Flip-sides of compromise

This is a short one.

Compromise is a funny thing. It may be the thing that allows groups to get along, governments to function, and peace to reign. It may also mean selling out to adversaries, greasing the wheels of corruption, and putting cooperation before principles. The question, usually, is when to view it in which way. When to fight and dig in your heels, and when to agree.

Here's another way to put it: What is compromise? People usually frame it as a way to make everyone happy. But really, this is untrue. If everyone's happy, nobody's happy. Compromise is a way to make sure everyone is UNhappy, preferably equally so! When people can accept that this is better than some people being happy and most being really unhappy, things can move forward. No space for purists.

Afghanistan: It's a game of chicken, and the U.S. doesn't seem to know the rules.

There has been some talk recently about a possible dialog between Taliban leaders in Afghanistan and the Afghan government and/or the Americans. This has generally been welcomed, though most seem to realize that this is not the beginning of real peace negotiations. The problem is: the beginning of peace negotiations is not going to begin anytime soon, and never on U.S. terms. The reason is simple: Afghanistan is a game of chicken. The Taliban understand this. The U.S., it seems, does not.

For those unfamiliar with chicken, it's a fantastically (and idiotically) macho game wherein two men (usually, but let's not be sexist, there are plenty of idiot women out there, too) get in cars and drive at each other full throttle. The first one to swerve loses. Of course, if neither swerves, both lose a lot more than the game: they lose their lives. The stakes are high for two individuals in the game of chicken. In the Afghan version, they are high for millions of individuals.

There are a couple strategies for winning the game of chicken. One is to limit your options by, say, removing your steering wheel and letting the other side know you cannot swerve. This will simplify the game for them: lose the game or lose your life. Simple equation.

The other is to appear to be crazy. If the other side really believes you would rather die than lose the game, they will swerve first.

The Taliban have almost no reason to agree to a settlement on anything other than their own terms. The reason? The U.S. has played the game using the opposite of the second strategy above: everyone knows the U.S. will not stay there forever, no matter the cost. Obama wishes to start pulling out next year. The Taliban know this. The Taliban on the other hand, while not crazy (fanatic, perhaps, but not crazy), can much more convincingly assert that they will fight to the bitter end, regardless of the cost.

The choices here, then, are also simplified: the Taliban can fight for another year, maybe two, or they can just give up now. That's it -- they must only hold out a year. The U.S., on the other hand, can fight until it's bled dry, or it can cut its losses and run. The winner is predetermined here because the U.S. has shown all of its cards (and yes, I'm aware of the mixed metaphor with poker, just go with it).

If you were a Taliban leader, when would you chose to negotiate a peace agreement? "How about never, is never good for you?" seems a likely response.

Time to Recognize Hamas

An article from this week's edition of The Economist provides a startling look into Hamas's success at providing the Gaza Strip with just about everything it needs. Prices have fallen, businesses have flourished, cafés and universities have re-opened. This adds yet another reason to the list of why the "West," insofar as it has not already done so (I believe Norway already has, for example), should recognize Hamas as the legitimate government of the Gaza Strip. It exercises de facto control over the territory and has apparently succeeded in bringing security and a degree of economic prosperity (when compared with the past few years) to the area. No other group (including the UN and the Israelis) could make this claim. These accomplishments have also made Hamas popular in the Gaza Strip, further diminishing prospects that Fatah could ever enjoy any real influence there again without serious (and deleterious) changes to conditions in Gaza. What are the other reasons Hamas should be recognized and worked with?

• It has moved away from the West and relies on other contacts for its stability and prosperity. This is working (comparatively speaking). While economic and personal security in Gaza are certainly to be welcomed, from a western political standpoint, this indicates that western influence in Gaza has waned even more than it had previously. If the Israelis and the US hope to have more influence in Gaza, they must engage with Hamas, which has effective control there. Furthermore, trying to force influence by removing Hamas would be transparent (i.e. Gazans would know what was going on and resent the action, making it counterproductive) and would lead to chaos and suffering, while carrying a very high risk of ultimate failure. Keeping Hamas in isolation would only further push it into the arms of other actors the West would rather it not deal with (e.g. Iran).
• Terrorists and extremest organizations become more moderate when they achieve real power. This could be seen with the PLO as well, which was also initially shunned by the West but was later accepted (albeit too late, I would argue, as its acceptance among the people it claimed to represent was already in decline). Hamas is now responsible for providing not just physical protection for the residents of Gaza, but also for their economic welfare. The constraints of power are already moderating its actions, if not its rhetoric.
• As The Economist mentions, Hamas may soon be embroiled in competition with Muslim extremist groups in Gaza. This implies that Hamas is a relatively moderate force there now (as would be expected from the logic of the point above). Denying recognition to Hamas will make it more likely that extremer forces will take hold in Gaza, making the situation there even worse for the people of Gaza and further harming any chance at cooperation with Israel and/or the US and their allies. As mentioned, this was the case with the PLO as well.

