Well today has been frustrating. For the first time in about a year I have been forced to call in a sick day at work. Confirmed by a quick call to my recruitment agency that gave me a blunt 'ok'. Nice to be appreciated for one's hard work. No "hey you ok?". Well for the most part now I'm fine. To be honest I shouldn't really have gone into work yesterday, but well I can be a stubborn dickhead at the best of times. So I crashed in my bed in fits of shivering pleased at least I had managed to finish the bloody good book "The Ascent of Money" by Niall Ferguson in my lunch break. So I dully collapsed when I got home, had my tea while watching Inception (damn good film), my batteries were pretty much flat by then so I conked out about an hour or so earlier than usual. I woke up today feeling slightly better, but not great I thought a few seconds about what to do. And then dooly decided to give myself a break.
In the new day's worth of time I had suddenly to spare, I promptly carried on my reading regime. And moved on to "Savage War of Peace 1954-1962" by Alistair Horne. The funny story behind this book is I borrowed it from a friend (of infinite patience), and knowing he read it recently and would likely not want to bother with it for a long time I decided to delay it in my reading list. Several times over. Till now, a space of a year. Yes that is pretty insane. But you have to understand that I am a bit moody when it comes to reading. I like to make good progress on a book over a week, mostly because I am always curious about what is coming on the next page (usually I am well rewarded). And two because there are always many other things on the reading list to sink my teeth into after. Occassionally I go on reading sprees on certain subjects, like the Middle East or WWII. On one of these blogs I'll list a few of the books I am waiting to read that are resting in some container in my room, but I don't honestly know how that list will end. May take a while. I may well have to sell some, time will tell if I will.
Anyway let's get to the subject matter of this blog. Colin Powell, heard of him? You may well remember him as that man giving the unfortunate speech at the UN 8 years ago making Saddam Hussein look like a modern day Genghis Khan on Crack armed with a nuclear missile under each shoulder and shoes stuffed with Anthrax. Alas the speech turned out to be somewhat overblown and in more than one way, exagerrated. Now I am assuming that some people will jump on this as proof that he is a fool to have risked his reputation on something that flimsy so lightly. Well in some ways I wouldn't blame you. But I have done a lot of reading around the run up to the infamous speech, and it has become obvious to me that he was basically assigned as a fall guy to deliver one of the weakest cases conceived to the international scene. Whispers from several different sources have informed me that behind close doors he read the intelligence that was to be presented in his speech, and proceeded to fume at that worm of a man Donald Rumsfeld for making him carry the ball for it. One report claims he shouted at Rumsfeld that the intel was full of a brown substance that begins with c (there is no profanity on my blog people, exagerrations, character assasinations and lots of bitching but NEVER profanity).
We all know what happened. We ate the story up, the Iraq War happened. But instead of the shameless showboating that many of the Bush Administration refugees took (books etc) Colin seems to have taken a more subtle exit from the public political sphere. His resignation in itself was pretty much a non-event. The way I see it, it was an action that showed great humility. One that calmly said, "I've done my job, now I'm out". And he was allowed to go, as oppose to Rumsfeld who clinged onto the Bush ship like a limpet till he evenutally (and belatedly in my opinion) was told to jump ship before the mid-terms. For me then Colin Powell is something of a personal hero, and in many ways has the right to be for many other people. Have their been times when you have had to be fed lies and live with it? Have their been times when you have worked for people above you or next to you who you know are pinheads(either currently or ever before)? Of course you have experienced one of these situations. But this man like us towed the line, jumped when he was told to....but still had the humility and honesty to admit that he did wrong. A few days ago was the anniversary of his infamous speech to the UN when he waved a vial of anthrax in front of the international community (a fake one, a live one may have been highlighted as a security risk). I only wish I could give him a reassuring nudge on the shoulder and buy him a pint, when he looks back on that ugly part of his career. The I could tell him, "don't feel bad Colin, there are plenty more parasites among your former colleagues that historians are going to spit ink at". But somehow I think he's more happy enjoying his retirement with his wife and grand-kids.
