Staying in Afghanistan Is a Recipe for More Terrorism

Global Opposition to U.S. Drone StrikesBarack Obama is daring the terrorists. He’s standing in their front yard. He’s calling them out.

Of course, that’s not how it’s reported. “U.S. ‘nowhere near’ decision to pull all troops out of Afghanistan,” was the understated Reuters headline. Under negotiation is an agreement keeping 8,000 to 10,000 American troops in Afghanistan “through 2024 and beyond.” Also on the table are night raids and drone strikes that Afghan President Hamid Karzai refuses to allow.

This is madness. “If the job is not done,” said the Russian ambassador to Kabul, “then several thousand troops…will not be able to do the job that 150,000 troops couldn’t do.”

The only thing worse than the hopelessness of this plan is the backwardness of it. In an effort to prevent terrorism, we are continuing the very thing that creates terrorism: our presence!

Al Qaeda “has been precise in telling America the reasons [it’s] waging war on us,” according to CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, who tracked Osama bin Laden from 1996 to 1999. “None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy, but have everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world.”

In his book Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, political scientist Robert Pape analyzed every known case of suicide bombers from 1980 to 2005. He found that “what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland.” Specifically, he discovered that “al Qaeda is today less a product of Islamic fundamentalism than of a simple strategic goal: to compel the United States and its Western allies to withdraw combat forces from the Arabian Peninsula and other Muslim countries.”

The Obama administration can’t pretend that it doesn’t know this fact. In 2004, the Pentagon concluded that “American direct involvement in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies. Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies. [In] the eyes of the Muslim world, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering.”

Firsthand accounts confirm these conclusions. British journalist Johann Hari interviewed former Islamic militants who had since rejected jihad. He probed them, in independent interviews, about what made them join the cause in the first place. “Every one of them said the Bush administration’s response to 9/11 — from Guantanamo to Iraq — made jihadism seem more like an accurate description of the world.” One of them put it this way: “You’d see Bush on the television building torture camps and bombing Muslims and you think — anything is justified to stop this. What are we meant to do, just stand still and let him cut our throats?”

New York Times reporter David Rohde saw this attitude up close when the Taliban held him hostage for seven months. Looking back on his captors, he remembered, “Commanders fixated on the deaths of Afghan, Iraqi and Palestinian civilians in military airstrikes, as well as the American detention of Muslim prisoners who had been held for years without being charged.”

BBC journalist Owen Bennett-Jones found the same reaction in his research on the drone strike that killed Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud earlier this year. “Although many Pakistanis were happy that Mehsud was no long threatening them,” Bennett-Jones reports, “their relief was outweighed by the thought that the US’s use of drones in Pakistan was an unacceptable breach of sovereignty and a national humiliation.” The result was “a wave of sympathy in the country” for Mehsud and his fellow terrorists.

“As I travelled around the Middle East during the Arab Spring,” writes Bennett-Jones in this week’s London Review of Books, “the word that most often cropped up in the slogans in various capitals was not ‘freedom’ – the one the Western media recognised and highlighted – but ‘dignity.'”

These are the sad facts of a desperate region. We do not condone their violence, but we must understand their motives.

American troops, night raids, and drone strikes in Afghanistan will only make it easier for terrorists and insurgents to recruit angry young men to fight and die for their cause. By extending the occupation into perpetuity, we are not stopping terrorism at the source, as President Obama would have us believe. We are multiplying their ranks. We are taunting and humiliating them. We are endangering our nation.

==========

This op-ed was published in today’s South Florida Sun-Sentinel and Huffington Post.

Palestine/Israel: A Modest Proposal

by Reese Schonfeld

The cleverest man I have met in the last two years (he had been recruited by the NSA or CIA or DARPA after 9/11 as an “Imagineering” genius), told me that America will never succeed unless we legalize drugs and end our support for Israel. I don’t know what to do about drug running, but today’s news brings me back to the Israeli question. Is it possible for US government to abandon Israel entirely? I don’t think so. But I have another thought, and it’s almost as impossible as the first, but given the current state of the world, it might just work.

Let’s suppose the Obama administration enlists Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and all the other oil rich nations and gets them to contribute enough money to buy Israel back from the Jews. The Israelis could then take the money and use it to buy 10,0000 sq. miles of land in Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland or one of the other European countries that have gone broke. The country that sells the land would have to give sovereignty, but would end its status as a debtor nation, put its people back to work, and regain their independence from Angela Merkel.

