Kagan on U.S. hegemony, balance of power

So this column is way old - from Jan. 15 - but I've had a busy week or two.

Anyway, it's Robert Kagan's monthly column in the Washington Post. He argues that the world is not balancing against U.S. hegemony; it is not performing the balance-of-power shift that "realists have been anticipating for more than 15 years now."

My response is that the attempt to balance is happening, militarily and otherwise, but will be a decade or two before actual balance might occur. I say "otherwise" because perhaps power can now be measured in ways other than missile counts.

(Kagan is the author of "Of Power and Paradise," about the US and EU perspectives on power, which I discussed here.)

In his Washpost column, he cites the decline of EU states' defense spending among other data, such as the world still turning the US for guidance and peace treaties (Korea, Palestine).

These are valid points, but perhaps "power" needs a new metric. In the post-Cold War era, (or the globalization era - either term works for this purpose), power doesn't stem only from the barrels of U.S. or Soviet missle silos. Economic pressure is far more influential than it was during the Cold War, so maybe Europe is balancing. And Kagan doesn't give China enough credit, either. He mentions that China isn't a threat now, but when one views what China is working toward, it certainly seems like an attempt at balancing.

He does mention China in this context, which I find interesting, and perhaps the most intriguing nugget of the piece:

The problem for any nation attempting to balance American power, even in that power's own region, is that long before it becomes strong enough to balance the United States, it may frighten its neighbors into balancing against it.

Indeed. But give China - and Europe - 10 or 15 years. Then we'll see.

Anti-EU art

Man, the EU Referendum blog often has some funny anti-EU Photoshopped art. It's so simple, and obvious, but nonetheless hilarious. Chirac is the best.

This is making fun of a "Sound of Europe" conference.

ELF and ALF as "terrorist" groups

The FBI was throwing around the terms "terrorist" and "terrorism" pretty loosely when they announced they indicted a dozen or so members of the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front.

It is of course old news. A week old. That's an eternity in the news cycle, but it's still on my mind. Mostly because I've been posting about it on a local message board.

Anyway, a few issues I have with the situation:

1. The groups are barely - just barely - terrorist organizations. It's a stretch.

2. The "t" designation matters, because a.) Americans associate the term with 3,000 people dead in an instant, and b.) the executive branch cites the term as the justification for unusual and arguably illegal law enforcement techniques.

On the first point, what is terrorism? It's tough to define. The United Nations has never agreed on a definition. In general, though, this is my basic understanding:

The use or threat of use of violence - by an individual or entity other than a state - to achieve social or political change.

That is very basic. I think the distinction regarding states is important, though. I always take issue with definitions that say states can be terrorists. I've always thought that if a state does it, it is an act of war; It is not terrorism.

I understand the politics behind it, that people want the actions of Israel (and now the United States) to fit the definition of terrorism. They certainly do fit some definitions. But I prefer my definition to not include states, thank you very much.

Here is a non-basic definition, from the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime. The definition is described as the (proposed) Academic Consensus Definition

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought"

That is far too complicated. However, I think it works, except for the "state actor" bit. They always stick that in there.

A funny, but essentially accurate definition, on the same U.N. web site, has this title: Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992):

Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime

Ha! True enough.

But back to the environmentalists. They've apparently broken many laws, including burning down buildings and damaging infrastructure - sometimes using explosives in the process. And they do this to achieve social and/or political change. Terror!

I suppose. Arson isn't exactly violence, especially when the guilty parties took great pains to make sure no humans were in the buildings. (Did they make sure no squirrels were in the roof? I sure hope so! What about the mice? And think of all the pollution caused by burning buildings!) Anyway, I think terrorism should involve actual violence. It's been brought up that firefighters could get hurt fighting the fires. Sure. But that's pretty indirect.

So they're "kinda sorta" terrorists. Congrats. I think they're more organized crime or serial felony vandals, but I guess they do fit into an edge of the terrorist spectrum. OK.

Why does it matter?

Well, I've pretty much mentioned it above. It's one of those slippery-slope things. Terrorism is a serious word, and it got a lot more serious in this country on Sept. 11, 2001. We know this. So it seems to perhaps trivialize the tragedies of that day to call acts "terrorism" that don't even attempt to hurt a human being. It waters down the whole thing.