Obama is a Saladin-Stalin-Osama Bin Laden-Satan all rolled into one. And he's a socialist, probably a hermaphrodite and he's not even Christian. NOT EVEN CHRISTIAN!!!! AAAAAGGGHH!!!! That is a prospective slogan for Republican Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign. One can expect the opposition to scream bloody murder at some point, especially this close in the electoral cycle and after a mid-term result that has almost certainly re-energised their ranks. Now the nerdy political side of me makes me genuinely interested in the greviances the Conservative base has with Obama. But when out and out smearing and cheap political point scoring takes over I begin to lose patience. Such it is when outrageous claims are made such as that Obama is not a Christian, he is, calm down and shut up. And that he isn't even American, he is, but unfortuantely for him he didn't have the good fortune of being born English instead (HUZZAH! HUZZAH! Land of Hope and Glory! etc). He won and he beat your McCain fair and square Conservative base. Perhaps not entirely McCains fault because he was living in the unusual shadow of an apparent small government and fiscal Conservative Republican who somewhat confusingly vastly expanded the government and HUGELY increased the national debt. Hence why the Tea Party folk treat Bush as some kind of an embarrassment, foreign policy shenanigans notwithstanding.
A long critique of the US Conservative base could easily turn into a book with several law suits pending at the end of it, so I will just stick to one bone I have to pick with them. We come to the current troubles in the Middle East.
It's a rare thing to see such a spectacular butterfly effect in foriegn affairs such as that which has taken place in the Middle East over the past month or so. All sparked off from one harrowing incident. A university graduate in Tunisia, recently prevented from selling vegetable from a cart by his corrupt government gave up on his life of being humiliated by the powers that be and set himself on fire. In a short space of time, people were out in the streets in the major cities of Tunisia. Such protests (albeit not on that scale) have taken place before and have usually been dispersed by the govs security forces. Not this time, the army made it's presence known but refused to crack skulls. This sent a very definite sign to Ben Ali, the dictator of Tunisia and he promptly left with money he stole from his own people. And now the future of Tunisia is still being decided.
Then came the big one, Egypt. A classic case of a democracy on paper ruled by a strongman 'reliable' to the West. We had a kind of unwritten deal with him, he makes some democratic reforms (and decide how much 'some' is by himself) and we give him lots of aid and recognises his rule. At the same time he can keep those ever angry Muslim extremists out of the political scene. Unfortunately the faustian pact's bad side started to rear it's ugly head. Democracy became a very bad joke in Egypt, as did the blatantly fraudulent elections that came with it (or Mubarak's version of it). Corruption rose, with the ruling family getting suspiciously rich. Reform slowed to a grinding halt, and torture by security forces became an open secret. But mainstream opinon largely ignored all this, the economy was booming, the tourist sector in particular.
The Tunisia changed everything. A country who's population has a record low participation in elections that have pre-decided outcomes, realised that people power could acheive a lot more than they thought. And so the people revolted. The army reared it's head, tanks and jet fighters on display. But the ever present eye of the 24 hour media was prepared to catch the first shots live, if the Tahrir Square incident turned into one resembling Tainnenmen Square in 1989 (which wasn't caught on camera, but a suspicious amount of people walked into the square and never came out). But the military stood firm and watched. Then one day they suggested that Mubarak should leave, which he did just like that. And now they are the apparent gaurantors of the writting of a revised constitution for the nation. We'll see what happens.
The domino effect may not be over. Trouble still persisits in Algeria, Yemen, Bahrain and Libya. The first three are US allies in it's War on Terror. The people in charge are either kings or 'strongmen' before given a blank cheque to govern how they see fit. Time will tell how these events and the US's reaction to them plays out.
What frustrated me was how quickly the Conservative base in the US (mostly although there were some rumblings in this country too). All of a sudden in their book, selling him out was like selling an old friend. And the very implication that we were selling him out took root. No one one blaring the conservative horn in the states admitted underlying facts that underminded their time old realpolitik philosophy on foriegn affairs. One fact being that Mubarak had over the year being effectively making the radicalisation of the opposition in Egypt a self-fulfilling prophecy by holding fraudulent elections, and allowing corruption in his family to reach new heights. The doctrine of stability seemed to trump the one of democracy, like Arabs aren't good enough or smart enough for the latter. The arrogant suggestion was made that we should somehow reign in this revolution, despite the fact that Mubarak had now control of it let alone the Western nations. The role of the Muslim Brotherhood was exagerrated by shameless commentators like Glenn Beck who ruled all of this event out as some masterplan by Iran. As though every demonstrator on the streets was some nutter prepared to light their shoes or underpants on fire and take out a bunch of westerners. Ignoring that religious and cultural divides alienate the Muslim extremists in Egypt from those of Iran.
