and what we are fighting. We fought communism on economic issues and on democracy v. tryanny. That is the prism through which most people still see conflicts today - but it doesn't help when analyzing the war against Islamic fundamentalism. More money, more power, more enfranchisement - all are great, but have nothing to do with the allure of Islamic fundamentalism.
Add my admiration to everyone else's. Excellent article, should have been published.
JD,
Hadn't thought of any of this that way. Great. We're at war, not with an enemy that can be defeated with either guns or butter, but with an ideology that brooks no compromise and takes no prisoners.
What plan of battle do you suggest?
Tom
Of course Germany's biggest trading partner in 1941 was the Soviet Union, and it didn't keep Herr Schicklegruber (Adolph) from launching an invasion of the Soviet Union.
OK, game on.
OK, first off, "fundamentalism" is a Christian term. Check it out in the OED. It derives from revival movements in 19th and 20th century America. Using the term "fundamentalist" to describe any strictly intepreted religious movement is like using "fascist" to describe any two-bit authoritarian - it's inexact, and it misses the larger point.
If "Islamic fundamentalism" is the enemy, what "fundamentals" are they going back to? Is it the Umayyad Caliphate? The fifth, seventh, or 12th Imam? The era of the Rashidun? Muhammed's original community at Yathrib? All of these have been advocated by members of what JD terms "fundamentalists", and yet they have very different fundamentals. None of the fundamental texts of any of these eras embrace any aspect of modern techonology or capitalism, and yet, as JD points out above, those we would label "fundamentalists" have no problem in using these tools.
This is simply a poor defintion that is far too easy to bend into anti-Islamism.
You want a better one? Try "religious totalitarianism." That is, the belief that a divinely inspired path should be applied by an leader who is the product of a historical process to reform a society according the the strict ideological dictates of that belief system. Read Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism and tell me it doesn't apply equally to folks like Bin Laden, Aum Shinrikyo, and Jerry Falwell.
Of course, that might engender some tough questions about our own leadership's base of support...
I like "religious totalitarianism." I used "Islamic fundamentalism" as a term of convenience because that term is generally understood to mean our Islamic terrorists enemies. You are correct that as a description it doesn't fit. Our enemies are religious fanatics, they use faith as a weapon, and they are AQ and allies that use terrorism as a weapon in their struggle against the west - and against their fellow muslims who don't agree with them. Right-wing extremists sometimes use the term "Islamofascist," but I don't like using the term "fascist" because fascism is a philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism. Our enemies are not nationalists and don't care much for economics. AQ wants an oppressive theocracy that is marked by belligerent religion. I like religious totalitarianism, it is more descriptive, but it isn't in general use.
Democracy: Yes, fundamentalists push democracy now, but see how long it lasts as a pure domocratic process once they are in control. I understood Iran's elections were heavily influenced by the clerics. For sure they put a tight lid on the newspapers and other media that pushed for reform. There is also a rumor that they vetted the candidates and disallowed some. That was my understaning, perhaps WBankGuy has better info.
Also, you cite Hitler, he may have come to power in democratic elections but he shut them down afterwards and locked up the opposition.
Not sure how Chavez fits in with your argument. Are you comparing him to religious fundamentalists or to Hitler? Maybe I need to bone up more on Venezuelan current events.
Capitolism: No way I buy your argument there. Sharia Law forbids compound interest.
Sure there are hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of modern Islamic banks which have workarounds so that they can still make a profit on loans, but those workarounds are looked on with suspicion by the fundamentalists and would probably be shut down by strict extremists.
A basic tenet of capitolism is that the current value of money is worth more than its future value. Without that possibility, what happens to the institution of western banking? What happens to the basic economic transactions that are the basis of a capitolist society? Banks as we know them would go out of business. Even the so-called Islamic banks would have a hard time surviving. Without banks, the capital that drives economic growth dries up. My own father was a youth during the depression and he never trusted banks. He kept all his money in a shoe box and never bought anything unless he could pay cash for it, but he died without ever owning his own house.
Not that I am encouraging a debtor society. Maybe we should adopt some of the anti-usury practices of the Muslims. Young Americans have gone overboard with credit card debt and our banks are encouraging them and milking them dry.
JD - You write too fast. My previous post was disagreeing with your 4:22, not the recent one.
I agree. Like you mentioned, Hitler was elected but he then threw out democracy. The point is that once they are in control they will not allow the main strength of democracy to happen - which is NOT the vote, but the NEXT vote. The strength of democracy is in the ability to fire the leader, something AQ would never permit once their leader was in charge. But it doesn't change the fact that democracy is not a solution to this war, because our enemies aren't out to destroy it. They are out to destroy much more than that.
