Rising Tempers in East Asia

It feels like all eyes are focused on Iraq these days - the 70 dead there recently have caused us to question whether or not we're actually winning the insurgency. We are. But in the meantime, I think we've been distracted from a more growing concern. In East Asia, storm clouds are gathering.

These are not the fluffy clouds of hot air created by appartchniks in Beijing and Tokyo, but rather deep rumblings from the Chinese street. We're heard all about the Arab street - Friedman references it regularly - but I believe it's the Asian street we must now listen to. Beneath the orderliness, nationalist feelings and ambitions, long supressed, are bubbling up. As we all know, the real catalyst for these protests was on the far side of the world, where Kofi Annan announced his plan to restructure the United Nations - including a permanent seat on the Security Council for Japan. In China, the government appears caught in a Catch 22. It can either play along with the hordes of protestors (which, incidentally, probably suits its policy goals), or it can repress them. Yet doing so likely incurs further dangers which they are unable to risk - the Communist government made much of its anti-Japanese credentials in the 40s and 50s, it likely fears a popular backlash, and (perhaps most importantly) they must seek to create a new "Chinese" identity for their nation based on something more than party membership.

Japan, on the other hand, has been remarkably silent. What I can see in their media (this without reading Japanese) is often defensive, though I doubt they'll back down on the Security Council issue. Right now, I don't see them overly concerned - after all, the Chinese government will not let popular sentiments interfere with economic profits. Or so we hope.

It's time for Americans to begin paying much more attention to East Asia. We seem to have convinced ourselves, in most circles at least, that the end of the Soviet Union meant the end of the superpower threat. Perhaps. Perhaps there is only a slim chance of a Sino-American war directly. But due to our long-term relationships with Taiwan and Japan, Chinese aggression could embroil us in such a war. So could a concerted Chinese expansion into the Middle East - it seems implausible, but China imports 40% of its total oil. Russia, too, may some day be confronted by an expansionist China. And of course, there is always the possibility of a clash between China and India, a conflict for Asian dominance. None of this is alarmist - it's all in the realm of possibility however. With globalization, a war in the Far East will be dangerously close to home. Let's keep our ears to the ground and an eye to the horizon.

Back to the Basics on Judicial Nominees

The acrimonious debate on the Hill about Judicial nominees has gotten worse and worse, exacerbated by the refusal of the Democrats to admit the obvious, not to mention the fact they've allied themselves firmly with the MoveOn wing of the party. The Republicans, for their own part, are equally committed to this debate. Tom DeLay is of course ravening at the mouth about all of this, perhaps to distract from his own troubles with that little ethics stink. Bill Frist, in what may be little more than an attempt to court the religious right for his WH bid in 08, has spoken out against the fillibusters in a video for the Family Research Council. And here is to me the crux of the problem.

Frist's newfound allies, the Family Research Council, has described the whole mess as a "fillibuster against people of faith" (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LH05D02). What exactly does faith have to do with it? It doesn't seem that the Democrats are opposed to these judges on the basis of faith alone, but rather on their positions; the Republicans also seem more interested in issues than where their judges are on Sunday mornings. But unless I'm missing something in American history, neither faith nor positions should play any role in the nomination or confirmation of judges. Rather, we should look for people who will fairly interpret the laws of this country and seek to do justice, a justice that is universal, not based on politics or faith.

What should the pols do? Not go nuclear! The way the media is spinning this whole thing, the GOP is coming across pretty badly to the American public. The New York Times is already predicting a political shift like the one we saw in 1994, based partially on "Republican arrogance," as partially evidenced by their high-handedness on the judiciary. Yet Democrats aren't immune either. In a poll released last month, 67% of people surveyed agreed that "we should take politics out of the courts and out of the confirmation process" (interestingly, 69% of Republicans agreed while only 61% of Democrats agreed).