I doubt the so far encouraging way events have turned out will make the creators of these comments eat their words. More comments will be made I am sure. Especially now the US's key ally Bahrain is now experiencing turbulence. Worryingly close to the potential motherload, Saudi Arabia. As for what message the West should send to our strongmen allies I think it is obvious. We need to let them know that they are tolerated by us, not liked. We live in an imperfect world, and we have to do business with imperfect people. Doesn't mean we have to like them, or even compliment them. When asked about our opinions on their conduct we should say straight, that they are running laughably fraudulent regimes that are barely disguised as legitimate. A policy of see no evil with our foriegn allies won't help anyone, I think that's what Obama has realised. I applaud him with how he dealt with the situation. He knew there was a chance that the protests could die down and he may of had to deal with Mubarak again. But when the chips were down he saw that the people weren't going to give way till Mubarak did. In that I believe he excercised good judgement.
Friday 18 February 2011
Wednesday 2 February 2011
Ulysses S Grant vs. Tony Blair
Well it's been an up and down past month to tell you the truth. Why? Well the inevitable consequence of one spilling all the beans online and subsequently remembering you actually did it at the last morning, may have something to do with it. So I will be suitably vague but end cheerfully and leave you with a warm fuzzy feeling inside like Obama. Basically I left my last temp job which was due to end anyway a few weeks ago on a downer. Some frank words were exchanged, and then I moved on. Not exactly the warmest case of leaving a job. If you can't stand the vagueness then private message me. But for all viewing this wall, the rest of the information is classified. If I told you I would have to kill you. And survivors will be shot again etc. All a bit of a hastle really. The point of this (indeed there is one) is to say that I feel I have regained my confidence after it has taken a severe knock. I look back disappointed but not bitter, as JFK said "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".
Having a prolonged period of stability and success and then going into an unnecessary and thoroughly knackering downward slump which defies logic takes me neatly to..........Tony Blair! Recently I finished his book. Much like the individual himself the book half satisfied me and half infuriated me. Some of the usual arguments you would expect from him are there. But some controversial points (for him at least) are made. Likely trying to maintain moral highground he very rarely speaks directly against people, even those he was obviously at odds with. Such as Mo Mowlem. To a certain expect it appears to be an honourable way of saying he didn't get on with them, but it does come off as rather patronising in a curiously kind of paternal way as if to say "oh it's OK he's a good guy, just a little misguided. He'll learn when he grows up".
The actual political ideas expressed in this book share many striking realities with many of the centrist leaning people in the Tory-Lib Coalition at the mo, perhaps tellingly almost no venom is thrown at the current government. Most of the time in fact Tony Blair's criticism (people such as him rarely muster venom) is against the New Labour doubters within the Labour party who now apparently dominate the party (a viewpoint not without merit). The most prominent among them was his sometime friend and sometime political nemesis Gordon Brown, one of the most interesting and at times puzzling politcal feuds in our history. More on that later.
Tony Blair basically preached the gospel of New Labour, our expression of the Third Way politics that took it's lead from Clinton. In a nutshell an amalgamation of fiscal conservatism (eg. not spending more than one can afford) with preserving but reforming public services. Tactically sensing attacks about New Labour being perceived as just a media gimmick Tony quickly counter-attacks to attempt to assure the reader that New Labour represents a way of life more than it does a mere bumper sticker. But in a perhaps stereotypical Liberal messianic fashion, he continues the theme throughout the book of him as some kind of rejected reformist Jesus. Persecuted by the Romans in the form of the dregs of the old Labour Party, stopping them from seeing the light. I can imagine many of these elements reading this book and feeling as though they are being talked down to, by a school teacher they never liked.