Chavez is an enemy of the US, he is becoming increasingly totalitarian, and he was elected. That was my only point.
Capitalism does not require interest. You can have a capitalist society without interest - in fact, without banks. Markets don't require money markets. Medevial Europe forbade interest as well, also on religious grounds.
But, again, our enemies aren't waging war on us to change our economic system. That is Cold-War thinking. Our enemies are more than happy to use capitalism to achieve their goals. They will use elections to achieve their goals. They will do anything, including blowing themselves up, to achieve their goals. Better social services and economic opportunities - political and economic enfranchisement - will not even slow them down.
So we agree on the first point.
On the second, you changed the subject. I never said they were waging war on us to change our economic system. I was refuting your statement that:
I agree that opposition to capitalism may not be a primary principle for them like it was for Marx, but the rise of capitalism and global corporations is antithetical to their religious views. They have no compunctions about using it for their own ends now - witness their fundraising techniques. But like democracy, it is a tool they hope to use now, and discard or destroy or mutate it later.
Not sure I buy your statement re
Any examples?
Yes, I know the 9/11 infamous 19 were children of privilege. As is binLaden and Zawahiri and other leaders. That was natural in the beginning as dirt-poor Nile valley tenant farmers and Karachi slum dwellers were too busy scratching out a living. But now, with oil money flowing into terrorist treasuries, many poor have been won over by al Quaeda charities and the potential recruiting pool has expanded exponentially.
Kris's "Shop &Awe" proposal will not work against bin Laden and Zawahiri, but it will definitely reduce that recruiting pool significantly.
Sure, we might. On the other hand, the way the Gazans destroyed some of the infrastructure the withdrawing Israelis left behind should certainly give us pause. Of course, in the pre-Intifada days, it wasn't hard for folks to live in Palestine and work in Israel, either...
Ray Kimball,
OK, I'll play. Jerry Falwell is so unlike bin Laden that the only categories I can think of that hold them both are "male human being." There isn't the slightest hint that Falwell wants you beheaded if you don't agree with his politics.
And yet, there are these two comments:
From the 700 Club, 13 September 2001:
And this, circa 1991:
So does Falwell want you beheaded if you don't agree with his politics? Probably not. Does he want to see you dead at the hands of a righteous God? Hmmm...remind me again how that's significantly different?
How does it feel to work for the main proselytizer of the invasion of Iraq, Paul Wolfowitz? Has he succeeded yet in imposing his Neocon dogma on the World Bank? I heard he has appointed a lot of cronies to positions that used to be based on merit. Watch out for the corruption that will follow, if he has not started it already.
Good luck.
You made a little fun of your Iranian rug vendor's prejudice against yourself, but then you put up yours too.
<blockquote>
“Iran,” he stated glaring defiantly from under his turban--<b>a challenge probably borne from watching too much “reality” TV on Al Jazzera.</b>
.
.
.
But, that’s the problem isn’t it? How do we put money into the hands of the right people spurring growth and development in countries <b>whose main export commodity is suicide bombers?</b>
</blockquote>
I'm sure with your background in intelligence you would have a better grip on what Iran's "main export commodity" is, and maybe you were being facetious, but you weakened your fine article's point by adding these spurious remarks.
By the way, wasn't there a Marine liason officer with al Jazeera during the early months of the Iraq War who now works for their organization? Can't remember his name right off hand.
Communism in the early stages was quite moralistic and fundamentalist. It had a code that was as all-encompassing as the sharia. It had a vision for world domination. Its fervor spurred millions of Chinese youths into the Cultural Revolution, which is very similar to sharia enforcement. Communism provided its own religion, economy, and political system.
[Iran is going through similar phases.]
After the original expansionist phase [aka civil war], communism tend to settle down at the national borders. Like any totalitarian system, it invests significant portions of the GDP on internal enforcement of its ideology. Because the countries generally are caught between modernity and tradition [eg, China, Russia], they cannot generate the military power to meet their world conquering vision. Therefore, they devoted limited amount of GDP to aid terrorist groups abroad, while trying to industrialize in a top-down fashion.
Eventually, communists develop a classed society, with the enforcers of the faith exploiting everyone else. Everyone becomes more and more cynical and "Look Forward (Money-ward)". They implode.
This is what happened to Russia. China has all but abandoned its communist faith.
The Catholic faith also corrupted before reforming itself due to Reformation.
Therefore, the historical lesson is, Success is Islamic Totalitarianism's greatest enemy. Like most revolutionary movements, it will not move past the revolution phase without compromising its moral principles. Like other totalitarianisms, it will give rise to corruption on the part of the enforcers. The people will grow to distrust the religious establishment, forcing Islam toward its own Reformation and another Fundamentalist Revival. The revolutionary cycle will continue until it comes to grips with modernity.