In conclusion, I am arguing to recognize Hamas not because I am an idealist and believe in the good of all people. On the contrary, I am a realist and believe that recognizing Hamas is in everyone's interests. It's a win-win situation, and Israel, the US, the UK, France, etc. would be fools not to take advantage of it. It is sure to be a short-lived opportunity in an ever-unstable Middle East. True, it is by no means a guarantee of success, but letting idealistic notions like "we don't negotiate with terrorists" get in the way of what is, granted, only a shimmer of hope for progress, would be reckless and unconscionable.

Am I a Real American? Did the Real John McCain die 3 months ago?

As the election season reaches its peak I have to start wondering what happened to John McCain in this final stretch. A man who put his reputation on the line as the Straight Talking Maverick has done no such thing in these final months. He recently shattered his only remaining self proclaimed positive quality as a unifier within the U.S.(definitely not abroad as accurately portrayed by Mr. Kirchofer in his 10/21article). The Real America comment delivered by Governor Palin, and in the same day the Real Virginia comment given by a McCain Advisor, Nancy Pfotenhauer, is a brief glimpse into the morphing McCain approach. The straight talk express has run out of gas, (no energy pun implied) this has now become the divide and conquer campaign of the Rove era. Pitting Americans against Americans, redefining how to divide the country.

The idea that a Candidate can discount an opposing opinion of what is good for this country because they do not represent “Real America” treads on the foundation of free speech and the very concept of patriotism. When debating issues that go back at least two decades without a solution (energy independence, global warming, social security, healthcare, education reform) it is just outrageous to say that an opposing view, held by a lot of U.S. citizens should be ignored, or are some how less valuable because they do not live in Real America. These comments suggest that the Republican ticket will just represent their constituency in Real America if elected. The very concept of trying to segregate the country into Republican and everyone else is what John McCain was supposed to stand against! Some would say these may not be the views of the Senator from Arizona, but unfortunately the views of his campaign have shown me a dark side of his incredible lack of good judgment.

It was not too long ago that everyone loved John McCain, me included. The whole country could get behind the ideals of this centrist, pro-middleclass, patriot in 2004. It was not long ago that Senator McCain seemed so centrist he was asked to balance the democratic ticket. He did turn down the offer to run as VP with Senator Kerry, but he was still a corner stone of his casual campaigning. 2004 John McCain was an American, not a Republican. (Comically while doing research for this article I came across this interesting NYTimes article focused on gas prices in 2004, again it was about a bill cosponsored by Kerry and McCain.)

Reflecting on the last 8 months you may ask what happened to the “Real” 2004 John McCain you watched over and over again on the Daily Show?... The answer - he became a Republican. What it all boils down to is John McCain was tricked into believing that the only way he could be elected is if he tricked America. He retreated into the republican election doctrine: scare Americans into voting for you. Fear carries the vote it is a proven Republican model. To prove my point all you have to do is listen to John McCain’s latest Robo calls.

When I put it all in perspective it actually makes me sad. John McCain of 2004 was somewhat of a statesman. Independent, strong willed, honest American. Now, I cannot believe John McCain has allowed this to happen, he no longer runs his show, something I would have never expected from a man who has turned over his entire campaign team twice. The villain to me is the Republican Party who should be ashamed of what they have done to a war hero, and a former positive force in American politics. The McCain of 2008 has now become a divisive force in America: Wall Street vs. Main Street, Real America vs. Fake (non-republican) America, Rich People vs. Joe the Plumber. Senator McCain, you let me down, you let the country down, how did you let this happen?