May 2006

President Seinfeld

Dick Cheney is the George Costanza of the Bush administration. I realized this as I was watching the television yesterday morning and this bit comes on about a fashion reporter winning a Pulitzer for criticism and I see why... she showed how the personality of politicians was reflected in their clothing. One picture she commented on was of Dick Cheney sitting in a parka, a big, green parka, at a memorial service for the victims of the Auschwitz murder camp.

Everyone else wore dignified black, and there's the George Costanza-equivalent sitting there, clad in green goretex. I could half imagine him responding to his critics, "I was COLD! Last I checked, we were all living in a SOCIETY!"

And then it all clicked for me. Life imitates art and we got us a President Seinfeld here in the US.

Think about it. Jerry Seinfeld was a comic with no acting ability others drafted to head up a television series. George Bush is a businessman with no leadership ability others drafted to head up a major industrialized nation. Jerry gets into all sorts of mishaps because of his friends. Bush gets into similar pickles on account of his friends. Jerry doesn't act as much as he's acted upon in the series. Same for Bush. Seinfeld ran for about eight years, and that's all the seasons we'll have Dubya for.

Beyond the parka at Auschwitz Cheney is George Costanza in so many other ways. He's balding, stocky, short-tempered, abrasive, and gets into so much mischief every time he follows his natural instincts. He dropped the f-bomb on a senator. He had a secret meeting with energy tycoons. He got his old company, Halliburton, a gazillion-dollar contract to rebuild Iraq, bid-free. He shot a guy while hunting. I can imagine some of the conversations President Seinfeld and VP Costanza must have had...

Seinfeld: So you shot a guy.

Costanza: He looked like a turkey.

Seinfeld: Did you tell that to the police?

Costanza: What police? I wasn't gonna call the police!

Seinfeld: But you shot a man!

Costanza: I'm aware of that! But aren't we supposed to cover those things up?

Seinfeld: I dunno...

Costanza: I WANT A COVER-UP! I DEMAND A COVER-UP! (panicking) Jerry! Ya gotta help me! Don't I deserve just a little covering up? After all I've done for you?

Seinfeld: (pauses) All riiiiiiight! But you owe me one!

Costanza: You got it. I owe you one big time.

For the ever-graceful Elaine Benes, we have the ever-graceful Condi Rice. She's perfect for the role. Always overly self-confident and ready to serve her own narrow agenda at the expense of others. She stuck to her guns when she testified to Congress, just like Elaine kept that Orioles cap on in the Yankee owner's seats. I bet she also yells, "Get OUT!" and shoves people over whenever she hears some amazing news. And you know she and Bush must have had some kind of connection, like Elaine and Jerry used to have. And as the White House popularity ratings sink towards single digits, she's gotta be thinking, "I need to find some new friends!"

For our Cosmo Kramer, I present Donald Rumsfeld. Like Kramer, Rumsfeld prefers going by his last name. Like Kramer, Rumsfeld knows how to make a big entrance. Like Kramer, Rumsfeld is able to convince others his visions aren't divorced from reality, but can and will succeed if we all just believe hard enough in them and leave the details to him. Also like Kramer, his plans usually go horribly, horribly wrong.

Kramer: That's the beauty of it, Jerry! We invade Iraq, but we don't need troops!

Seinfeld: I'm not so sure, Kramer.

Kramer: What's there to worry about? We go in, knock a few heads around, set up a friendly government, and then... all that OIL!

Costanza: Come on, Jerry! We can do it! We got marines!

Elaine: Yeah, Jer. I mean, we're the US and they're... IRAQ. Duh!

Costanza: It's a great plan. It's a walk-over!

Kramer: A WALK-OVER! You gotta give me the green light on this, Jerry. It's a great deal!

Jerry: (pause) All right, all riiiiiiight! But, hang on... isn't invading other countries that haven't attacked us... ILLEGAL?

Kramer: Oh you leave that part to me. (makes ka-pow noise with lips) I'm on it right now. (Exits)

Costanza: You gotta love Kramer's enthusiasm. It's contagious!

