Why the US is about to attack Syria

Whether we (the American public) want to see an attack on Assad in Syria, we will attack after the gas attack in the eastern suburbs of Damascus on August 21, 2013.  Here's why.

1. Any opposition group wanting to cause a false flag would have caused far fewer casualties to itself than this, assuming the numbers of 1300 dead and 3600 treated are reliable.  The opposition isn't strong enough to be able to afford to kill off 1300 of their own people, including women and children.  They probably don't have access to that much poison or means to deliver it; their leadership, such as it is, is too fractured to either make such a horrific decision to inflict on themselves, they are too close to the victims, and factions in the opposition leadership are unlikely to be able to keep such an operation secret. 

2. If the Syrian government has already used chem weapons on a smaller scale, and a UN team was in country to inspect conditions, the regime may have felt there was little left to lose by going whole hog against the large area of opposition in the suburbs of the capital.  If they are going to be accused and attacked for small attacks, they might as well use 'em while they still have 'em for maximum effect -- to secure the areas immediately around the capital.

3.  1300 dead in a single night and thousands more injured, plus thousands more tied down by having to care for the wounded, is a substantial attack in a city and country of this size.  This was closer to use of a weapon of mass destruction to achieve ethnic cleansing in a single metropolitan area. They were out to break a stalemate, and in absence of any supportive counter attack, it may well work.  Tut tutting "that's not fair" will make no difference,, other than to show they (and anyone else in any other country in a similar circumstance) CAN get away with it.  Jacking up their capital, military bases, and anti air craft defenses will make the point that this was a bad move.

4. Once the president opens his mouth and says, "this far but no more", he and the government need to back that up.  Otherwise, yes, it does make him, and the rest of the government, weak.  Whether he should have said it or not makes no difference now -- he did say it, so now we have to back it up.  This is basic Imperial Politics 101.

5. As far as imperial politics goes: at a higher, even if disgusting, level, this isn't about the humanitarian aspect of reining in a dictator, but dealing with "their, not our" dictator.  Syria is a client state to Iran and Russia; taking out the Assad regime will mean they both lose a pivotal player on their side.  Russia will lose a potential naval base on the Mediterranean; Iran will lose a forward base on Israel's frontier.  It may put crazy religious reactionaries from the villages in control of a big part of Syrian politics for a while, but for the most part they will get their support from Sunnis (Saudi and Gulf states), which we will probably find easier to deal with at a strategic level. 

6. Imperialism continued: France is backing us while Britain isn't: why?  Probably because elements within French leadership have already made it plain they want to see the whole Mediterranean Basin turned into a European lake.  Our support in the Arab Spring might be seen as a ragged attempt to put that vision into effect.  If that's true, don't expect to see the next government in Damascus applying for EU membership soon; this is a generations-long project, if it is successful.  But then, so was NATO's waiting for the Berlin Wall to fall.
     In a post peak-oil world, access to solar farms or other mineral resources in deserts from Morocco to Kurdistan may be worth more, and be more stable, than access to Persian Gulf oilfields.  Keep in mind that the US has been recently moving into traditional French territory in West Africa with the Africa Command; the French may see working with us here as a means to ensure this is a partnership between them and us instead of us replacing them totally. 

This is not an action covered in the US Constitution, but almost none of our imperial actions are.  This isn't covered in either democratic or republican theory.  It is a part of our imperial role that we've taken on, but failed to develop a political theory for that we can articulate without laughing out loud or throwing up.

    I'm not stating this in order to defend or excuse the administration, so much as to explain it, perhaps to myself.  I think it's also worth noting that two of the people supporting, even urging, the President to act are John McCain and John Kerry.  These two aren't just political leaders on both sides of the aisle, but former presidential candidates themselves; in other words, if they had won their bids, they could have been the ones facing the decisions now on Obama's desk.  Any one who has run the gauntlet to reach the Oval Office is likely to see foreign policy from a perspective very strange to most domestic politicians.  In fact, if either McCain or Kerry were president right now, those missiles would probably have already launched.

Please excuse the lack of editing; since these attacks are likely to start any hour now, I felt it only made sense to put up or shut up now, not after the dust has literally settled.  This touches on a number of issues that I want to explore more thoroughly and nail down, but those will have to wait. 

For now, this will have to do: while I'm not comfortable with most imperial politics, it is an inevitable part of life on this planet, so we might as well acknowledge it in order to do a better job of it.  And as with most politics, perfection will have to wait while we deal with the situation in front of us as it is.  Rotten groups will do rotten things unless someone calls them on it; our own rotten actions in the past won't excuse inaction now; and inaction on our part, in the imperial context, doesn't make us moral so much as it confirms the security of Assad's Syria within the Russian and Iranian sphere of influence.  If our violence against Assad's actions makes us an imperialistic warmonger, what does that make Russia and Iran, for backing up and excusing Assad's mass murders on "his" soil?  Russia obviously doesn't want UN backed action to threaten their client.  At the same time, their client is not on solid ground, and Russia has no inherent claim on Syria as a permanent part of their sphere of influence -- this is a clear opportunity to get rid of their client, reduce their influence in the area, and possibly see life in Syria become more, if not free, at least more open, with more options.  It's not a sure thing, but the things that are sure as long as the Assads remain in control aren't worth much.  Maybe it's time to introduce some uncertainty into the picture, like a liberal community organizer putting a cruise missile into Bashar's office. 

