Blogcritics Author: Brian Edwards

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

Nemesis: Space Junk, Government Responsibility and Avoiding the Kessler Effect

Brian Edwards — Tue, 8 May 2007 00:36:34 EDT

The most interesting book I have read as of late was Chalmers Johnson's most recent release Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic, and one issue that he addresses in his typical no-nonsense style is the idea that the space race is quickly becoming an arms race, which is a development that could have catastrophic implications on our abilities to utilize low-earth orbit for civilian purposes. The book was published before the Chinese government's recent experiment using an anti-satellite missile to destroy an aging weather satellite, which has undoubtedly created more space junk than any other incident in the history of human space exploration. However, I have no doubt that the recent decision by the CCP to delay discussions aimed at curbing the long-term side effects of increasing human exploration and pollution of that which lies beyond our world.If you are looking for an optimistic vision of the world in 2025, Chalmers Johnson's book should be at the bottom of your list, as his assessment of the current geopolitical situation and the prospects for US success under the current Administration's policies concerning just about everything, could understandably give rise to thoughts of imminent doom for humanity. Johnson's hatred of the Bush White House is clearly his driving inspiration as he writes this half-history, half-prophecy about the gradual demise of the American Republic, that I suspect he would be swiftly ushered out of the area were he spotted at a presidential function. However, I could not help but think throughout that Johnson is probably succumbing to the same myopic syndrome that has gripped many aging intellectuals during this age of uncertainty; consumed by apocalyptic visions of a world never to be truly known not fully understood by a man of the 20th century in any reasonable sense.In his discussion on the implications of neglecting the increases in space debris Johnson draws upon the ideas of physicists who have issued theories about the unintended consequences of human space exploration.Weaponization of space would make the debris problem much worse, and even one war in space could encase the entire planet in a shell of whizzing debris that would thereafter make space near the Earth a highly hazardous for peaceful as well as military purposes....Joel Primack (professor of physics UC Santa Cruz, further observes that the density of debris is already so great at the 900 to 1000 kilometer altitude (938 to 1063 miles) that pieces of junk colliding with each other could set of a chain reaction or cascade of collisions- the Kessler Effect, predicted mathematically in the 1970's by the NASA scientist Donald Kessler- that would make the zone useless. (Nemesis, p. 217-218) Johnson is at this point in the book detailing the current developments in the international space race, particularly the weaponisation of space and means available to governments for disposing of old dead satellites which have died out of the marketplace and need to bed retired/destroyed. In general Johnson's arguments are very intriguing because when he examines an issue he tries to wear the glasses of his colleagues from every different element/community within the greater scientific debate.Ever since reading Johnson's dire predictions for the future of mankind, I began pondering the ways in which space junk could be effectively cleaned up using innovative strategies for trapping or forcibly slowing material so as to cause it to fall out of orbit. A few weeks ago I had the idea of launching what would essentially be a huge pin cushion, which could be moved into the path of orbiting space junk in an effort to capture the material permanently and remove it from its dangerous and unpredictable orbit. I began writing a post about my idea when I stumbled upon this article in Wired Magazine, Houston, We Have a Trash Problem, which profiles six different projects currently under development at American research universities and NASA facilities. Sure enough, the first solution listed is basically my concept exactly.

Well, they call me Sweetness, And I like to dance. Runnin' the ball is like makin' romance. We've had the goal since training camp To give Chicago a Super Bowl chance. And we're not doin' this Because we're greedy. The Bears are doin' it to feed the needy. We didn't come here to look for trouble, We just came here to do The Super Bowl Shuffle. Bears.

