Klein's Shock Doctrine

[relative autonomy]

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.)



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.)



What is a value that anyone should spill blood for?

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?

"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.



What do you think we've been doing to both those nations since the 1950s? Didn't get much traction, did it.



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.



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.



Clean drinking water and medical treatment where?

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.

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.

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.

[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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

As for the US policy toward Saudi Arabia and Pakistan since 1950, it hasbeen a lot more complicated than that your one sentence suggests.

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.

Back to Klein shock docterine, i think her work is important...

We can continue to disagree on that.

[Surferbeetle]

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

[J Wolfsberger]

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).

As a result of the combination of Capitalism and our Constitution we Americans are able 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 ).

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.

It is my observation that many countries that I have had the opportunity to visit, Iraq in particular, are not as fortunate as America.

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.

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. )

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. )

[Ken White]

Surferbeetle said:

..."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 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.

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:

...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.

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..."

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.

Just so...

"(...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. )

Heh. Aren't 'true believers' a fascinating sub species...

[Surferbeetle]

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

[J Wolfsberger]

"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.