Ran across this: http://www.povertyinitiative.org/res...Capitalism.pdf
on John Robb's Global Guerrillas Blog ( http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/ )
It resonates....
Printable View
Ran across this: http://www.povertyinitiative.org/res...Capitalism.pdf
on John Robb's Global Guerrillas Blog ( http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/ )
It resonates....
OK, I'll read it, but it was written by Naomi Klein, - No Logo- therefore I am really going to struggle to take it seriously. She has always struck me that she writes to promote herself, and thus writes to impress, not to inform.
Read part of this during some downtime on the train from D.C. Not impressed - neocon-style single-issue demonization from a New Left perspective, in this case the "Washington consensus" neoliberal economic policies emphasized during the Clinton years. While I agree with some of the damage assessment, Klein goes way too far along the way. Like Robert Kaplan, she has done some decent globetrotting but generally sees only what she wants to see.
Reading the opening paragraphs, I was struck by a similarity to Edgar Allan Poe's story, "The Masque of the Red Death." Extrapolate from that comment anyway you choose. But, please remember that Poe wrote fiction.
at a Latin America Symposium we did last year at the U of OK. My colleague, retired Ambassador Ed Corr, and I were totally underwhelmed. She played fast and loose with facts which misinformed her already questionable analysis.
When this post came up, I started to read the referenced article, and mentally noted that this was where I had come in. Still, I was intrigued so I looked her up trying to get a good bio. Unfortunately, none of the bios I Googled were able to suggest what, if any, formal jounalism training she had. Indeed, none of them were able to enlighten me regarding anything about her formal education. I now know she was a teen aged mall rat, interested in clothes. I know about her family background in radical politics. But I still know nothing about her schooling. I assume that she graduated from high school in Montreal but there is no such indication in her bios. Did she ever attend university (as they say in Canada)? Dunno. Although a college education is hardly necessary for "greatness" (witness Harry Truman and Barry Goldwater), it does provide some basic education in rigorous analysis and the proper use of facts.
Do any of our Canadians know any more about her/this? What say you Marc, Rex, et. al.?
Happy New Year!:D
JohnT
There's a fairly informative bio here.Quote:
Originally Posted by John T. Fishel
Thanks Rex. Still, my question remains. There is no indication in this bio, any other that I have seen, or the article was to how and where she was educated. The experiments noted in the article as providing the basis for modern torture techniques are almost laughable (in the connection made by Klein). These techniques are as old as torture itself - kind of like waterboarding (see Malcom Nance's comments on that subject).
I sure would feel a lot better about her reportorial skills and ethics if I knew she had been trained well and acttually applied her training. From what I can gather, however, she has no training and desires none.:wry:
Cheers
JohnT
Apparently she was "educated" at the University of Toronto. A brief bio can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Klein
She appears to be yet another activist with a high school grasp of economics. But I'll grant, her conspiracy theory (The Shock Doctrine) seems to be better thought out (i.e. more entertaining) than most.
She used to have a column in the Globe and Mail, maybe still does; she still appears there from time to time. Her principal credentials appear to be her family and social background; she is married into one of the great political families of the country, and to a prominent CBC reporter and journalist at that. Think of her as a sort of Canadian Naomi Wolf, for much the same sorts of reasons.
While I do agree with her on some aspects of economics and globalization, her journalism is in no way professional, even by the standards of our day. Gave her the benefit of the doubt at first, but I have since stopped reading her columns years ago. Fluff.
I "read" the book (actually ... an MP3 audiobook) about a month ago.
Klein's thesis is that crisis is intentionally triggered in a country to implement Neo-Liberal economic policies (later known as the Washington Consensus.)
While the merits of Neo-Liberal economics is disputable, there are many more examples of the implementation of these economic policies without a crisis taking place. Moreover, one of the countries that she cites is China after the Tienamen Square incident. China's economy is a hybrid of Neo-Liberal and Keynesian-like economic theories and doesn't fully adhere to the "Washington Consensus."
The best explanation to the change of a countries economy after a crisis or disaster is that the economy is the primary focus by a country's citizenry to recover from a disaster or crisis ... hence the famous quote, "It's the economy stupid."
I had read the Wikipedia bio but missed the U of Toronto ref. Must have been the virus I've been battling this past week.:o Since she never notes it in her bios, I wonder if she ever graduated.
I'm not sure what the relevance is but her sister is on the faculty here at the U of Oklahoma. I don't recall whether the sister is in the social sciences, history, or foreign language but not in Pol Sci.
Cheers
JohnT
i think this is bit dishonest to Klein and makes her seem analysis seem more conspiratorial than it is. She doesn't say that crisis is intentionally triggered but that the crisis is used as the opening to push through neo-liberal economic policies. she does talk about the shock of coercion to enforce neo-liberalism, though, but i think is different that "intentionally triggering a crisis."Quote:
Originally Posted by Firestaller
she is more polemical than rigorous, though, that is pretty clear and it the enduring problem among many on "the left." You are right to say that China's "market stalinism" isn't the greatest example, either.
also the merits of neo-liberal economics are very disputable, just like any body of ideas. If you put something outside of the realms of debate in some privileged untouchable category, then you an extremist plan and simple. Free-market extremists are as delusional and dangerous as religious extremists.
remember: when politics permeates the totality of society, we call it totalitarianism; when religion permeates the totality of society, we call it theocracy; when market relations permeate the totality of society, we call it freedom? I think, we should call it fascism. Let us not forget Mussolini's famous quote "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." What is the privatization frenzy if not this?
delusioned and dangerous -- which is why most people ignore them but prudent folks keep a jaundiced eye on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by relative autonomy
Unrestrained capitalism is dangerous, excessive government intervention is dangerous. Most people intuitively understand that. The difficulty is in finding the correct balance when confronted with a constantly shifting beam in shape and size and a moving fulcrum. No nation has done that well -- though we did fairly well before we started aping Europe and became over regulated (in some senses and in some areas, usually the wrong areas...).
Fascism is a much misused and overused word.
Not that much of this thread including this post of mine has a lot to do with warfare or small wars...