And in the mean time, there will be pogroms. And during political transitions, the Islamic factions will use their nukes on each other.
Just painting a picture of a possible end state.
There are ways to fight Islamic terror. One way is to recognize what it is that drives our enemies to attack us instead of just assuming they are irrational crazy men. We must know our enemy in order to defeat him. Refusing to understand our enemy, viewing him through our own prism of preconcieved notions, can only harm our chances of victory. One pre-conceived notion is that our enemies fight us because they are angry, and they are angry because they are poor and disenfranchised. They are angry because they are powerless. The truth is our enemies are not the poor, and they enjoy great financial support from the wealthy elites in the societies they come from. They are angry, but not from economic concerns. They are religious fanatics. They see everything in terms of religion. They are incredibly xenophobic and intolerant - they see other religions and other social mores as threats to be destroyed.
Given that background, the fact that Army officers frequently don't know whether the Iraqi army units they train are full of Sunnis or Shia "because it doesn't matter to us, we treat everybody alike regardless of their religion" is pretty scary. We are not fighting the war we are in, but instead are fighting an "insurgency" at the same time we are claiming it is part of the "war on terror." Which is it? Our failure to see that AQ was an enemy of Saddam is one reason that we ended up in Iraq. Our failure to see that defeating the Taliban didn't make any difference to AQ and its allies is one reason we let so many AQ enemies escape from Afghanistan. Our failure to see the importance of the Sunni-Shia split is at the heart of our current problems in Iraq.
Until we know our enemy and stop blindly using the techniques used to win the Cold War we will continue to lose ground in the war on terror - and that is what we are doing, losing ground to the terrorists. Every day they "don't attack here" is not a victory - because every day since 9/11 we have feared them.
For an example of total victory over terrorism, ask yourself the last time people in America feared attacks by Anarchists. At the turn of the 19th century we were in a war on terror, and we won. Ask yourself the last time you feared "Unionist terrorists" attacking companies opposed to unions. That used to happen fairly frequently. Now imagine a time when we don't fear attacks by Al Queda - that is victory.
We are not making progress. Our fear grows greater. We now see threats where they don't exist, overreact in some areas (the silly Dubai ports controversy) and under-react in others (actually securing our ports would be nice regardless of which company profits from the port). Now Iran is working on nukes, North Korea probably already has them, and the QDR prepares for war with China (an absolutely insane idea).
So economic justice would be nice, but it simply has nothing to do with the war on terror. Our enemies would not cease attacking - and would have the same amount of eager recruits - even if the Islamic world experienced an economic miracle and GDP doubled or tripled. The very idea of "draining the swamp" implies that our enemies are in that swamp. They aren't.
After 9/11 Bill Mahr lost his talk show because he said that the hijackers weren't cowardly, and that in comparison, the US Military lobbing missiles 3,000 miles away was cowardly. People reacted with outrage. Well, you know what? He was right, and we will not win this war against our evil enemies until we admit it. Our enemies are not afraid to die. They are not cowards. It takes more courage to sacrifice your life than to push a button, and bombing Islamic cities is not seen as courageous in the Islamic world - it is seen, not surprisingly, as cowardice. Our refusal to admit that is why the terrorists are winning, not losing, this fight.
We can and must win the war on terror, but in order to do so we need to know our enemy, know ourselves, and admit the nature of the conflict. Once we do that we can then start doing the right things to hunt down and kill our enemies while ensuring we don't create new enemies in the process.
The real tragedy of the US experience in the Mideast is that we've allied ourselves with people who are most concerned with enriching themselves and keeping the boot on the neck of their people. This ensures that the Mideast continues to be a powderkeg, with most people hostile to Western peoples, which, of course includes Israel. The people with whom we've allied have had every opportunity—aided by massive aid from us—to acknowledge the reality of Israel and to modernize their societies. Instead, they use us and Israel as whipping boys to divert their people from asking hard questions about the sources of their miserable lives. These people are ripe for the picking. What they should do is overthrow the leadership in their own countries, but that's too hard. Instead, too many of them direct their violence towards the west.
And I agree with you about Bill Maher. What we should really be asking ourselves is why we're spending all of this money in Afghanistan and Iraq—really peripheral concerns—when the big players just keep on truckin'.
Communist insurgents in Italy, Greece, Germany, etc, were members of the intelligentsia. They had good educations, solid, middle class backgrounds, yet were alienated from the middle class, capitalist lifestyle. They embrace communism in pursuit of a romantic ideal, and suborned their lives to the violent class struggle.
