totalitarianism today

Defectors from Putin's inner circle: What Andrei Illarionov has to teach us about Trump.

Meet Andrei Illarionov, a proponent of Western liberalism and democracy in Russia. From 1993 to 1994, he served as chief economic adviser to the prime minister of the Russian Federation, Viktor Chernomyrdin. He resigned in February 1994 to protest changes in the government's economic policy.

In July 1994 Illarionov founded the Institute of Economic Analysis, a platform from which Illarionov popularized his strong positions favoring free-trade and rule of law. Putin noticed. Putin needed a few erstwhile economic liberals to keep democracy-watchers off his back. He brought Illarionov into his cabinet, thus neutralizing a potential source of opposition.

Days after his inauguration, Putin's economic advisor, Andrei Illarionov, discovered that Putin had signed a decree consolidating 70 percent of the country's alcohol manufacturers into a single company to be managed by Putin's close St. Petersburg friend. None of the new liberal economic advisors had been consulted or informed. Illarionov tried to ignore what would soon become a Putin pattern-- paying lip service to his economic advisors while "consistently broadsiding them with decisions that consolidated all of the country's resources in the hands of his cronies" (See Gessen, 259). 

From 2000-2005, Illarionov served as key economic advisor to President Putin, where he regularly paid lip service to the pro-globalization agenda. To his credit, Illarionov has consistently argued for the rule of law and free global trade markets. As a senior advisor to Russian President Putin, Illarionov was outspoken against Russia's ratification of Kyoto. (In 2004, Putin ratified the Kyoto Protocol anyway.)

In 2006, Illarionov was appointed senior researcher of the Cato Institute's Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity in Washington, DC. In this position, he has lamented Russia's new corporate state in which state-owned enterprises are governed by personal interests and private corporations have become subject to arbitrary intervention to serve state interests as well as new ways in which political, economic and civil liberties are being eliminated.  Illarionov is one of the 34 first signatories of the online anti-Putin manifesto Putin must go, published on March 10, 2010.

In May 2008 Cato Unbound blog discussion, he maintained that "the resource curse" was not more extraordinary than other forms of market capture by corrupt governments and officials. He argued that "the precedent of treating a country’s natural resources as belonging to its people is the problem, not the beginning of a solution." Illarianov argued that the idea of collective national ownership of resources resulted in nationalization, a form of economic control by political elites.  His view is summarized as follows:

Illarionov argues that the trade sanctions Wenar proposes would punish innocent citizens who already suffer under corrupt rulers. The issue, he argues, is not a matter of what is stolen, but how we will treat those responsible for theft.

In 2010, Illarionov received money to speak at the Heartland Institute's anti-climate change extravaganza, the Fourth International Conference on Climate Change, a mecca for policymakers and extractivists hoping to roll back environmental regulations that hold companies responsible for their environmental footprints. He also held forth against the increasing illiberalization of Putin's Russia, who many knew to be supporting nationalist, irredentist candidates in Hungary and other European states. 

Illarionov was one of the 34 first signatories of the online anti-Putin manifesto Putin must go, published on March 10, 2010. Over the years, after Gessen's book went to press in 2012 and while Trump's son-in-law extended family business connections in Russia, Illarionov continued to warn about Putin. 

He critiqued Putin's "mafia-style" policies in a  a prescient 2015 interview:

Putin’s ultimate goal is clear – it is to change the world according to his vision. It is a vision of the Sicilian world, a world that is ruled by the mighty and the powerful. It is a world in which such documents as the Helsinki Final Act or the UN Charter do not matter or simply do not exist. In such a world, borders can be violated under any pretext or without any pretext. The economic system is based on mafia-style relations.

When pushed on Putin's popular support and masses of Russian fans, Illarionov drew a distinction that should concern students of liberty:

We need to be careful when speaking about opinion polls in hard authoritarian regimes or semi-totalitarian ones like we have in. It is difficult to trust these numbers. No semi-totalitarian regime can produce a real reflection on what people really think. Even if we believe these numbers for a moment, we need to make the distinction between the level of support for Putin before Crimea and after. Before, the level of support for Putin was around 45 per cent. After, it was 85 per cent.

 These numbers mean that around 45 per cent of the Russian society accepts the Sicilian way of rule within the country while 85 per cent express support for the imperial external policy. The Sicilian model by itself is not imperialist. It is a model based on the way people do business, but mostly within existing borders. Hence, Putin’s increase in support is not for mafia-like rule, but for imperialism and the imperial syndrome in Russia has not yet been healed.

I quote extensively because Illarionov's remarks provide insight into the rise of white nationalism across Europe as well as its current sweep of the US political system. The interviewer notes that, "especially after the war in Ukraine, many people realised that what Putin is doing is bad". Media, policy-wonks, academics, and scholars took Putin to task publicly for his repudiation of the rule and law and slide into autocracy. The interviewer wants to know why, despite the West's knowledge of Putin's corruption and increasing dictatorship, nothing was being done to stop it.

Illarionov replied:

The West is divided. The US itself is divided, the EU of course as well. There are still many allies of Putin in the West. There is a long list of “Putintern” members: Gerhard Schröder, Silvio Berlusconi, Vaclav Klaus, Marine Le Pen and others. They are also among journalists and think-tanks throughout the world. Putin has many friends. 

Unlike communism, which was rather alien to European culture even if it had some roots in European history, the Putin’s Sicilian way of rule is much more familiar to Europe and closer to the European heart. It is also a reason why it is so hard to fight it.

 The Sicilian mafia has not yet been taken down. It is very much alive in Italy. We see very similar types of behaviour in many other European states like Greece, Bulgaria or Hungary. Even in the Baltic states there are elements of this attitude. This type of behaviour is associated not only Russians or the Russian psyche. Yes, some Russians behave this way, but it is not exclusively a Russian problem. Look at Croats or Serbs. It is in fact deeply rooted in European human nature. Fortunately for Western Europe, it is already not a dominant part there. The success of Western European states was possible largely thanks to the fact that this side of their nature has been suppressed.

He insisted that economic policy alone would do nothing to halt Putin's take-over of Russian democracy:

It is definitely not enough to apply economic means in order to bring change. It is about having a long-term strategy with a final goal – to make Russia free, democratic and peaceful within internationally recognised borders. This should be now the strategic task for the international community. If one wants to secure peace in Europe and the world, we need to have a different Russia.

But as long as this regime lasts in Russia, in the Kremlin, it poses threat to everybody. As soon as it is changed, and that will not happen overnight, Russia will eventually come to mutually acceptable terms with the rest of the world.

When asked about possible opposition or liberal alternatives to Putin, Illarionov was at a loss. He ended the interview with a shrug. 

