RSS« September 2004 | November 2004 »
October 2004 Archives
October 27, 2004
Fucking Americans
I thought we had escaped the clueless gits of the CPA but it turns out the same fucking gits are still at the handles of the fucking Ministry. Motherfuckers, I want to bomb them all.
Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:32 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Filed Under:
Aug-Dec 2004
October 21, 2004
On American Conservatives and the failure in Iraq
As I am sick of my excel sheet, and as this column by Friedman amused me:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/21/opinion/21friedman.html?oref=login&oref=login&hp
Of which I focus on the following:
President Bush has a different problem. The threshold test that Mr. Bush had to pass was: "Does this man understand that we are on the wrong track?" Even though the situation is still salvageable, right now Iraq is a terrible mess because of the criminal incompetence of the Bush national security team, and we are more alone in the world than ever.
Conservatives profess to care deeply about the outcome in Iraq, but they sat silently for the last year as the situation there steadily deteriorated. Then they participated in a shameful effort to refocus the country's attention on what John Kerry did on the rivers of Vietnam 30 years ago, not on what George Bush and his team are doing on the rivers of Babylon today, where some 140,000 American lives are on the line. Is this what it means to be a conservative today?
Had conservatives spoken up loudly a year ago and said what both of Mr. Bush's senior Iraq envoys, Jay Garner and Paul Bremer, have now said (and what many of us who believed in the importance of Iraq were saying) - that we never had enough troops to control Iraq's borders, keep the terrorists out, prevent looting and establish authority - the president might have changed course. Instead, they served as a Greek chorus, applauding Mr. Bush's missteps and mocking anyone who challenged them.
Conservatives have failed their own test of patriotism. In the end, it has been more important for them to defeat liberals than to get Iraq right. Had Democrats been running this war with the incompetence of Donald Rumsfeld & Friends, conservatives would have demanded their heads a year ago - and gotten them.
Did the president, in the debates, answer these concerns? He barely tried. His strategy is to focus all his energy on fanning doubts about whether Mr. Kerry understands that we have real enemies, so voters will not focus on how much we are on the wrong track - with virtually no friends in the world and an Iraq that is now so insecure our own soldiers are afraid to drive certain roads.
Emphasis added.
Amusing, although Friedman should include his own deluded self in there. (the wish that this is salvageable in some politically meaningful way is among those delusions)
However the indictment is spot on.
Spot on.
Of course, I am growing tired of the constant whinging on from Americans at home about the terrible threats and the like. As if they were the first people to face terror....
For all the pain, my dear little whinging North American comrades, the "War on Terror" or rather more appropriately the struggle with Islamic radicalism is not the end of the world. It's not even close. The pants pissing does contain enough elements to make my life difficult, however, and I am looking forward to less of it, although I expect not.
Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:58 PM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Filed Under:
Aug-Dec 2004
October 15, 2004
Green Zone, explosion
Green Zone Article worth reading
October 15, 2004
Army hospital flooded with Green Zone explosion victims
By Edward Harris
Associated Press
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Little remains of the once-popular Green Zone Cafe except overturned tables, body parts, shattered glass and shreds of plastic sheeting — reminders of Thursday’s deadly attacks inside Baghdad’s most heavily secured area.
A day after twin bombings at the cafe and an open market inside the Green Zone — home to U.S. officials and the Iraqi government — killed six people and injured another 20, soldiers in a Humvee guarded the razor-wire encircled bomb site.
The dead included three Americans security contractors. A fourth American was missing and presumed dead, according to the State Department. Two Iraqis were also killed, including one believed to be a suicide bomber.
The U.S. military said the explosives were “hand-carried” inside the area — a warning sign of the vulnerability at the heart of the U.S.-Iraqi leadership. Last week, a bomb had been found in front of the Green Zone cafe but it was defused.
“When you’re in a fixed site like this (Green Zone), they’re going to get you. You can’t run away,” said an Army sergeant surveying the site who requested anonymity. “We don’t know how long it took them to build (the bomb) or how. Maybe there are more. “
Much of the explosion’s blast was directed downward, he said, pointing to a three by three foot wide hole created by the blast. The cafe’s plastic walls probably kept the casualty toll down, he said.
“If this had been a stone structure, probably no one would have lived,” he said.
Flies swarmed on the grisly remains, including a piece of what appeared to be a human skull, still lying at the cafe.
At the Ibn Sina hospital inside the Green Zone, American officials said three victims had been transferred to another medical facility in Iraq, but that five remained in intensive care.
One of the patients, identified as an American civilian contractor, could be seen in the intensive care unit after brain surgery to repair injuries from the explosion. The exact number of wounded in the blast still in the hospital wasn’t immediately available.
Medical staff were treating victims for broken limbs, burns, shrapnel wounds and other wounds.
“We filled up this whole damn place. We had wounded in the hallways,” said Lt. Col. Greg Kidwell, of the Army’s 31st Combat Support Hospital, and chief nurse of the emergency room.
“There were lots of body parts; they found pieces on the roofs nearby,” said the 49-year old from Clarksville, Tennessee.
Recovering in one room was Michael Fitzpatrick, a British civilian contractor, who had his back and head riddled with small shrapnel wounds, burns on his legs and arms.
“I was sitting in the Green Zone Cafe, having a coffee. Then there was this incredible explosion and I was somersaulting in the air,” said the 32-year old from Leyland, England.
“I thought I was dead. But I got up and I was on fire, but I put out the flames. Next to me there was a woman on fire. I told her that Jesus loved her and help was on the way. When some soldiers came in with a blanket for her, I got up and walked to the hospital.”
The former 10-year veteran of the French Foreign Legion said he feels grateful to have survived the blast and plans to return to work.
“I’m burnt all over. I was in the middle of a giant fireball and I’m alive,” he said from his hospital bed. “I’m so happy to be alive. I just want to go home and go fishing.”
Despite his injuries, Fitzpatrick remained positive: “When I heal up, I’m coming back out. This hasn’t put me off. My best friend died fighting this war and I’m not going to let him down. We’re winning this war and I don’t want anyone in America to give up.”
Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:45 PM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Filed Under:
Aug-Dec 2004
Zarqawi Assets Frozen.... Oooh, I am sure he's worried.
