I saw a pointer today to Ralph Peters’ provocative article, Stability, America’s Enemy. He constructs an intersting argument that defies summarization. I don’t agree with the whole thing, but he does make some points that I think are absolutely correct. He utterly rejects the idea of supporting oppressive regimes and artificial stability. Here’s one of the more interesting bits:

The hardest thing is always to think clearly, to slash through the inherited beliefs that no one ever examines and to defy the wise men who have built careers on exorbitant failures. All people, in every culture, are captive to slogans, but Americans must strive to do a little better. We have made a slogan of democracy abroad, imagining it as a practical means when it is, in fact, the glorious end of a long and difficult road. We speak of human rights, then wink at the mundane evil of Saudi Arabia, the grotesque oppression in China, and any African massacres that don’t leak to the press–because, inside our system of diplomacy, human rights are finally regarded as a soft issue. Yet, sincere and tenacious support for human rights is always good policy in the long term. The oppressor falls, whether in one year or 50, and it is easier to do business with a nation whose freedom struggle you have supported than with one whose suffering you ignored or even abetted.

This comment on the Palestinians (made right before the author inexpicably attempts to justify the Israeli assassination policy) is also dead on:

Nor do the repressive, borrowed-time Arab governments in the region really want to see a successful, independent Palestinian state. The Palestinian struggle is a wonderful diversion for deprived Islamic populations elsewhere, but none of the Arab elites truthfully likes or trusts the Palestinians, who, if they achieved a viable, populist state of their own, would provide an unsettling example to the subjects of neighboring regimes. Arab rulers regard the Palestinians as too unpredictable, too obstreperous, too secular, too vigorous, and much too creative (resembling the Israelis, in fact). As it is, the rest of the Arab world is happy to fight to the last Palestinian, insisting the Palestinians maintain demands unacceptable to Israel.

Salon has a chilling profile of Wafa Idris, the Palestinian woman who was carrying a bomb that exploded in Jerusalem a few days ago (I would refer to as a suicide bomber, but it’s not clear whether she intended to blow herself up, she may have been carrying the bomb for someone else). The chilling thing about the profile is that there’s nothing to suggest that this woman was an extremist of any kind — she didn’t wear a head scarf, and spent her time volunteering as a paramedic for the Red Crescent Society. Were I an Israeli, I think the question that would be haunting me is whether some of the suicide bombings are committed by people who are driven to suicidal depression by their day-to-day lives immersed in violence and poverty rather than by delusional Islamists on a hurry to get a one way ticket to paradise.

Bug 51015 – Microsoft should use Mozilla — the title says it all.

AIM is blocking Trillian users. Do yourself a favor and switch to Yahoo.

Could Osama bin Laden share the fate of King Herod (of Bible fame)?

Here’s an interesting data point in the Enron collapse: long term energy prices fell sharply after Enron declared bankruptcy. Could they have been manipulating energy prices? (Link via Red Rock Eater.)

OK, I thought it was really pathetic that Ken Lay held a prayer session with Jesse Jackson for atonement or succor or whatever, but now his wife is doing the media rounds in an attempt to garner sympathy for the family. The thing is, she says that the family is basically broke, when in fact they have more assets than you can shake a stick at. (Both links go to NY Times stories.)

Bush State of the Union address, I didn’t watch it and haven’t read it yet.

Hamid Karzai came to America to ask for help, and he’s not getting much for his trouble. President Bush has ruled out using US forces to expand the peacekeeping effort in Afghanistan, despite the fact that Karzai wants a larger peacekeeping force so that peacekeepers can be deployed beyond Kabul, and the “man on the street” interviews I read from Afghanistan all seem to be with people in favor of more foreign troops. One thing we are going to do is help them establish a real military and system of law enforcement, which is good.

What really irks me is this Bush quote: “”The United States is committed to playing a leading role in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.” Wouldn’t a leading role involve actually putting up the cash that Afghanistan needs to rebuild? We shouldn’t let Bush have it both ways. You can’t jibe playing a leading role with the “we paid for the war, somebody else has to pay for the peace” sentiment that has been widely expressed by the Bush administration.

A British commission has recommended that the government change the way agricultural subsidies are dispensed, moving away from simply paying farmers for growing stuff or raising animals and toward paying them for changing their production methods to protect the environment. We’d do well to examine this report in the United States as well. It would change the system from simply benefitting farmers to benefitting everyone — a healthy environment is a common good, whereas having a bunch of farmers using pesticides to keep their government dole checks rolling in keeps them going but does little for the non-farmers who make up the vast majority of the population.