 

In late 2016, intelligence sources on Russia noted that Trump advisors met with Igor Sechin, director of Rosneftgas:  

In terms of the Substance of Their Discussions, SECHIN’s associate Said That the Rosneftgas president WAS SO Keen to lift personal and corporate western Sanctions Imposed on the Company About enterprise, That he offered PAGE / TRUMP’s associates the brokerage of up to a 19 per cent (privatised) stake in Rosneft in return. PAGE has expressed interest and confirmed that were TRUMP elected US president, then sanctions on Russia would be lifted.

On January 20, 2017, Russian media reported that Putin allowed “Rosneftegas”, whose board of directors is headed by the executive director of “Rosneft” Igor Sechin, not to disclose their financial performance. On account of the company could accumulate more than 600 billion rubles. These intelligence reports are currently in the hands of US senators and representatives. Obama's sanctions on Putin were rooted in very real and serious allegations of bribery and national security threat. Putin has unimpeachable leverage to keep an America First Trump administration silent on his invasions of neighboring states and democracies. 

Just this past week, Paul Goble referenced Illarionov's statements in an interview with Kyiv’s Apostrophe portal:

Russian commentator Andrey Illarionov says that “Belarus is candidate number one for a Russian invasion,” a conclusion that takes on added weight given that the Kremlin is likely to view anti-Lukashenka protests as a cover for such actions just as it did earlier in Ukraine...

 “No state in Europe can be completely isolated from possible aggression of an informational, corruption, propagandistic, espionage or hybrid character,” Illarionov says; but “as far as its conventional [form] is concerned, Belarus at present is candidate number one."

Goble continues:

Moreover, the likelihood that Putin will now decide on an invasion is likely increased by one aspect of the situation in Minsk that recalls Kyiv in 2013 and that is more frightening to the Kremlin leader than almost any other. The mass protest was not organized by the traditional opposition parties but was spontaneous from below and thus political in a new way.

That point has been made by two Belarusian outlets (Belarus Partisan and Naviy), and Moscow is likely to view this protest not as just the latest in a long line of Belarusian discontent but as something fundamentally new and threatening.

If that is the case, Putin is likely to move against Belarus in the coming days, especially if there are no clear signals from the West that such a move would make absolutely impossible any cooperation with Russia in the foreseeable future.

And here we are, with Putin having deflected international criticism of his Ukranian invasion.

The election of Trump has shored up Putin's image as a strong world leader-- an image threatened by the white flag protest in Russia. And what better way to ensure power than to invest in the disruption of autocracy's chief enemy, a free democratic and liberal America? How the world's greatest voice for freedom became a pawn in Putin's power politics is a story we won't tell our children. Certainly not at Thanksgiving where almost every mirror in Alabama and the red states reveals a turkey. 

Trump's election failed Americans. But it also failed struggling democracies who relied on on our moral authority and the threat of possible sanctions to restrain behavior on the international stage. 

Given the absence of competing assurances or alternatives, Russians can tell themselves autocracy is the future and their leader is in control. A major player in world events. A puppet-master behind the curtains. The only question is whether congressional Republicans and theocrats will place their commitment to the rule of law over their desperation to maintain access to the orange emperor's court. What we've seen so far is not encouraging. 

Cited: Masha Gessen, The Man Without A Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin (Riverhead Books: New York, 2012). Additional sources include this PRI podcast. 

Twelve interesting perspectives on the conflict in Gaza.

[Image source: Agence France Presse]

The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said that Israel’s operation in Gaza so far has left over 500 people dead, the majority of them Palestinian civilians. More than 100,000 Palestinians, or 5 percent of the population of Gaza, have been displaced in the fighting. The Palestinian Maan news agency reported Tuesday that more than 600 Gazan Palestinians have been killed since the operation began on July 8.

For my part, it's difficult to buy groceries at my favorite ethnic market without wishing I could apologize for the ways in which my government shamelessly arms governments which turn around to use these weapons against civilians. "I'm so sorry," I finally blurted out the middle-aged female cashier whose passport says "Jordanian" but whose lips speak of growing up on the West Bank, where her best friend was an Orthodox Christian. First kisses near olive trees. 

She's trying not to cry.

Meanwhile, I'm torn in the opposite direction, relieved to be in a place where I won't be judged for my empathy with the civilians of Gaza. For a moment, I am allowed to cry for what is happening in Gaza.  For a few scattered seconds, I can mourn what I read in the OCHA's most recent situation report. 

Once I step back into the parking lot, however, the poker face returns. Does my fear of being called anti-Israeli keep me from feeling sympathy for children being brutally killed? Is that how this whole propaganda thing works- keeps my lips zipped tight for fear of being labelled crazy (like Solzhenitsyn), unpatriotic (like the Dixie Chicks), or anti-Semitic (like any one of my Jewish friends who mourn the current Israeli's government's approach to national security). 

How can someone who doesn't hate anyone (who lives her life with this as her guiding ethic) be labelled a hater of Jews for refusing to hate Palestinians? And how can I live with myself if my refusal to acknowledge injustice is driven by my fear of being labelled something so absurd as to transport me straight into the center of a Eugene Ionesco play?

Am I the only person afraid to express my doubts about the Israeli's government's respect for human rights? Why? Why am I afraid? The answer to this question is an important one- the kind that keeps people from marching in lockstep, the kind that keeps us from losing our minds to that of a crowd in a football stadium. 

Lacking a solid answer, I give you a handful of interesting perspectives on the current conflict in Gaza.

Anna Lekas Miller reports on life as doctor in Gaza. 
As long as the items are available in the West Bank or Jerusalem they should be able to come through the crossing quickly as it is only an hour drive from there. But the coordination to get supplies into Gaza takes a few days.

David Weigel goes inside Christians United For Israel.
“Hamas started this war,” said Anthony. “The soldiers of Israel must smash their skulls and break their spines.” When he said that, a standing-room crowd of pastors and activists and politicians rose to its feet, waving the twin flags of the countries God loved.

The #hashtag as weapon. 
The hashtag #GazaUnderAttack has been used in more than 4 million Twitter posts, compared to the nearly 200,000 for #IsraelUnderFire.

Mondoweiss on Israel's "loss of moral authority" as a possible cost of Gaza invasion.

The rising, persistent rates of PTSD in the children of Gaza. 
It’s hard to draw direct comparisons across studies done at different times and relying on different methodologies, but there are commonsense reasons to trust the notion that, all things being equal, Gazans are usually hardest hit by the conflict, psychologically — especially in the last half-decade or so. Gazans have dealt with more direct violence than anyone else since 2008 or so, with only rare reprieves from Hamas-Israel hostilities. During this period, things have been relatively quiet in the West Bank by the standards of the region. And when war comes to Gaza, there is often no place to hide, the death and destruction both more concentrated than they are elsewhere.