Well, I am sure it is technically... "necessary" however frankly this sort of tool borders of being sublimely ridiculous. These guys are unlikely to keep money in bank accounts, period. Well, use what tools one has I suppose, but sublimely ridiculous it remains.
http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6514963
Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:31 PM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Filed Under:
Aug-Dec 2004
al-Hurra
The Washington Post had an interesting article on al-Hurra (which I have commented on in the past) that merits reading.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A33564-2004Oct14?language=printer
I shall not be redundant in observing the same things I observed a few months back (http://www.livejournal.com/users/collounsbury/186721.html) (I'm getting positively user friendly providing links now), but I will add a few notes:
First in re the gunship execution of the al-Arabiyah journo
When a U.S. military helicopter swooped into Baghdad and began spraying bullets into a crowd of civilians believed to be looting an Army armored vehicle, most Arab news channels aired a video of the scene that captured the last words of a journalist killed in the attack.
"Please help me. I am dying," pleaded the reporter, Mazin Tumaisi. His network, al-Arabiya, showed the footage again and again, as did al-Jazeera.
Alhurra TV, however, deemed the video too disturbing to air. The story could be told without such graphic images, news directors for the new U.S. government-funded network concluded.
This is just loony. What is one proving? Everyone else is going to show the images. It's not as if it would be out of bounds in re local standards - so why not show? Not doing so simply and needlessly raises the idea you're pulling punches.
The 24-hour channel, which started operating in February, airs two daily hour-long newscasts, and sports, cooking, fashion, technology and entertainment programs, including a version of "Inside the Actors Studio" dubbed in Arabic. It also carries political talk shows and magazine-type news programs, including one about the U.S. presidential election.
And broadcasts purely American interest events live.
Reagan funeral.
Its programs are produced in a two-story building that once housed local NewsChannel 8. It is staffed by a handful of journalists recruited from Arabic stations and newspapers and dozens of employees scurrying around in jeans and running shoes or kitten heels. A mixture of Arabic and English fills the newsroom as journalists answer phones and click away on their computers.
Congress last year approved $62 million to pay for Alhurra's first year. In November 2003, Congress committed $40 million more to launch a sister station in April aimed solely at Iraq. The operation is overseen by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, an independent federal agency that is also in charge of Voice of America. The U.S. government launched Alhurra after deciding that existing Arab news channels displayed anti-American bias. The aim is to promote a more positive U.S. image to Arabs.
Whatever. This of course entirely misses the point and mistakes the problem for something like the Soviet problem.
Now most importantly is this item:
Alhurra may have a problem standing out in a crowded field. Middle East viewers generally get about 120 satellite-television channels, including al-Jazeera, Dubai-based al-Arabiya, London-based Arabic News Network and state-run operations.
Of which based on what I see people watching, the game is really al-Jazeerah versus al-Arabiyah.
William A. Rugh, a former ambassador to United Arab Emirates and Yemen who wrote a book on Arabic media, said Alhurra has "been a big waste of money" so far, in part because it must compete in a saturated field of Arabic networks.
I agree. It's starting off wrong, it's ... well dopey, and the money should have been used in other areas such as either creating content or putting well-trained people on Arabic media as frequently as possible to push the message in a way that engages Arabs.
The moving force behind the birth of Alhurra, which means "the Free One" in Arabic, was Norman Pattiz, the California radio executive who created Westwood One Inc., the nation's largest radio network. Pattiz was appointed in November 2000 by President Bill Clinton to the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees federally funded international media efforts such as the Voice of America and Radio and TV Marti, which is aimed at Cuba. Pattiz quickly focused his attention on the Middle East, and, he said, he soon concluded that newscasts on Middle East stations often offered "incitements of violence, hate-speak and disinformation."
I note the guy is a Clinton appointee. No one can blame Bush for that.
Hate speak and disinformation.... Well, probably, but al-Hurra ain't the answer.
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wants to expand the effort. He has introduced a bill calling for similar broadcasts in Farsi, Kurdish and Uzbek, among other languages. The expansion would require $222 million in start-up funding, plus a $345 million annual budget on top of Voice of America's budget of $570 million for 2005.
Waste of money.
Item like this of course are what make al-Hurra a joke:
In March, when Israeli missiles killed Hamas leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin as he emerged from a prayer session, most Arab news channels switched immediately to the story. Alhurra stuck with its regular program, a cooking show.
A cooking show.
Harb agreed that it was a mistake. "This happened very early in the life of Alhurra. . . . When they assassinated the next leader of Hamas, we were more ready to give more comprehensive coverage by then," he said.
The Reagan funeral coverage inanity was mere months ago.
Now in re the image:
In U.S. media, "the idea of publishing graphic images is shied away from, frowned upon universally," said Keith Woods, who teaches journalism at the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Fla. "Everybody has a sense of a line that you don't cross without good reason."
And this is relevant to international sattelite journalism in what way? The US media doesn't show a lot of stuff that Euro and other medias show routinely.
Now this paragraph is just moronic:
The Alhurra program's two anchors were positioned in front of a blue map of the Middle East in the Springfield studio. During that day's broadcast, one of al-Jazeera's female anchors wore a head scarf. Alhurra's anchors were dressed in modern business attire. Both stations used a classical form of Arabic in presenting the news. But unlike al-Jazeera, Alhurra didn't sign off with the traditional Islamic greeting assalamu alaikum, or "peace be upon you."
So one al-Jazeerah woman wears a headscarf? I can first note that most of them don't. And if she does: so the fuck what? Fucking moronic, dumb ass comment. The comment on Arabic also is just droolingly stupid. Nobody does the news in dialect, you'll be laughed at. As for the sign off, again, what the fuck is that about. Just about everyone, including Arab Xians use the greeting, it's not a huge thing.
I have to say, I see mindless bias in this paragraph.
Alhurra is transmitted to the Middle East on two satellites, Nilesat and Arabsat. Viewers in Iraq can also get the network over broadcast television. The network is available to 70 million satellite television viewers in 22 countries. There are few reliable statistics on how many people watch it regularly. One survey conducted for the network by ACNielsen found that 29 percent of Jordanians and 24 percent of Saudi Arabians with satellite-TV receivers tuned in during a seven-day period in July and August. But a Zogby poll of six Middle East countries done in May for the University of Maryland found that Alhurra barely registered as a primary source of news.
Let me put it this way, I have never seen anyone watching al-Hurra. Period. I highly doubt the ACNielsen numbers.
Some Middle East experts assert that the very assumption under which Alhurra was created -- that existing Arab news stations contribute to disdain for the United States -- is flawed. "The managers of Alhurra have stigmatized the competition and stereotyped it as being totally anti-American, and that's simply not true," said Rugh, the former ambassador.
I agree.
