Applied Smart Power by a SEAL

[Firn]

I carried for a long time a crazy idea, taken out of Keynes Magnus Opus:

If--for whatever reason--the rate of interest cannot fall as fast as the marginal efficiency of capital would fall with a rate of accumulation corresponding to what the community would choose to save at a rate of interest equal to the marginal efficiency of capital in conditions of full employment, then even a diversion of the desire to hold wealth towards assets, which will in fact yield no economic fruits whatever, will increase economic well-being. In so far as millionaires find their satisfaction in building mighty mansions to contain their bodies when alive and pyramids to shelter them after death, or, repenting of their sins, erect cathedrals and endow monasteries or foreign missions, the day when abundance of capital will interfere with abundance of output may be postponed. "To dig holes in the ground," paid for out of savings, will increase, not only employment, but the real national dividend of useful goods and services. It is not reasonable, however, that a sensible community should be content to remain dependent on such fortuitous and often wasteful mitigations when once we understand the influences upon which effective demand depends.

In Afghanistan we have the trouble that men out of work are for understandable reasons easy to recruit to help or fight for the enemy, as Rob said. There has been and there still should be a lot of money around to invest into Afghanistan. There are many excellent projects around, but for a great many reasons they are difficult to implement. But I reckon that the need for good planning and oversight so as to not squander the money does greatly reduce the speed in which things are built and thus the money goes into pockets. So even inefficient and partly questionable yet very laborious activities as pickaxing roads through a valley or paying villagers to pile up walls could do a great deal of good by primary and secundary effects.

First it puts people at work and helps them to bring something home. Secondly they are less likely to support directly the enemy. With the money they earn they can consume what they think to need most. This stimulates the local economy by bringing in earned money and lessening the security threat. Of course this all sounds simple and is still is difficult to do. It will certainly also foster corruption and a host of other problems like inflation but it might be a part of a sensible approach for the most pressing problems. Just thinking as a whole like a drunken sailor and not like an accountant might actually help.


Firn

[J. Robert DuBois]

Firn,

I support your assertion that we can defeat many ills with one well-placed investment. In fact, I've lifted the below suggestion from the April piece from my "Applied Smart Power" blog, http://conflictincontext.wordpress.com/ and the April article is: http://conflictincontext.wordpress.com/tag/iraq/ It speaks to the holistic problem - and holistic solution - facing us in OIF and OEF.

And yes - it's simplistic. I'm not naive, and I know that some of our invested funds would be skimmed. Some would even be diverted to insurgent uses...but doing something in this direction, and reaping the rewards, makes it worth the cost:

----------------
“I won’t make my wife a prostitute.”

The man quoted is one of thousands of unemployed Iraqi men, living in pathetic conditions through no fault of his own. He needs work, because his family needs food. His options are simple: 1) acquire gainful employment; 2) put his wife to work on her back with no other marketable skills; 3) emplace an improvised explosive device by the side of a road to earn the freelance insurgent “supporter” rate of $150 – and thus feed his family for a month.

On point 1, where there is nearly 30% unemployment (70% in some areas, and 80% for women), he has no opportunities. On point 2, he has taken a stand. Point 3, then, is the only avenue remaining. When our soldier is struck by that IED, what will our response be? Appropriately, we will capture or kill this now-valid “target”, this pitiful actor at the end of his rope, this family’s only possible breadwinner…greatly worsening the lot of a woman and children already in desperate need.

The neighbors won’t fail to notice how this plays out.

For years I have written and spoken about the urgent need for those of us with dominant power to look through the eyes of and engage other populations and individuals as a higher way to reduce the conflict threatening all sides. These struggles will be described in many forms in upcoming Conflict in Context posts, from passive-aggressive hassles around the workplace to taking a much-unwanted knife in the ribs.

Let me offer just one highly preferable alternative to killing the man who puts out a bomb to kill an American to earn $150 to give his daughter some food: let’s give him $300. That’s right; let’s double his income, giving him a one-time, good-deal payout of $300 to care for his family as he chooses.