Katie Zavadski tries to understand why so many children are dying in Gaza.  
Gaza is a very densely populated place with a population of 1.8 million spread over atotal area of just 360 square kilometers. Compare that to the West Bank, which has 2.7 million people over 5,860 square kilometers.

NAACP tweets "ethnic cleansing" is taking place.
Over 600 Palestinians have been killed including at least 443 civilians, of whom 147 are children and 74 are women.

Agence France Presse reports on Jewish businesses being looted in Paris.
"When you head for the synagogue, when you burn a corner shop because it is Jewish-owned, you are committing an anti-Semitic act," Bernard Cazeneuve told reporters outside the Sarcelles synagogue.

How Max Steinberg left his American roots behind in search of his Jewish heritage.
Steinberg was a “Hayal Boded,” or Lone Soldier – the term used for soldiers who moved to Israel without any family residing in the country. According to Evie Steinberg, Max’s mother, “His last words when I spoke to him at 4 A.M. a couple days ago were ‘Mom I’m not scared at all for me, I’m scared for you. I’m fine, I’m going back in.’

Dave Zirin tries to understand why the Bakr boys were killed.
People in the United States may be ignorant about these overcrowded conditions, but the Israeli military commanders are certainly not. Marie Antoinette’s apocryphal quote that if the poor were starving and without bread, we should “let them eat cake,” has become Netanyahu’s “let them find shelter.” He says, “Let them evacuate” when the only truly safe place is on the other side of a checkpoint. Someone fleeing one missile strike may be heading directly into another. Perhaps these four little boys are examples of the “telegenically dead Palestinians” that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told us we should disregard. Or perhaps what Netanyahu fears is people who see nothing “telegenic” about dead children. Perhaps he knows that there are people who cannot imagine anything more human than a group of children playing on the beach, and cannot imagine anything more inhumane than taking their lives from the sky.

My thoughts on Ukraine and Russia take the form of recycled poems.

In April 2004, Adam Zagajewski's poem, "Referendum", was published in The Guardian. It sums my thoughts on the current conflict in Ukraine. No revolution occurs without contest. No nation-states break apart without the feeling of losing a limb, often battling to keep the amputation from taking place. 

The question of intervention often involves deciding at what point forcible amputation must be applied- and whether the cost of agreeing to coercion leaves others more free and secure. There are no easy answers- and the guillotine's shadow hangs heavy.

Photo source: Sergey Ponomarev for the NYT

REFERENDUM

    (Adam Zagajewski)

Ukraine held a referendum
on independence.
It was foggy in Paris, the weatherman
predicted a cold and cloudy day.
I was angry at myself, at my 
narrow, fettered life.
The Seine was trapped between embankment walls.
Bookstores showcased 
a new edition of Schopenhauer's 
Douleurs du monde.
Parisians wandered through the city 
hidden in warm loden coats.
Fog infiltrated lips and lungs 
as if the air were sobbing,
going on about itself, about the cold dawn,
how long the night is,
and how ruthless stars can be.
I took a bus towards the Bastille,
razed two hundred years ago,
and tried to read poems 
but didn't understand a thing.

What comes after will be invisible 
and easy.
Whatever is hesitates between irony 
and fear.
Whatever survives will be blue 
as a guillotine's eye.

Romania's grassroots frack-attack.

October 19th protest in Pungesti. Photo credit: Bogdan Cristel, Reuters.

Romanians in the tiny farming village of Barlad have been protesting the promises of "progress" since early this summer, when the Romanian government announced and agreement with Chevron to mine shale gas from the ground. Initially, Prime Minister Victor Ponta's centre-left coalition publicly deplored the previous government's decision to grant shale gas concessions. Ponta even went so far as to put a moratorium on drilling. But the moratorium expired in December 2012. Since then, the PM and President Traian Basescu emerged overnight as some of Europe's most devout worshippers of hydraulic fracking. 

Here's what stands out. In one of the EU's poorest countries, respect for the environment is not a view held by the elite and impressed upon the voting public. Instead, the arrows go from the grassroots upward. Sustainable development is a position embraced by many villagers, peasants, and Romanian middle-class residents who remember the environmental degradations of communism and who live close enough to the land to value it more than the paper money they know is subject to the vagaries of politics and economic development.

Vasile Laiu standing outside European Parliament with a "No hydraulic fracking in Romania" sign.

From the grassroots, Orthodox priest Vasile Laiu has become the inadvertent spokesperson for an environmental movement rooted in traditional respect for local economies and the natural world. In response to pressure for economic development, Laiu offers a larger conception of life which encompasses not only consumer life (pace US of A) but also the life of all living creatures in a given locality. 

"I cannot remain indifferent when the environment is concerned," Laiu told the press. "Life is more valuable than any money they offer us," he continued. There is an accidental dose of irony in the fact that Laiu represents the will of Romanian villagers and farmers for their land's future just as the rest of the world struggles to get back on the sort of sustainable development track preferred by Laiu and like-minded Romanians.  

Luiza Ilie reports:

Clad in his black habit, Father Vasile Laiu, an Orthodox priest from the nearby city of Barlad and one of the most outspoken local opponents of fracking, asked people to kneel, then led them in prayer.

Up to 50 villagers that have been taking turns staging a round-the-clock vigil, blocking access to the lot, said they were preparing for a long haul. They have pitched tents and dug a lavatory pit.

"Can we live without water?" one of them asked the crowd on a microphone. The air carried faint smells of incense.

"No," the demonstrators replied.

"Can we live without Chevron?"

"Yes."

To its discredit, Chevron refers to studies by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Ground Water Protection Council in order to buttress its claims of environmental safety. The fact that the EPA hasn't "confirmed" a "direct link between hydraulic fracturing operations and groundwater contamination" fails to address a host of other environmental issues, including sinkholes, changes in soil quality, and damage to existing ecosystems.

Chevron promises "direct benefits", including "jobs and payments to contractors and suppliers and, during the production phase, taxes and royalties". DAFORA is the Romanian company expected to receive significant economic benefits from the drilling. But these taxes and royalties will not offset the cost of the environmental degradation. Taking a long view, local Romanians prefer a "progress" that is sustainable, like a vegetable processing plant, abattoir or wind energy park.

The local protests have put a damper on Chevron's plans to begin drilling. Last month, Chevron officials even went so far as to remove their equipment from the vicinity. Tom Holst, the CEO of Chevron Romania, announced that his company would being working when "safety standards were met". Putting on his best poker face, Holst said, "Our work requires a good relationship with the local population because the work is likely to extend over a period of thirty years". He knew better than to mention concerns about damage to company equipment, since nothing makes for worse PR than oil executives whining about possible vandalism by Orthodox priests.

February protests in Barlad. Photo credit: Nita Prastie.