Rather than compete in an already crowded field, Rugh said U.S. policymakers should appear more on al-Jazeera and other widely watched channels. More than 400 Voice of America staff members signed a petition sent to Congress in July charging that Alhurra and Sawa were draining VOA's budgets and not being held to the same editorial standards.
I agree.
A draft of a report by the State Department's inspector general, obtained by The Washington Post, said Radio Sawa is failing to meet its mandate to promote pro-American attitudes because it is preoccupied with building an audience through music -- an assertion disputed by the Broadcasting Board of Governors. The State Department said it is revising the report.
See prior posting.
Some legislators have said that if Alhurra is not promoting U.S. views, the government should not be funding it. "Do not tell us it's not propaganda, because if it's not propaganda, then I think . . . we will have to look at what it is we are doing," Rep. José E. Serrano (D-N.Y.) said at a hearing in April.
Nota bene: Serrano, in favor of wasting your tax dollars on idiotic waste of money.
Harb countered that fair news is what will promote democracy. "Our track record will speak for itself," he said
Uhhuh.
Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:10 PM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Filed Under:
Aug-Dec 2004
October 14, 2004
An Actual (Potential) Client Discussion
Sometimes, one has to wonder:
Me: Hello this is [ME] on the phone, Madame X?
Madame X (MX): Ah yes, M. ME, I expect you're calling about the [Subject Matter] documentation regarding [Potential Project for a New Financial Product: PPNFP].
Me: Yes, I was just on the phone with New York, they had some comments but to proceed with this, we obviously need to see your underlying materials - the feasibility study etc. that you said you would forward [in order to, well do the work of course]
MX: (Sounding sheepish) I am afraid I am under strict orders not to share any information with outside parties.
Me: I'm sorry, [pause], ah, what do you mean outside parties? We're supposed to work on [PPNFP], we had a meeting with your Director..... [I trail off in evident confusion]
MX: Yes, yes, but I am under strict orders not to divulge any informaiton to outside parties due to the confidential nature of the [PPNFP].
Me: Right, understandable, of course, that's why we have a NDA.
MX: I still can't share the information, [repeat of dilvulging]
[Repeat merry go round 2 or 3 times]
Me: Listen, I really don't like people wasting my time; it was my understanding your Director requested our services on [PPNFP], we made a proposal, we were supposed to get further information at his request, and now you want us to make a commentary on information we don't have? That's ludicrous!
MX: Mumbles something.
Conversation goes downhill from there.
I am not sure which is worse, the utter incompetence of my New York Office (a high officer is coming in country soon to inspect things, I am guessing this is prelim. to yanking most of our budget for apparently greener pastures), or the bizarrely stupid incompetence on the local side.
Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:50 PM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Filed Under:
Aug-Dec 2004
On Arab Military
A commentator asked about this article in comments yesterday on SAWA: http://www.meforum.org/article/441
My first reaction is that there are statements there that are... overdrawn in re Arab culture, but all in all it is a very good article. In fact his comment exactely match my experience in business, and what I have heard from contacts of mine in the Agency and US Military in regards to the weaknesses of traditional Arab command structures - be they civilian or military.
I should make an extended comment on this - although I believe those of you who have read me for a while may recall that I have commented on this subject before - playing off against the more generic observations of the article.
Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:52 PM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Filed Under:
Aug-Dec 2004
FT Editorial, precisely my thinking
The FT Editorial yesterday
.... Nor was the surplus used to look further forward and protect the future solvency of programmes such as Social Security. Although it was never as big as the simple forward projections that produced a 10-year $4,600bn (£2,570bn) forecast surplus, there was at least $1,000bn to play with which could have helped fund a move to replacing a pay- as-you-go system with private accounts. Today, using realistic assumptions, that 10-year surplus has turned into a $5,000bn deficit. Neither candidate truly addresses the question of defusing the demographic time-bomb and closing yawning deficits.
Meanwhile, Congress has continued to spend and Mr Bush has failed to veto a single spending bill. Mr Kerry at least supported Mr Clinton's deficit-reducing budgets and backs restoring the pay-as-you-go rules that require offsets to new tax cuts or spending. Mr Bush would exempt tax cuts from the rules, deluded by the fantasies of Reaganomics that they pay for themselves.
The next president needs courage and wisdom to grapple with economic problems that have been left to grow. We cannot know whether a John Kerry White House would meet that test. But on the evidence of the past four years, it is fairly clear a second George W. Bush administration would not.
There it is.
Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:08 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Filed Under:
Aug-Dec 2004
On Euro Accounts
I am randomly thinking about opening a Euro land account. This will be a toothache insofar as I am not a Euro Land resident, but would be a nice platform for me given circumstances (including capital controls where I work, making it necessary to offshore my money).
Thoughts?
Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:40 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Filed Under:
Aug-Dec 2004
Green Zone: boom boom [revised]
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=164600
Eight dead, hand carried explosives.
Boom boom.
Ah, I wonder what a movie about Baghdad will look like in ten years.
[Revised]
Seven dead, reporting that it was a suicide bomber at the Green Zone Cafe.
Well, that's nice.
That's super. Insurgents can penetrate and undertake targetted actions in the Green Zone in full daylight.
Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:37 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Filed Under:
Aug-Dec 2004
October 13, 2004
Throwing SAWA a bone, or it is harder than one might think
SAWA was an easy thing to get right
(Anonymous)
2004-10-13 09:39 (link) Select
When you broadcast an alternative into a society where the media is rigidly state-controlled you don't really have to be that good to attract an audience, just relatively neutral and objective.
VOA had a very good rep at one time because they hired talented expats to broadcast back home and if they showed signs of wigging out on the air with strange agendas they were pulled and replaced. VOA and Radio Free Europe were once so effective that despots like Todor Zhivkov and Ceaucescu felt compelled to try and whack some of the broadcasters.
SAWA just needed some neutral news, the music, some conversational talk programs that dealt with social issues that were relevant among educated middle-class Arabs. That's it, at least to get started.Wrong model.
First, the media is not rigidly state controlled in most of the Arab world. There are various private media outlets, onshore under various degrees of censorship, offshore (satellite) with relative freedom.
Second, to attract an audience, it has to appeal to the audience. Although there is distrust for state media organs, in most Arab countries there is enough private media that whatever its faults (and they are legion, yellow press being the main), merely being "neutral" from a Western perspective is not enough.
Third, the areas of most concern to Arabs and to Americans in re Arabs are often those areas where the US view has the least credibility - fairer reporting on Israeli-Palestinian issues runs into the knowledge of the US position and perception of complete unfairness at present. But those the ones which the US is most ideologically bound up in knots over.