I bet in Israel, where real terrorist attacks happen regularly, they might be hesitant to apply the term in this situation.

Furthermore, let's think about what has been excused in the name of terrorism: Two wars. Non-judicial detainment at Guantanamo Bay. American citizens held as prisoners of war. Warrantless eavesdropping on U.S. citizens. Were/are the aforementioned acts justified? In the name of fighting terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, it is certainly arguable. No doubt.

But can the Patriot Act and the John Yoo legal approach in general be applied to hippies who burn down unoccupied buildings?

In conclusion: Of course these are crimes, and the guilty parties should be punished. We seem to have serial violent offenses intended to have social or political effects. So they're pretty much terrorist acts. The main sticking point is "violent," but arson is pretty violent - it can harm folks. It's just quite different from what al Qaeda pulled off in 2001.

I just hope the line between the two types of terrorists isn't blurred, which would essentially mean martial-law tactics imposed in the pursuit of suspects who haven't even tried to hurt a human being. And just as problematic, it might distract law enforcement resources from investigating groups that actually want to kill many people.

Chirac threatens with nukes

If a state sponsors a terrorist WMD attack on France, France could respond with nuclear weapons, Jacques Chirac warned Thursday.

This is simply applying proportionate response theory to WMD, is it not? Is it any different from Reagan bombing Libya?

Of course, the civilian casualties are multiplied by 100-fold or more, but in principle it's the same. And Chirac's proposal might sound nutty to those of us who came of age in the era of smart bombs and UAVs, but he grew up in the ashes of total war.

When one considers warfare as state vs. state, avoiding civilian casualties is not much of a priority. And many argue that that is the most realistic way to analyze international relations; Iran might be discouraged from supplying Hezbollah with WMD if the state - as a state - will be punished severely for doing so.

Then again, I do think we can assume nuclear weapons are an absolute last resort. No one wants to see total war again, or the use of nuclear weapons in any capacity. But situations like this remind us they're still around - and states still may use them one day.

Too candid for comfort?

Perhaps you recall Paul Hackett, the Marine reservist officer from Cincinnati who spent seven months in Iraq and narrowly lost his bid for Congress last year. His veteran status wasn't the only thing putting him in the headlines. He called the president a "chickenhawk" and told USA Today, "I don't like that son-of-a-bitch that lives in the White House."

Maybe he's one-upped himself. He would have raised some eyebrows just by saying that the 62 percent of Ohioans who voted to ban gay marriage are "un-American," as he recently did. But he also said this:

"The Republican Party has been hijacked by the religious fanatics that, in my opinion, aren't a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden and a lot of the other religious nuts around the world."

That might cause some problems.

Larry Diamond and Christopher Hitchens on wiretapping

Of course liberals get giddy when they see conservatives or moderates opposing Bush's policies, so you can imagine the glee about the participants in the ACLU-led lawsuit against the NSA. This Salon article headline sums it up: "Strange Bedfellow v. Bush and Cheney."

Christopher Hitchens is a party to the suit, which actually isn't much of a surprise -- unless you consider his support of the war in Iraq. Professional contrarian. But his opposition to domestic spying makes sense when one realizes his admiration of Orwell.

The name that caught my attention was Larry Diamond, who was a senior adviser to the CPA in Iraq during 2004. He's a democracy expert at the somewhat conservative Hoover Institute. I heard him speak once, and he's a captivating speaker. He has criticized the Bush's post-war policies, but I'm still surprised to see him with the ACLU.

Not dead yet?

This Supreme Court ruling about assisted suicide in Oregon reminded me of an organization with an interest in the issue: Not Dead Yet.

I've always liked how the font they use is appropriately grim - and includes the symbol synonymous with the ADA!

I also appreciate that the web site of an orgnization committed to the rather sober task of pointing out that handicapped people are "not dead yet" has a humor section.

Guns, Germs, and Steel

Another one in the category of "books I should have read already" is Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel."

A few Europe-related notes about this book, which was originally published in 1997, but republished in 2003 with a new afterward. Pulitzer Prize, as you surely know.

1. On the question he terms "Why Europe, not China?" Diamond examines why European civilization surpassed China in many ways and then expanded around the globe. Diamond attributes this success to "Optimal Fragmentation Principal" - that Europe drew strength from the competition its state system fostered while the Chinese behemoth state stagnated. "There has never been one despot who could turn the tap for all of Europe, as of China," he writes.