While pulling strings to make a home for Chevron deep within Romanian soil, President Basescu is getting tangled in his own trip-wires. The problem stems from Basescu's relationship with corporations- a relationship that undercuts his legitimacy as leader of a democracy. The Middle East (and the state of Alabama) is full of similar stories in which a politican does everything to woo development and ends up losing any semblance of integrity.

Rather than lose his deal with Chevron, Basescu seems to concede that his hands are rather soiled. Riding dirty, however, teaches the modern statesman to develop a tactical proficiency in the art of screaming "Fire!" and running the other way. Better to dissemble and distract- to conjure a boogeyman of fantastic proportions- than to let anyone look through your pockets. When Basescu saw the lights coming for him, he immediately issued statements to the press blaming Russia for the anti-fracking protests.

During an interview on Romanian television on the same day that Chevron removed its equipment from Pungesti, President Basescu, looking rather cheeky, accused Russia of conspiratorial "manipulations" in keeping Chevron out of Romania. In Basescu's view, Gazprom is the hand behind the curtains trying to keep Romania from becoming an energy exporter, thereby decreasing dependence on Russian oil and gas. In case you missed out on the Cold War, Basescu threw in a little reminder- the kind that sends chills up the spines of elderly Romanians- "Russia is not a lamb," Basescu bleated, "It is a great power". 

One can only hope that fear of Russia is not motivating the recent pro-fracking diplomacy of Barlad's elected officials. Mayor Constantin Constantinescu envisions fracking as a global trend that has gone viral. He wants to jump on the fracking bandwagon because "Britain and Poland are looking to exploit shale gas", and the mayor just cannot believe that officials in Britain and France "would do something bad for the people". His assumption lies at the heart of most pro-"development" positions which assume that money and jobs in the short-term benefit this abstract group known as "the people".

But what if money and jobs in the short-term don't benefit local citizens who will be forced to deal with the consequences and repercussions of environmental damage in the coming decades? What if local property values decrease as argiculture and farming suffer from diminished soil quality and the negative reputation associated with being grown in Barlad? 

The popular daily newspaper, Evenimentul Ziliei, jumped in line with Basescu's red-colored glasses and drew connections between protestors and Russian spies. Defending his fellow anti-frackers, geologist Gabriel Sava insisted that science and love for the land motivated his views.

"We are not with the Russians, we are not Russian spies.... We are patriots, that is the truth. Maybe some people don't even know how to write this word anymore, but that is what we are."

As a geologist for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Sava finds it difficult to ignore the relationship between climate change and excessive reliance on fossil fuels. To be forthcoming, I find it impossible to believe that the US missile defense agreement is unrelated to the agreement to let Chevron play pimp to the newly-prostituted Romanian land. Someone with the right security clearance could easily create a timeline that might draw interesting connections between the passage of the State Department's agreement to frack away in foreign lands and the US negotiations on missile defense in southern Romania.

The anti-fracking fight in Romania brings the all-American Wendell Berry to mind; his insights are buried close to the surface of village communities fighting to preserve a reverent relationship with the land around them. I have a feeling Mr. Berry might be impressed by the courage and wisdom of Romanians fighting hard to preserve the natural world they know full well can never be replaced or recreated. 

"Priest fights to stop fracking", iAfrica Business, 7 June 2013
Cristian Pantazi, "Exclusiv interview video", Hotnews.ro, 5 November 2013
Dimiter Kenarov, "A fracking wild party", Balkan Insight, 12 June 2013
Isabelle Wesselingh, "Father Laiu fights to save rural Romania from fracking," AFP, 6 June 2013
Luiza Ilie, "Romanian farmers choose subsistence over shale gas", Reuters, 27 October 2013
Marcel Barbatei, "Exploatările gazelor din şist, adevărate bombe chimice, mai periculoase decât cianurile de la Roşia Montană!", Cotidianul, 26 March 2012
Mirel Bran, "In Romania, peasant revolt against shale gas", 29 October 2013
Vlad Ursulean, "Shale gas revolution risks cutting Romania a bad deal", 17 October 2013
Vlad Ursulean, "Biserica protestatara din Barlad,", Tanaru journalist ratacitor, 7 April 2013

Romania agrees to be home to US missile defense in Europe. At what price?

I still find it difficult to "like" foreign policy articulations on Facebook. The mark of a closet Luddite?

Basescu and Biden: Two takes on the talking

Vice President Biden and Romanian Prime Minister Traian Basescu had a little phone chat earlier this week. The conversation topics covered the gamut. The Romanian press writes:

According to the Presidency, Traian Basescu spoke about the "importance of U.S. investments in our country, with a particular focus on areas that would generate economic development, as research technologies, IT industry, car industry, agriculture, food and petroleum equipment industry. "

"The U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden stressed the great potential of Romania's economic growth in the upcoming years if it continues to develop a predictable and transparent business environment," the Presidency informs.

My translation: Basescu wants US investment and job creation in return for providing the Deveselu Air Base as the location for American's missle defense system, while Biden chuckles and reminds Basescu that southeastern Europe needs to work on corruption and sound market rules before law-abiding American corporations decide to invest in the Romanian economy. 

Aerial view of Deveselu.

A security slam-dunk or a double dribble?

From a security standpoint, Basescu calls the bilateral deal a slam-dunk that will give Romania "the highest security level in its history." This is true only to the extent the political cost does not exceed the net security gain. If, for example, the presence of the Aegis system is unpopular with key member states of the European Union, Romania will lose important political goals which open European markets and borders to Romanian citizens.

Ultimately, Romanian external security cannot be purchased at the price of internal economic stability and rising prosperity. This is a recipe that demands dictators rather than democrats at the helm. Very few democracies will agree to vote for leaders that do not bring (or pretend to bring) economic opportunity. 

The external security guaranteed to Romania by the Aegis system is also rather hazy in the post Cold War world where terrorist groups and loose networks of criminals pose primary security threats to civilian populations. The arrival of Aegis to Romanian shores will add a new star to the maps of terrorists and criminals- a star that makes Romania more attractive to extremists and groups wishing to destroy US security and power. Clearly, southern Romania will become more vulnerable to terrorists from southeast Asia, the Caucuses, as well as the Middle East. This cost might be a higher price than Basescu imagined he would have to pay, a cost that includes increased outlays for border patrol, maritime and port security, and a plethora of bureaucratic headaches.

Missile defense from Bush to Obama

Though Romanian officials say Deveselu was chosen because it fulfilled the extensive list of 120 requirements needed to guarantee the full security of the system, obviously other reasons probably played an important role in the calculations of US government representatives. To understand these reasons, it helps to review the history of the missile defense plan which gained traction under the administration of the George W. Bush.

The Bush administration left office after having articulated a plan to use long-range interceptors based in Poland to counter a threat from Iran and North Korea. Russia opposed the plan on the grounds that the system could target Russian warheads or undermine the Kremlin's deterrence strategy. 

