Yegor Gaidar - RIP

Image via Wikipedia

At 53, one of the leaders of economic reforms in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union has died. Many Russians despise him, but they are wrong and frankly, never understood the economic and political situation that the country faced in 1993.

Like many in his position had and continue to learn, the immense problems created by a corrupt, venal and criminal political and economic system are then blamed on the successor as the reforms that are necessary take form and are implemented. (The Republicans and the Bush administration somehow come to mind). As Rome's leaders learned, the "mob" easily forgets - but is just as easily bought off by whomever has the money, the slogans and the simplistic solutions.

I only had the chance to meet with Gaidar once together with Anatoly Chubais, when I first arrived in Russia during the latter part of 2004. The meeting was brief and I was not alone, but I remember clearly how relaxed and logical he was in describing what he felt needed to be done. It was a perilous time, but one that held enormous hope. Unlike Russia today, the chaos was a democratic kind and numerous parties were maneuvering, compromising and arriving at less than satisfactory deals in order to move forward.

Russians used to say that everything was free in the Soviet Union. I remember a town meeting outside of Moscow in 1995 when one person after another voiced similar sentiments. Except it was palpably false. Nothing was free. The speaker, a member of the Duma, then asked if they would prefer the old economy where they had jobs but nothing to buy or one where the shelves were full and choices wide. The difference, of course, was clear. They would have to work to earn what they needed. In the USSR (and I went to school for a short time in Leningrad) prices were cheap - paid for by poor salaries. Nothing is for free.

Yegor Gaidar's choices were stark and, like Robert Frost, he took the road less travelled by - and it made all the difference. Russians can thank him for saving their country regardless of the mistakes - and they were huge. But Russia survived because of him, Chubais and even - yes even - Yeltsin.

Russia Strikes it BIG

Russia has succeeded in convincing the guano capital of the planet, if not the galaxy, to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states. It only cost Russia's treasury a paltry $50 Million USD to the island nation of Nauru for it to cave in to the tidal wave of support for the two Russian created regions.

It is unknown what the nation's 11,320 citizens think of this monumental decision by their country which will soon be ratified by Nauru's parliament. Lavrov must have really worked hard to achieve this diplomatic coup right under the nose of the West. I'm sure that the Kremlin will now put the unlimited supply of bird droppings their money has purchased to good use.

Peace Prize, US and Iran

In reading President Obama's Nobel Prize acceptance speech, I was struck by certain sections which are indicators of what may come. Here are the 'graphs:

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naive -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms.

...I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms....

If I were making a bet, then this part of the speech means that if Iran keeps thumbing its nose at the international community, refuses the proposals of Russia, Turkey and others, then the US is going to act militarily. I make no judgement of whether this is smart or not, but even Moscow seems to be frustrated. Iran's leadership need to pay attention.

Short Answers to Dumb Questions

Speaking to President Obama's speech in Oslo accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, Rude Pundit had these questions:

"To put it simply, Barack Obama wasn't talking to you. He wasn't even talking to Europe, really. No, he was speaking to history, offering a philosophical and not dispassionate assertion of American leadership in the world, a reasoning behind his war policies, a defense of the "just war" doctrine, and a plan for future peace. It wasn't a stemwinder, a breathtaking oratory cum sermon. It was a speech, from an intellectual president to intellectuals, and it was so fucking smart. Have we gone so far down the dumbing-down highway that we can no longer see the importance of hearing a rational man grapple with the conflict between realism and idealism? Have we been so numbed by the cowboy presidency of George W. Bush, along with a steady diet of reality-TV hysterics and high-fructose corn syrup-infused food products, that we're no longer capable of understanding anything except in relation to how it makes us feel?"

Answer to all the above regarding the American Publicus Idiotus: Yes.

Off Topic - Wingnuts in the US

It is only by exercising enormous restraint that I refrain from posting on the loathsome, lowlife, uneducated morons in the US who oppose science and choice: in health (insurance) reform, for women, for lifestyle, for climate change and of religious (or no religious) beliefs. What I think should happen to them is largely unprintable. Oh - and screw Stupak and his allies.
MUST.STOP.READING.ABOUT.US.POLITICS.