It's not that I necessarily disagree with all of the things he did do or tried to do (many of them were honourable), but I just felt short changed reading with his meager excuses for leaving things the way he did. He harks on about irresponsible government spending and debt, which HE presided over! But he blames Brown! He tip toes around the strange issue of their feud several times until he sort of hits the nail on the head (not that I was satisfied when he eventually did). Basically he outlines a kind of gentlemans agreement between the two of them, for one leader to pass the entire country over to the other. He only remarks on how slightly it may (and indeed was in my many quarters) be perceived, to simply let party leadership elections take the place of actual general elections. So much for principle and going for broke on honest reform, when power is unexpectedly passed on in a blatantly onesided leadership battle. He practically ignores how short changed people felt in the beginning of the Brown era of government. Of course his ultimate downfall is mostly attributed to his abandonment of his New Labour baby, of which absolutely nothing is wrong.
And then we come to Iraq, this issue is faced off by him with a pincer movement of victimhood arguments (ie."what else could I do?") and some admittedly intelligent arguments (close but not completely air-tight). In a nutshell he claims that the original Gulf War UN resolution technically still authorised the use of force in 2003. Second he argues that Number 10 could not of 'sexed up' the intelligence in the Iraq dossier, because it was the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) not Downing Street that made it. More plausible, but perhaps not airtight. OK he's not an intelligence expert and neither am I. But surely the correct approach to finding out about a subject matter that you don't have much on (and the stakes are high), is to check and then recheck your sources. And appreciate that much like with the news, it matters who is telling you what and different interests exist. On that basis, some Iraqi dissident making Saddam sound like some kind of nuclear Genghis Khan when the truth is perhaps differnt, becomes a possibility.
He in many ways intelligently recognises that much of the criticism the public has for the Iraq debacle is nowdays more about how unprepared we were for the aftermath, as oppose to how we handled toppling Saddam himself. This is where I admittedly started to lose patience with the author in the book. He more or less ignore the background of Iraq being a country of years old tensions between rival ethnic groups. Basically his simple formula is power gap+Alqaeda-in-Iraq+Iran= chaos. I know Alqaeda and Iran played a part in stirring up trouble. But many of the prominent agitators in the near civil war were Iraqis representing grieviances many ordinary Iraqis faced in an uncertain future, shaped by centuries of leaders playing on ethnic divides. How could Blair be so naive of Iraq in this regard with our empire history there. Basically us putting the Sunnis on the pedestal above the majority Shias, albeit in a less extreme way than Saddam. I think his biggest mistake was not planning for the worst scenario, that unfortunately made itself a very real reality.
As if to make up for all that I disagree about him, there is also much to appreciate in his book. He owns up to some well known embarrasing moments, such as his "Hand of History" quote. The book is also very informative about complex issues such as the Northern Ireland chapter. Chapters such as this are often interspersed with light-hearted humour. For instance during one Northern Ireland negotiation Tony tried to keep calm with a particularly prickly person he was negotiating with, only to ignore insults to his position to have his aide leap up furiously in his place and do the "how dare you!" angry retort. Some of the controversial characters in his term of power are elaborated on, to make them real and often interesting people. This is particularly the case with Alistair Campbell, like him or loathe him, I bet you if you read this you may even respect him. And for my generation this book especially will bring back a lot of nostalgia, good and bad. The 1997 election, the millenium, Princess Diana's death, 9/11. In a sense I felt I had to read this book, and in many ways I am glad I did.
For now I am onto a book about the American Civil Warm, hence the wierd blog title. Thanks for reading.
Having a prolonged period of stability and success and then going into an unnecessary and thoroughly knackering downward slump which defies logic takes me neatly to..........Tony Blair! Recently I finished his book. Much like the individual himself the book half satisfied me and half infuriated me. Some of the usual arguments you would expect from him are there. But some controversial points (for him at least) are made. Likely trying to maintain moral highground he very rarely speaks directly against people, even those he was obviously at odds with. Such as Mo Mowlem. To a certain expect it appears to be an honourable way of saying he didn't get on with them, but it does come off as rather patronising in a curiously kind of paternal way as if to say "oh it's OK he's a good guy, just a little misguided. He'll learn when he grows up".
The actual political ideas expressed in this book share many striking realities with many of the centrist leaning people in the Tory-Lib Coalition at the mo, perhaps tellingly almost no venom is thrown at the current government. Most of the time in fact Tony Blair's criticism (people such as him rarely muster venom) is against the New Labour doubters within the Labour party who now apparently dominate the party (a viewpoint not without merit). The most prominent among them was his sometime friend and sometime political nemesis Gordon Brown, one of the most interesting and at times puzzling politcal feuds in our history. More on that later.