Ken, I see you're point on the balance between government and intervention. The thing is, though, that capitalism needs to do more than continue to meet the needs of the middle classes in the advanced industrial world. we have all the crap we need! instead manufacturing needs and pursuing a cynical model of globalization, which all to often is a race to the bottom, business needs to take a risk, invest some money and try to meet the very real needs the developing world. i think benjamin barber on the bill moyers journal talks about this a lot more intelligently than i can and you can check that out here:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12.../profile3.html
Fascism maybe overused but I also think people need to incorporate a critique of authoritarian forms. You can't have true democracy when the economy is run by authoritarian structures like TNCs. You can have a plutocracy but i don't think that is value anyone should spill blood for. i should have said plutocracy instead of fascism in my first post becuase its much more accurate and less polemical.
i do think this conversation is very central to "small wars" becuase "winning the hearts and minds" often comes down to who can deliver the economic services people need to live a decent and equitable life. i feel an exclusive focus on the military aspects can leave this out and, then, all the bullets in the world can't delay inevitability.
I still think, instead of dumping endless money into a needless invasion in Iraq, we should have put diplomatic pressure on regimes like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and done "civic action" or peace corp type programs to make life less desperate for the people in the margins, whom, i feel, are legitimately attracted to extremist ideologies becuase they have few other options. For a fraction of the cost of the invading Iraq we could have provided clean drinking water, medical treatment and other humanitarian efforts which, beyond the shadow of a doubt, would have done more to win "the war on terror" than unilaterally invading a secular, quasi-socialist authoritarian state, which had no love for Islamic radicalism nor any connection to 9-11.
Klein's polemics aside, I think here is where the shock docterine can be important: to make clear the overlaps between "small wars" and ultra-right economics. if "small wars" can defeat extremist movements and help create liberal democracies they can't be used to push certain political agendas. her anaylsis isn't perfect but no one's is. she deserves some credit for undertaking an ambitious argument that few people would even attempt to undertake.
Capitalism does do more than that, though not to the extent Barber and you want -- I doubt that it will ever do that. Nor, I would add, are a lot of government attempts to force it to do so likely to have much effect. Neither do I think it necessary; most of the world will do alright if only provided a level playing field; capitalism per se rarely denies that to anywhere near the extent that politicians do (see subsidies, tariffs, et,al.)Quote:
Originally Posted by relative autonomy
Possibly true but valid critiques will not focus on one aspect but will fairly critique all authoritarian forms -- to include rampant socialism which has proven to be ineffective, as authoritarian as fascism and more pernicious as it is couched in idealistic terms (see Klein, N.)Quote:
Fascism maybe overused but I also think people need to incorporate a critique of authoritarian forms...
What is a value that anyone should spill blood for?Quote:
You can't have true democracy when the economy is run by authoritarian structures like TNCs. You can have a plutocracy but i don't think that is value anyone should spill blood for. i should have said plutocracy instead of fascism in my first post becuase its much more accurate and less polemical.
The economy, world type, is not run by TNCs but by their owners and investors. I'm one. I assure you I'm not a plutocrat.
Starting at the end and working backwards, who is using an exclusively military focus?Quote:
i do think this conversation is very central to "small wars" becuase "winning the hearts and minds" often comes down to who can deliver the economic services people need to live a decent and equitable life. i feel an exclusive focus on the military aspects can leave this out and, then, all the bullets in the world can't delay inevitability.
"Hearts and Minds" is a myth, a dangerous myth. It presumes (in the worst sense of the word) to know what others want or need, then to deliver it and thus to convert them into mini clones of the presumer. Fatal fallacy. No foreign power is ever going to win the heart or mind of anyone in any real sense. People will do what is perceived to be in the interest of themselves and, in many societies of their family, clan or tribe. Only the people can determine what those interests are and while they will take what is freely offered that they want or can use, they will utterly reject giving anyone their heart or mind. They will assert their independence in various ways -- as well they should. That's what is inevitable.
Hearts and minds is pure bunkum, sold by snake oil salesmen who believe all people are innately good and will behave just as said salesmen behave (or want others to behave...). People are not innately good nor are they all equal in any sense. Michael Jordan plays basketball several orders of magnitude better than I ever could. Of all the people in the world, about half are good ranging to great and the remainder are poor ranging to dangerously bad. Kant may have had some things wrong (as is true with all of us) but he had the selfish and own interest parts right. There are a lot of evil folks out there and most will take an idealistic thought and parlay it to their advantage and then slit your throat.
Money supply isn't endless. As for needless, that is at least arguable. There were admittedly other ways to do what was done (shake up the ME in an attempt to speed up the inevitable from five or six generations -- or even more -- to just two or three) and the invasion was admittedly a calculated risk. Whether it achieves the goal is to be determined.Quote:
I still think, instead of dumping endless money into a needless invasion in Iraq...
What do you think we've been doing to both those nations since the 1950s? Didn't get much traction, did it.Quote:
...we should have put diplomatic pressure on regimes like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia...
Civic action is somewhat overrated but in any event, it takes the willing acceptance of the sovereign nation of your program to be effective. Lacking that acceptance and a massive program, the probability of any success is slim. The Peace Corps is a mixed bag, it has many dedicated volunteers who do good stuff. It also has really, overall, been only marginally effective. In any event, if you think either nation would have accepted a lot of Americans in their country to 'help' them, you don't understand the pride and sovereignty factor. If you think hiring local contractors or funneling money to the local government to do the job in lieu of sending Americans, you don't understand the local mores on skimming money from gullible fools while doing no or little work -- and that sub standard.Quote:
...and done "civic action" or peace corp type programs to make life less desperate for the people in the margins...
True but do not buy the myth that those disaffected are the poor and downtrodden. Those folks are too busy staying alive to indulge in revolutionary foolishness. The disaffected who do engage are predominately educated and at least moderately well off and imbued with radical fervor because the society from which they come irritates them to some degree and / or cannot productively employ them.Quote:
... whom, i feel, are legitimately attracted to extremist ideologies becuase they have few other options...
Clean drinking water and medical treatment where?Quote:
For a fraction of the cost of the invading Iraq we could have provided clean drinking water, medical treatment and other humanitarian efforts which, beyond the shadow of a doubt, would have done more to win "the war on terror" than unilaterally invading a secular, quasi-socialist authoritarian state, which had no love for Islamic radicalism nor any connection to 9-11.
The "secular, quasi-socialist authoritarian state, which had no love for Islamic radicalism nor any connection to 9-11." also had the misfortune of possessing an unloved dictator, pariah status, a largely ineffective military and, most importantly, geographic centrality in the Middle East. Tough but them's the breaks in the real world
We can disagree on most of that with agreement on the word "help" -- war cannot do that, this one can open a window for that to occur, no more. That's all we've done.Quote:
Klein's polemics aside, I think here is where the shock docterine can be important: to make clear the overlaps between "small wars" and ultra-right economics. if "small wars" can defeat extremist movements and help create liberal democracies they can't be used to push certain political agendas. her anaylsis isn't perfect but no one's is. she deserves some credit for undertaking an ambitious argument that few people would even attempt to undertake.