In short, the Cold War model utterly misconceives the nature of the problem. The Arab world is not devoid of private media (in gross), it is not locked up controlled as in Eastern Europe and it is not utterly unfree.
Rather the problems posed are much more complex and have as much to do with market immaturity, education levels and the like as with politics.
As such, the VoA model is too simple, and mis-specifies the issues. SAWA in some ways had some right ideas (i.e. attracting audience) but when it comes right down to it, the issues (on a regional basis) that SAWA wants to address are either in the realm of (a) regional news, in which case private venues already do the job SAWA ostensibly is trying to get at (regionally), (b) country specific (Syria? Egypt?), in which case a country specific broadcaster is needed, (c) US Image, which requires another venue or approach - transparent agitprop is not going to work.
For regional news, there is already BBC (well entrenched and respected), various private broadcasters regionally, and the TV Sats, which are not bad.
For local, that of course is harder.
Short then: SAWA is addressing the wrong problem the wrong way at the wrong time.
Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:12 PM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Filed Under:
Aug-Dec 2004
Radio Sawa
Well, well
The Role of Radio Sawa In Mideast Questioned
U.S.-Funded Station Lacks Influence, Report Indicates
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 13, 2004; Page A12
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28031-2004Oct12.html
The first thing that comes to mind when reading this is, "Well no shit."
Radio Sawa, an Arab-language pop music and news station funded by the U.S. government and touted by the Bush administration as a success in reaching out to the Arab world, has failed to meet its mandate of promoting democracy and pro-American attitudes, according to a draft report prepared by the State Department's inspector general.
True.
I did not know Bush was touting Sawa as a success however. Laughable that.
The report credited Radio Sawa with attracting a large audience in key Middle East countries but said the station, which has an annual budget of $22 million, has been so preoccupied with building an audience through its music that it has failed to adequately measure whether it is influencing minds.
Everyone sees it as agitprop, I rather doubt it is ever going to influence any minds.
Certainly starting off as agitprop is not the way to do it.
The report also questioned the validity of some research given to Congress by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, Radio Sawa's parent, to demonstrate its success.
Two independent panels of Arab-language experts hired by the inspector general's office gave the programming a mixed review, saying it did not match al-Jazeera in terms of quality and that parents would prefer that their teenagers not listen to Radio Sawa because its broadcasts contained such poor Arabic grammar. "Radio Sawa failed to present America to its audience," one panel concluded.
On the poor Arabic, that's surprising, never noted it myself, but on the other hand it's mostly music anyway.
The Broadcasting Board of Governors has vehemently protested the report, questioning its methodology and assumptions in a 49-page pre-publication rebuttal. The report, based on extensive interviews in Washington and the Middle East with U.S. officials and public diplomacy experts, was scheduled to be published in August, but publication has been repeatedly delayed.
Of course, jobs....
The draft report notes that Broadcasting Board officials often interfered with interviews and may have intimidated some employees and "made them less forthcoming." A copy of the draft report was supplied by a source who said he feared that the inspector general's office was buckling under pressure and would water down the conclusions.
Pressure. Spin. Changing conclusions for political reasons?
Sound familiar?
Cameron R. Hume, who became acting inspector general after the draft was completed, confirmed the report was being revised. He acknowledged that the Broadcasting Board has complained, but he noted he had his own concerns, saying the report was based on "an erroneous view" of the legislation involving Radio Sawa. He declined to comment further.
Erroneous view of the legislation?
Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, said there had been a "big dust-up" over the report. He said Radio Sawa is "one of the biggest successes the U.S. has ever had in international broadcasting" but that "critics of Sawa made an inordinate contribution" to what he called a "fatally flawed report."
Well, if Sawa is 'one of the biggest successes the U.S. has ever had' in the area, then the U.S. is far more incompetent in the field than I suspected, but I always understood VoA to be quite respected and liked in its target regions. Sawa is a joke.
Sawa replaced the Arab-language version of the Voice of America, and Tomlinson said, "VOA unions are obsessed over knocking Sawa."
Ah, unions? Couldn't be that... well you actually do suck?
Norman J. Pattiz, a board member regarded as the driving force behind Radio Sawa, said that "there are many inaccuracies, misunderstandings and misinformation in the draft that need to be corrected." He said the report failed to comply with generally accepted government auditing standards, misrepresents Sawa's mission and performance, and misinterprets federal and congressional requirements.
Uhhuh.
The draft report said news and information programs represent only 25 percent of Radio Sawa's broadcast, and there appears to be a reluctance among officials to use it as a tool for public diplomacy. The report said Radio Sawa has not fully met the requirements of the VOA charter to present the policies of the United States "clearly and effectively" and to present "responsible discussions and opinion on these policies."
Well, it's a pop music station in reality, filling that well-filled niche of yet more Egypto and Leb pop with some quick news broadcasts.
It did spur some new all music stations across the region, so there was a good from it.
An accidental one. 2M Radio is actually quite good, and a nice companion to Med1 and Radio Med.
In a statement, the Broadcasting Board said that Radio Sawa is not preoccupied with music, as the report charges, but offers more than 300 newscasts per week, and that more than 90 percent of the staff is devoted to current affairs and informational programming. "The reason Radio Sawa plays music is because research indicated a combination of music and news is the best way to reach its target audience," the statement said.
Right. Everyone I know simply changes the channel when Sawa agitprop comes on.
The draft report said that while Radio Sawa has been promoted as a "heavily researched broadcasting network," the research concentrated primarily on gaining audience share, not on measuring whether Radio Sawa was influencing its audience. Despite the larger audiences, "it is difficult to ascertain Radio Sawa's impact in countering anti-American views and the biased state-run media of the Arab world," the draft report said.
Good reason for that, it's not.
It said Radio Sawa has been reluctant to conduct post-broadcast analyses to determine whether U.S. interests were advanced in its programming.
No surprise there.
Moreover, it found there was a lack of uniform quality control at Radio Sawa. Some current and former staffers complained that correspondents' reports were uneven, with some reporters quoting "word for word" biased articles that appeared in local newspapers and Middle East news services.
hey, it's a job.
Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:10 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Filed Under:
Aug-Dec 2004
October 11, 2004
On Foreign interference and Mercedes
I was just reading over an American (read USAID financed study) analysis of a local stock market in the region, and the suggested “action plan” for “reforming it” and got a bit motivated to comment. My immediate reaction was, “what navel gazing blather.”