We all love Kramer's enthusiasm. We also love ol' Rummy's enthusiasm, too. Whenever he's on the teevee, I want to believe him, I really do. Then he goes off and I start to see all the holes in his plans. The reason he hangs out with Cheney, Condi, and Bush is because they're as unable to see the flaws in his schemes just the way Kramer's plots pass muster with Costanza, Elaine, and Seinfeld.

Even the supporting cast matches up with the Bush administration. For Newman, Mr. "pure evil", we have Jack Abramoff. The advice-dispensing waitress from the start of the series who got written out of the series would be none other than Colin Powell. Osama Bin Laden? Crazy Joe Davola. They even have the same number of syllables in their names. "Saddam Hussein" even showed up in an episode, so he can play himself. They're all there, people.

Even the content of the presidency itself mirrors the content of the series. For all the hype and bluster about the Bush administration, for all the entertainment value it's given us, at its core, it's still devoid of actual content. I can't recall any meaningful legislation passed other than the USA-PATRIOT act and the Medicare prescription plan, and both of those are famous boondoggles of gobbledygook. Historians today are preparing to write off Bush as a president who promised much and delivered little.

It's a presidency about nothing, and that's the genius of it all!

Ahmadinejad's Poker Hand

The IAEA reported finding more highly-enriched uranium in Iran, this time at an Iranian defence facility. This is not the first time the IAEA has found traces of HEU where it should not have been in Iran.

President Ahmadinejad is not behaving in a conciliatory way. Iran does not seem to be concealing its surreptitious nuclear technological development very well. What should the world make of this?

The first question is whether or not Iran planted the HEU for the IAEA to find. Putting it in their path makes estimates of Iranian weapons development subject to questioning. If they were (x) years or months away from making a weapon with the program on the surface of things, how close are their secret programs to making a weapon? Could they already have one? If the HEU is a plant, it would be to make nations like Israel or the US hesitate before launching a pre-emptive strike.

To be sure, such strikes are nuclear only in press articles. For the US to actually use a nuclear weapon, no matter how small, would be a monstrous act in the face of no actual Iranian aggression. Same for Israel. No matter what politicians may say, nuclear options have to be off the table in any rational scenario. Disliked though he may be, Bush is still rational.

But a pre-emptive strike opens a path of potential escalation. This is something conventional wisdom says the US cannot afford. Politically, the US does not likely possess the will to commit to such an adventure, unless Iran strikes the first blow. Militarily, the US would be taking itself into a third major occupation, with consequences for its ability to make commitments to security in China, Taiwan, and the already strained situations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

What if the HEU is not planted? Nuclear weapons are easy to hide until they're detonated, and if Iran hasn't detonated any, there's no way to truly know how many it may have already created or purchased.

If Iran has nuclear weapons, why not declare them, fait accompli? Perhaps it's for similar reasons to why Israel hasn't officially declared its weapons. The US can support Israel as a nation without weapons with its current don't ask, don't tell policy. Same for Russia and China. It may be the worst-kept secret in the Middle East, but if Iran doesn't step up and officially admit them, Russia and China can be officially blind to them.

But Iran has to get word out of its nuclear capabilities to prevent a risk-taking US president from ordering an invasion. What use is a deterrent if nobody knows about it? Therefore, it has to allow evidence of its power to leak out into the press while officially proclaiming only peaceful intentions. The HEU, whether planted or not, is Iran's unofficial declaration of its intention to develop nuclear weapons, at the very least.

Bush and Ahmadinejad are playing poker. Ahmadinejad might be bluffing. To find out, Bush has to call his raise. If he doesn't, Ahmadinejad wins the round and nuclear weapons are the prize. If Bush calls, Ahmadinejad shows his cards eventually, and eventually means he wins nuclear weapons. If Bush raises the stakes, Ahmadinejad doesn't seem likely to fold - just raise Bush right back, prolonging the situation.

