Which comes first, democracy or security?

The New Neo Posted on by

Which comes first, democracy or security?

It’s a trick question, like the one about the chicken and egg. The truth is they must come simultaneously.

And ay, there’s (as Hamlet would say) the rub, because in chaotic third-world nations—Pakistan comes immediately to mind, of course—the two exist in very uneasy and difficult-to-implement equilibrium.

Democracy requires a certain amount of openness and civility. Despite accusations of dirty campaigning in this country, and the recent increase of post-election sour grapes, elections are a tea party here compared to most of the world.

As Amir Taheri writes in today’s Times Online:

Whoever killed Benazir belonged to one of the nebulae of organisations that have vowed to kill not only those who stand for election but also those who vote. Their slogan is: “From box to box!” This means that, by slipping one’s vote into a ballot box, one risks ending up in a coffin.

This transcends one candidate vs. another, although the terrorists had special reason to hate Benazir Bhutto. This is about the process of democracy itself. Continue reading →

The techniques of terrorism: no holds barred

The New Neo Posted on by

In my readings about Benazir Bhutto, I came across a telling detail about the first (and failed) attempt to kill her on her return to Pakistan. The bomb involved was a baby:

A man approached her armored truck, Mrs. Bhutto recounted, and was trying to hand across a small child as her motorcade inched through the thronged streets of Karachi. She remembers gesturing for the man to come closer.

“It was about 1 or 2 years old, and I think it was a girl,” Mrs. Bhutto told The Washington Times in her first public remarks about the baby.

“We feel it was a baby, kidnapped, and its clothes were rigged with explosives. He kept trying to hand it to people to hand to me. I’m a mother, I love babies, but the [streetlights] had already gone out, and I was worried about the baby getting dropped or hurt.”

Mrs. Bhutto would have been killed, she said, if she hadn’t stepped back to loosen the shoes on her swollen feet.

This the nature of the enemy. Think about it. Continue reading →

Bhutto: into the jaws of death

The New Neo Posted on by

The big news today seems to hardly be news at all. Like a tragic play you watch anyway, knowing it will not end well, Benazir Bhutto’s assassination—once by shooting and again by bombing, just to make certain—almost seems to have been an inevitability.

Of course, those words were written by someone (me) who thought—back in September of 2001 when Pakistan’s Musharraf publicly threw in his lot with the US, post-9/11—that she was watching a dead man talking. That part of the world is a graveyard for politicians, and Musahrraf’s continued survival is a testament to what must be extreme caution, excellent bodyguards, and no small measure of good luck.

Then again, Musharraf doesn’t (at least as far as I know) make public appearances at rallies of the type Bhutto was involved in when she was assassinated. But if you’re running as the people’s candidate, I suppose you must be among the people, and that’s risky, because the people of Pakistan live in a dangerous neighborhood indeed.

Whatever you may think of Bhutto’s politics (my recent take is here), it’s impossible to argue with her bravery. Continue reading →

Who’s an armchair general?

The New Neo Posted on by

On a recent thread here about General Petraeus there was a discussion in the comments section regarding General Shinseki’s original suggestion that higher troop levels would be needed in Iraq. As part of that back-and-forth, commenter Mitsu wrote:

…had we gone into Iraq with more troops in the first place, as Shinseki had recommended, the situation in Iraq wouldn’t have deteriorated nearly as much as it has.

And commenter Ymarsakar replied:

Is Shinseki and you therefore better (armchair) generals than Petraeus?

Mitsu responded:

So now even actual generals are armchair generals to you guys?

I’ve only excerpted a tiny portion of the lengthy comments section; I urge you to read the rest to get a better understanding of the issues involved in whether more troops would have been better, or would not have made a significant difference.

The truth is this: no one knows. More troops now is not the same as more troops then. All speculation on the subject is untestable. Continue reading →

Twas the day…

The New Neo Posted on by

Twas the day after Christmas, when all through the house,
Creatures were stirring and starting to grouse.
Torn wrappings were strewn round the floor without care.
It’s time for the store returns, presents to bear.
The stomachs were grumbling from too much good eating,
Yet leftovers beckoned “Continue the treating!”
And bloggers returned to their usual whining,
So I’ll stop the rhyming and start the opining.