What Bush and the Republicans should do is back down. Let's not further divide this Congress or this nation on judicial issues, and in doing so endanger vulnerable Senators like Arlen Specter. What do the Republicans stand to gain from such a retreat? I'd argue a lot. Many commentators, left and right, are indicating that the religious right is starting to think and see green. Not money this time, trees. And animals. I'm not saying that Greenpeace will be taken over by born-agains. But it's not impossible. This also overlaps with commentary that the area that will be most affected by Bush's nominees is the environment. Family Research Council, Bill Frist, and Tom DeLay all want these nominees. But if your Joe Evangelical voter, so crucial to the Republican success last fall, is coming to love his trees and his fuzzy neighbors (viewed by him as God's green earth and all of God's creations), then he may not be pleased. The GOP will say they have a lot to lose by backing down. They may have even more to lose if they stay where they are.

In Victory, a Cautionary Note

The terrorists lost the most crucial battle of their illegitimate insurgency recently, but they were not the only ones vanquished by the droves of Iraqis who courageously went to the polls. The American and international left lost too. They doubted that the United States would ever succeed in holding elections in a land considered barren soil for democracy. They were wrong. They never thought that such an election, even if it occured, would be succesful. Again, they were wrong. Though we won't know for up to ten days who won the election, truly, all of Iraq won. Even now, it seems almost unbelievable - a functioning democratic election in the Middle East. Yet the international community mustn't lose sight of what this all means. It still remains for the Iraqis to create a permanent constitution, one which will hopefully take into account all the different pieces of the Iraqi mosaic, including women. Yet the government created by this constitution may not be a true democracy as we understand it; this, however, shouldn't be overly concerning. What we seek in Iraq is not first democracy, but liberalism. Liberalism first will ultimately create democracy; democracy first threatens stability with the specter of an illiberal government. In a state like Iraq, unfortunately rich in mineral resources and lacking a cohesive sense of national identity, democracy may indeed produce a result entirely opposite of that which we seek. Democracy has the ability to create a tyranny of the Shiite majority, a corruption of all which we seek rising from the imperfections inherent in democracy. It is after all, as Churchill once quipped, the worst form of government except for all others which have been tried from time to time.

Some may decry this simplistic analysis, but to do so is to ignore the historic truth that our democracy is built and girded by a foundation of political liberalism. That, then, should be the goal of our efforts in Iraq, and our most fervent home in the wake of this landmark election.

On Inauguration Day

I suppose I should note the time, for all of you who may otherwise miss it. It's currently 12:55 AM, on the morning of January 20th; yes, Inauguration Day. Three of my peers, all of them intelligent guys, just left for Washington, D.C.. Why? To protest. What? I wasn't very clear on that, and to be honest, I don't believe they were either. The president won clearly and squarely, no judicial intervention required this time around. That rules out, to the logical mind, protesting against Bush's reelection. They said they were protesting the war, which is I guess why I'm writing this column.

The theme of this week's inauguration festivities is to honor our nation's servicemen (and women, for the sake of PCness). As a result of that theme, Bush has invited many members of the military who have recently seen duty in Iraq or are slated to do so in the near future. It's not just a celebration of the president and his reelection victory, but a celebration and an honoring of those people who risk their lives to defend this country, and extend its precious freedoms to others in lands far distant. We're already in Iraq, and because the majority of the American people supported the president, and thus his choice to begin that involvement, we're there to stay. Protesteing the war has no real purpose; it only betrays the confidence those fighting in Iraq should have in the American public, in the fact that they are there not only as soldiers but as representatives of the American people.

We're in Iraq, we're not leaving. Protesting the war serves no purpose. Protesting the war serves only to strengthen the hand of those we are struggling against, with the future of Iraq hanging in the balance. Protesting the war only cheapens the sacrifice, often the ultimate sacrifice, made by those who chose to serve. The time for protest is long since past; it ended when we crossed the borders on a mission of mercy, a mission of freedom. Now is the time for solidarity and unity, a time to stand united with the knowledge that our mission in Iraq has the potential to remake the whole of the Middle East, and secure a new era of freedom and prosperity for our great nation. We stand united not just with our neighbors, but with the faceless young men and women who will risk their lives in Fallujah, Baghdad, and elsewhere.

Tommorow, at noon eastern, the president will be sworn in for his second term. I ask all Americans, regardless of whether or not you believe we should be in Iraq, regardless of who you voted for in November, to pause for a moment of silence when the inauguration commences. A moment of silence to stand in marked contrast to the racousness of the protesters. A moment of silence to let our soldiers know that while CNN may show a nation opposed to their mission, it is in truth only a minority; America stands with them. The protestors may believe that in their clamor and commotion they are showing their patriotism; we shall show ours through silence.