I understand your points. I'm not going to respond on economics because i think its pretty clear neither of us are going to convince the other. The only thing i will say is that there is a big difference between an you everyday investor and someone with a controlling share. everyday investors can send in their proxy statements and it doesn't mean much. investors with controlling shares set policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
As for critiquing authoritarian forms, i don't really understand you point. I never said the only authoritarian forms that needed to be critiqued exist in the economy so i am not sure what you are getting at.
You point about hearts and minds is basically the problem of culture. if that's your position i don't understand how you can justify a the US invading any country that isn't western Christian nation. Culturally and historically, when the US intervenes in a formerly colonized nation with a different religion it is more likely than not to be understood as imperialism, plain and simple.
The leaders of Al Queda maybe educated but i bet the people doing the grunt work are the downtrodden Afghans, Iraqis and whomever duped into dying for one of the few organizations that they see as culturally relevant and anti-imperialist. If i was Afghani or Iraqi, I would be fighting the Americans too, any patriot would.
Toe the Bush Administration line on Iraq if that makes you feel better but that doesn't change the fact that intelligence was manipulated and the country was duped into supporting an invasion for reasons that turned out to be lies. There are no WMDs in Iraq. No one can say otherwise. When that reason was exposed as a total lie and lost all viability, all of sudden it became about democracy. If we were interested in democracy in Iraq, Saddam wouldn't have been on CIA payroll killing democratic socialists, liberal democrats, and like from '58-'68. The US helped the Baath party come to power becuase they were anti-soviet. The US gave the Saddam regime weapons throughout the Iran-Iraq war. People tend to conveniently forget that history. If you think this war is really about making Iraq a democracy, i feel sorry for you. This is were I think its important to consider Klein's argument, especially in light of the reforms Bremer pushed through.
As for the US policy toward Saudi Arabia and Pakistan since 1950, it hasbeen a lot more complicated than that your one sentence suggests. I know more about Pakistan so I will talk about that. The US supported Pakistan immediately after the partition of the Raj becuase they saw it as a necessary anti-soviet bulkhead. The US had complex relationship with Pakistan various military dictators (Khan, Yahya, Zia and now Musharraf). In all cases pressures for democratization were undercut by the imperial demands of the cold war/war on terror. The case of Pakistan's civil war with what became Bangladesh's is instructive. The US didn't put pressure on Zia to end the war until Zia helped the Nixon administration engineer their diplomatic reapproachment with China. If you don't believe me see: Pakistan's Foreign Policy: A Reappraisal by Shahid M. Amin
Back to Klein shock docterine, i think her work is important becuase it addresses the larger context that "small wars" are fought in. If all a "small war" can do is open political opening that could lead to anything from civil war and ethnic cleansing to liberal democracy and rebirth, then, i am not sure if they even worth fighting, especially, as in the case of Iraq, there were many chances to realize a democracy that were dashed by the cynical hands of foreign meddling.
You said, earlier "Fascism maybe overused but I also think people need to incorporate a critique of authoritarian forms...". My comment is that Socialism is as dangerous as Fascism and deserves just as much criticism. If you want credibility as a basher, bash fairly and equitably.Quote:
Originally Posted by relative autonomy
True, though I fail to see how what I said justifies invading any western christian nation. My point was that the "hearts and minds" gig is stupid myth and you aren't going to win anyone's heart or mind invading them. The phrase needs to disappear.Quote:
You point about hearts and minds is basically the problem of culture. if that's your position i don't understand how you can justify a the US invading any country that isn't western Christian nation. Culturally and historically, when the US intervenes in a formerly colonized nation with a different religion it is more likely than not to be understood as imperialism, plain and simple.
Heh. I'm not toeing the Bush line on Iraq but you sure do have all the standard talking points on the issue down pat. Some are correct, some not -- all are irrelevant. I did not say this war was about making Iraq a democracy, BTW -- I did say ""The "secular, quasi-socialist authoritarian state, which had no love for Islamic radicalism nor any connection to 9-11. also had the misfortune of possessing an unloved dictator, pariah status, a largely ineffective military and, most importantly, geographic centrality in the Middle East."" Adding with 'minimal disruption of world oil flow because we really want China and India to have all the oil they need' and those are the real reasons Iraq was selected; it was the vehicle for the goal -- which was to shake up the ME big time and let them know we were no longer going to fail to respond to provocations as we had for the previous 20 plus years. No governmental form concerned or mentioned, we couldn't care less as long as they behave and leave us alone. Tough but them's the breaks in the real world.Quote:
Toe the Bush Administration line on Iraq if that makes you feel better but that doesn't change the fact that intelligence was manipulated and the country was duped into supporting an invasion for reasons that turned out to be lies ... If you think this war is really about making Iraq a democracy, i feel sorry for you. This is were I think its important to consider Klein's argument, especially in light of the reforms Bremer pushed through.
We don't really care what form of government they use. You should pay less attention to political rhetoric from either side -- pols lie constantly --and more to what actually happens...Of course it's more complicated that that -- just as the invasion of Iraq is far more complex than your sophomoric and polemical talking points above.Quote:
As for the US policy toward Saudi Arabia and Pakistan since 1950, it hasbeen a lot more complicated than that your one sentence suggests.
We can continue to disagree on that.Quote:
Back to Klein shock docterine, i think her work is important...
Ken,
I always enjoy reading your posts, references, and reflecting upon your well argued point of view. I think that we can agree that the greatness of our constitution, nation, and way of life is worth fighting and dying for.
I posted Klein’s Shock Doctrine to hopefully generate some discussion on how we approach the populace in our operations, Small Wars or otherwise.
As a result of the combination of Capitalism and our Constitution we Americans are able to enjoy an unprecedented way of life as compared to the historical record. Capitalism is the most efficient way that I am aware of to fully engage a population and realize it’s potential. The 2006 US GDP was in the neighborhood of 13 trillion dollars ( http://www.bea.gov/ ) for a population of approximately 300 million people ( http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html ). Americans enjoy an amazing amount of freedom as a result of our constitution and bill of rights (http://www.archives.gov/national-arc...stitution.html ).
It is my observation that many countries that I have had the opportunity to visit, Iraq in particular, are not as fortunate as America. The 2006 Iraqi GDP was approximately 87.9 billion dollars for a population of approximately 27 million people ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../print/iz.html ). Iraq’s constitution ( www.export.gov/iraq/pdf/iraqi_constitution.pdf ) is currently only a piece of paper with no soul and it does not inspire or sustain it’s people. I think part of the failure of the Iraqi Constitution has to do with the ME outlook that the Koran, and the associated Sharia Law, has divine origin whereas mans laws made in the absence of this guidance are suspect.