On Christmas Day—blog?

The New Neo Posted on by

On Christmas Day—blog?
I’d rather have grog,
Or maybe eggnog,
Then go walk the dog.
Or watch a Yule Log,
And eat like a hog,
Then go for a jog.
Blogging’s a bog.
My mind’s in a fog,
Or maybe agog
From much dialogue.
I’ll return to the slog
Tomorrow, and blog.

Twas the bloggers’ night before Christmas

The New Neo Posted on by

‘TWAS THE BLOGGER’S NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS

‘Twas the night before Christmas, and all through the ”˜sphere
Bloggers were glad to see Christmas draw near.
Their laptops were turned off and all put away
The bloggers were swearing to take off the day.

Their children were nestled all snug in their beds
While visions of extra time danced in their heads
With a father or mom not distracted by writing
No posts to compose, and no links to be citing. Continue reading →

No, Petraeus! So say us: Time‘s untimely choice

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m with William Kristol on this one: why wasn’t General Petreaus the obvious choice for Time magazine’s annual “Person of the Year?”

Time was when Time actually had something intelligent to say about the world. But that Time was a long time ago. Putin is certainly an influential man on the international scene, but why him, why now?

Because, that’s why. Because first runner-up Al Gore didn’t need the trifecta (Nobel, Oscar, Time), for what even the NY Times acknowledges is a film and a message that is “exaggerated and erroneous” from the standpoint of science. Because although Harry Potter’s a fine creation, the coice of second runner-up J.K. Rowling would have been an absurdity. Next in line seems to have been China’s Hu Jintao (who?? Jintao?). I’m sure he’s influential as well, and China is always a big story and will continue to be so into the distant future, but certainly he has not done anything to make him extaordinarily noteworthy this year.

Which brings us to Time’s next in line, Petraeus. Continue reading →

Oh, why not?

The New Neo Posted on by

Why not take a break from politics and world angst? You’ve got a good excuse, because it’s that time of year again—“Nutcracker” time, that is.

Especially if you live anywhere near New York City, where the New York City Ballet has danced its 2000th performance of (excuse the pun) the old chestnut. If you have little children, especially girls, there is hardly a greater holiday treat than to take them to a performance (dressed in holiday finery, of course) and watch their faces light up.

At least, that was true for this little girl, who was enchanted by the ballet back when the troupe had danced only a couple of hundred performances, and when Balanchine himself took to the stage as an especially spooky Herr Drosselmeier. Even as a child I appreciated choreography and stage business, as well as scenery, and “Nutcracker” was loaded with more than its share. Continue reading →

More on Wallace and Jennings: a war reporter is not a nature reporter

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m pressed for time, so I’m writing this quickly and might have more to say later on the subject, but I urge you to read the comments section of yesterday’s thread.

One of the many interesting comments there was by Mitsu, who wrote:

…A sort of non-interference principle of reporting, that reporters should be out there to observe but not interfere with what they’re observing…Of course, this principle it seems ought to be superceded by the principle of saving lives ”” however, you might consider this argument (I’m not saying I believe it, but I am offering it). One reason reporters are often allowed into dangerous areas, even enemy territory, is that they are seen, basically, as uninvolved observers. For this reason reporters have managed to get information to the public in a wide variety of very dangerous situations. If reporters started to regularly get involved in an active way with what they were reporting on, this information flow might stop. They might become much more active targets than they already are, in war zones, etc. This would have the effect of making it much harder for us to find out what is going on especially in parts of the world where we’re not ordinarily very welcome.

I submit that, although this sounds very reasonable on the surface, on reflection it does not conform with reality. For starters, it is a fiction (born of arrogance and/or ignorance and/or wishful thinking) that journalists can cover a story by accompanying enemy soldiers on a mission and not affect that story. Their mere presence affects it by giving the enemy an opportunity for propaganda. Furthermore, in order to continue that presence and get further access in such situations, the journalists must be careful not to be too negative towards those who are kind enough to grant them the access, the story, and possibly the scoop (don’t discount the factor of the reporters’ own ambitious professional ends, either). Continue reading →