|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| Listen to the Military Before Deciding on Iraq
One of the supreme ironies of the American media's portrayal of the Iraqi front of the War on Islamo-extremism is that most of their information seems to come from the politicians, not the military brass actually involved in the critical path of decision-making. At the start of the engagement, "shock and awe" seemed to work, so media pundits supported the war. Then, as insurgents started flaring up, support wavered. Politicians (and therefore the media) were portraying American efforts at nation-building in Iraq as an inevitable consequence of President Bush's hubris, completely ignoring the fact that Iraq was the US's fifth attempt in a little over a decade, after experiences in Kuwait (1991), Haiti (1994), Kosovo (1999), and Afghanistan (2001). In fact, all but Haiti had significant Muslim populations, making the US military arguably the most experienced Western military operating within Muslim societies at the time.
So, if not the mainstream media, where can we turn to for relevant information? More pertinent to the current political discourse: what is the current situation in Iraq, and is it in the strategic interest of the United States to remain? To cut through all the campaign season propaganda, it is best to turn to the military brass and listen to a bit to what they (and those they listen to) have to say. Here's my summary:
- The war situation is improving, but will dramatically deteriorate, perhaps irreparably, if the military withdraws from "secured" trouble spots such as Baghdad or Anbar. (See The Gettysburg of This War, by Frederick W. Kagan.)
- General David Petraeus is doing a good job on the military front, but the military's efforts on the domestic political front are sorely lacking. The United States needs a new generation of leaders to meet this emerging threat. (See A Failure in Generalship, by Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling and Challenging the Generals, by Fred Kaplan.)
- Being militarily overextended, however, the United States is losing ground in other aspects of the War on Islamo-extremism, such as in Sudan, but especially with regards to the Iran and Venezuela, both important oil producers. (See The Role of Sudan in Islamist Terrorism: A Case Study, by Douglas Farah; Sorry, no link regarding Iran and Venezuela that I can find easily right now.)
Based on this information and my own assessment of the current US domestic political situation, I will speculate that despite the improving situation in Iraq, the United States military will be forced into setting a withdrawal date for 2010, though the "withdrawal" will actually be more of a redeployment of forces to Kurdish bases and Afghanistan to more effectively utilize military assets in the War on Islamo-extremism. And for anyone interested in learning more about the various presidential candidates' views on this topic, I suggest that you look at their views on Iran to guide your assessment; Iraq is apparently too much of a political hot potato for any politician with an actual shot at the White House to talk candidly about.
| | |
| Allerix
My brother Ivan made a roleplaying game called Allerix that's surprisingly good. The game's nowhere near complete, but the demo version is available here. Feedback welcome.
| | |
| In Defense of Apostasy
The fear of being labeled an apostate is one of the most potent tools Islamo-extremists use to prevent reformist elements from organizing. After all, it is not easy to convince others to express openly a viewpoint that can subject them to death threats or bodily harm. However, it is surprising to me that those few who do reject this premise say little to dispel the aura of fear surrounding it, especially when imams half-joke that Islam is a tolerant religion with no living apostates.
Consider Orson Scott Card’s argument that no true religion allows open worship while penalizing apostasy. If your religion has true believers, then people will believe in it regardless of the threat of punishment over apostasy. Only the non-believing masqueraders will accept the religion because they fear death more than compromising their ideals. In other words, it is only when people can freely choose not to believe in a religion will it be a show of faith to believe in it.
Perhaps these reformists aren’t big science fiction fans, but it surprises me that they don’t try to argue that it is really those against opening up Islam who are the infidels. After all, when remaining Islamic after opening up the religion is the strongest affirmation of one’s faith, it is only the infidels who have something to fear from it!
I feel that such an argument is necessary but not sufficient to disperse the fear surrounding such a controversial topic, but it is at least a step towards giving these reformist elements more theological legitimacy. And if the extremists reject the assumption that Islam needs to be a tolerant religion, perhaps the Western world will be more perceptive of the true nature of this war of ideas. | | |
| My Latest China Trip
Since Changyi appeared so enthused by my appearance in Chinese media as a result of my participation in the 2007 Chinese/Chinese-American Youth Forum, I thought I'd share it with you all as well. If you (or your parents , more likely) find other mentions of myself or the program, please let me know in the comments, as I am collecting them as personal keepsakes. Thanks in advance.
| | |
| Thoughts on the Value of Name-Brand Colleges
For all the talk about US News and World Report’s college rankings, I don’t think there’s much difference in the quality of education between the schools ranked. In fact, I suspect that motivated honors students who double major at “lowly” state schools receive much better educations than some Ivy League-caliber schools. (I vaguely recall some sort of economic study about employer satisfaction some years ago about this.) This is precisely why I feel schools like MIT are, on the whole, overrated. Yes, many of the people there are brilliant, but the people the Admissions Office doesn’t trumpet are probably no more impressive than students at schools considered inferior. Rankings seem to be useful insofar as marketing ploys for the schools involved and as a sort of “minimum quality guarantee” on the students that graduate—a value that may vary greatly from what admissions offices would like you to think.
I think this analogy (cleaned up somewhat) from one of Larry’s dad’s friends sums it up nicely:
[17:34] csrjjsmp: …. Getting a bachelor's degree is like a driver's license.
[17:34] guanw86: How so?
[17:34] csrjjsmp: It doesn't matter what kind of car you drive on your exam: just get your license and you can find a nice car later….Nobody cares how you do on your driver's test, so long as you have the license.
Personally, I feel that the major distinguishing factor between colleges is the networking opportunities available. I pay twice as much for my college tuition for the opportunity to hobnob with Stephen Hawking, dine with the former head of the American Nuclear Society, and become friends with some of the brightest minds of the next generation. Now, I’m not saying this is not possible at other schools, but it is certainly much more difficult. I suspect Mary chose Stanford (perhaps unconsciously?) partially for the opportunities to tag along with world-class physicians in surgery.
These networking opportunities are the true reason you should be willing to pay a premium for name-brand schools, not the oft-quoted “better education.” Of course, depending on the field you’re interested in, the associated value may not always be worth the added price. Nevertheless, I feel that assuming state schools generally provide a worse quality of education is simply not true. So, when your parents’ friends force their children to talk with you about choosing a college, you may want to ask them why a state school isn’t good enough for them. The fierceness of their belief in the inferiority of others may surprise you.
| | |
|