I would argue that the people of any country are an essential center of gravity which needs to be addressed in operations which involve the country; these include military, economic, and political. When it comes to strictly military operations kinetic skill is paramount. Winners understand this and losers do not. Small Wars however, are not limited to strictly military operations and thus it is vital that a functional and effective strategy is crafted which successfully engages the populace of a country. We are still trying to implement a succesful one in Iraq.
I will attempt to address this further in a future post.
Steve
It sometimes seems as though discussion boils down to kinetic ops OR population centered ops. The reality is, it takes both in situations such as Iraq and Afghanistan. What I would argue is the strategy must center on the population; that the strategic goal should be development of a viable, self -sustaining state (a political entity); and that can only be accomplished as an outgrowth of the culture of the indigenous nation(s) (social entities). The role of armed forces and kinetic operations is creation of an environment where rule of law can be established, allowing people to freely determine their own political and economic fates. That involves security operations (patrolling neighborhoods), support (training police and, military), and occasionally highly kinetic ops (pitched battles against large groups of insurgents).
Capitalism, free trade, private property, all protected by rule of law. Incidentally, it would be well for everyone to remember that our first shot at forming a national government was the Articles of Confederation - adopted in 1977, ratified in 1781. It was universally regarded a failure, which led to the Constitution, 1788. That's an eleven year span. Demanding the Iraqis do (or criticizing them for not doing) the same in a bit over four years is ... inappropriate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surferbeetle
One outcome of the Twentieth Century is that socialism, in any form was completely discredited. (Before the fur starts flying, I said "discredited" not "abandoned.") Whether Communism (Soviet Union, PRC, N. Korea, Cuba), Nazism (Germany), Fascism (Italy and Spain), Third Way (Sweden), or the mild form the US is drifting around, national economies performed in inverse proportion to the degree they embraced socialism. (An interesting bone of contention between Ireland and the rest of the EU has been Ireland's performance after throwing off a lot of its socialist economic policies. The result was embarrassing - to the EU.) It was this, not good fortune, that has clobbered so many countries. I am leaving out states such as Zimbabwe, Zaire under Mobutu and Iraq under Hussein. These were kleptocracies. The only reason they use the term like "socialist" in their official names is so western "intelligentsia" will give them a pass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surferbeetle
Which, I think, is what Ms. Klein is guilty of. Any reading of history shows numerous examples of strong nations enforcing their will on weaker ones at the point of a gun. Colonialism involved more than imposition of will, it involved dominance. That history phased out after WW II. To present one example, it was certainly the intent of the French in Indochina. It was certainlly not the goal of the US in Indochina.
What Ms. Klein refers to as "Neo-Colonialism" seems to involve "cultural dominance." And while it is clear to her, it is unclear to me whether any such thing exists. If the term has any useful meaning, it has to involve more than the purchase of Britney Spears or Michael Jackson CDs. (Which, in any event, are not what I would hold up as an example of culture. :D)
I only read summaries of her positions, but they seem to define "Neo-Colonialism" as the "export" of ... capitalism, free trade, private property, all protected by rule of law. I.e. everything that led to our good fortune. And that is the reason I referred, in a previous post, to her "high school grasp of economics." I would add, her knowledge of history and understanding of social structure seem equally deficient.
(As an aside, in the 1970's I took a course in International Relations. I got hammered in discussions for asserting:
1. The Soviet Union was attempting to maintain a First World military with a Third World economy.
2. They couldn't sell enough raw materials (oil, etc.) to make up the deficiency.
3. Their economy would would collapse under the strain, sooner rather than later.
4. As a state, the USSR would probably dissolve before the end of century.
I was told I clearly didn't understand the nature and structure of socialist states. In hindsight, I think it's clear somebody didn't. :rolleyes:)
Surferbeetle said:I totally agree. I would only argue that said 'addressing' should be undertaken BEFORE commitment and should include the views of many to include regionally knowledgable people outside government and that the assessment of what is entailed be considered with as much objectivity as possible. That would include, IMO, the fact that "winning hearts and minds" is generally unlikely and that attempts to do so without pragmatic consideration of probabilities make the phrase, like 'achieving total victory,' a construct that in this day should be avoided lest it produce a deluded sense of what is likely to occur. Words, as they say, are important. Expectations should be realistic and the "gee, wouldn't it be nice if..." ideas should be realized for what they all too frequently are -- unattainable.Quote:
..."I would argue that the people of any country are an essential center of gravity which needs to be addressed in operations which involve the country; these include military, economic, and political. When it comes to strictly military operations kinetic skill is paramount. Winners understand this and losers do not. Small Wars however, are not limited to strictly military operations and thus it is vital that a functional and effective strategy is crafted which successfully engages the populace of a country. We are still trying to implement a succesful one in Iraq.
The goal should be a satisfactory outcome and that can be obtained in most circumstances as long as we don't pursue the old chimeras.
That is true and appears at this time to be on the way with respect to Iraq even though we erred on many counts early on. I'm personally impressed with the speed and agility with which we have reoriented. Terribly slow to many, I know but for anyone who knows the beast, pretty rapid recalculation and good effort.
Look forward to your post.
J Wolfsberger said:Well and politely said. Posting rules would have allowed me to echo your statement while precluding the first word that pops into my mind every time I see that inappropriate impatience expressed. I always get particularly dismissive when Iraq is compared to "WWII only took us four years..."Quote:
...That's an eleven year span. Demanding the Iraqis do (or criticizing them for not doing) the same in a bit over four years is ... inappropriate.
Just so...Quote:
What Ms. Klein refers to as "Neo-Colonialism" seems to involve "cultural dominance." And while it is clear to her, it is unclear to me whether any such thing exists.