The deal benefits all the parties: it gets the US off the hook about Israel, it permits the Palestinians to return to their homeland, which will be in far better condition then when they left it.  The other Arab nations will get the Palestinians off their backs, Israelis will no longer have to worry about suicide bombers and rockets from Gaza and the lucky state that sells the 10,000 sq. miles will be free at last.

The deal makes so much sense that I’m sure it will never be consummated. Orthodox Israelis will never give up what they consider to be their Holy Land.  No Arab coalition has held together since the Turks rolled into the Middle East 600 years ago. No European country has sold 10,0000 sq. miles of its land to another country since Napoleon completed the Louisiana Purchase. So I am forced to admit that this proposal to put an end to the Palestinian question is unlikely to be adopted. But that doesn’t mean I won’t pray for it.

Romney’s Energy Plans Don’t Bode Well for the Future

Mitt Romney has officially given up on the future. At least, that’s the way it looks from the energy plan he released last month.

The future is in peril for a number of reasons. Climate change is slowly eroding the environmental stability we’ve enjoyed for centuries. The wide gap between what we import and what we export is driving manufacturing jobs overseas. And our dependence on foreign oil embroils our national security in the explosive Middle East.

With his new energy plan, Romney surrendered on all three fronts.

When Romney proposed expanding oil drilling to previously restricted areas, he was probably listening to people like Fox News commentator Peter Morici, who has said, “Oil imports could be cut by two-thirds by boosting U.S. oil production to 10 million barrels a day.”

Only one problem: It’s impossible.

According to the Energy Information Agency, even if we open all those lands to exploration, our current production of 6 million barrels per day will never grow to more than 7.5 million, let alone 10. There just isn’t enough oil under the ground — and even if there were, it wouldn’t be available for another decade.

So we will always import oil — unless we replace it with something else.

By “something else,” of course I’m referring to renewable energy. The Romney plan, however, doesn’t propose a single policy to encourage the development and export of renewable energy technologies. Instead, it advocates even less oversight of an industry that experienced the worst environmental disaster in American history only two years ago.

Romney’s preference for oil over solar and wind power is particularly striking in light of his party’s alarmism over inflation (which never seems to materialize when they say it will). After all, oil prices have been rising for three decades, while manufacturing prices have been falling.

Since the 1990s, installation costs for wind power have fallen by 90 percent. In last year alone, solar panel prices fell 50 percent. Compare that to gas prices, which…well, you know.

Someone needs to tell Mitt Romney: You can’t be an inflation hawk and an oil bull at the same time. If you commit the nation to more oil, you’re committing to rising prices.

For a candidate so enthralled with innovation and entrepreneurship, it’s especially astonishing to see Romney’s indifference to the renewable energy market. If any industry could close the trade deficit with China, it’s solar and wind power, where China has much less advantage than in other manufactured products because labor only accounts for 4 percent of the total cost. “Imported oil and subsidized imports from China account for nearly the entire trade gap,” according to Morici.

So why not kill two birds with one stone?

Once upon a time, the federal government would have supported a blossoming industry like renewable technologies. Back when it was the fastest-growing economy in the world, the United States had the world’s highest industrial tariffs, protecting its young factories until they were strong enough to compete with foreign firms.

No longer. Under the rules of the World Trade Organization, high tariffs are not allowed, except in retaliation to a foreign competitor’s protectionism. China, for example, is now paying such a price for subsidizing its solar companies, giving them an unfair advantage over American firms like SolarWorld.

But, in many ways, the damage is done. Since receiving subsidies from the Chinese government, several Chinese companies have overtaken their American competitors. If we want to fight back, we’ll have to do the same with loan guarantees, tax credits, and major government purchases (all of which are allowed by the WTO).

But the Romney plan features nothing of the sort.

Sadly, we’ve seen this indifference before. As Judith Stein documents in Pivotal Decade: How the United States Traded Factories for Finance in the Seventies, we have watched too many opportunities go by since the 1970s, allowing foreign governments to subsidize their manufacturers while ours closed factories.

This is another such opportunity. But instead of seizing it, Romney is content to allow it to fall into the hands of the Chinese, just as he is willing to let the environment fall into the hands of Big Oil. The future will just have to fend for itself.

