Shorter Donald Rumsfeld: I have no idea what I'm doing

In a spectacular display of incompetence, United States Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld testified before the Senate, regarding the largest defence lease in the Pentagon's history, that he had no knowledge whatsoever about large procurements, which amount in billions of dollars, and is not capable of keeping track of activities in the largest operational organization in the world.

Despite trillions, yes trillions, lost in the enormous military budget, a deficient strategy and poor planning for the war in Iraq, an incapacity to anticipate obvious consequences, such as home-grown terrorism from Iraqis who view Americans as occupiers, bizarre displays of lunacy and public non sequiturs, there does not seem to be any mechanism in the American political system to hold the Secretary of Defence, the holder of the largest discretionary budget in the world, accountable.

Any individual with a mere fraction of that power and responsibility cannot say "We know for a fact where they are" about any subject and simply never be held accountable. Any organization incapable of enforcing responsibility in such matters is dysfunctional and political institutions are not exceptions. The undertaking of such a serious matter as war should obviously hold conditions, such as severe consequences in the case of errors. Any accountability regarding the people who have the power to wage war should take serious any allegation that supports and impose consequences if they turned out to be wrong. The lives of a few people, not matter how powerful politically, are insignificant to history. Most systems are currently configured in a way that can more effectively work to secure its leaders' reputation over their actual work. Expecting anything else than pork barrel politics is at best delusional, hypocritically criminal.

This is a case study of the failure of checks and balances short-sighted by secrecy in policy-making. While the benefits of executive privilege remain anecdotal at best, its damages are countless in human history and repeated only because no significant commitment exists to evolve politics into a generator of human evolution, rather than being its most primitive institution. Staying the course in such conditions is criminally insane, yet continues undebated by the single most useless political institution in the world, the United States Senate, now a mere shadow of its history. It is very hard to take seriously a group of rich old white males who are supposed to represent the American population debating steroid use in baseball, in a committee on government reform no less, gay marriage, the life of a woman in a vegetative state, flag burning, video games and other insane and utterly pointless matters. If all other problems had been solved, these matters may deserve a few passing lines in political debate. But with so many problems plaguing our societies, it is unwise to continue without significant changes in the way our political institutions work.

Washington Post: Tanker Inquiry Finds Rumsfeld's Attention Was Elsewhere

Evil is in human nature

The idea that there are evil or equivalently negative sentiments deep in the very nature of humankind is very peculiar in light of a very single fact: we are thriving, becoming wiser and wealthier. While billions of humans still live in terrible conditions, the condition is improving for most humans, unequivocally thanks to the immense progress of science in the past decades. Any species that fundamentally inhabits evil sentiments would be very unlikely to achieve even a fraction of that greatness, as its very nature would prohibit it from cooperating and develop its understanding.

Despite strong media hype, terrorism is but a shadow of the evils that threatened humankind with total destruction. The notion that a group of improvised soldiers are more threatening than the military forces that destroyed and enslaved so many societies is ridiculous. Comparing Islamic terrorists with fascists, the term islamofacist being a favourite of American right-wingers, is shameful and offensive in many more ways than Howard Stern may ever achieve.

Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and so many others who enslaved entire nations had armies, air forces, naval forces and highly trained killing machines. That the forces of large-scale destructions, from the Roman Empire, European kingdoms and the many military dictatorships of the 20th century be compared with psychopathic, untrained fools is unacceptable. The dedication of these soldiers of god is often cited as their unshakable resolve, and hence the terrible danger they represent. Yet most police officers, medical workers and other first responders would show the very same resolve if they were faced with the power to intervene. Terrorists remain delusional brainwashed youth, no matter how much damage they can create. They are mere dust compared to the millions of deaths from the many avoidable causes that still lack proper funding, from pollution, cancer, AIDS to illegal arms trade and the $1 trillion criminal market created by drug prohibition.

Dark sentiments cross the mind of almost every human being throughout his life. But the vast majority of our consciousness is dedicated to constructive sentiments. Those sentiments have resulted in the kind devotion of parenthood, social skills that encourage sharing and severely punish those so-called evil sentiments. Greed, bad temper and physical abuse, among many negative individual treats, are suppressed by our much more powerful empathetic, one might say "good", sentiments, which are almost universal among all cultures that exist to this day. Cultures that promoted violent or otherwise psychopathic behaviour have collapsed.