Heh. Aren't 'true believers' a fascinating sub species...Quote:
"(...I was told I clearly didn't understand the nature and structure of socialist states. In hindsight, I think it's clear somebody didn't. )
Newsweek’s 2006 analysis of Iraq’s Economy
“ Even so, there's a vibrancy at the grass roots that is invisible in most international coverage of Iraq. Partly it's the trickle-down effect. However it's spent, whether on security or something else, money circulates. Nor are ordinary Iraqis themselves short on cash. After so many years of living under sanctions, with little to consume, many built up considerable nest eggs--which they are now spending. That's boosted economic activity, particularly in retail. Imported goods have grown increasingly affordable, thanks to the elimination of tariffs and trade barriers. Salaries have gone up more than 100 percent since the fall of Saddam, and income-tax cuts (from 45 percent to just 15 percent) have put more cash in Iraqi pockets. "The U.S. wanted to create the conditions in which small-scale private enterprise could blossom," says Jan Randolph, head of sovereign risk at Global Insight. "In a sense, they've succeeded." “
http://www.newsweek.com/id/44302
IMF’s July 2007 Iraq Analysis
The Central Bank of Iraq’s Interest Policy Rate has gone from 6% in 2004 to 20% in 2007 while the Dinar Exchange Rate has dropped from 1949 to the Dollar in October of 2003 to 1256 to the Dollar in June 0f 2007. Exports of Oil, Dates, and ‘Other Commodities’ continue to increase with the bulk of exports going to North & South America, followed by the EU, and then Asia.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...07/cr07294.pdf
The Economist’s 2008-09 Iraq GDP Forecast
“Our higher oil production forecasts, and the recent improvement in security, have led us to revise up our real GDP growth projections for Iraq, with economic expansion now expected to rise to 4% in 2008 and 5.6% in 2009.”
http://www.economist.com/countries/I...ofile-Forecast
Iraq’s Stock Exchange
“ Iraq Stock Exchange (ISX) introduced a special index in October 2004 which closed in December 2004 at (64.996) points, December 2006 at (25.288) points. January 2007 at (25.903) points and December 2007 at (34.590) points.”
http://www.isx-iq.com/
Central Bank of Iraq
http://www.cbiraq.org
"Neo-Liberal" economics seems to be a leftist attempt to rebrand classical economics with a "Neo-Con" taint. Ms. Klein will probably be using this as an example of U.S. "Neo-Colonialism:" Forcing the Iraqi's to adopt economic policies that lead to growing prosperity and economic stability. Assuming, of coarse, that she even acknowledges the positive news.
Ken,
With regard to your issue with the term "hearts and minds," LTC Kilcullen makes the point that "hearts and minds" does not mean getting them to like you but getting them to see that it is in their best interest to work with rather than against us. Viewed from that context, do you see value in the concept or am I playing with semantics. My experience with the ME has shown me that most there have a clearly defined sense of self-interest. Certainly, we must tap into that to have any sort success there. That is how I have always thought of that term and it has definitely affected how I dealt with the Iraqis I met on a daily basis. I never had any illusions about getting them to like me (but then I am a cynic anyway).
SFC W
who see or hear it -- unless they have some experience as you do and realize that you can get host nation folks to act in their own interests but they aren't ever going to like you in the fullest sense of the word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uboat509
Most civilians who see the term promoted by those are responsible for COIN or involved in the effort in some way assume the intent is to "win them over to our side and love us." Intuitively they know somethings not quite right about that. Those opposed to the effort will use every violent act to say "You aren't going to win hearts and minds that way..."
I can go with 'win their minds' -- it's the "heart" bit that muddies the water. I think "...active or tacit support..." is a better if sorta stuffy term. Regardless, H&M is a part of the vocabulary now; we're stuck with it. :wry:
Agree with you on the ME; when all is said and done, they are very pragmatic and perhaps more so than the nominally less emotional westerner. They will always dislike the ferenghi as a group but may take to individual westerners and will almost always support the apparent winner and someone who treats them fairly and respectfully particularly if they see an advantage to the tribe, family or themselves. :cool:
As a fellow cynic, maybe the "hearts" bit is annoying because it's unlikely to happen most everywhere when lives are being severely disrupted. I sure wouldn't be a happy camper if it was me but I'd tolerate 'visitors' if the potential future was better than the past... :D
The IMF, in the 2009 World Economic Outlook, provides the following record of % changes in Iraq's GDP (page 195 of the pdf report):
The Economist/Economic Intelligence Unit provides the following Country Briefing forecast for 2009:Quote:
2005 (-0.7%), 2006 (+6.2%), 2007 (+1.5%), 2008 (+9.8%)
The Iraqi Stock Exchange Website provides some March 2009 data:Quote:
# We have lowered our forecasts for Iraq's fiscal deficit, after raising our oil price projections. Nevertheless, we still expect the budget to return an average deficit of US$15.6bn in 2009-10.
# Real GDP growth in 2009-10 is forecast to slow, from an estimated rate of 7.8% in 2008 to an average of 5.7%, as a tighter fiscal stance has a knock-on impact across the economy.
# Iraq's current-account deficit forecast has narrowed slightly, owing to the revision to our oil price projections. We now expect that the current account will return a deficit of US$9bn in 2009, narrowing to US$6.4bn in 2010.
Quote:
ISX at 183.9 points on 31 March 2009
I think this misses the point entirely. If you look around the world you will see very quickly that the incidence and severity of poverty is harshest in countries and regions within countries that are isolated from the capitalist global economy. The fastest improvements in economic and social conditions (observe east Asia for examples) have been in areas that have embraced economic integration. Maybe "we have all the crap we need", but if we stop buying that "crap" then the people who make that "crap" lose their jobs. The argument that living simply allows others to simply live is based on a false assumption: that whatever one has must be taken from another. In reality, consumption leads production, and production generates employment. The best way to help poor countries is to allow and encourage them to produce and sell goods and services.Quote:
Originally Posted by relative autonomy
Who says "the economy" is run by TNCs? Which economy?Quote:
Originally Posted by relative autonomy
TNCs actually play an important and largely beneficial role in many developing economies, one which the Naomi Kleins of the world don't generally acknowledge. Many developing economies are totally dominated by rapacious local elites that are more far more authoritarian and more exploitive than TNCs could ever dream of being. These elites generally have the political and legal clout to suppress local competition. TNCs provide a balance to their power and an alternative source of supply and employment.
In the Philippines, where I live, jobs with TNCs are highly sought after because they offer better pay, better working conditions, and better opportunity for advancement than local employment. Widespread hiring of English-speaking graduates by foreign investors has pushed wage scales up and forced other employers to pay more (competition for employees raises wages far faster than strikes). These employees spend a large percentage of their incomes locally, unlike the previously dominant elites, and generate follow-on jobs.
I'm a former Peace Corps Volunteer, and I can tell you that the Corps is about 99% show and 1% go, and the volunteers receive far more benefit (in experience and training) than the host communities. It's not a bad thing, but if your solution to poverty is the Peace Corps, God help the poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by relative autonomy
Humanitarian aid is important and necessary. It can alleviate the worst effects of poverty, but it does not eliminate or even reduce poverty. If you give a poor community a water system, they will have water and be healthier, but they will still be poor, and they will probably depend on you to come back and maintain that water system.