Next month, let’s offer him the same $300 – only this time, let’s attach a string: he has to sit through vocational rehabilitation classes to learn a trade like electrical work. Heaven knows, this country is in desperate need of qualified electricians to begin patching together a safe and reliable infrastructure!

The third month, let’s attach another string to his $300: let’s make him accompany an electrician as an apprentice, reinforcing the lessons he learned in class.

His fourth month, and every month afterward, we’ll require him to earn his $300 by working as an instructor-electrician and taking out a new apprentice coming up through the same program.

The fifth month, we split the salary cost 50/50 with the Iraqi government and begin to empower it to take over this domestic responsibility.

Within half a year, the Iraqi government is bearing the entire cost of these salaries in exchange for greatly-improved public power distribution and a huge reduction in injuries caused by faulty wiring. No American soldier was killed by the men in this program, because they receive twice the income for a much safer avocation and discover self-respect. No wife is pimped, no child is hungry, and the rebuilding of a society is in full swing.

How do the costs work out? According to conservative estimates, the US government pays more than ten billion dollars a month to run the war in Iraq. If we round down for argument’s sake to nine billion, this rate could pay for thirty million work-study program participants.

There aren’t even thirty million Iraqis in the whole country!

So let’s divert one thousandth of that 9 billion dollars, and we can begin rebuilding the nation with 30,000 men. Or take just one ten-thousandth (0.001%), and start with only 3,000. That’s 3,000 families restored – 3,000 potential bombers eliminated – 3,000 less chances for our soldier to be torn apart. Imagine where this might take us.

Where would we find less than a million dollars to spare? Well, you can start by cutting out the Baskin-Robbins cart here at my dining facility. It is a war, after all. My comrades and I will find some way to bravely carry on without it.

Real, unlimited solutions in the unlimited world of conflict are within reach, if we are willing to use imagination, daring, and the vast reservoir of experience held by security professionals who refuse to step into the box.

[Firn]

Firn,

I support your assertion that we can defeat many ills with one well-placed investment. In fact, I've lifted the below suggestion from the April piece from my "Applied Smart Power" blog, http://conflictincontext.wordpress.com/ and the April article is: http://conflictincontext.wordpress.com/tag/iraq/ It speaks to the holistic problem - and holistic solution - facing us in OIF and OEF.

And yes - it's simplistic. I'm not naive, and I know that some of our invested funds would be skimmed. Some would even be diverted to insurgent uses...but doing something in this direction, and reaping the rewards, makes it worth the cost:

I'm also pretty sure that likely the majority of the investments will be skimmed. I'm even convinced that we might become the laughing stock of the locals for being naive when paying for such works and courses. It will become an accountant's worst nightmare and the press might blast it and ask how one can blow the taxpayer's money in such a stupid way. But it might just work as intended and play an important part in our overall effort.

So let’s divert one thousandth of that 9 billion dollars, and we can begin rebuilding the nation with 30,000 men. Or take just one ten-thousandth (0.001%), and start with only 3,000. That’s 3,000 families restored – 3,000 potential bombers eliminated – 3,000 less chances for our soldier to be torn apart. Imagine where this might take us.

Where would we find less than a million dollars to spare? Well, you can start by cutting out the Baskin-Robbins cart here at my dining facility. It is a war, after all. My comrades and I will find some way to bravely carry on without it.

Real, unlimited solutions in the unlimited world of conflict are within reach, if we are willing to use imagination, daring, and the vast reservoir of experience held by security professionals who refuse to step into the box.

You put that better in words than me. I would only stress that the intent is not to spend wisely, but to get as much people from the streets and out of the bomb making garages and giving them money which they can spend as they think is best. The secondary effects should help to create the meaningful jobs by stimulating consumer demand.

All in all it is clear that we should try to do directly something good with the money, like building the famous schools and try to plan and oversight it. But the stress should be on spend and not control, because the latter can greatly reduce the impetus of the former. In such cases we should all try to follow the instinct of our inner drunken sailor. I'm pretty sure we all can

Firn