Empathy is the moral guiding force on which all imagined systems of beliefs rely on. It is our ability to understand how others think and feel that allows us to understand that it is equally important to preserve in ourselves as it is in every other being we can apply those principles on. The petty excuses of our violent history are mere passages in textbooks read only by a few interested in their meaning. It is cowardice that pushes people to reject the responsibility of freedom and fuels excuses that do not stand to scrutiny. War and peace are only differentiated by the ability of those in power to understand the driving force of the human species. Those who went against this force, the dictators of our authoritarian institutions, are only remembered by a few, despised by most.

All the great political and religious conquerors of history, those who shared egomaniacal personalities, barely have any impact on our modern civilization, much less than any of the great inventors that created the modern economy, without which justice and morality are but an eyesight away from total impunity. By modern standards, most of the "great" individuals of history would be considered psychopaths and would be socially rejected. There are still many people behaving similarly to history's egomaniacal leaders. But we now more often see them in padded rooms or shouting on the sidewalk than in a position of authority. That is because modern science has allowed us to create an economic order that rejects such egomaniacal behaviours from most of its institutions.

There is one policy that can forever solve the problem of terrorism. It is decades long but absolutely flawless: improving the life of all humankind. This feat can, and will, only be achieved by science and as such our technological progress needs a much steadier course. There is no call to jihad, or any delusional sacrifice, that can compete with freedom and a high quality of life. The beauty of science is that with the proper governing body and funding, it will mostly be taken care of by itself. All that is needed is political commitment, funding and a strict separation from politics. A contribution based on a flat percentage of the GDP would be simple to manage and fair.

Science is by far the professional body most dedicated to improving human life, as it has no meaning with such results. Science has so far saved far more lives in the few decades of its modern age than all the demagogues of the past. It is the single most lucrative investment from an economic perspective and the single most effective policy towards freedom, justice and democracy.

Why They Fight

If North America was invaded, Americans would resist - just like the insurgents in Iraq.

http://partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=1862

A serious proposal for a solution to the Iraq situation

There is one solution to the Iraq war that would satisfy all obstacles and dead-ends. It would cost as much as staying the course with full American military presence, but actually provide positive results that would have the support of the international community and the Iraqi population.

The solution would be for American forces to be gradually replaced with a greater number of foreign troops working under a specially formed political authority and military command paid for by the American treasury. American citizens simply have to sustain the operation's costs in exchange for the return of their soldiers. Disorder from an otherwise unilateral pullout would be avoided by replacing American forces with soldiers from democracies with the favorable opinion of the Iraqi people.

It will be a politically shameful policy to put into action, essentially a full recognition of failure, but much better for the people of the United States. The reputation of one of the most unpopular American presidents is irrelevant in the context of the nation's history. It is the solution that hurts the American population the least, saving more American lives that any other possible option in the full course of the war.

For the Iraqi people this would mean a competently managed, accountable military presence that would break away the guilt and danger they are exposed to in participating with US forces. Iraqis know enough history to know the US government supported Saddam during his war with Iran. Things like that are not forgiven easily. It is very unlikely that any European presence would be welcomed as well, their presence having had much to do with the country's history of tyrannical leadership.

I would favor a leadership board made of influential leaders from around the world. There are many deserving ambassadors to humanity who would provide a beneficial support to an Iraqi democracy. I am not talking about the typical leaders known only to insiders but rather political figures that have provided recognizable benefits to their nations. Perhaps a large-scale election could select enough leaders to form a beneficial and accountable oversight.

Leaving foreign policy to the elected Iraqi government, the political body would have neither use nor benefit from secrecy and therefore represents a great opportunity to create an open political authority, fully accountable before the elected representatives of Iraq.

The only negative consequence is merely political and only concerns certain groups of individuals who were responsible for the war's development. The majority of the American people was tricked into this war and had every reason given the poor media coverage and lack of oversight. Paying for something you broke while someone else repairs it is the least someone can do. Shame hurts much less than death, especially if further misery can be lessened by its quickly forgotten sting.