link

A fascinating story about one American correspondent's real estate experience in Iraq.

I really should be going to bed, but I'll do a quick recap of this fun Thursday evening before I forget entirely.

The usual Thursday blog meeting was colocated today with a talk by Shorenstein Center Fellow Rebecca MacKinnon, who runs NKZone. Rebecca is a fascinating person who has been CNN bureau chief in China and Japan, and is currently devoting significant effort to covering North Korea. On NKZone, she takes on a very tough subject—there is virtually no journalist access into DPRK—by engaging any available sources on the net and digesting reports from China and South Korea. Her talk touched on a lot of interesting points, such as the role of weblogs in journalism, the atmosphere of secrecy and fear in DPRK, and the ways weblogs can engage a community.

But what really makes Rebecca interesting is that she's very unusual for a journalist: she has resigned from CNN to take a detour into exploring what she sees as a new kind of news medium. (I was delighted to hear that although her year at Shorenstein is nearly up, Rebecca will be staying at Harvard for another year thanks to the Berkman Center.) I no longer find it acceptable to consume news that doesn't include links that discuss, vet, and provide supplemental material for each story. As a generation of world citizens grows up used to these possibilities, the CNN demographic will continue to age and shrink.

Of course, this does not imply that blogs written by amateurs will overtake professional reporting. I strongly believe both postions will learn from each other in the next few years, and we will have a better world for it.

The talk included pizza, drinks, and cookies. I stupidly went to a spicy Asian all-you-can-eat buffet for lunch so I wasn't able to sufficiently take advantage of this opportunity. Though actually, Harvard's pizza wasn't very good.

After the talk we stayed in the room and had our "Berkman" meeting. This one was quite different than usual: a much smaller group and in a different space. Sun, Jessica, Rebecca, Dave, Rick, Tom Griffin, and I were in attendance. We talked a bit about the future of our meetings in the anno-Daveini era. Then Dave and Rebecca schemed a bit about how to kill Google. They both see it as too powerful.

In my opinion, they are overreacting to a couple of small fringe services Google has only dabbled in. I hope Google does well not only because they provide vast good in the universe but also because they could be a valuable counterbalance to Microsoft. Microsoft also provides vast good but has a history of and inclination toward causing severe damage by killing whole market segments in willful, cold calculation. I'd waaaaay rather Tim O'Reilly, dirty rotten bastard though he may be, get rich off Google's success than give Microsoft more cash so they can strangle another innovator while DOJ Antitrust Division sleeps.

The other topic of discussion was the Iraq war. Oddly, I was the only person speaking who might conceivably have been pro-war. Dave thought we should high-tail it out of there ASAP. Rebecca didn't disclose as much opinion but seemed clearly anti-war. Rick initially supported the war but only due to the danger of WMD. I don't think I clearly articulated this at the meeting, but I am actually a supporter of the Iraq invasion and occupation regardless of WMDs. Iraq is an opportunity to shape part of our military into a long-term security force that can enter a dangerously disconnected place like Saddam's Iraq and leave behind safety and economic links to the rest of the world. The middle east will need this kind of intervention time and time again if the US and emerging superpowers (China, India, Russia) are to expand their energy imports without a corresponding increase in terrorism imports. We had better get started, and notwithstanding my favorite sarcastic Bush campaign slogan—Don't switch horses in mid-apocalypse—we'd better stay in Iraq until it's well on the way to becoming a sunny vacation destination.

I should add that, although I am pro-war in this case, I am anti-Bush. A better president would have gathered the support of his countrymen and allies, rather than giving us all a fat old middle finger.

After the Berkman meeting ended, Sun, Jessica, and I went to get some ice cream and hang out outside. I gave them a tour of my frassle to-do list (no kidding, they actually asked), which resulted in at least 10 new feature requests. I could talk all about that now, but it's really, really time for me to sleep. Goodnight, friends.

link

A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.

I've only skimmed the beginning, but this seems like a must-read.

link

Here are a couple of really amazing blog posts. The blog they come from, Iraq the Model, is written by three brothers, dentists and a doctor by occupation, living in Baghdad.

This single page of their writing is a million times more unique and informative than anything CNN or the New York Times would ever put out.

Why? Because it's a primary source. It's someone not unlike me in age, ambitions, and ways of thinking. It's someone who, because he's lived it, doesn't reduce the situation to an absurdity like "Americans are pillaging the country to extend their empire" or "Iraq would be best served if Americans just left" or "Iraqis are a treacherous violent people who will never function in a democracy".

If you're purely pro-war or anti-war, please realize that you have taken a reductionist position: Iraq under Sadaam was a horrible place to live, the potential of its people was stifled, and it was near-perfect primordial soup for terrorists. At the same time, the American invasion is a huge disruption with many casualties and costs, and its ultimate success depends much more precariously on our long-term success helping the Iraqis convert their nation into a functioning, open society. Iraqis have a tremendous role in this process, and it's extremely encouraging to see some of them stand up and call Al-Jazeera on its violence-mongering.

link

Blog by a soldier about his experience in Baghdad.

link

From Critt, an interview with an influential military theorist who thinks danger is defined by disconnectedness.

As an advisor to the Secretary of Defense for 20 months following the September 11 attacks, Naval War College professor Thomas Barnett helped draw up our government's plans for prosecuting the War on Terror.

His primary insight was to divide the present nations of the world into two categories: a "Functioning Core" that exchanges ideas and goods globally, and a "Non-integrating" group who are isolated from other countries both economically and in the realm of ideas.

Noteworthy:

TAE: What are Iraq's prospects for economic development and integration into the global economy? Is getting its oil industry operational sufficient to achieve that?

BARNETT: No. Historically, countries develop the slowest when they rely on export of raw materials. and over-reliance on one resource makes a country more susceptible to the rise of elites who control the masses by controlling these resources. The Middle East is a place where there is a lot of wealth, but not much development, because the resource wealth is controlled by elites. And these rich elites produce kids with an expectation of hereditary rule who behave badly. That's Osama bin Laden in a nutshell.

This guy is brilliant. Is this long-term, globewide policy really what put us in Iraq? If so, can we handle that challenge? Was Bush hoping that these goals would become so clear and compelling that his initial lies would be seen as a crafty sell rather than as grossly misleading claptrap with no motive more evident than Halliburton profiteering?

Unfortunately I am not terribly optimistic that Bush feels this. And if he does I doubt he can effectively communicate it to the World which hangs on his every word. I'd love to hear what Wes Clark has to say about this…

link

When the United States finally goes to war again in the Persian Gulf, it will not constitute a settling of old scores, or just an enforced disarmament of illegal weapons, or a distraction in the war on terror. Our next war in the Gulf will mark a historical tipping point—the moment when Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization.

That is why the public debate about this war has been so important: It forces Americans to come to terms with I believe is the new security paradigm that shapes this age, namely, Disconnectedness defines danger. Saddam Hussein's outlaw regime is dangerously disconnected from the globalizing world, from its rule sets, its norms, and all the ties that bind countries together in mutually assured dependence.

link

If you hate the Yankees, as I do, please click on this link, but before you do so, swallow your coffee.

link

Get Your War On: a cynical comic about corporate life, politics, war…

link