Saudi Arabia Reportedly Willing to Send Troops to Iraq

Brian Edwards — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:15:36 EST

A senior White House official says Saudi Arabia would be ready and willing to deploy its own troops into Sunni-dominated areas of Iraq if the Bush Administration plan to crush the insurrection fails, leading to total chaos. Chaos, indeed, is precisely the direction the Saudi Government see the situation heading - even though it has not yet made an official offer to escalate involvement beyond logistical and political support for the US in the Middle East. The active Saudi military stands at 200,000 troops. And my only question is: Why wait? This is an alternative the entire world could back. And certainly the new Democratic majority in the US Congress, with all their talk of "US forces standing down and Iraqi forces standing up." Here's a new development for Congressional leaders to grasp onto - a surprising show of generosity from the one Middle Eastern government most likely to identify with the primary catalyst of current problems: the minority Sunni population in Iraq's western Anbar Province. But in view of far-left rhetoric about the Saudi government during the 2004 election, I doubt the Democrats are willing to embrace the most controversial US ally, especially with the hype of the 2008 election already heating up. I also doubt the Republican Party would support insertion of thousands of Saudi militiamen, though for different reasons. Republicans, I believe, will be inclined to assert that the Shiite majority in Iraq would most likely lash out violently to purge their country of a foreign military representing a Sunni Muslim state - a valid point on either side of the aisle. However, if the Saudi move has any chance of dampening Sunni-driven violence, does this not outweigh competing concerns?What think mainstream media?I have yet to detect mainstream media reaction to the Saudi proposal, but considering the propensity of pundits to blame the Saudis for rising prices at the gas pump, I see no reason to expect much of a reasoned discourse. More likely, the Saudis will find that their extended hand will be bitten off by the liberal-minded American media that would sooner debate why women cannot drive in the Kingdom. All American administrations recognize the unique relationship we enjoy with the Saudi royal family, and most presidents have maintained an open-door policy with the Kingdom's diplomats. Hopefully, the Administration will not reserve consideration of the reported offer as a last resort, and instead use it as a bargaining chip with other Middle Eastern nations. They should be encouraged to follow their neighbor's example and commit their own troops to a multinational force representing the Arab League. The peacekeeping force representing the African Union in Darfur should be used as a model, and with the tactical support of the American-led coalition. This kind of alliance could lead to a genuine political settlement among now warring factions in Iraq.Status quo in Middle East: unacceptableI do not pretend to be an expert on Middle Eastern politics. But I do think the status quo in the region is unsustainable, and without innovative solutions nothing is going to change. Though I think the President is on the right track when he escalates rhetoric about Iranian-backed elements in Iraq, I don't think he has any idea what to actually do to get Iraqis to start settling their internal disputes with the pen rather than sword. If anything, an insurgence of Saudi troops into the Sunni-dominated regions could broach a new relationship between Americans and the more belligerent elements in Anbar Province. It is still unclear exactly how many troops the Saudi government would be willing to deploy, but I suspect it would defer commitments until consultations and coordination with the Pentagon. The Saudi government maintains an active military of 200,000 troops, the 25th largest in the world. In term of military spending, the Kingdom spares not a penny. In 2006 they spent roughly $31.25 Billion, or 10% of their GDP, and since 2003 their military spending has ranked 9th in the world as a percentage of GDP. Additionally, the cooperation between the Saudi armed forces and the Pentagon has been hand-in-glove for decades, and in 2005 the Saudis were the number one customer of US supplied weaponry. I suspect that the King and his ministers are willing to spare whatever it takes to insure the stability of its neighbor, and thus its borders. I also think the White House will not be modest in any request they make of the Kingdom to join the coalition. Perhaps the presence of a fully trained and self-reliant Arab military in Iraq would allow the US to focus on rooting out Iran and leaning on the Shiite government to take control of al-Sadr and his militia, while delegating responsibility for the counter-insurgency to a more qualified arbiter. Many of our current problems, I believe, stem from bearing primary responsibility for all the problems Iraq faces, while the Iraqi government and our allies play back-seat driver. Maybe the Saudi initiative is the key element missing in the equation.