If you want a poor community to stop being poor, you have to create sustainable employment. That means somebody has to invest money in producing and/or distributing goods and services that can be profitably sold in a free market - if the production is not profitable or requires external subsidy, it's not sustainable. Once a community has jobs and income, they can build their own water system, buy their own mosquito nets, etc, etc...
I guess that's a rant, and maybe it makes me a "neo-liberal". I've never encountered that term outside the academic cloister, and I'm not convinced that anyone who uses it really knows what it means, except that it covers all the stuff they don't like. But what the hell, if this be neo-liberalism, let us make the most of it. It still works. It doesn't work perfectly (not much in this world does), but there's a good deal to be said for it.
I think there has been a powerful neoliberal impulse in the aid and development community—notably in the international financial institutions, stretching as far back as the Reagan Administration, and often attacked by critics such as Klein. However, I would argue that its all become a bit of a strawperson.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan
Developmental approaches have become much more nuanced. Almost everyone these days accepts that most employment and growth is generated by private sector activity and investment, and that you can't create large numbers of sustainable jobs with aid money. There's broad acceptance that TNCs can have positive effects (although, in some contexts, negative ones too.)
On the other hand, almost no one--not even in the World Bank or IMF—believes that unrestricted free markets are a good thing, or that you can get equitable and sustainable growth without effective state institutions to provide an enabling environment (rule of law, anti-corruption measures, security, critical infrastructure, education, health, social safety nets, environmental regulation, enforcement of labour standards, etc). It is also important that stakeholder consultation be done properly, ideally through a political system that is responsive to the needs of all affected groups, not just those with money.
The World Bank in particular has made major adjustments in the way it works, partly because of external and internal criticism, and partly out of learning from experience. The IMF remains more of a bastion of narrow classical economics, but critics miss the point that it should be—it is an institution that is all about promoting fiscal solvency. In doing so it provides a useful reminder of the dangers of unsustainable state expenditure. Think of the IMF as your parents: No, they weren't always right, and certainly not very cool, but in retrospect aren't you glad they lectured/reminded/nagged you at times?
Sadly, it was the case that some of the initial US development personnel in Iraq—political appointees or recent hires in most cases, not career USAID folks— were ideologically blinkered neoliberal/neocons, who treated it as a bit of a sandbox for ideas about radical privatization. Almost none of this worked out very well, and much of it was later abandoned or revised.
As a person who has worked in Central America and Iraq these are topics that I wrestle with. What's appropriate, acceptable, sustainable, and will be perceived as a hand up as opposed to hand out given the time and resource limitations that I am working under? How do I apply my language/cultural, biology, civil engineering, and business administration skills to produce sustainable quantifiable change?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan
Loss of the Cold-War construct has allowed for rapid observable changes in international affairs. Although they are only analogies, and many caveats of course apply, I find it helpful to use the concepts of ecological succession and geomorphology when considering the why's of what is occurring.
I find China's approach to international development and other things pretty fascinating. It's an interesting study to compare their methodologies with ours. When I do this I keep in mind that the 2009 Economist's Pocket World in Figures reports China's GDP at $2,645 bn and the US at $13,164bn.
Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Central Europe, and Central Asia are on my radar screen as places of rapid change where the application of various international development strategies are particularly visible. Tom Odum used the phrase Gunpowder or Gold the other day, and it's one that captures neatly the approaches on display.
The IMF provides interesting datapoints and can be commended for many things but its relevance/authority/direction is being challenged. This is not necessarily a knock, but if you are up for sharing references, as always, they would be greatly appreciated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex Brynen
I've worked fairly extensively with IMF folks and data in the past in Palestine, and in general they did excellent work in promoting greater fiscal transparency and accountability, tracing irregular financial flows, measuring key benchmarks, and providing technical assistance to the Palestinian MoF. (For many years the current Palestinian PM, Salam Fayyad, was the IMF rep to the WB/Gaza). There is considerable information and analysis on their website.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surferbeetle
My broader point is that even when we may choose to ignore them—either because we think they're wrong, or because we think their failing to see the broader picture—its useful to have the IMF focused on issues of fiscal solvency, since no one else in the development community has quite that mandate.
I'd honestly prefer to drop the term "neoliberal". It has no traction outside the left and academe, and its definition is so vague that it makes discussion almost impossible. At some level almost any program that includes mainstream economic analysis can be said to demonstrate a "neoliberal impulse". It has also, as you say, become a complete strawperson. We've seen a long string of studies emerging from the academic side, looking at the failures and shortcomings of projects and programs deemed "neoliberal", and concluding that "neoliberalism" is a failure. These studies generally neglect to mention that the prescriptions of what might be called the "anti-neoliberals" haven't fared much better. A more reasonable conclusion might be that external attempts to promote economic development - whether "neoliberal" or otherwise - are extremely difficult and prone to unintended consequences and manipulation by local powers with vested interests. This is particularly true when those seeking to promote development are expected to remain strictly apolitical in environments where the principal constraints on development are political.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex Brynen
There's a great deal that could be said about development efforts during the Reagan era. My own greatest criticism is not that there was an excess of "neoliberalism", but that these principles were applied unevenly and often disregarded, especially when dealing with governments regarded as cold war allies. To take the example I'm most familiar with: in the Philippines, the flow of public and government-guaranteed private borrowing was sustained long beyond the point where it was clear to any observer that the money was not being productively invested and the borrowing far exceeded capacity to pay. According to "neoliberal" criteria Marcos should have been abandoned, but the conviction that he was an essential bulwark against communism kept the spigot open - even though anyone paying attention could see that Marcos was the best thing that ever happened to the Philippine communist movement. This was a common theme during the Reagan period: we talked the "neoliberal" talk, but didn't walk the walk.
Another sore point often misinterpreted is the undoubted failure of what were generically called "structural adjustment" programs. Unfortunately, these failures cast doubt on many reforms that were desirable and necessary, but were implemented by force at an impossible pace. It is of course true that subsidies, price controls, state owned enterprises do more harm than good, but forcing a country that has grown accustomed to these bad policies to abandon them instantly is simply too great a shock, especially during the early stages of democratic transition. A more rational approach would have been to aim for an extended transition period. What was done was analogous to forcing a severely unfit and overweight individual into a high intensity exercise program overnight. The diagnosis and the prescription are correct, but implementing the solution too harshly can kill the patient.