The only reason these insurgents ceased to be effective was because of the late 1980s, when the openness demonstrated to the world the Russian poverty brought about by communism. The information deprived insurgents of much of the moral support from academia. The fall of USSR deprived these insurgents of their funding.
Similarly, if we can publicize the poverty and suffering of the Iranian people, who are going through a similar Islamist experiment, that can help to deprive the Islamists of their support from romantic Islamic academia.
Perhaps you are too close to the subject to be objective.
Knowing our enemy is a good thing, but just because we "know" our enemy doesn't mean squat. Germany knew many things during WWII and didn't help them much.
To win this war requires a different set of strategems and resources. Enfranchising millions of 3rd world people into the global economy will go a long way to...operative word here....containing...the spread of radical islamicism. Enfranchising those people will not defeat radical Islamicism, but it does limit the supply chain of willing boots.
Another tool that can come only from within Islam itself is that Islam needs to go through a "renaissance" and a "reformation" both of which are five hundred years late. The thing is we can help mid-wife that renaissance and reformation without it being us, the US, being directly involved.
The tools to defeat our radical islmacist enemies, JD, requires thinking outside of the box. Farther outside of the box than just "knowing" our enemies.
A cute little story I read once in a Barry Sadler book.
It was a siege, the general had captured a few thousand refugees before they could make it to the capitol city. Time was not on the side of the sieger's since winter was coming, and there were other fish to fry so they had to conclude this siege quickly.
Overlooking the city, the General struck upon the idea of how he would conclude this siege. Siezing more refugees he gathered them into large camps. After two weeks of meager rations of a few crumbs a day, the refugees were very, very hungry. The General, seeing how hungry they were, then equipped them with ladders and told them, "you are free to go to the city."
After which he let them go to the city.
Friend and family watch and cheered as a few thousand refugee's fled to the city. Family members were looking forward to being happily reunited with each other. However, the officers and nobles of the city saw a different thing. They saw a horde of hungry rats coming to eat their stores, and they knew that if those refugees made it to the city they would not have enough food for a month much less the winter. The nobles and officers order their soldiers to fire upon their own people and to drive them back. Hearing this, the people on the parapet overthrew the officers and nobles and immediately surrendered the city.
Not all weapons go "BOOM!" and we need to employ everything we have at our disposal.
Sheerahkahn
Germany did NOT know her enemies or Hitler would not have attacked the Soviet Union until his western front was secure - or vice versa. His tendency to "stay the course" and refusal to admit the true situation on the Eastern front also led to Germany's defeat.
I think economic empowerment and democracy is great, but I disagree that it will reduce the numbers of Al Queda recruits. This war is not motivated by economic factors, and I disagree that enfranchising the oppressed Islamic masses will "limit the supply chain of willing boots." It is a good thing in and of itself, but it has nothing to do with the war against terror. The Big Mac and Blue Jeans helped win the Cold War. Our enemies don't give a damn about such things, and never did. Your Barry Sadler story (is that the same idiot that wrote the "Ballad of the Green Beret?") suggests that the general knew the strengths and weaknesses of his forces and of his enemy's forces.
We don't. Free trade, social justice, and economic and political enfranchisement are wonderful things, but they are irrelevant to this struggle.
Compared to George Bush and Dick Cheney, OBL is statistically no threat to us at all. Same goes for Iran: zero threat.
What exactly *is* the threat? What exactly are their aims?
A criminal is a criminal, not an enemy, the problem of crime is not a military problem, and the activities of this nation (and our allies) in the Middle East since the end of WW1 have been distinctly criminal. Why shouldn't they hate us? All we've ever done is take advantage of them and exploit them.
Why do people steal and commit murder? Why do they vote for murderous fools like George W. Bush? Why is that a country as wealthy as the USA still has so many poor people and is so utterly lost in ignorance and greed?
The real problem here isn't their "terrorism," it's *your* BIGOTRY, and I use that word to mean something very exact, namely, looking at other people as inferior beings, animals, ot things -- in short, looking at them as a *means* to *your* ends.
If you want to understand the real nature of "evil" JD, you need to get that concept firmly planted in your mind, because bigotry in that sense is the very essence of evil, and all this drivel about "Islamic fanaticism" is nothing but a phony smokescreen to conceal your own fanaticism. When Christ said "the love of money is the root of all evil" he wasn't being mystical, he was talking about people letting greed blind them to reality.
You can't tell me what the problems are because you aren't paying attention. They have their lives and their views, and they don't need you to tell them how to think and feel. You've got it about half right, but that's enough to insure that you are just as wrong as Bush and his gang of neo-fascists.
Charly