The Obama administration articulated a different plan for European missile defense, one designed to counter the threat of short- to medium-range missiles. The reasons given for this shift included 1) greater effectiveness 2) ability to counter a threat from Iran earlier after launch. In 2009, Obama finalized his change in policy with a four-part plan. In 2011, the US officials began negotiating the location of the European base in part 2 of Obama's four-part plan. 

Critics of new plan say that a clear signal was sent of US policy shifting on the basis of Russian demands. Others doubt whether the administration could build an effective shield under the current timetable.

Putin overseeing previous snap check in June of this year. Photo credit: Alexei Nikolski

The mystery of the disappearing Russian opposition

Obviously, Russian sentiment has played an important part in the Obama administration's missile defense plan. As the need to coordinate anti-terrorism measures between the US and Russia increases, a shiny, happy Putin is in the best interests of US diplomats and statesment. The Pentagon, of course, would also like to ensure the continuing security of aging Soviet nukes. 

At the beginning of 2013, Russian officials were still huffing and puffing over the message and consequences of the European missile defense system. But the tune changed in March, when the Obama administration decided to bolster its missile defense systems in the Pacific region, allegedly in response to threats issued by North Korea. This decision to focus on the Pacific region essentially canceled the final phase of the missile system opposed by the Russians. All signs pointed to stronger (or, at least, less strained) bilateral ties between the US and Russia.

One month later, in April 2013, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin gave a speech at the Russian embassy in London that insinuated improved US-Russia relations had nothing to do with Russia's decreased interest in European missile defense. Speaking for the Russian government, Rogozin asserted: 

“We have solved the issue of penetrating the missile shield. We regret that the United States waste their money on missile defense and compel us to do the same. The missile shield is nothing for us, it’s a bluff. It poses no military threat, but remains a political and economic problem."

By August, Rogozin's cat clearly emerged from the clear plastic bag in which he had placed it. A senior Russian official (probably Rogozin) declared that the US missile defense system is no match for the new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that Russia tested in the middle of August. Rogozin, who oversees the Russian defense industry, hailed the tests as a success and called the ICBM "a missile defense killer".

So here's my question- Should we believe him? Clearly, it is in Russia's strategic interest to maintain its ability to provide security as a regional power. In a similar vein, it is in the Obama administration's interest to allow Russia to say whatever it wants so long as relations and cooperation between the two government continues without friction. Is Rogozin bluffing as the State Department smiles and agrees not to blow his cover? Is an ICBM the real reason for Russia's policy shift on missile defense?

I'm inclined to believe the Obama administration has offered a different set of very compelling carrots to Russian officials- carrots best seen with the proper security clearance. It remains to be seen how the backroom diplomacy is conducted with respect to missile defense. Until then, Putin's recent rocket-rattling is getting loud enough to ruffle feathers.

Yesterday, Putin oversaw a snap check of Russia’s nuclear deterrent, aerospace defenses and strategic aviation. According to the Russian state press agency:

“The exercise involved launches of ballistic missiles, drills by air defense and missile defense units,” Kremlin press spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, adding that all practice targets had been destroyed. The Defense Ministry has confirmed the launches of two silo-based and sea-based ballistic missiles apiece as part of the snap check drills.

Possible costs and benefits of Deveselu location

In existence since 2004, Aegis BMD is now operating on 28 Navy ships and with a number of allied nations. U.S. allies with Aegis capability include the Japan Self Defense Forces, Spanish Navy, the South Korean Navy (see article), the Royal Australian Navy, Italy, Denmark and unnamed others.

The purported benefits of stationing Aegis at Deveselu include:

1. Kogalniceanu Air Base and the Port of Constanta become strategic infrastructures for the United States (President Basescu).
2. Job creation for the small Romanian locale of Deveselu (Mayor Gheorghe Beciu).
3. US money, specifically 400 million for locating the anti-missile system at Deveselu in Romania, with an additional USD 20 million for the anual functioning costs, missiles not included.
4. Increased security from Middle Eastern states as well as Russia, a longtime security fear of Romanian leaders.

The drawbacks and gray areas include:

1. Questions of US forces stationed permanently in Romania- 200 U.S. military forces will be deployed at the former air base at Deveselu. The unit remains under the command of the Romanian Air Force.
2. Popular opposition from nuclear disarmament groups and organizations, including the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. 
3. The Missile Defense Agency will be working with Lockheed-Martin to build and design the station. It's not clear how Romanian companies will be involved.
4. Decreased security as a result of terrorists who target missile defense systems as proxy to targeting US homeland.
5. Diplomatic chill between Romania and Russia.
6. Increased threats from Russian interests who feel regional power is threatened by Aegis system with possibility of closer ties between Russia and Iran.
7. Problems with European allies who feel Romania is seeking a special relationship with US at the expense of improved relations with EU members.
8. Political fall-out destabilizing Romania's EU accession.

The Royal Australian Navy tweeted this photo of Aegis tower being
added to the good ship Hobart.

SOURCES:

Kris Osborn, "Pentagon builds Aegis ashore MD sites in Romania", DODBuzz, 8 October 2013
"US assures Russia on Romanian missile base", The Moscow Times, 5 May 2011
Razvan Chiruta, "Deveselu- comuna care apara Europa", Romania Libera, 4 May 2011
Elias Groll, "Russia no longer worried about European missile defense systems", 16 April 2013, Passport Blog
Herszhenhorn and Gordon, "US cancels part of missile defense that Russia opposed", New York Times, 16 March 2013
"US missile shield no threat to Russia- Deputy PM", RIA Novosti, 16 April 2013
"Ministrul apararii in SUA", Romania Libera, 19 October 2013
"CND condemns plans for US missile defence base in Romania", CND Cymru, 4 May 2011 
"Pentagonul de la Deveselu, disputat de investitori straini si romani", Ziua Cargo, 15 June 2012
"Russia inspects US missile defense base in California- Report", RIA Novosti, 23 August 2013 

What's going on in Kashmir?

Kashmir is even more complicated than the chord progressions for the Led Zepellin song by the same name. And there is no place in the world I have wanted to visit more than Kashmir. The closest I've come is Mysore (which is nowhere close). I blame it on the fact that the BJP was ruling India when I visited, which made it difficult to procure travel documents.

The Hindu shrine of Amarnath cave is dedicated to Shiva. Situated at an altitude 12,756 ft less than 80 miles from Srinigrar. As one of the holiest shrines in the Hindu religion, the cave admits pilgrims during a short period of time in the summer, when the surrounding mountains and paths are not covered in snow. Thousands of Hindu devotees make an annual pilgrimage to the Amarnath cave on challenging mountainous terrain to witness the famous ice stalagmite, considered a Shiva Linga, formed within the cave. 