Consider a hypothetical nation where an authoritarian ruler has for several decades placated the urban populace by imposing price controls on food. Of course the result is that as production costs increase and selling prices remain fixed, production becomes economically unviable and output begins to drop, creating a supply/demand imbalance that tries to force prices up beyond the government-imposed ceiling. That is an untenable situation, and in the world of economics the solution is to scrap the price controls completely, allowing prices to rise to a level that stimulates additional production.
In the world of reality, trying to achieve immediate supply/demand/price equilibrium in an environment distorted by years or decades of bad policy will produce abrupt and dramatic price increases, and you get the populace storming the palace and stringing the unfortunate President up from the nearest lamp-post. Right prescription, wrong implementation. Unfortunately, the bad result discredits the prescription.
I'm not sure that anyone ever seriously contested these ideas. I've heard many left leaning academics proclaim that "the neoliberals want to eliminate government", but I've never seen anything coming from the mainstream development world that supports that rather extreme conclusion. Those accused of being "neoliberal" are generally supportive of effective state institutions. What they do not want is to see expanding state intervention in the economy, and there are good reasons for this. The "anti-neoliberals" often propose that state intervention is necessary to protect "the people" from "big business", but they fail to recognize that state intervention in much of the developing world has generally been aimed not at protecting "the people" but at protecting the interests of the governing elite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex Brynen
A senior Philippine politician once told me something like "we say we hate the IMF, but we love them. They make us do things we would have to do anyway, and they get the blame instead of us".Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex Brynen
I can't disgree with that. I recall reading the Treasury Dept's proposals for the Iraqi economy, back when first released. It struck me as one of the saddest documents I've ever seen. In many ways it was a lovely plan, and it would have been ideal, if it was even remotely possible to implement. Of course it wasn't: it was utterly divorced from the reality on the ground and there was never the slightest chance that it could be put into effect. Economists have some very useful knowledge and some very valuable tools, but there's a lot they don't know about political and social environments that are alien to them. Economies are far too important to be left to economists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex Brynen
The succession analogy brings to mind something I call "the running shoe curve". Back when I was a kid your running shoes (we called them sneakers) were made in Japan or Korea. As infrastructure improved and labor force efficiency grew those economies moved on to more profitable lines like simple electronics assembly, and the shoes moved on to Taiwan, Thailand, the Philippines. Eventually those economies moved on to the niches now vacated by the Japanese and Koreans in further steps up, and the shoes moved on to Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh. Someday (one hopes) the shoes will be coming out of Zimbabwe, the Congo, Sudan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surferbeetle
Hardly a perfect model and of course it's way more complex than that... but as a target model one can do worse.
Dayuhan - have you ever read The Economist's Tale? I'd think you'd get a heck of a kick out of it. About a World Bank consultant on the ground in Sierra Leone in the 1980s and his struggle to get the WB to reverse policy on rice subsidies. An outstanding real-world example of dysfunctional aid at work.
The entire book is excellent, but the best passages are about the difficulty of getting good real-world data on how Third World economies actually function, and how bad data (which abounds) can lead to decisions with appalling effects.
I always liked the Peace Corps concept of income generating projects - small, village type projects to boost a bit the standard of living with no dollar amounts ever set in stone, no paper trail, no real government involvement except for a bit of seed money here and there, no real expectations except perhaps a bit of success here and there, nobody to blame for failure but themselves, nobody to take any money they made. In the real bush country of the world, the only way to ever get economies boosted is to infuse them with solar cooking devices, thus freeing up immense amounts of time that can be devoted to more gardening, more crafts and goods and animal production, farming, etc. We've got a big hunk of the bush population, the women, spending maybe 1/4th of their time scrounging wood, hanging around fires cooking and minding the damn pots and pans.
I agree, Tequila--it is a great book.. I set it as a reading in my intro development course when it came out.Quote:
Originally Posted by tequila
Dayuhan: While I don't want to get too bogged down in semantics, I think the term neoliberal has had more traction--for good and for ill--than you suggest. It is a staple phrase of much the NGO community (that is to say, the folks who in many sectors actually deliver the bulk of ODA), and one of the chief critic of past "neoliberalism" has been former World Bank chief economist/senior VP Joseph Stiglitz--hardly just a marginal leftist academic. Of course, Stiglitz won his Nobel Prize in economics for highlighting the potential shortcomings and limits of market mechanisms, so that's not a surprise :D
I think you've hit the nail on the head. But, the projects you describe, or others such as "Oral re-hydration therapy" or distribution of "LifeStraw" that save a life for a couple of dollars don't pack the glamor of billion dollar projects.Quote:
Originally Posted by goesh
Having been a Peace Corps volunteer and having observed many at close range, I have to comment that while the concept may be lovely, the reality generally falls far short. Volunteers are often very young and have little practical experience; by the time they get half a clue they are generally gone. The practice of bringing in recent graduates with little or no field experience doesn't help: I'd gladly trade one real live farmer for a dozen recent graduates of agricultural schools.Quote:
Originally Posted by goesh
Many volunteers have life-changing experience. Very few leave any tangible difference in their host communities.
The idea of small projects is wonderful, but the real-world challenges of tailoring projects to community needs and avoiding often-hidden constraints are extremely difficult to overcome. Very often projects that are alleged to be community-driven are in fact donor-driven (NGOs push the projects they can sell to their funders). Every once in a while you get a gem, sometimes you see a few that work... most come and go like the tide on the beach.
There's a place for large projects and a place for small ones... but in both fields the return on investment is frighteningly small. In many cases both small and large projects fail because they fail to acknowledge constraints on development imposed by local political and security conditions.
I once listened to a bright-eyed volunteer give an enormously enthusiastic presentation on solar cookers to a group of women, who politely nodded and professed keen interest. After he left the consensus opinion emerged: there's no way we're going to cook standing in the sun, it's too hot. We want to cook in the coolest, shadiest place we can find, just like we always have.Quote:
Originally Posted by goesh
It sounds like you're assuming that the key limiting factor on productivity in "the bush country" is time. In many places I think you'd find that assumption to be invalid. I also think you'd find that those women "hanging around the fires" may be performing other less visible functions as well, notably keeping half an eye on an array of children, including those whose parents are out in the fields being productive.
I'm not saying that solar cookers are useless... in many places they are very useful indeed. In other places they may just gather dust or be diverted to other original purposes (the day after the family planning roadshow comes to town every kid in the village is playing with balloons made from inflated condoms). In order to know the difference somebody has to spend a long time in that village, win the trust of its people, and get a real sense for the needs and the constraints... and there aren't that many people who have the time or the will to do that.