His thesis has some interesting implications for EU integrationists.

2. A minor note, in the context of comparing Japan with the United Kingdom: British soldiers have fought on the continent during every century since 1066.

That in itself is interesting, but a comparison adds perspective: Until the late 19th century, Japanese troops had been on the mainland during only two periods, the 8th century and the 16th century.

And you thought CAP was a skeleton in Alito's closet...

Maybe you already saw this minor cut-and-paste error in the Purdue University student newspaper, The Exponent.

I found it here in a blog called Educe Me.

Video games about war, video games about football

I've always thought it somewhat ironic that millions of Americans play video games simulating combat while other Americans actually engage in combat, namely in Iraq. I don't bring this up to discuss societal conditioning - I'm not thinking of the 13-year-olds who are arguabley being trained "by society" to kill for the government. No, I find the irony in the 17-to-32-year-olds. Many of the video-game players are in the same age bracket as the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines whose actions they imitate.

And this isn't bitterness, in a "Where were you, Dick Cheney?" sort of way. One might be tempted to make such an argument, but the military is having success with re-enlistments and decent success with new enlistments. It's not like the Second World War, where everyone - including athletes - joins up. It's a smaller military these days.

Another layer to the issue appeared when I recently read about Bengals quarterback Carson Palmer's hobby: playing paintball in the woods with other Bengals. These symbols of machismo - the modern-day gladiators - have a fun time pretending they are at war. Maybe they play the Navy SEAL-based video game "Rainbow Six" when it's too rainy for paintball.

Meanwhile, another Cincinnati reservist unit ships out for Iraq this week.

Again, one could get bitter - you know, "Why don't the Bengals enlist?" (A big reason why they shouldn't is for national morale. Cincinntians are currently foaming at the collective mouth because the Bengals don't suck this year.)

But there's another noteworthy phenomenon.

In Iraq today, there are soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines playing video games themselves. Maybe the SEALs play "Rainbow Six." I know lots of people play first-person shooter games. When I was in the Marines, the popular game was "Goldeneye 007." My favorite level was the Frigate, where your character runs around a ship, shooting folks.

But here comes Carson Palmer again. Many members of the military play football-based games such as "Madden." There are real-life warriors out there today playing video games that simultate being Carson Palmer. That, perhaps, is the real irony. Carson pretends to be them, they pretend to be Carson.

So ultimately, the lesson is that people just like to simulate a life other than their own. A life more exciting, maybe, or just exciting in a different way. And if you've got a job where people simulate you, that's pretty awesome. If you don't appreciate it now, perhaps you will later in life.

Third Turk dies from Bird Flu

Third person in Turkey dies of Bird Flu, and still others are sick, says Reuters.

Bird Flu and Turkey (the country)

As Avian Influenza creeps toward Europe, jokes based on the English-language meaning of the word "turkey" become less funny. But they're still a bit clever, I think.

Anyway: A second Bird Flu death from the same family in Turkey, and a half dozen other folks are showing similar syptoms.

It's still Eastern Turkey, which is quite far from Bulgaria and Greece, but it still concerns the Europeans, I'm sure. As long as people get it from birds - and it's not easily spread person-to-person, there's no huge threat.

On the EU's nascent legal system

Apparently, the system allowing EU member states to set the punishment for their own citizens' breaches of EU law isn't operating equally across the continent. From the Scotsman, with my bolding:

"[T]the average fine being levied against individuals guilty of forging EU fisheries control documents varies from about £90,000 in the UK to £3,000 in Spain - and just £180 in France.

"National sanctions for failing to comply with EU laws banning dangerous chemical discharges into rivers are equally varied: the UK maximum penalty is five years in prison, compared with two years in France, while Greece has introduced no measures at all."

Of course the Brits aren't happy. And disparities could be understood if they were just between poorer states (we're looking at you, Greece) and wealthier states, but look at the differences between the UK's punishments and those of France. What incentive does Greece have to implement more severe punishments on its citizens? And what about other less-wealthy states, such as Poland and Latvia? How about Bulgaria and Romania?

More in-depth commentary at eureferendum.

(Comedy note - Look at what happens when we snip a bit of one of the above Scotsman sentences, way out of context: "The UK maximum penalty is five years in prison, compared with two years in France." Ha.)