==========

This op-ed was published in today’s South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

The Myth of the Lazy Poor

On his recent trip to Israel, Mitt Romney attributed the poverty of the Palestinians to their “culture,” citing the work of economic historians David Landes and Jared Diamond. Middle East experts have rightly denounced Romney’s remarks as racist, ignorant, and untrue. Jared Diamond himself took to the op-ed page of the New York Times to set the record straight: “That is so different from what my book actually says that I have to doubt whether Mr. Romney read it.”

This kind of claim is common among our political elite. We regularly hear accusations against the “culture of poverty” on our own shores, ranging from the famous Moynihan Report in 1965 to the so-called “welfare queen” that Ronald Reagan created to get elected. The inverse is equally common. Peruse your local bookstore, and you’re bound to find half a dozen authors attributing the rapid growth of China (or, a few years ago, Japan) to their unique Eastern brand of capitalism.

But these stereotypes — good and bad — are hardly ever true, as proven by this excerpt from Cambridge development economist Ha-Joon Chang’s eye-opening book Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism:*

Having toured lots of factories in a developing country, an Australian management consultant told the government officials who had invited him: “My impression as to your cheap labor was soon disillusioned when I saw your people at work. No doubt they are lowly paid, but the return is equally so; to see your men at work made me feel that you are a very satisfied easy-going race who reckon time is no object. When I spoke to some managers they informed me that it was impossible to change the habits of national heritage.”

This Australian consultant was understandably worried that the workers of the country he was visiting did not have the right work eithic. In fact, he was being quite polite. He could have been blunt and just called them lazy. No wonder the country was poor — not dirt poor, but with an income level that was less than a quarter of Australia’s.

The country in question…was Japan in 1915. It doesn’t feel quite right that someone from Australia (a nation known today for its ability to have a good time) could call the Japanese lazy. But this is how most westerners saw Japan a century ago.

In his 1903 book, Evolution of the Japanese, the American missionary Sidney Gulick observed that many Japanese “give an impression…of being lazy and utterly indifferent to the passage of time.” Gulick was no casual observer. He lived in Japan for 25 years (1888-1913), fully mastered the Japanese language, and taught in Japanese university. After his return to the US, he was known for his campaign for racial equality on behalf of Asian Americans. Nevertheless, he saw ample confirmation of the cultural stereotype of the Japanese as an “easy-going” and “emotional” people who possessed qualities like “lightness of heart, freedom from all anxiety for the future, living chiefly for the present.” The similarity between this observation and that of today’s Africa, in this case by an African himself — Daniel Etounga-Manguelle, a Cameroonian engineer and writer — is striking: “The African, anchored in his ancestral culture, is so convinced that the past can only repeat itself that he worries only superficially about the future. However, without a dynamic perception of the future, there is no planning, no future, no scenario building; in other words, no policy to affect the course of events.”

After her tour of Asia in 1911-1912, Beatrice Webb, the famous leader of British Fabian socialism, described the Japanese as having “objectionable notions of leisure and a quite intolerable personal independence.” She said that, in Japan, “there is evidently no desire to teach people to think.” She was even more scathing about my ancestors. She described the Koreans as “12 millions of dirty, degraded, lazy, and religionless savages who slouch about in dirty white garments of the most inept kind and who live in filthy mudhuts.”

This was not just a western prejudice against eastern peoples. The British used to say similar things about the Germans. Before their economic take-off in the mid-19th century, the Germans were typically described by the British as “a dull and heavy people.” “Indolence” was a word that was frequently associated with the Germanic nature. Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein, wrote in exasperation after a particularly frustrating altercation with her German coach-driver: “the Germans never hurry.” It wasn’t just the British. A French manufacturer who employed German workers complained that they “work as and when they please.”

The British also considered the Germans to be slow-witted. According to John Russell, a travel writer of the 1820s, the Germans were a “plodding, easily contented people…endowed neither with great acuteness of perception nor quickness of feeling.” In particular, according to Russell, they were not open to new ideas; “it is long before [a German] can be brought to comprehend the bearings of what is new to him, and it is difficult to rouse him to ardor in its pursuit.” No wonder that they were “not distinguished by enterprise or activity,” as another mid-19th century British traveler remarked.