A Real Strategy for Victory in Iraq

Brian Edwards — Mon, 8 Jan 2007 01:05:55 EST

I have thought long and hard about the best options available to the coalition forces as they attempt to combat a seemingly unrelenting terrorist insurgency, which has fomented sectarian strife and successfully (though ironically) won the "hearts and minds" of American voters, as evidenced by the results of the recent midterm elections and daily public opinion polls. My opinion of the US-led effort to date is more favorable than most, but it is hard not to notice the opportunistic undertones in many of the recent converts to the anti-war bandwagon. Unfortunately, because of unforeseeable consequences of US post-war policy, the situation has become impossible to rationalize through the media and the Administration is likely to face growing opposition unless it can take radical and innovative steps toward achieving a viable long-term solution to the violence that has ravaged Iraq. At the same time, it is essential for any change in military strategy to take into account the increasingly bold regime in Iran, which has decided to defy international consensus and press forward with its nuclear program, not to mention the constant infiltration of suicide bombers and arms the country has been supplying the Iraq insurgency. The most important goal of the the coalition should be to figure out how the fledgling Iraqi military could most effectively take over control in major urban areas. I have concluded that the most practical and potentially effective option would be a two phase redeployment of forces. First, the Iraqi police forces should be tasked with rounding up every single male Iraqi over the age of 16 in the areas of Iraq that have seen the most terrorist activity, and then they should release them slowly after each has been given a thorough background check. A story I have recently read in Forbes suggests that this is exactly the type of strategy that the coalition is now considering. The second phase of my strategy would have the US forces still in the Baghdad area pull out completely, along with all other coalition forces, and set up new bases along the border with Iran and Syria, where most of the terrorists are infiltrating the country. There are several potential political and military victories that could be achieved by employing such a strategy. First, if the Democrats hold true to their previous political tactics, they will predictably oppose such a radical change in tactics, likely invoking Iraqi civil rights in a pathetic attempt to stand against Bush at all costs. I doubt very much that such an argument would carry much favor with the American people, so by taking this seemingly radical step, Bush could reshape the debate here at home and put his party back in the position of being the most trusted on the issue of combating terrorism. Another potential benefit is that by realigning the American presence in the war torn country, the president can effectively argue that his policy is focused on reducing the military's presence over the long term. It would be logical to assume that fewer troops would be needed to patrol the Iraq's borders than are currently needed to patrol the streets of Baghdad. Additionally, by increasing the US presence in the northern regions of the country, the unspoken message sent to Tehran will be unmistakable. I am not a fan of the so-called McCain Doctrine, or the troop surge which the White House has been floating in the media recently as the centerpiece of their strategy adjustment. Having recently deployed another aircraft carrier to the Gulf, the White House has shown it is serious about putting Iran on notice that it won't put up with its defiant posturing for very much longer. I don't think that I have all of the answers, but at least I am attempting to come up with an innovative solution to the problems facing our forces in Iraq. I hope the ideas put forth in this article will spur similar thought and critical analysis from those of you who are as interested as I in finding a realistic policy option that will help us win the war against terrorism.

Why China is Better Suited to Solve Africa's Problems Than is the West

Brian Edwards — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 12:08:44 EST