I haven't read it, but I suspect that I've lived it a few times. In fairness I'd have to say that NGOs can be every bit as obtuse as the big multilateral agencies, sometimes more so. They do less damage, having less capacity, but every bit as obtuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by tequila
I'll look for the book... and maybe tell a story or two; after 30 years in SE Asia I've got quite the litany!
Actually there's quite a bit of glamor in projects involving "giving"... movie stars and politicians love 'em, especially when they can claim credit. There's a place for that too, especially in areas where the dominant concern is relief from the worst impacts of underdevelopment.Quote:
Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger
The problem of course is that everything you give has a lifespan. You give away 10,000 packets of ORS, eventually they're gone, and the water is still dirty. In two years every mosquito net you give out today will have holes in it.
The giving is important... but it has to be followed up by programs aimed at creating or enabling sustainable economic activity. This is a whole lot more difficult than giving stuff away, often because local elites have powerful vested interests in maintaining existing economic structures - they may be dysfunctional for the society, but they are often very congenial for the local elites. Very often resources are poured into efforts to create livelihood while no effort is made to free indigenous entreprenurial impulses from crushing (and sometimes life-threatening) constraints. There are quite a few places out there where people see opportunities, but don't take them because they know that if they begin to generate prosperity they are likely to get hit on the head - or shot - by someone who wants what they've got.
Probably true, though I personally feel that NGOs have far more impact on the development discourse than they have in the field. In any event, I dislike the term and its overwhelmingly negative connotation because it is most often used (it seems to me) to obstruct and abort discussion: branding a policy "neoliberal", in the communities where the term is in vogue, is pretty close to branding a concept "satanic" among born-again Christians.Quote:
Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger
Certainly market mechanisms have their limits and their problems, and I think you'd find that very few of those who are dismissed as "neoliberals" would deny this. I think you'd also find that many, if not most, of the cases where market mechanisms are deliberately disregarded - even those couched in populist terms - are actually intended to serve quite narrow interests, and that their long-term results are frequently catastrophic.
Sorry to drop a downer in here, but it has always been my understanding that "aid is the continuation of politics by other means," to paraphrase the Prussian.
All Aid organisations and NGOs are progressing political agendas, to a greater or lesser degree. Some work very hard to disguise it, but the "I'm just here to help," is essentially dishonest to in all practical terms.
I am well aware that this is an unpopular opinion, but until the context that brings is held up to the light, the real issues don't surface.
Certainly aid is driven by interests, agendas, and ideologies, though these may at times be obscure and subject to accidental or deliberate misinterpretation - often by people driven by interests, agendas, and ideologies of their own.
The aid industry also has its own arcane internal politics, and competition for funds is intense, a reality that underlies much of the noble-sounding discourse surrounding aid.
There are also many misconceptions surrounding aid: I'm eternally amazed at how routinely relief/humanitarian aid and development aid, two entirely different animals, get treated as similar or even identical problems...
From the blog Registan by Joshua Foust Opium Season, by Joel Hafvenstein
From the blog Registan by Joshua Foust Learning from PRTsQuote:
Probably the most interesting portion of the beginning passages of the book, aside from the sinking feeling that accompanies the “I was clueless but willing, so they sent me” meme, is Hafvenstein’s discussion of how USAID and their contractors operate. It is a realm measured not by sustainable development projects, but by how much money gets churned through these companies. The project he is to lead in Lashkar Gah is not meant to be a sustainable development program, but merely a crash course in flooding the local markets with cash in the hopes that it is enough to keep people out of the poppy fields long enough for the eradication teams to bulldoze them out of existence. Buried into this, and it is not unique to his company Chemonics by any stretch, is the silly arrogance of all-purpose consulting firms. Chemonics can throw together a proposal to: “clean up air pollution in Cairo, train Russian judges, help Ugandans export cut flowers,” and so on, all on a few hours’ notice. The defense industry is much the same way: companies bid on so many things they couldn’t possibly be qualified for, merely because they have the resources to hire (one hopes) the right people for the job.
Quote:
In my last look at Provincial Reconstruction Teams, I made a plea of sorts to critically examine the effectiveness of PRTs (which has indeed been oversold), but not to abandon the concept entirely. The relative paucity of research on PRT methods, effectiveness, and theory is rather surprising, given that the military is in the midst of a vast transformation toward a civilian-positive focused model of warfighting (for lack of a better phrase), and the PRTs constitute a major component of this. (The recent SWJ post by Dave Kilcullen on road building in Afghanistan is a perfect example: the PRT in Kunar is coordinating, funding, and sometimes directly constructing the roads there.)
From the blog Registan by Joshua Foust The Problem with PRTsQuote:
For perhaps understandable reasons, very little comes from PRTs in the public sphere, save press release-style reports about how wonderful they are. Better interfacing with both civilian aid agencies, as well as analysts and reporters who cover the area and may have a much deeper knowledge of local and regional events and problems, could pay tremendous dividends in PRT effectiveness. The CSIS report mentions a much more liberal attitude toward freeing information and generating community than the PRTs have seen in either theatre—these, too, could be effective ways of adding multipliers to the PRTs’ efforts.
Despite these many challenges, there remains a tremendous value to the PRTs in Afghanistan. In many places, they are one of the only agencies there to fund large scale development projects, such as roads, micro hydro power plants, and government building construction. These criticisms and suggestions should be seen in that context—taking a generally good idea and increasing its potential to sow good.
Quote:
When Medicins Sans Frontičres abandoned Afghanistan in 2004, its primary complaint was that the U.S. had, in effect, “militarized” aid by embedding aid workers in military units—the Provincial Reconstruction Teams—and ruining the supposed neutrality of purely civilian aid groups. After five of their workers were murdered, the group declared the situation had become intolerable and closed up shop.
Before Naomi Klein wrote Shock Doctrine, there was Economic Shock Therapy:
Quote:
Shock therapy traces its roots from the economic liberalization program undertaken by post-war West Germany in the late 1940s. During 1947 and 1948, price controls and government support were withdrawn over a very short period. These reforms had the effect of kick starting the West German economy resulting in the Wirtschaftswunder. Germany had previously had a highly authoritarian and economic interventionist fascist government; overnight, shock therapy seemed to throw off these restrictions and allow Germany to rapidly become a developed market economy.
A lot has been left out here. Any economy that shifts production from primarily war production to living production will make great gains in a short period. Military economies are very destructive as focus on things that do not support life. You cannot eat Tanks, Fighters and Submarines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surferbeetle