The sacred stalagmite is formed due to freezing of water drops that fall from the roof of the cave on to the floor and grows up vertically from the cave floor. There is a rhythm to the legends and sacred mysteries surrounding this cave-turned-temple.

The Cave waxes during May to August, as snow melts in the Himalayas above the cave and the resultant water seeps into the rocks that form the cave and gradually wanes thereafter. As per the religious beliefs, it has been claimed that the lingam grows and shrinks with the phases of the moon reaching its height during the summer festival, although there is no scientific evidence for this belief. 

According to a Hindu legend, this is the cave where Shiva explained the secret of life and eternity to his divine consort, Parvati. Two other ice formations represent Parvati and Shiva's son, Ganesha. The main purpose of the annual pilgrimage to the cave is worship of the ice stalagmite Lingam. 

The Amarnath cave has been a place of worship since times immemorial. There are references to the legendary king Aryaraja (ascribed dates 300 BCE) who used to worship a lingam formed of ice in Kashmir. The book Rajatarangini (Book VII v.183) refers to Amareshwara or Amarnath. It is believed that Queen Suryamathi in the 11th century AD gifted trishuls, banalingas and other sacred emblems to this temple. Rajavalipataka, begun by Prjayabhatta has detailed references to the pilgrimage to Amarnath Cave. Other than this, there are further references to this pilgrimage in many other ancient texts.
                        ["Amarnath Temple", Wikipedia]

The people of Kashmir observe October 27 as “black day” every year to protest the arrival of Indian troops and their invasion of the Himalayan region in 1947. The Pakistani press warns that observances this year were rather boisterous, with thousands of Pakistanis turning out to rally against India. 

On the other side of the fence, The Times of India downplayed the numbers and effect of the protest. It was a "strike" (less political) and something that happens every year (nothing significant). 

And yet some Indians express concern. Indian authorities claim one guard was killed and six injured by a shell fired at the Arnia post in Jammu region, where the protests are taking place.

Amir Bashir promises his guests that they are "going to heaven". What he intended was to tell them they were going to Kashmir, a heaven to many, and a hell to others. 
[Mehboob Jelani, "Blood and Tourism in Kashmir", Dissent] 

Back in August, reporters suggested the fight for Kashmir continues, though at a lower level of violence. New recruits to militancy are different from volunteers over the past 20 years. They are younger and better educated. Burhan Wani is one of the youngest. His father said his son had left home overnight two years ago at the age of 15 to join the militants. Burhan didn't tell a soul of his plans. He just told his father he was going out and then he never returned. Though pious and brought up in a family that is supportive of the extremists, Burhan had shown no sign of wanting to take up arms until he was detained and beaten by security forces, his father, the head of a local college, said. Jason Burke has the story on the new wave of militants. 

Rising unemployment provides a wonderful source of recruitment for young militants, who are given a clear source against which to direct their despair and anger. Over 330,049 unemployed educated and uneducated youth have been registered with district employment and counseling centers in Jammu and Kashmir till June this year, reports Sana Altaf. 

In the recent years it is said that a Buta Malik, a muslim shepherded re-discovered the caves in 1850. The by of given a sack of coal by a sadhu (ascetic) and upon reaching home he opened the sack and found that it contained gold not coal. When he rushed back to find and thank the sadhu he found a cave at the place where they both had actually met. From that day they cave became the sited of pilgrimage. Maharaja Gulab Singh who was the King of the Dogra kingdom was so please with the find that he declared that during the time of pilgrimage each year a representative of the Malik family would be present in the shrine. The king also granted that the Malik family would be given one third of the offerings made to the shrine. Lastly his family was given a large estate near Pahalgam and the family was exempted from paying any revenue for the earnings.

The Amarnath yatra starts from Palalgam with pilgrims walking the 42 km distance. It normally takes four to five days to reach the shrine. Devotees of old age take a ride on horse-back to make the journey.
[Popular Temples of India blog]

Photo credit: Nissar Amad

In 2010, efforts were made to protect pilgrims and cave-trippers. “Fidayeen or no fidayeen, we will ensure that the Yatra takes place peacefully. If militants try to disturb peace, we will hunt them down,” Inspector General Reddy told a visiting group of journalists. Paramilitary protection for religious pilgrims. 

In 2012, fourteen pilgrims died en route to the Amaranth shrine in Kashmir. The deaths were from natural causes, including cardiac arrest. 

The Holy Shiva Lingam Shrine +
Mrs. Percy Brown's published poems about Kashmir circa 1921 +
Traditional yatra routes +
Phugtal, which occasions its own adjective +
10 most incredible Indian cave temples + 

The Obama administration's audacious sell-out to the defense industry.

Image credit: CNN

October 15th was a big day for the Obama administration and fans of violent conflict all over the world. That's because October 14th marked an ephocal shift in US military exports policy- "a shift that former U.S. officials and human rights advocates say could increase the flow of American-made military parts to the world’s conflicts and make it harder to enforce arms sanctions". Cora Currier offers details on the worrisome and somewhat under-reported story of the Export Control Reform (ECR) Initiative.

While Clinton and Bush flirted with relaxing arms control to satisfy the defense industry, it is President Obama who finally cut the deal. Originally, the defense industry and its trade groups focused on "restructuring and speeding up the State Department system, where the wait for a license had sometimes stretched to months". But Currier explains that the "current focus on moving items to Commerce began under the Obama administration".

In 2009, then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates found himself persuaded by industry representatives that the health of the country's defense industrial base was at stake. National Security Advisor Gen. Jim Jones presented the case to President Obama, who agreed. Prior to serving in the Obama administration, Gen. Jones Upon worked as president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy and, in 2008, served as the State Department's Special Envoy for Middle East Regional Security. In 2010, after leaving the White House, Gen. Jones decided to open up his own Jones Group International, which focuses on advising for energy security and national security. According to the company website:

During his NATO assignment from 2003-2006, Gen. Jones advocated energy security and the defense of critical infrastructures as a core part of NATO's future missions. With the Chamber, Jones worked to unite energy consumers and producers for a common goal - to increase the variety of the U.S. energy supply and associated infrastructures, to advance international cooperation on energy issues, to protect national energy security, and to promote better understanding of changes to the global climate and its effects on the environment.

Gen. Jones certainly played a part in preventing the Obama administration from beginning a war with Iran. His personal and political interests in Iran might be related to economic interest as well (though I have not found anything to substantiate such a link).

Of course, the questions about a relationship between economic prosperity and national security have not been resolved, and some scholars argue that prosperity which relies on economic conquest of other countries increases risk of terrorist attacks and instability. The money will also continue to fill the coffers of the US defense industry that is responsible for the making of foreign policy in Washington, D.C. 