The recent Beijing Summit made it clear that the Chinese government is becoming more publicly emboldened in their African policy initiatives. Many mainstream pundits and analysts have recently written about this topic, and I thought I would interject with my thoughts while the debate is still young and minds are still impressionable. I have for some time felt that it was essential for the Chinese to take the lead in Africa, and my confidence in this opinion has only been strengthened as coalition forces face increased difficulty in Iraq, and the situation in the Palestinian territories continues to deteriorate.Though I wish the Chinese would take more responsibility in the current Middle Eastern crisis, I can understand their unwillingness to get involved in a situation that they are neither responsible for nor capable of substantially pacifying. Instead, they should use their experience in managing the development of their own impoverished regions to shape a more prosperous future for the people of Africa, and they should do so without the fear of igniting a diplomatic firestorm among Western governments that view a more proactive China as a threat rather than an opportunity. Africa now faces rampant disease, famine, violence, economic malaise, and is plagued with desertification; all the while Western diplomats sit on their thumbs on the upper-east side and squabble over the merits of peacekeeping missions to halt genocidal slaughter in Sudan.For decades, U.N. policy has failed the people it was established to benefit -- those in the developing world -- and until recently, there was no end to the destitution in sight. There is no government in the world more experienced with and successful in the implementation of development policy than the Chinese. Its immense population has required its leaders to climb down from their perches in Beijing and travel to the poor villages in its western provinces to better understand the nature of poverty and conceive of more realistic and effective policies to combat its debilitating consequences. However, China has heretofore been unwilling to assert itself on issues which it fears may derail its economic prosperity because of political opportunists in Western capitals eager to keep them in check as they grow and expand their influence beyond their borders.Nobody questions the merits of exploring innovative solutions to problems that have vexed policymakers for decades. However, few Western politicians or bureaucrats have been willing to admit that when their initiatives to stimulate economic growth abroad are compared with the initiatives undertaken by the Chinese government to combat similar inequalities domestically, the proof is in the pudding. The Chinese economy is booming, its peasantry is becoming increasingly self-sufficient and educated, and most people would agree that the future for the Chinese people (ALL Chinese people) is bright and their international prestige and influence growing. This leaves western leaders in the precarious position of having to confront a communist government whose success challenges the legitimacy of their own democratic systems. As the U.S. and her allies battle for the hearts and minds of impoverished, war-torn peoples in the Middle East, for whose current situation they bear the lion's-share of the responsibility, it is essential that other less-developed regions do not become lost in the chaos. Missions that have been relegated to the back-burner since 9/11 because of the shift in our foreign policy mustn't be permanently retarded, for social stability in a world growing in both population and inequality is not guaranteed and should not be taken for granted anywhere or on any issue. It seems logical to me that governments in the developed world would feel threatened by the rapid ascendancy of such a formidable competitor in the less-developed world, but I doubt that they have the resources necessary to offer a viable alternative strategy while they become further bogged down in the "War on Terror." As the Chinese begin to spread their wings and establish friendships with countries on the African continent that have felt slighted by the West for years, they are undoubtedly going to earn the respect of the people and governments of these countries, and will finally enter the realm of nations which share collective responsibility to provide aid and assistance to the developing world (G8 members). Therefore, I think it would be in the West's self-interest to allow, in fact encourage, the Chinese to expand into Africa unabated to both relieve themselves of the distraction it poses to progress on current initiatives elsewhere. It is important to make sure the Chinese do not become too ambitious for their own good but rather stay focused on international projects that they are best suited to manage, of which African economic development is clearly one.Some may argue that by ignoring the African continent and allowing the Chinese to build their prestige through cooperation in economic development projects and poverty alleviation, the West would be squandering their opportunity to build the partnerships necessary to capitalize on the rich natural resources the developing economies in that region will become increasingly adept at harnessing, packaging, and exporting. I take a contrary view, as I feel that the best way to substantially benefit from the vast reserves of oil, uranium, iron ore, and other minerals and fuels that have only begun to be realized is by allowing the Chinese multi-national companies to take responsibility for financing, constructing, and operating the sorely needed infrastructure that will allow these goods to be extracted and brought to market in a manner that is both efficient and has a real effect on the currently inflated market prices that are currently under the sole discretion of the OPEC ministers. I suspect that the Chinese are not going to make an investment in these countries unless they have reason to believe that their return on that investment will be substantial. Even if the Chinese and their partners are reluctant to open up their co-ops to full participation from foreign companies and governments, there is likely to be a tangible easing of the pressure the economy's unprecedented growth has placed on global markets, so by allowing them to have preferential access to these reserves it should result in a decline in the price of oil contracts traded in Chicago, New York, and other major commodity markets around the world. This is Economics 101, simple supply and demand.In terms of realizing benefit on behalf of the American people and the citizens of our Western allies, this tweak in the fundamental market makeup could have a tangible downward effect on the price of gasoline for consumers, as well as ease the burden on airlines that are struggling to cut costs and climb out of bankruptcy. Thus, it would be positive for American industry generally to encourage the Chinese to explore possible partnerships in countries like Zimbabwe, Zaire, Nigeria, Kenya, and others that are ready to test the waters of globalization and improve their embattled economies.Another comparative advantage China offers its potential African partners is its rich experience in building a domestic economy upon a manufacturing force that can both produce at unparalleled levels while simultaneously maintaining a cost of production well below that sought by countries in the America's and Eastern Europe, which are its only true competitors in terms of quality of labor. The last great untapped labor force in the world occupies most of the African continent and if provided the proper industrial management, the continent has enough raw material to become very competitive in numerous industries by following the Chinese economic development model. I believe strongly that one of the most debilitating handicaps endured by G8 nations is their irreversible and misguided obsession with framing the debate on international development and poverty alleviation as a domestic political issue, instead of leaving the diplomats to contrive of innovative solutions to the complex problems of the 21st century which are devoid of political calculation. After spending several months considering the merits of the solution I have proposed it seems apparent to me that it will be successful based upon one precondition: the US and her allies acknowledge China's right to use the arena of international trade and developmental economics to enhance its prestige among its peers atop the international community. The ideas I have articulated in this post are an attempt to refocus the debate on development policy in the West away from the prevailing approach of "what should we be doing", towards one that asks the question, "what should we be encouraging others to do?" I hope to stimulate thought, and I welcome all feedback.

