link

Mike posted a reply to my comment.

link

Mike Pinkel, my former classmate, has some thoughts on the US giving unconditional support to Israel. You should read his essay, but the gist is that our support for even Sharon's most radical actions is more reason for hatred of the US. Thus, dropping the policy of unconditional support would improve perceptions of the US and contribute to improved security.

I disagreed and left the following in his comments.

So many Arabs hate the US and Israel because the clerics and dictators in charge of their countries foment hatred of the US and Israel. They do this in order to distract their followers from the ceaseless exploitation of their national resources. Without this distraction, any person left to think for herself would demand the reform of her own government.

The middle east caricature of Israel is a ploy to maintain power. Leaders of these states and religions work hard to cut off their people from connecting to the rest of the world — economically, politically, and culturally — so that they can control what flows over that link. If all the exports and imports in a vast land go through one dictator or royal family, they decide who eats, who gets paid, who gets oil and technology and internet access. If this heavyhanded effort wasn't hidden behind layers of state-controlled media, the people would surely get up and bust some asses.

But the dictators are smart enough to know that people in groups can unite quite strongly against a common enemy. They invent and reinforce the image of that enemy by any means, because the failure of that illusion would expose Saddam, Asad, the Saudi Royals, etc. as oppressive, exploitative hypocrites.

So, would it help kill these illusions if we were more rational in our support for Israel? To put it jokingly, do you think Al-Jazeera or Syrian state television would herald the improvement in US foreign policy? It's hard for me to imagine that anything short of us dropping bombs on Israel wouldn't be disclaimed as a superficial ploy on the part of those lying Americans who think you and all you cherish are idiotic scum. (Actually, I suspect a bomb would be "revealed" as a bungled attempt to attack Syria.) You're not that simple are you? You're a good Muslim* aren't you? Don't you want to keep letting me take the oil under your house? Don't you want to continue sending your daughters to commit suicide attacks?

(*Note that when I use "Muslim" here I am BY NO MEANS suggesting that Islam is inherently tied to brutality or terrorism, except that those who foment terrorism exploit the language of Islam to incite their followers to the extreme measures required to continue their power. It's kinda like how Bush uses "down home boy" style and talks about "accountability", only far worse.)

So, what would help to destroy these illusions? We need ways that people can hold their governments accountable and get a picture of the truth about the world outside. They need economic opportunity, democratic government, and cultural openness. Examples: mobile phone antennas, votes for women, outsourcing contracts.

Also, making Iraq a nice place to live and work will improve things. Leaving Iraq a smoking hellhole and power vacuum will make things much worse. America seriously needs to get its shit together about this occupation.

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

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