Tony Blair basically preached the gospel of New Labour, our expression of the Third Way politics that took it's lead from Clinton. In a nutshell an amalgamation of fiscal conservatism (eg. not spending more than one can afford) with preserving but reforming public services. Tactically sensing attacks about New Labour being perceived as just a media gimmick Tony quickly counter-attacks to attempt to assure the reader that New Labour represents a way of life more than it does a mere bumper sticker. But in a perhaps stereotypical Liberal messianic fashion, he continues the theme throughout the book of him as some kind of rejected reformist Jesus. Persecuted by the Romans in the form of the dregs of the old Labour Party, stopping them from seeing the light. I can imagine many of these elements reading this book and feeling as though they are being talked down to, by a school teacher they never liked.
It's not that I necessarily disagree with all of the things he did do or tried to do (many of them were honourable), but I just felt short changed reading with his meager excuses for leaving things the way he did. He harks on about irresponsible government spending and debt, which HE presided over! But he blames Brown! He tip toes around the strange issue of their feud several times until he sort of hits the nail on the head (not that I was satisfied when he eventually did). Basically he outlines a kind of gentlemans agreement between the two of them, for one leader to pass the entire country over to the other. He only remarks on how slightly it may (and indeed was in my many quarters) be perceived, to simply let party leadership elections take the place of actual general elections. So much for principle and going for broke on honest reform, when power is unexpectedly passed on in a blatantly onesided leadership battle. He practically ignores how short changed people felt in the beginning of the Brown era of government. Of course his ultimate downfall is mostly attributed to his abandonment of his New Labour baby, of which absolutely nothing is wrong.
And then we come to Iraq, this issue is faced off by him with a pincer movement of victimhood arguments (ie."what else could I do?") and some admittedly intelligent arguments (close but not completely air-tight). In a nutshell he claims that the original Gulf War UN resolution technically still authorised the use of force in 2003. Second he argues that Number 10 could not of 'sexed up' the intelligence in the Iraq dossier, because it was the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) not Downing Street that made it. More plausible, but perhaps not airtight. OK he's not an intelligence expert and neither am I. But surely the correct approach to finding out about a subject matter that you don't have much on (and the stakes are high), is to check and then recheck your sources. And appreciate that much like with the news, it matters who is telling you what and different interests exist. On that basis, some Iraqi dissident making Saddam sound like some kind of nuclear Genghis Khan when the truth is perhaps differnt, becomes a possibility.
He in many ways intelligently recognises that much of the criticism the public has for the Iraq debacle is nowdays more about how unprepared we were for the aftermath, as oppose to how we handled toppling Saddam himself. This is where I admittedly started to lose patience with the author in the book. He more or less ignore the background of Iraq being a country of years old tensions between rival ethnic groups. Basically his simple formula is power gap+Alqaeda-in-Iraq+Iran= chaos. I know Alqaeda and Iran played a part in stirring up trouble. But many of the prominent agitators in the near civil war were Iraqis representing grieviances many ordinary Iraqis faced in an uncertain future, shaped by centuries of leaders playing on ethnic divides. How could Blair be so naive of Iraq in this regard with our empire history there. Basically us putting the Sunnis on the pedestal above the majority Shias, albeit in a less extreme way than Saddam. I think his biggest mistake was not planning for the worst scenario, that unfortunately made itself a very real reality.
As if to make up for all that I disagree about him, there is also much to appreciate in his book. He owns up to some well known embarrasing moments, such as his "Hand of History" quote. The book is also very informative about complex issues such as the Northern Ireland chapter. Chapters such as this are often interspersed with light-hearted humour. For instance during one Northern Ireland negotiation Tony tried to keep calm with a particularly prickly person he was negotiating with, only to ignore insults to his position to have his aide leap up furiously in his place and do the "how dare you!" angry retort. Some of the controversial characters in his term of power are elaborated on, to make them real and often interesting people. This is particularly the case with Alistair Campbell, like him or loathe him, I bet you if you read this you may even respect him. And for my generation this book especially will bring back a lot of nostalgia, good and bad. The 1997 election, the millenium, Princess Diana's death, 9/11. In a sense I felt I had to read this book, and in many ways I am glad I did.
For now I am onto a book about the American Civil Warm, hence the wierd blog title. Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)