Who stands to benefit from the relaxed arms export rules

Gun makers and members of the defense industry stand to benefit financially from these rules. In the first quarter of 2013, Sig Sauer Inc. paid lobbyists $45,000 to lobby for "export trade reform" as related to foreign military sales of firearms and ammunitions. 

Remington Arms Company Inc. also forked out $45,000 in the same quarter to lobby for "lobbying on the issues of defense, environment/superfund, and firearms/guns/ammunition". What caught my eye was Remington's particular interest in “small arms sales to the Department of Defense and foreign military sales under contracts with the Department of Defense Direct sales of small arms to foreign countries requiring approval of the Department of Defense and State and Congress.”

The Commerce Department gains a critical foothold for increasing relevance in the policy world, since entire categories of war-related equipment will move from State Department control to the looser flexibility of the Commerce Department control. This helps explain the heavy-handed lobbying conducted by the US Chambers of Commerce in favor of the Export Reform Initiative.

The Coalition for Security and Competitiveness, for example, "was formed to achieve a more efficient, predictable, and transparent export control system that is an enabling component of America’s broader national security strategy". Its members include various trade associations as brought together by the US Chamber of Commerce for the purpose of lobbying Obama to pass the ERC.

Cora Currier observes that Lockheed, which manufactures C-130 transport planes, Textron, which makes Kiowa Warrior helicopters, and Honeywell, which outfits military choppers, also lobbied for the arms control reform. 

The Chinese arms industry is also making a killing off the very policy intended to increase American economic power. Former undersecretary of state John Bolton bemoaned the Chinese support for Obama's arms liberalization earlier this year- to no effect, obviously.

Who stands to lose

In my opinion, everyone who hopes to see a decrease in international conflict and national violence stands to lose from this decision. American national security stands to lose. But take my opinion with a grain of salt- I was one of those "crazies" who predicted the war in Iraq would lead to insurgency rather than neoconservative pipe dreams.

The fact is that international organizations and multilateral efforts between the US and other nations stand to lose substantially from this policy. For example, mandatory UN arms embargoes, a key multilateral policy effort used by the international community in diplomatic negotiations, loses its sting. In addition, the State Department (specifically, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls) loses a critical diplomatic tool to the newly-empowered Commerce Department.

US relations with Saudi Arabia and Egypt stand to lose. Does it seem strange that Saudi's huff is being reported as a consequence of Western hands-off policy towards Syria? 

Critics and a few untidy questions

Off the top of my head....In a report for the Center for International Policy, William D. Hartung questions the Obama administration's assumptions of economic benefits flowing from the arms trade liberalization. Brittany Berkowitz expresses her concerns about the liberalization on the Arms Control Association website. Legislative critics of the reform include Senator Richard Lugar and Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio). What role, if any, did Steven Pelak play in this policy shift?

Just before Congressional Republicans decided to take a vacation with the government shutdown, fifty senators refused to ratify a UN Arms Control Treaty signed by the US. The Arms Treaty was approved in U.N. General Assembly by a vote of 154 to 3, with 23 abstentions. North Korea, Iran and Syria voted against the treaty. The treaty, itself, regulates trade in conventional arms. It does not ban or prohibit the export of any type of weapon and doesn't infringe on member states' right to self-defense. 

On the question of how this will affect criminal prosecution of arms dealers and smugglers, I'm inclined to browse through recent indictments by US government agencies in export-related violations. Significantly, a number of indictments in the past three years involved persons attempting to procure fighter jet parts for Iran. Take Omid Khalili, for example, who pled guilty in 2010. The Department of Justice press release described the context of Khalili's case:

These parts are replacement parts for a military aircraft that were sold to Iran by the United States before the 1979 Iranian revolution.  As of 2009, this military aircraft is in service with only the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force. The parts requested by the defendants are designated as defense articles on the U.S. Munitions List and may not be exported from the United States without a license from the U.S. State Department. In addition, these items may not be exported to Iran without a license from the U.S. Treasury Department due to the U.S. trade embargo on Iran.  The defendants had not obtained the required U.S. government export licenses for such exports.

It is unclear whether former Iran-Contra arms dealer Joseph O'Toole and Israeli national Chanoch Miller would have benefitted from this policy shift in time to avoid their recent prison sentences. Given O'Toole's comraderie with other Iran-Contra vets, it would be interesting to see how (and if) O'Toole would have been prosecuted for any crimes under the new arms control laws.

As noted by War Is Business, better to smuggle weapons than drugs when it comes to prison sentences in these United States of America. I'm smiling, barely.

MORE IN THIS VEIN:
Joseph O'Toole's escape from punishment in 1991 (Los Angeles Times)
"BAE Systems is a British success story- so why the secrecy?" by Owen Hatherly (The Guardian) 
Gen. Jim Jones won't apologize to Israel over Iranian nukes (The Washington Times) 
CSC letter to the President (CSC)
Gen. Jim Jones calls on US to help Iranian refugees (CNN) 
How O'Toole and Miller got caught (Terror Free Somalia blog)
"US leads global arms exports surge" by Steve Hargreaves (CNN Money)
"Embassy row: Prison camp Liberty" by James Morrison (The Washington Times) 

Eight perspectives on Syria.

Abu Malik, a Saudi national, in Syria. [Photo credit: Charles Lister]

1. Omar Kayed (which appears to be a cover name) shares an interesting perspective on Syria's "mujahedeen". The piece is a must-read for Syria watchers. Kayed's conversations with Abu Malik al-Shahri, a Jabhat al-Nusra leader in the Levant, took place during May 2013. Malik made several distinctions between Jabhat and the seemingly less disciplined Isalmic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). 

According to Abu Malik, Salafist jihadist ideology is based not on the idea of governance advocated by Sayyid Qutb and Abu Ala Mawdudi. [According to this ideology], a Muslim's goal is to strive to liberate Muslim lands from colonizers and establish God's law. God Almighty said: "Judgement is only through God," so any legislation [other than Sharia] is invalid. In Abu Malik's opinion, the way to establish God's law on earth is through jihad and fighting. This group was called Salafist jihadist because it adopts jihad as a means of achieving change, "so everyone who believes this idea becomes our brother in religion."

The second pillar [of Salafist jihadist ideology] is loyalty and disavowal. Al-Qaeda members believe that anyone who embraces this ideology is a Muslim brother who they must support. However, anyone who violates these beliefs is an infidel and an apostate, and they must disown him.

I asked him, "Pardon me, Abu Malik, but how did you enter into the world of al-Qaeda?" He told me that he had accompanied a friend to visit a man called Sheikh Abu Muhammed in Jordan. Later, he became convinced of Abu Muhammed's statements claiming that humans' purpose on earth is to apply this heavenly message and join their brothers to establish God's law.