Germans were also deemed to be too individualistic and unable to cooperate with each other. Once again, compare this with a comment by the African observer that I quoted above: “African societies are like a football team in which, as a result of personal rivalries and a lack of team spirit, one player will not pass the ball to another out of fear that the latter might score a goal.”

British travelers in the early 19th century also found the Germans dishonest — “the tradesman and the shopkeeper take advantage of you wherever they can, and to the smallest imaginable amount rather than not take advantage of you at all… This knavery is universal,” observed Sir Arthur Brooke Faulkner, a physician serving in the British army.

Ever since the East Asian economic “miracle,” it has become very popular to argue that it was Confucian culture that was responsible, at least partly, for the region’s economic successes. Confucian culture, it was pointed out, emphasizes hard work, education, frugality, cooperation, and obedience to authority.

But, before the East Asian economic “miracle,” people used to blame Confucianism for the region’s underdevelopment. For Confucianism does have a lot of aspects that are inimical to economic development.

Confucianism discourages people from taking up professions like business and engineering that are necessary for economic development. At least in theory, individual peasants could gain entry into the ruling class if they passed the competitive civil service examination (and they occasionally did). Artisans and merchants, however, were not even allowed to sit for the examination.

To make matters worse, the civil service examination only tested people for their scholastic knowledge of the Confucian classics, which made the ruling class scornful of practical knowledge. Scholar-bureaucrats were supposed to live in “clean poverty”…and thus they actively looked down upon money-making.

Confucianism also discourages creativity and entrepreneurship. It has a rigid social hierarchy and, as I have noted, prevents certain segments of society (artisans, merchants) from moving upwards. This rigid hierarchy is sustained by an emphasis on loyalty to superiors and deference to authority, which breeds conformism and stifles creativity.

We can perform the same exercise with any culture’s belief system. Take the case of Islam.

Muslim culture is today considered by many to hold back economic development.

Alternatively, we could say that, unlike many other cultures, Muslim culture does not have a fixed social hierarchy… Therefore, people who work hard and creatively are rewarded. Moreover, unlike in the Confucian hierarchy, there is no disdain for industrial or business activities. Muhammad, the Prophet, was a merchant himself. And being a merchant’s religion, Islam has a highly developed sense of contracts… This orientation encourages the rule of law and justice — Muslim countries had trained judges hundreds of years before Christian countries. There is also an emphasis on rational thinking and learning — the Prophet notably said that “the ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr.” This is one of the reasons why the Arab world once led the world in mathematics, science, and medicine.

All this is not to deny that how people behave makes a difference to economic development. But the point is that people’s behavior is not determined by culture.

People from rich countries routinely believe that poor countries are poor because their people are lazy. But many people in poor countries actually work long hours in backbreaking conditions. What makes them appear lazy is often their lack of an “industrial” sense of time. When you work with basic tools or simple machinery, you don’t have to keep time strictly. If you are working in an automated factory, it’s essential. People from rich countries often interpret this difference in sense of time as laziness.

It is true that there are a lot more people “lazing around” in poor countries. But is it because those people culturally prefer lounging about to working hard? Usually not. It is mainly because poor countries have a lot of people who are unemployed or underemployed (i.e., people may have jobs but do not have enough work to occupy them fully). This is the result of economic conditions rather than culture. The fact that immigrants from poor countries with “lazy” cultures work much harder than the locals when they more to rich countries proves the point.

As for the once much-vaunted “dishonesty” of the Germans in the past, when a country is poor, people often resort to unethical, or even illegal, means to make a living. Poverty also means weak law enforcement, which lets people get away with illegal behavior, and makes breaking the law more “culturally” acceptable.

“Living for today” or being “easy-going” — words that many people associate with Africa and Latin America nowadays — are also the consequences of economic conditions. In a slowly changing economy, there is not much need to plan for the future; people plan for the future only when they anticipate new opportunities (e.g., new careers) or unexpected shocks (e.g., a sudden inflow of new imports). Moreover, poor economies offer few devices with which people can plan for the future (e.g., credit, insurance, contracts).

In other words, culture changes with economic development. It would be far more accurate to say that countries become “hardworking” and “disciplined” (and acquire other “good” cultural traits) because of economic development, rather than the other way around.

==========

*This excerpt has been lightly edited to accommodate American spellings and this blog’s punctuation style.