Ignorant Bigots Like Goode Cast Dark Cloud Over Republicans In Muslim Eyes

Brian Edwards — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 20:14:00 EST

Having had the opportunity to work as a intern in the office of Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert during the summer of 2005, I was fortunate to witness government in action from behind the scenes and my experiences will forever be among the most rewarding of my life. Speaker Hastert is without question one of the greatest Congressional leaders we have ever had and the professionalism of his staff has created in me a greater sense of responsibility for the way in which I present myself to everybody I meet. I can't help but wish that all Republicans were cast in the mold of Speaker Hastert and his staff, but as I watch the news tonight I am amazed by the backward, ignorant, bigoted comments made by redneck Congressman Virgil Goode (R-VA) and I wish that Speaker Hastert didn't have to be leaving his office in the Capitol during such a low point in the history of the Republican Party.My specific problems with Congressman Goode's comments involve the despicable way in which he tries to tie the use of the Koran in a Congressional swearing in ceremony to the current threats posed by illegal immigrants. The absolutely absurd notion that the illegal immigrants somehow had anything to do with the election of Mr. Ellison, the newly elected Congressman from Minnesota who happens to be the first Muslim ever elected to the House, shocks and amazes me. The fact is, almost every single illegal immigrant in this country is probably a Catholic.Another comment made by the Congressman that I found abhorrent was his recollection of an encounter with a constituent who, upon entering his DC office and viewing the Ten Commandments on the wall, asked why he had nothing from the Koran. According to the Congressman, he is a Christian and only supports Christian symbols of God's will for humanity (though he said it in his own slightly dumbed-down way). Well, I have news for Congressman Goode, the Ten Commandments in fact do appear, almost verbatim in the Koran. Additionally (and this is something about which I was only recently enlightened) the Koran also contains the book of Revelations, as well as all of the stories about Jesus that are so revered by Christians. I wonder why Congressman Goode hasn't taken the time to better understand Islam, considering the importance it will play in the future of our country as the primary tool used by the extremists spreading the hateful ideology that has spawned most the terrorism that the world currently faces. It is probably because he is a stupid hillbilly who is motivated primarily by hate. Now here is one Republican we could really do without.On a more positive note, I welcome Mr. Ellison, and from everything I have seen about him I am sure he will be an outstanding Congressman. I hope that his election will inspire Muslims, both Republican and Democrat, to consider a life of public service. They owe it to their country, but more importantly, they owe it to their religion. They can't afford to allow ignorant bigots like Congressman Goode to determine and shape how Americans understand its principles.