Why? Well, primarily because it was rife with assumptions that were utterly unsupported by any empirical data, nor even clear thinking, and second because it rather presumed, ipso facto, that an American market structure would be the most appropriate choice. Not that this is a particularly American sin – doesn’t everyone usually think their way of doing things is the best? Rather as in religion, if you don’t think you’re doing things the best way possible, then why the bloody hell would you do it that way? And as in religion, there is a marked tendency to think one’s way of getting things done is really the best way for all. Very natural.
Now, in my opinion, given the lack of success of American style capital market development (by which I mean the same generalized share holding/trading culture and mechanisms) in rather more advanced markets, I would think that reports on developing markets might have pause to ask if the American model is truly generalizable.
The problems here are multiple and I haven’t the inclination or time to really write about them in any detail or depth (nor to be sure should I claim a real expertise, as opposed to some vague operational knowledge and experience profound enough to give me sharply held opinions but really objectively speaking somewhat superficial). Nevertheless, the key issues are clear. Regional markets suffer liquidity issues (low trading volumes, restricted potential supply of securities, etc), have issues re poor enforcement of extent disclosure requirements, which themselves fall short of (ahem) “international best practices” (which I will translate for you to mean some masturbatory ideal), and overall lack robust protections for the individual investor. All quite agreed upon and all quite clear.
What does that really mean, however?
Well, I don’t know for certain, but this fine report that set me off, seems to think that all this means that these markets – at the time of writing of the report in a slump – should get right up to American standards. All the sicknesses of the markets are attributed to lack of transparency and enforcement.
Except of course in 2003 and this year the market rebounded like a fucking bitch on coke.
Now clearly the rebound has extra market reasons, but then so did the bear market.
Let’s leave that aside, with the simple acknowledgement that (i) the markets do indeed face liquidity issues, (ii) that reforms are indeed necessary to address them, such that the capital markets become an attractive alternative to bank finance, but (iii) that an American model of capital markets may not be truly applicable (and see non Anglo-American capital markets as examples), (iv) developed world levels of transparency have costs associated with the same
Now this fine… analysis, or should I rather say, “regurgitation of late 1990s American prejudices re their financial markets” simply assumes that for this developing market that ipso facto the correct course of action is to look to the American model and adopt the latest disclosure laws, etc.
Great, super, wonderful.
Except the following:
(a) the paper utterly ignores the costs of added disclosure and simply assumes the benefits, in the context of the local market. It assumes, a priori that greater disclosure is going to attract more capital. Ipso facto.
(b) Asserts a number of points regarding retail and other investors that I absolutely know to be questionable – that is if they are right they desperately need validation. I would assert that if anything one should understand from the 1999-2001 period that even in developed markets, investor preferences and structures are different enough that merely assuming that greater “disclosure” will attract retail and other investors, etc. etc. is to simply engage in navel gazing. That is not to say that non-anglo-american investors do not value data as others, but rather the preferences and risk tastes may very well be fundamentally different, and the existence of quarterly reporting in a certain format is, to be frank, unlikely to change that.
a. A good place to start in this context is not simply asserting “international [American] best practices” are needed, but rather to actually learn something about local investor preferences, and look to see how these may be dealt with in terms of ‘best practices.’
b. For example, while a Mercedes quality of disclosure might very well be required for attracting international portfolio investment, it may not either be desirable or cost effective to impose this if in fact the mass of local savings one wants to mobilize (i) does not necessarily value this disclosure in the same way (versus “alternate” disclosure, read personal connections), (ii) may not give sufficient value to the disclosure to off set the perceived cost of the disclosure, or more clearly, the majority of investors may not value the information enough to make the effort of being listed and public (with all that implies tax and otherwise in an emerging market) really worth while.
In this context, the American solution to the problem might be very well to create a Mercedes that can’t be sold on the local market, i.e. aggravates the problem.
I suppose I hope my comments get me disinvited from this conference which the paper is for – some dumbass US Securities and Exchange Commission bullshit. They just had some dumbfuck conference in
Posted by The Lounsbury at 02:04 PM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Filed Under:
Aug-Dec 2004
October 08, 2004
Failure of Political Islam
Responding, in an over late manner to a question.
My thoughts on the thesis of Kepel.
First, it has been a while since I have read his work (and I often confuse it with Roy's similar thesis I think) but my understanding of the argument was on two levels.
The first, the author's argument focuses on the ability of largely Sunni political Islamic movements to generate a movement or movements that can produce not just oppositional movements - nihilistic and destructive movements - but rather a truly viable alternative and sustainable at that. It is something of a French argument, very French but it has merit at a certain level.
I believe in the back of his mind he is thinking of a comparison with Communism - I may be wrong or this may be my prejudice, but as I recall the closing chapter of the argument contains mention of the idea that even should the Islamic movements take power, their internal ideology and incoherences renders their revolutions failures, perhaps slow motion failures but failures.
I think there is some real truth in this, but that does not mean that an Islamist revolution could not produce several generations of hell before collapsing. My fear, however, is that like Communism, a series of bloody failures may be required to wean the majority off of the drug. And of course as we can readily see even to this date we can see a goodly number of apologists who can continue to dupe themselves into thinking it was a good idea.
Of course, one has to admit its seductiveness. Either one.
Failure in this context, in terms of sustainability, is then perhaps subjective, but there it is.
If we mean, of course, failure in current recruiting, our dear Ibn Bush has rather upended such calculations.
That, of course, is a pasing judgement.
The basic reality, however, remains that while I agree with our dear French analyst that Political Islam in its Sunni form has and will not be able to generate a long lasting "counter paradigm" (ah such an early 1980s word, is it not?), it is fully capable of a destructive integrum. My preferred scenario is that of Western European Communism - cantonment. Yes, dumb, even offensively dumb laws will be passed, but so long as a non Iranian framework is created,one would hope that it will serve as its own antidote.
Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:27 PM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Filed Under:
Aug-Dec 2004
October 07, 2004
Debt and Corruption
Having neglected serious commentary of late, let me get back in the game with a commentary on this Op Ed, which I rather liked, although not in its entirely. Then let me comment on a recent column from Wolf.
Africa Earned Its Debt
By ROBERT GUEST
Published: October 6, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/06/opinion/06guest.html?oref=login
Johannesburg
When the price of crude oil hit $50 a barrel last week, sending ripples of anxiety around the world, analysts blamed a young Nigerian man with a machine gun and a speedboat. He is Mujahid Dokubo-Asari, a militia boss who is threatening to start a civil war and shut down the Nigerian oil industry, which is the fifth-largest supplier of crude oil to the United States. He will do this, he says, unless his people, the Ijaw, who live on top of Nigeria's oil fields, are granted autonomy. By "autonomy," he means "control of the oil money." Nigerian officials dismiss Mr. Asari as a gangster. But if so, he is a gangster who has friends in the ruling party and is taken seriously enough that Nigeria's president, Olusegun Obasanjo, felt obliged to sit down and negotiate with him last week. Mr. Obasanjo is a well-meaning fellow, but his job is made more difficult because he is surrounded by crooks.