Afghanistan Surge

The Obama plan is not what I would have hoped for since other than the July 2011 date to begin withdrawal there is no exit strategy. Perhaps there is one, but the strategy was not announced. To my mind, this was a necessary step in explaining the entire plan to the public. Now, however, and despite statements to the contrary, the withdrawal must really begin in the summer of 2011.

General McChrystal largely got what he wanted. The media, as usual, reported that the approved 30,000 was short of the troop surge that he had requested. He has more. The media conveniently forgot the 21,000 sent earlier this year. So, the US has committed another 51,000 and not 30,000. So be it and I really hope the general is correct in his assessment because he has 18 months to prove it.

If the troop withdrawal does not start in July 2011 then the surge will convert to an occupation in the eyes of the Afghans, something I would hope the US had learned to avoid from its ongoing experience in Iraq. This would be a mistake of enormous proportions because it would be seen that the US is supporting a corrupt regime in the face of an indigenous Pashtun uprising with an army made up of minority Tajiks.

Furthermore, Obama has stated that this is not a war of choice, but of necessity. Maybe - but I still wonder who we are fighting. That the Taliban are a despicable throw-back to twelfth century beliefs does not make them the enemy. Distasteful, oppressive and dangerous internally to Afghans - particularly women - they may be. But, the US cannot wage war on those grounds everywhere. So is the Mugabe regime, not to mention the proposed legislation in Uganda calling for the death penalty for homosexuals (supported, by the way, by the US homegrown Taliban known as the far right christian fundamentalists and their Republican allies).

If the purpose of the surge is to protect areas long enough to solidify opposition to the Taliban, then who is going to do that after the withdrawal? The Afghan army is composed largely of Tajiks who will have serious trouble operating in Pashtun majority areas. Indeed, it has taken 8 years to train 100,000 Afghan troops. Is the plan to train an equal number in 18 months even remotely feasible?

Is the goal to destroy al Qaida? It wouldn't seem necessary to employ 55,000 troops to go after a shattered organization which has not mounted a serious attack in 5 years. In any case, destroying the terrorist organization should not be the goal in Afghanistan not merely because its total destruction is likely impossible, but because the goal should be to deny it a base. Again, that does not take 55,000 troops.

The US has indulged in nation building in Iraq and is dangerously close to that goal in Afghanistan. This is the worst mistake since it is not a nation and only can be dealt with - if that's the phrase - as a collection of tribes and clans. The US cannot afford to stay in Afghanistan to cobble together a unified nation and certainly not with Karzai, the mayor of Kabul.

My take on this strategy is that there are too many points where it can fail ranging from the perception of occupation by foreigners to a corrupt, ineffective government that has lost legitimacy but which will attempt to keep the US in the game well beyond the 2011 withdrawal phase.

Beyond the borders of Afghanistan, the US and the surge will produce additional tensions between India and Pakistan. The latter have no desire to see Afghan Taliban, supported by the Pakistan government, pushed into Pakistan only to be followed in hot pursuit by troops or an increase in drone attacks. Pakistan is also concerned by Indian influence in Afghanistan and, paranoid or not, feels that India is encircling it.

Then there is Iran which seems to be involved in a slow motion drain circling dance internally but which also appears to be deliberately provoking the West. With troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, a belligerent Israel and an independent minded Turkey, how does Obama deal with a sudden Iran crisis? More importantly, how does he deal with the massive unemployment in the US while funding these military interventions.

I hope McChrystal is right and the Obama strategy works - at least to a certain extent - so that the US can declare it has done what it can do for Afghanistan, eliminated a base for al Qaida to operate within to train and launch attacks, and then leave.

Work in Tanzania

Ok. I now have a little time to post again. The long break was due to the shocking fact that those who pay me actually like to see reports and deliverables.

I'll be back today. Watch this space.