What's wrong with Hostess?  Depends.  What's the Real Menu?



This company, like many others, is simply in the final stages of a long-term plan for liquidation.  When you can't jack up profits by moving operations overseas, using illegal or H1B labor, automating, or "restructuring" by converting high-labor/ high-risk operations over to paper subcontractors, then you liquidate the physical operation and license off the brand name.  Note that Mexican baker Bimbo has been moving into increasingly Anglo/ mainstream brands in USA.  Just as with Asian automakers, these owners are still willing to pay whatever wages necessary to gain marketshare in North America (although often non-union).

I suspect this type of move makes sense to investors who have made that transition from interest in making a certain product to purely  making money.  If you no longer care, or never cared, about what product your invested-in company(s) make, then it must really screw with your head to see your capital tied up in an operation that will never match Apple, Amazon or Google.  So how do you cash out?  Maybe the owners, major stockholders that is, decided there was no way to make baked goods as profitably as downloadable media content, so get rid of the obligations to workers implied in making a physical product and just sell the image.  Let someone else worry about the labor, quality, fuel costs for delivery trucks.  In a way, maybe this is really their attempt to re-imagine processed foods along the same lines Coke and franchisors have organized their game: manage the recipe, quality control, and advertising, farm out the rest to local distributors.  This may give them the flexibility to scout for distributors/ local bakers around the world without having to actually employ mere labor in those new territories.  Maybe they can even shop for more brands to manage.  Food as intellectual property.  That should be worth a certain stock boost, at least for a while.
If it works, should this spread to others in the food business?  Has it already done so, without as much bad press?

The bigger story is this: the developed economies can only grow at a certain rate, possibly two percent long term, while the US investor class is still thinking they should expect investment returns of 7 to 8 percent.  This is a historical artifact of our own "developing resource economy" stage, the part now being played by (for instance) Brasil.  This can only be sustained by artificial means: asset-stripping foreign economies (AKA colonialism), or our domestic economy ("domestic colonialism"?).  We could probably sustain four percent if we were to consciously develop the combination of sustainable infrastructures plus practical space industries (mining near-Earth asteroids, yes; grandstanding manned missions to Mars, no, or not yet).  Possibly the sets of technologies included in the trans-humanist movement, if we made it a point to extend the benefits of such technologies to the general population, as a form of democratic socialism appropriate to the 21st century.  But all three of these areas will only make sense if seen through the lenses of peak oil (and other resources, especially phosphorus), plus greenhouse gas- induced climate changes.
The US is not a young country anymore, and we need to restructure our economy and culture for long-term sustainability.  For many, that will look like "socialism", and will seem anathema.  Reality and thermodynamics doesn't care about labels, only whether we adapt.

Comment on US News ethnic diversity report

MORE MAJORITY/ MINORITY REPORTS


(See Dec 2012 Census publication)

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2012/07/24/study-of-census-data-finds-a-segregated-america-especially-for-blacks

Any study of ethnic diversity probably needs to recognize a few constraints imposed by reality - I'd start with these.

In the US, marginalized groups are called "minorities" because, statistically, they are just that: 10 to 20 percent of the population each, at maximum.  Even if every single household in a recognized "minority" either moved into a "majority" neighborhood or intermarried, just how many majority neighborhoods are likely to be integrated under such "ideal" circumstances?

I don't think I've seen any recognition of the difference in racial designations or meanings in differing areas of the US.  Our usual official racial categories (African-, Hispanic-, Asian-, Native American, and White) and unofficial ("Ethnic-Americans") don't necessarily carry the same cultural meanings in every region.  Typically, each "non-white" group was politically formed into a marginalized cheap-labor-pool or holder-of-obsolete-property-claims in a specific region; those who moved to regions unfamiliar with their experience could often (not always) negotiate a better definition for themselves based on the local "white" culture's lack of familiarity with them, which could translate into being just another "ethnic-American" sub-category.

In a related manner, some neighborhoods or quarters of certain cities have often functioned as refuges for "diversity" of various sorts.  New Orleans and San Francisco, among others have been famous for this.  Perhaps what we should expect is an expansion in the number of metro areas with such diverse city-quarters ("Social Silicon-Valleys?") where locals of every "race" can move and try re-defining themselves with more social freedom.

There was a time when other groups, now considered "white", were considered different enough to be called "races".  In fact, "race" could be considered a political category for chosen ethnic groups.  As some members of today's "races" integrate into the same neighborhoods, and indeed families, I'll bet we'll end up considering these "diverse" groups (by today's standards) just one expanded "white" group.  This won't be a conscious top-down policy, but a bottom-up consequence of everyday life.  "White" won't mean skin color so much as "default mainstream/ middle-class culture"... or maybe white and black will mean the un-integrated remnants of working-class subcultures, while "majority" will mean white-plus-integrated members of a mainstream middle-class.  To a great extent, such racial categories will become increasingly a matter of self-proclamation plus local acceptance of one's personal definition.

A twist on the above: to what extent has "African-American" become shorthand for "middle-class of African ancestry", while "Black" means "working/lower-class of African ancestry"; and if so, are similar patterns of social definitions evolving within our other racial/ ethnic categories?