Emphasis added.
This is a fine point to begin reflecting on problems in both developing Africa (and I may add the Middle East and North Africa differ only by a matter of degree - indeed the under-performance of MENA is - taking into account the Med Basin advantages, the vast capital flows, a more or less unified cultural zone) and the remainder of the developing world, and doing business there.
On one hand, behind the facades of fine words and Wilsonian posturing, we have rather more pedestrian realities. Of course, I am sure that naive college students and their anti-globo confreres will spill no small amount of ink about the terrible exploitation of the Ijaw people by the evil global oil system, multinationals and as a second order, local government - while naively loinizing the "Resistance."
Now, that is not to say that the comportment of the oil majors in Nigeria is something to sing to the heavens of Free Markets about, although the reality is that Nigeria is a festering sore where it is close to impossible to do normal business (where else can you hear a colleague tell you about his supertanker being stolen right out of the port.... It does have its amusing aspect), and it is hardly the multinationals or hte oil majors that "made" Nigerian public culture so irredemiably corrupt, however gauche it is to highlight the reality of the local drivers of corruption, of which foreign money is merely a pretext and to an extent oil for the machine.
I note, in passing, that I do not deny nor minimize the negative influences of both colonial history and western support for corrupt regimes of utility. However, at this date, the reality is that the main drivers of corruption are not foreign influences - nor even really colonial history for all that I am well aware that the manners of colonial rule helped lay the ground work for the local bad habits, but note, helped not created whole cloth - but rather local rent seeking behaviour.
Or as our writer notes
Nigeria, like much of Africa, ought to be rich but is miserably poor. The main reason is that rather than striving to create an environment in which their people can freely seek prosperity and happiness, most African governments have chosen instead to rob them. This culture of criminality has spread throughout the ruling class, down to the Nigerian border guard who threatened to beat up my driver last month if I didn't give him a dollar, to the bribe-hungry Cameroonian police officers who stopped a truck I was riding in 47 times in 300 miles.
Rents. Little extractions that make almost all economic activity a death by a thousand cuts.
Now of course Central Africa beats all records - well not all records, but certainly as a region it gets the average in the top three.
This corruption makes it hard to do business in Africa. Manufacturers need smooth roads, reliable electricity and efficient ports. But too often in Africa, the roads are craterous because someone has looted the maintenance budget, the power fails because the state monopoly utility company is staffed with politicians' idiot cousins, and the customs officers hang onto your goods for weeks in the hope that you will bribe them to hurry up. In only two African countries - South Africa and Botswana - is it relatively easy to do business, a recent World Bank study found. For bright, energetic Africans, it is often easier to get rich by joining the government than by creating honest wealth.
The last is the most important. The diversion of talent and effort.
That is why the debt relief proposal debated over the weekend in Washington by officials from the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Group of 7 nations would be not be a panacea for Africa. Faster debt relief is a good idea for countries with relatively clean, pragmatic governments that pursue sensible economic policies, like Mozambique and Uganda. But debt relief cannot help the worst-governed countries like Zimbabwe and Angola because their leaders are likely to squander the money it frees up. In those places, extra cash props up despots.
Indeed, indeed it does.
Of course the differences are matters of degree, and no situation is perfect. Nevertheless, a Uganda presents an opportunity, whereas Angola is and as long as it has oil will probably remain an utter mess.
The author notes that This is a more complex picture than many debt-relief campaigners will admit. It may be, as Oxfam complains, that Zambia cannot hire enough teachers because the monetary fund has told its government not to run too large a budget deficit. But that is not the whole story. The main reason Zambia is bankrupt is that it has been ruled with startling incompetence and venality; for example, its previous president, Frederick Chiluba, is facing multiple charges of embezzlement.
I may add that besides the debt relief campaigners there are the ignorant, simple minded anti globos like Naomi Klein (an article of whose was recently cited in comments, I should have a response if I can find the restraint to do so), who always place the responsibility for sin on the shoulders of the outsiders.
Removing all outside economic or political interaction would not change Nigeria nor Zambia.
Indeed, I agree wholly with the author:
Outsiders cannot fundamentally change the way Africa is governed. That is a task for Africans themselves, and some are rising to the challenge. In Nigeria, President Obasanjo has hired a team of technocrats to curb corruption by making the public accounts more transparent. They are doing their best, but one of them told me that probably no more than one powerful Nigerian in 20 supports the clean-up. That in a nutshell is why Africans are poor: their leaders keep them that way.
While perhaps moderately too strong as a statement, I think this largely correct. That is not to whitewash the past, nor claim this is solely the fault of the Africans (or the Middle East, whose problems resemble sub-Saharan Africa to too many extents), but rather recognize that the current core drivers for the problems are really truly local ones.
Now for Wolf.
Martin Wolf: Sweep away the barriers to growth
By Martin Wolf
Published: October 5 2004 19:54 | Last updated: October 5 2004 19:54
It takes 200 days to register a new business in Haiti and just two in Australia. This contrast perfectly encapsulates the gulf between one of the world's poorest countries and one of the richest. A sophisticated market economy is a uniquely powerful engine of prosperity. Yet, in far too many poor countries, the law's delays and the insolence of office prevent desperately needed improvements in economic performance.
I note that this is often one of the faces of corruption. Rules to "protect" consumers, workers etc. in these environments rather frequently (if not always) becomes means of extracting rents in corrupt environments, something the naive leftists of the anti-globo movement either do not understand or can not bring themselves to grasp.
That makes this year's "World Development Report" among the most important the World Bank has ever produced. It is about how to make market economies work. This grand theme is hidden in the less than racy phrase "investment climate".* The arguments and evidence are as wide-ranging as the theme. The report is based on two big research projects: surveys of the investment climate that now cover 26,000 businesses in 53 countries; and the "doing business" project, which identifies obstacles to business in 130 countries. The result is a fascinating document.
The argument starts with growth. As the report rightly notes: "With rising populations, economic growth is the only sustainable mechanism for increasing a society's standard of living." Happily, "investment climate improvements in China and India have driven the greatest reductions in poverty the world has ever seen." As the report shows, the benefits of reform have not been restricted to these two giants, important though their success is. In China and India, the share of private investment in gross domestic product doubled between 1990 and the end of the decade, as the impact of reforms spread, with dramatic effects on poverty levels (see charts). But the same was also true for Uganda.