The only situation in which Iran doesn't get nuclear weapons is if Bush accuses Ahmadinejad of cheating, kicks the poker table over, and starts shooting up the place. Iran won't be able to develop its weapons in that event. But, then, the US wouldn't be able to afford that war if it meant the price of oil went off the charts, let alone if it entailed massive new deficits and a draft.

And that's why Ahmadinejad smiles so much these days. He's sure he's got the US beat. Let them find the HEU. Let them find the weapons, even. They can't do anything about it without bringing down the roof on their own heads. The US is already engaged in a high-stakes game in Iraq and Afghanistan, so it can't put its entire bankroll on the Iranian table, which means Iran needs only outbid the US to win.

Watch out.

Failed Nations

Full table here... 

The US is #128 out of 146 on the list. That means there are 18 nations in the world that are less failed than the US. It also means there are 127 more failed, so criticize the States all you want, they're still not anywhere near as bad off as Afghanistan, this year's #10, up from #11.

The sad part is how many of the total failures in the top ten are occupied or heavily influenced by the US. Afghanistan's a wreck at #10, and Pakistan's actually worse off at #9 - plunging there from #34 last year. That's not good for Pakistan to be in that position. Its proximity to Afghanistan and the drugs trade in the border regions can only mean worse things for those who actually want to fight heroin addiction in the world. Both states seem likely candidates to become narcocracies.

Haiti weighs in at #8. The US has been attempting to bail out Haiti since the 1920's. So far, no success with the whole nation-building thing. Even though Haiti is so close to the US, it is so far, far away in terms of being a successful democracy. Part of the problem in Haiti have been the thugs who try and take over every time the US leaves. The other part of the problem are the thugs who are put in power when the US arrives.

Speaking of thugs, Somalia's #7 on our Top Ten countdown. Somalia's its own damn fault and folks in the US are damn glad to have the US out of there every time they watch Black Hawk Down. Chad and Zimbabwe take the next two slots on the chart and then we hit a big number four...

Iraq.

Iraq outscores Zimbabwe by a bare tenth of a point on the Foreign Policy scale, but it outscores that African hellhole all the same. Zimbabwe rates somewhat higher than Iraq on "Mounting Demographic Pressures", "Uneven Economic Development Along Group Lines", and "Progressive Deterioration of Public Services". Iraq beats out Zimbabwe in a convincing way on "Legacy of Vengeance-Seeking Group Activity", "Security Apparatus as a 'State Within a State'", "Rise of Factionalized Elites", and "Intervention of Other States or External Actors". Six of one, half dozen of the other... I wouldn't want to live in either country right now.

Cote d'Ivoire beats Iraq by 0.2 points. Ouch. I know how bad that nation fared last year, and Iraq and Zimbabwe are almost that bad. The Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan aren't that much further ahead, either, which is the scariest thing of all. Sudan beats out Iraq by the same margin between Spain and the US, but less than the difference between #124-ranked Germany and the US.

According to this table, Iraq's about the same as Sudan. Not much difference between the two, at all, in the overall scheme of things.

Put in another perspective, North Korea is ranked #14. North friggin' Korea! When your nation is worse off than both Afghanistan and North Korea, my friend, it's time to bail out, if at all possible. Folks in Guinea, Liberia, and the Central African Republic (#11-13) can exercise their judgment on whether to cut and run or not. The swains of Nepal (#20) decided to have a revolution just recently, so maybe that's in the cards for the folks in the 19 slots above them.

Given the violence in #22 Nigeria, #23 Uzbekistan, #25 Sri Lanka, and #27 Colombia, something going completely to hell in #4 Iraq doesn't seem all that unlikely. The rest of the nations in that top ten are in deep trouble, too, but it's Iraq where the US has the most troops to get caught in the crossfire.

But when Pakistan falls apart, that's the one to get scared about. Never mind Iran building nukes. Pakistan already has them. What happens in a Pakistani civil war or if warlordism becomes the fashion there? What if a popular, yet extremist, faction gets its hands on one of those nukes, complete with its delivery system?

Let this all serve as a cautionary tale to any nation what seeks the building of empires through brute force: they are but castles made of sand on the shores of the sea of history.

Watch out.