Good night, and God bless America and its forces in Iraq.

Looking Forward - Youth in America

The dirtiest secret in Washington these days may not be about the upcoming election; not directly at least. Rather, I think, it's the impending financial disaster (not the Bush spendathon disaster, one of far greater proportions). I'm referring to, of course, Social Security and Medicare. It's a disaster waiting to happen, yet no politician will tackle it. Why not? It's political suicide; it doesn't help anything that the most influential lobbying group in Washington is the AARP. They have a vested interest in seeing the status quo maintained, but to do so is treacherous. In a few short years, the massive generation we've termed the Baby Boomers will begin retiring, and collecting their Social Security benefits; then the trouble begins. At that point, it may be too late. Politicians need to act now.

Yet if the strongest lobbying group in Washington doesn't want to see any reform, it doesn't seem likely it will. Unless, of course, a group with an equally vested interest in seeing Social Security and Medicare reformed speak up. I'm talking about the youth. They may be the greatest power in America, but they don't realize it yet. The youth are the future of this nation, if only they'd look beyond pop culture and realize it. Some do; brilliant young leaders at top universities across the nation perceive the problem and realize their power. But they must mobilize their peers, and make their voice heard. Even in this day and age, Washington is accountable to the people, and not just the special interests. If the youth speak up, they must speak not just for themselves, but for the nation; for future as well as present generations. I'm not talking a youth party here; I'd dread that platform on drug policy and foreign relations. Rather, we need those same youth who see what's coming and understand its implications to speak up, not only to the nation but to their peers. It's often difficult for youth to find their voice, not just as individuals, but as a generation. It is now imperative, however, that the youth of this nation not only find their voice, but make it heard.

A Review of "Peace Kills"

Amidst the madness of reading Locke and Hobbes, Lenin and Weber, I finally found time for some lighter reading - Atlantic Monthly journalist (humorist) P.J. O'Rourke's "Peace Kills: America's Fun New Imperialism." Sadly, I'd read much of the book already within the pages of the Atlantic, thus there was only limited novelty. Indeed, I think that dedicated Atlantic readers might be better off not buying it; then again, if they read Atlantic solely for O’Rourke (as sometimes I do), then it’s certainly worth it. In any case, reading it all again, and all together too, was a light refreshing pleasure. O'Rourke, I think, is what you'd get if Thomas Friedman and Dave Barry cowrote a book; his humor and insights are both that good. Compared to much of the other reading on what we've done (often viewed as wrong) in the Middle East of late, O'Rourke is a breath of fresh air. No harping about our failure to plan properly for the occupation, rather, anecdotes about Iraqis reading Beckett's "Waiting for Godot." Reading about the Middle East often mires the reader in a depressing muddle that causes one to throw up their hands and pick up a Grisham. O’Rourke avoids all of that – it’s not all sunshine and happiness, but his style is a welcome breath of fresh air.

I don't think many Americans understand the Middle East. I don't think many of the experts, with some exceptions (Bernard Lewis comes to mind) understand the Middle East. Nor do the journalists. But many of them claim to. O'Rourke doesn't; he’s merely an observer to all of this. Egypt clearly mystifies him, but then again so does America (I agree with him on both counts). Really, for every barb at Muslim or Arab culture, as un-PC as it may be, there’s a barb at American culture, often sharper. It’s his satire and social criticism, to me, that makes this book so endearing and worthwhile. We may question aloud culture in the Middle East, alien as it is to our Western eyes, but we need to look in the mirror. What exactly are we exporting to them? Free markets and democracy are okay – I’m sure the average Egyptian would be quite happy if we kept our so-called culture to ourselves.

"Peace Kills" doesn't claim to be a daring exposé on the region - it's more of a travelogue. In that, it certainly succeeds. It’s not uplifting (the Middle East rarely is) but it’s not the sandstorm of confusion that most writers unleash. It’s fresh, witty, and certainly unique. It doesn’t have the answer (it’s one giant question mark) but it does clear some of the sand from our own eyes. Put it on your bookshelf between "Latitudes and Attitudes" and "From Babel to Dragomans" and go back to wondering about the nature of daytime television.