A good climate not only raises private investment. It also provides a spur to productivity by inducing businesses to develop, adapt and adopt better ways of doing things. Moreover, the report stresses, the investment climate does not matter only - or even mainly - for foreign investors. On the contrary, domestic capital formation is far more important than foreign investment. Fortunately, the right environment for one is also the right environment for the other.
Well, while I largely agree with the comment, I do note that this does suggest the pure export oriented "off-shoring" schemes like those of Tunisia may be more problematic than I have considered in the past insofar as local capital development is not going to get the right incentives. It also highlights the error of setting up one stop shops and the like with a primarily FDI focus - I think I have shared the anectdote of a Jordanian businessman telling me how he found it easier being a "foreign investor" in his own country by domiciling in Dubai than operating directly out of his home country.
Governmental failure is the most important obstacle business faces. Inadequate enforcement of contracts, inappropriate regulations, corruption, rampant crime and unreliable infrastructure can cost 25 per cent of sales (see chart). This is more than three times what businesses typically pay in taxes. Similarly, when asked to enumerate the obstacles they face, businesses list policy uncertainty, macroeconomic instability, taxes and corruption at the head of the list. What do these have in common? Incompetence and malfeasance by governments is again the answer.
I might put it as "one of the most important" but certainly inability to enforce contracts and corrupt regulating are key obstacles - and not in any way trivial.
What then is to be done? The report stresses, rightly, that a better investment climate is not necessarily the one business wants. Incumbents want neither taxes nor regulations but do desire barriers to new competitors. Yet taxes are needed to finance the activities of the state, while regulation is required to curb environmental or other damage. Moreover, competition is the engine of progress. What companies want is, in short, often the opposite of what the economy needs.
Now the above is I think a fine and moderate observation (although painful). Too often in these discussions we get some extreme libertarian assertion regarding the evil of the State rather a rather more pragmatic view. The real key is quality.
Of course, how to achieve quality is a key question. Regulation that actually does curb environmental damage and protect what we might, to remove the fuzzy wuzzy aspects, 'physical operating environment' is a good investment - may even be long term profitable. Regulation that becomes nothing but a sad excuse to extract rents is not.
In many developing countries, the requirement is not less government but more and better directed government. What does this involve? Four requirements are listed: a reduction in the "rent-seeking" that affects all countries but mars developing countries to an extreme extent; credibility in the making and execution of policy; the fostering of public trust and legitimacy; and the tailoring of policy responses to what works in local conditions.
Bingo.
One of the conclusions the report rightly draws from this list is that reform is not a one-off event but a process. What is involved is not just discrete and well-known policy changes (such as lower tariffs) but the fine-tuning of policy and the evolution of institutions. This is why, it suggests, the credibility of the government's journey, as in China, may be more important than the details of policy at each stage along the way.
In particular, the last phrase is important. The credibility of the journey rather than the precise changes, at some stage.
Turning these broad objectives into specific policy is a tricky business. The Bank describes its core recommendation as "delivering the basics". These are: stability and security, which includes protection of property (see chart), facilitating contract enforcement, curbing crime and compensating for expropriation; better regulation and taxation, which means focusing intervention where it is needed, broadening the tax base and lowering tax rates, and reducing barriers to trade; better finance and infrastructure, which requires both more competition and better regulation; and transforming labour market regulation, to foster skills, while avoiding the counterproductive interventions that so often destroy employment in the formal sector.
The last point is particularly important, for once again what generates the most frustration on my part is when I see the anti-globo crowd blithering on about 'fair trade' and proper protections, in utter ignorance of the reality of dual economies and the informal versus the formal. They make, in other words, the Perfect the enemy of the Good. Less than ideal conditions, rules, regulations, but ones genuinely sustainable across the economy (whichever one in question) are far preferable to ideal rights that only a few large marquee firms can sustain.
The report also examines the role of international institutions and donors. It points, rightly, to the enhancement of credibility that international agreements can bring. This is one of the big arguments for the World Trade Organisation and for agreement on a multilateral accord on investment. But there are also risks. Inappropriate harmonisation of standards is one. The world's wealthy countries can also help by lifting their many barriers to imports from developing countries and by targeting aid on improving the investment climate.
This report succeeds in describing what is the core agenda for development. That is why it is so important. But at its heart is a dilemma that the Bank cannot directly address. Brutal, corrupt or incompetent states prevent businesses from operating in the wider interest. Too often, governments not only fail to provide the services the economy needs but add arbitrary and counterproductive interference. Yet strong government is essential: without it, one has anarchy.
Governments then are both the disease and the cure. This is why development is so hard and so slow. The big advance is in the richness of our understanding of what makes an economy thrive. But that understanding also demonstrates the difficulties. The Bank's recognition of the nature of the disease is at least a first step towards the cure.
Well, I will close in saying I am not sure the last is the case, but one hopes it may be.
Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:27 PM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Filed Under:
Aug-Dec 2004
Progress, Progress (The Green Zone)
Baghdad Green Zone on alert after bomb found
Fallujah blast kills U.S. soldier; 240 Iraqi prisoners released
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6095119/
U.S. authorities raised the security alert in the heavily guarded Green Zone after an improvised bomb was found in front of a restaurant there, officials said Thursday. The explosive device was safely diffused.
Following the security announcement, a loud explosion echoed across central Baghdad and white smoke rose from the direction of the Green Zone housing Iraqi government offices and the U.S. embassy, Reuters witnesses said.
The Interior Ministry and the U.S. military had no immediate word on the cause of the blast. All entrances to the Green Zone were closed down, people working there said.
And
The warning to Americans and Iraqi officials in the Green Zone followed the discovery Tuesday of an explosive device at the Green Zone Cafe, a popular hangout for Westerners living and working in the compound -- which houses major U.S. and Iraqi government offices. A U.S. military ordnance detachment safely disarmed it, U.S. officials said.
Americans living and working in the zone were warned to avoid non-essential movements, travel in groups and avoid specific areas.
Although movements in and out of the Green Zone are restricted, about 10,000 Iraqis live inside the 4-square-mile district, located along the western side of the Tigris river.
Slowly it starts.
Now, if the Iraqi insurgents are really clever, they will eventually set off a bomb at the Cafe or something similar and kill some Staffers... Start a whole new cycle of reaction.