2. Abu Malik al-Shahri was killed by Syrian forces in Latakia countryside in August 2013. He was originally from Saudi Arabia and a student of Osama Bin Ladan. He reportedly slaughtered scores of civilians and government forces across Syria. 

3. Abu Omar al-Chechani made his way from Chechnya to Syria to join the latest jihad. His bright orange hair makes quite a fashion statement on the jihadi front. News reports involve him in Aleppo. 

4. Turkey and Iran are probably expressing concern over the militarization of the Kurdish ethnic minorities in Syria, especially those in Rojava, where concerted actions continue to take place. The ongoing struggle for a united Kurdistan has only gained numbers and strength since the Bush administration's war in Iraq. 

5. Saleh Muslim, the leader of the Democratic Union Party (PYD), deemed to be the most powerful politician among the Syrian Kurdish parties, was in Geneva to hold meetings with international organizations and explain his perspective. The PYD, which has close ties to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), controls areas inhabited by Kurds in northern Syria, and has a highly disciplined fighting force made up of a few thousand soldiers. Vicken Cheterian reports that Muslim is not seeking secession for the Kurdish groups in Syria.

6. Sami Nader believes the Saudi criticism of the UN revolves around its agreement to step back from Syria and allow the instability and war to continue. He makes reference to Saudi's position as reflecting that of the "Arab street".

7. The war between the regime of President Assad and the Syrian opposition has reached the Druze villages in the Golan Heights, with three youths from the community joining the ranks of Assad's army. So long as bombs continue to fall on Palestinian refugee camps, refugees from war are likely to morph into supporters of nearby revolution. Joshua Mitnik reports that "the Syrian Druze living under Israeli control in the Golan Heights are loyal to President Assad because they consider him an economic lifeline and a protector of minority rights".

8.  Turkey and Iraq seek reasons to cozy up. Both concerned by the rise of al Qaeda in Syria, leaders announced today that their strained relations were improving and they would cooperate more closely to limit the spillover from Syria's civil war. The reporting is from Reuters. 

Blowing blowback bubbles.

Mike Keefe's comic plays with blowback.

Chalmers Johnson borrowed the term "blowback" from the CIA. It first appeared in a classified CIA post-action report on the secret overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953. 

The term "blowback," which officials of the Central Intelligence Agency first invented for their own internal use, is starting to circulate among students of international relations. It refers to the unintended consequences of policies that were kept secret from the American people. What the daily press reports as the malign acts of "terrorists" or "drug lords" or "rogue states" or "illegal arms merchants" often turn out to be blowback from earlier American operations.
            Chalmers Johnson, Blowback

Johnson upset many coffee circles when he suggested that the attacks of September 11, 2001 could be understood as "blowback" for US foreign policy. Writing for Foreign Affairs, Peter Bergen and Alec Reynolds apply the blowback model to the US military invasion and "stablization" of Iraq.

According to the Urban Dictionary, blowback means "To hold a marijuana joint in ones mouth between the lips with the hot end in the mouth while blowing smoke out of the hole at the other end into someone else's mouth, so as to get a big 'hit". Trickly illustrates it on his album cover buy the same name.

Comic strips now require spaces for blowback. Blowback, the band, plays protest punk. The video game, Blowback, created by Elizabeth Sampat, allows you to play spies blacklisted after a job goes awry. You can get involved with "the people who care about them". Unlike working for the CIA, this game is "designed for long-term play".

Valerine Plame makes use of the term to fuel her new fictional endeavors. In these gnarly times of postmodern terrorism, the blowback of intelligence leaks gives birth to novels. Patrick Anderson describes it for Washington Post:

Valerie Plame, as all true political junkies will recall, rocketed from anonymity to celebrity a decade ago thanks toa truly bizarre episode that the George W. Bush administration inflicted upon itself. Briefly, during the buildup to the invasion of Iraq, the CIA sent Plame’s husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, to Niger to check reports that Saddam Hussein had sought to buy materials there that his nation could use to build weapons of mass destruction.

Wilson reported back that it didn’t happen, which wasn’t what the Bushies wanted to hear. Soon thereafter, apparently to punish Wilson for his truth-telling, sources in the administration leaked to columnist Robert Novak that Wilson’s wife, Plame, was a covert operative at the CIA. That was true, but to disclose it to the news media was a crime. In time, Vice President Richard B. Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, was put on trial for misleading FBI agents investigating the leak.

Dave Smith, a poet from Sydney, shares his poetic rendition of blowback. With blowback, it seems, someone always gets blown away.

Hendrik Hertzberg on ideology, dogma, and Ronnie.

Hendrik Hertzberg made a name for himself as a liberal Democrat who wrote speeches for presidents and essays for The New Republic. The best way to read Hertzberg is as a summation of recent history in American liberal thinking, simplified by the publication of Politics: Observations and Arguments, 1966-2004 (though you can also catch his most recent thoughts at his New Yorker blog).

While I disagree with Hertzberg on a number of things, I also assent to his wisdom on others. And Hertzberg's paen to George Macdonald in the author's note only suggests how different-looking plants often bloom from the same seed. Hertzberg certainly has my attention when he writes, correctly:

I admire Macdonald for the fierceness of his opposition not only to communism but to all forms of tyranny.

In a similar vein, Hertzberg contrasts Jimmy Carter's "moral ideology" with the mind-numbing political ideology espoused by Ronald Reagan:

A political ideology is a very handy thing to have. It's a real time-saver, because it tells you what to think about things you know nothing about. Reagan never had to agonize over the merits of this tax versus that tax- if it was a tax, he was against it. He never lost sleep over the proper design of some environmental regulation- if it was an environmental regulation, he was against it. He never worried about whether to build up the navy at the expense of the army or the army at the expense of the navy. His view was, if it was military, build it all- and damn the expense. 

Another way to put this same point is that Reagan did all of his thinking and made most of his decisions long before he became president.

It sounds as if Reagan's policy crew probably spent most of their time playing semantic games with the star-struck Reagan- games like "hide the tax by another name in a rider" or "spot the hidden cost for corporations" or "when will the little green men finally colonize planet earth". This helps me to understand why so many otherwise-brilliant minds maintain a soft spot for Ronnie's rule. When Ronnie "ruled", all you had to do was show him how your plan fit inside his perfect ideology and then the budget was yours for the breaking.

Ultimately, Hertzberg believes that "Jimmy Carter did not have the advantage of a dogma". Would that we were also so lucky. Or so balls-to-the-wall wise. 

Read Hendrik Hertzberg's exit interview in the Carter Presidential Library Papers.
Kelly Burdick explains how Hertzberg came to The New Yorker.
Hertzberg answers questions about "the war on workers".
Watch Carter's "crisis of confidence" speech on PBS.
Nick Gillespie scowls at Hertzberg's take on the Tea Party.
Andrew Hartman takes a look back at the radical sixties in US intellectual history.