ADDED:
Via the Andrew Sullivan blog which I have begun to enjoy (it is refreshing I must say, and nearly my kind of politics)
From: "Baghdad, USConsul"
To: "Baghdad, USConsul"
Subject: Warden Message
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 14:36:13 +0000
Warden Message - Increased Security Awareness within the International Zone
On October 5, 2004, at approximately 1 pm, U.S. Embassy security personnel discovered an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) at the Green Zone Café. A U.S. Military Explosive Ordnance Detachment safely disarmed the IED.
American citizens living or working in the International Zone are strongly encouraged to take the following security precautions:
* Limit non-essential movement within the International Zone, especially at night.
* Travel in groups of two or more.
* Carry several means of communication.
* Avoid the Green Zone Café, the Chinese Restaurants, the Lone Star restaurant and Vendor Alley.
* Conduct physical fitness training within a compound perimeter.
* Notify office personnel or friends of your travel plans in the International Zone.
**** Conduct a thorough search of your vehicle prior to entering it.
Consular Section
US Embassy Baghdad
I particularly enjoy the "conduct a thorough search of your vehicle prior to entering it.
It's real progress after all that even the Green Zone is no longer secure.
Recall, when I quoted my man in Baghdad about Pimps and Whores?
Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:22 PM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Filed Under:
Aug-Dec 2004
October 06, 2004
The Drums of Doom
Great Conference Call today with the Managing Director back in New York (hereafter BFLF).
I hear the drums of doom. Asked for a report explaining the issues re low deal flow, blah blah - problems re the local banks interest. Very nice, all kind and all that, but as the convo went on it was pretty clear that he's looking at his regional portfolio, the projected roll out schedule and the short term on the funding for this effort (gotta show returns right quick), and he's thinking, "If I pull Project X [i.e. Mine] and reallocate here to Projects Y and Z [i.e. elsewhere, not mine, better flow it appears] I hit the targets...." plus he's thinking, these guys are whinging bastards always criticizing the operation, etc., Y and Z are quiet...
In short folks, I am fucked. Plug is going to get pulled, say with a 75 percent certainty.
Makes a lot of sense, actually. Their offer is maladapted, they don't want to invest a lot of time and effort learning about the new environment or relooking / rejiggering for it - X and Y are operating a lot smoother since they rather more closely ressemble the markets where these guys were before.. Really a no brainer if we're looking at this on a quarterly driven basis, iwth maybe a year horizon. He pulls this thing at the end of the current budget cycle - April 05 I think - and reallocates to where he can get some better immediate return and thus win his fat self a bigger budget, and claim to have met targets and all that - the quarterlies and the yearly.
Does it fit the Strategic Vision? Who the fuck cares? Strategic vision is a load of crap anyways.
Good enough, gives me an excuse.
Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:17 PM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Filed Under:
Aug-Dec 2004
October 05, 2004
The Sinking Feeling That Comes With A Pipeline like Basra terminal
I am working on the budgetig for the pipeline of projects / concepts suppsoedly on to be / being or already sold to the locals.
It's depressing. Really truly depressing.
First, it is not a good thing when your pipeline for deals or whatnot is largely made up of items that fall into the category of "if wishes were fishes."
Clearly the rain maker - i.e. the local director - is not generating the interest. Of course, the offering is not adapted.
Second, given it is clear that we are not going to achieve the planned level of business, that offer is poorly adapted and that home office is not interested in adapting, I think this little Titanic is giong to start foundering, probably right about new budgeting time. Pain the ass. Doesn't hurt as much as the news from the Old Fund or the pain of seeing the prospects for Steel disappear into the bloody sand in Iraq, but close.
Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:54 PM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Filed Under:
Aug-Dec 2004
Oh how we pursue blind strategies down blind allies
I read that Samara has been retaken ... makes me think fondly of the days when the idjits online were telling me how well things were going in Iraq, how much good news there was that was being overlooked.
Retaken. How to understand that in the context of Iraq. I should guess, temporarily passing into the daytime control of the occupation forces. And this is the model. Well, reality says there is not much other choice, but it is likely a losing game.
A quote, if I may, from Juan Cole:
41 Dead, over 100 Wounded
2 US soldiers Killed Sunday
http://www.juancole.com/2004_10_01_juancole_archive.html#109695486614488650
Al-Jazeerah is reporting heavy fighting in the Shiite slums of East Baghdad between US forces and the Mahdi Army of young Shiite clergy Muqtada al-Sadr on Tuesday morning. This follows on US military operations in the ghetto Monday, into Monday evening, as AC-130 howitzers struck repeatedly and tanks rolled in. Sadr City, with over 2 million Shiites, is a major center for the Sadr II Movement, the major leader of which is Muqtada al-Sadr. He has developed a significant paramilitary capacity, though it remains ragtag and poorly trained.
It seems to me that the likelihood that the US can defeat the Sadrists in Sadr City with tanks and AC-130s is extremely low, and that they are almost certainly driving more Shiites into Muqtada's arms. Since the "Mahdi Army" is really just poor Shiite young men with guns and rpg's, and since most poor young men have weapons, there are probably a good hundred thousand potential Sadrist fighters in the slum. The US cannot kill more than a small fraction of them if it isn't going to commit genocide, and the ones it doesn't kill are probably going to remain angry and take up arms themselves.
The last point is the key one.
As it remains painfully clear that the current American Administration is not capable of generating legitimacy (it may be the situation is utterly irretrievable, but I prefer to think there is something to be saved - if only for my beautiful steel project), I rather expect we shall see more of these macabre dances.
Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:17 PM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Filed Under:
Aug-Dec 2004
October 04, 2004
On the Arab Vote
I found the following interesting, all the more so as I had a front seat view on some of this type of activity and I gave the campaign my input (which they seem to have not followed through on very well) press outlets.
Arabs in Florida Angered by Bush
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=3&u=/latimests/20041004/ts_latimes/arabsinfloridaangeredbybush
Some Democrats say privately they fear alienating Jewish voters with an overt effort to reach Arab Americans.
The Massachusetts senator has already encountered trouble on that front, when he told the Arab American Institute a year ago that the security fence being constructed by Israel in and around the West Bank was a "barrier to peace." Later, he assured miffed Jewish leaders that he believed the fence was a legitimate tool for self-defense against terrorism.
What I can add to this is in my interaction with these guys they showed positive paranoia in this regard. They wanted to talk to Arab media to reach Arab American voters but were clearly afraid of getting branded with some disloyalty label. Understandable if regretable. They passed on some Arab Sat opps I worked out for them - should fucking bill them for that, but I suppose it is understandable.
Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:36 PM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Filed Under:
Aug-Dec 2004
