Scottish voters are irrational

According to a poll in the Daily Mail, 74% of decided voters in the upcoming Scottish referendum believe they are using their ‘heads’ not their ‘hearts’. It seems Scottish nationalism and British unionism, to the extent consequences of separation can be accurately predicted, are about the careful weighing of legal, economic and political trade-offs.

The poll does raise an interesting point though. If the decided vote is roughly 47% against to 44% for separation, and 74% of decided voters are using their ‘heads’, then there are a lot of people who aren’t using their heads but are claiming to be using them. After all, there are only two options.  One group can’t be using their ‘head’ if you assume there’s A rational choice. And yet there are people who are believe they are using their ‘heads’ who will make the ‘wrong’ choice.

I suppose those who make the ‘wrong’ choice must be either dumb and/or deluded. I wonder who is dumb and/or deluded? …….

Where are the Gulf Arab states in the fight against ISIL?

I’m a regular viewer of the The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I like the show because in spite of being a comedy he often has cutting and accurate commentary on the news of the day. I had to disagree with his monologue tonight though. He went to great pains to criticize Saudi Arabia for not being supportive enough of the United States’ fight against ISIL. I think this is misguided.

While I understand Stewart’s aggravation with Saudi Arabia, as they seem to play every side, Saudi Arabia can’t do much more than the commitment they made to run training camps for Syrian rebels fighting ISIL. Although, I suppose they could punish Saudis who financially supported ISIL.

Beyond Saudi Arabia’s lack of support Stewart was ‘distressed’  by the fact everyone militarily supporting the American fight against ISIL are supposedly Christian states. This causes the fight against ISIL to look like a crusade. Yes, on second thought, that does look bad and is a radical Islamic propagandists dream.

The problem is, if you suck Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait and other Gulf Arab states militarily into the conflict you risk sucking Iran into the conflict. I admit this is a distant possibility but it’s a real one.

If bringing Sunni Arab states into the mix is unlikely because they all hate Bashar al-Assad, Iran and Iraqi Shiite then what about Turkey? Surely, Turkey doesn’t want a bunch of foaming-at-the-mouth types on their border? No, they probably don’t but ISIL could do an effective job of slaughtering the Kurds for them if they got strong enough.

I suppose what it boils down to is most surrounding states have powerful reasons to both support and destroy ISIL. Their strategy, much like Obama until yesterday, is to wait and see and be as ambivalent as possible.

Barack Obama chooses bad instead of worse in Iraq

U.S. President Barack Obama will be speaking in an hour. Apparently, he has formulated a plan for dealing with ISIS. That plan will, if the talking heads on CNN are to be believed, include arming rebels in Syria and bombing the hell out of the Islamic State’s positions in Iraq and Syria. Obama has been forced to choose between bad and worse.

I still maintain, as I did in my first post about ISIS, that getting involved in this conflict is a bad option. There are so many tribal, ethnic, religious and political vagaries involved that your ally today will be your enemy tomorrow and may in fact be your enemy today. Beyond that, you can’t beat an idea (the caliphate) and an ideology (militant Islam) with bombs even if you need to bomb threats.

I’m watching CNN right now and General Wesley Clark said the U.S. needs to get Sunni Arab troops in the region to fight ISIS. On the face of it, that makes sense. If you have Sunni Arab troops in a Sunni Arab region of Iraq you’re more likely to undermine local support for ISIS, which is made up of primarily Sunni Arabs, as the ‘occupiers’ would be culturally, ethnically and religiously like the ‘occupied’.

The problem is, at least from my vantage point, that neighbouring Sunni Arab states like Jordan or Saudi Arabia want to get involved like they want a bowl of toe juice for breakfast. They want to stay out of it for a variety of reasons.

1. The monarchies don’t want to become any more of a target than they already are among religious radicals.
2. There’s  a strong element of support for ISIS in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, etc. In fact, ISIS has received financial support from wealthy Arabs in the region.
3. While Shiite Iranians may not like Sunni Arab extremists they wouldn’t be comfortable with Saudi troops in Iraq to say the least as they’re major competitors. Of course, it’s not like Iran and the U.S. get along, but Saudis or other Sunnis in Iraq could cause complications down the road.

I may very well be wrong. Maybe Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc. will leap at the possibility of getting sucked into what is, effectively, a regional war. After all, it doesn’t take a great leap of logic to see the regional war coming to their doorsteps if they attempt to avoid it.

 

 

 

 

Brazilian resistance to NSA is understandable but futile

The overwhelming majority of the world’s internet traffic is routed through the United States. The world’s most important ’emerging markets’ Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa are no exception when it comes to relying on the U.S. to route their data flows. That will change in the future as Brazil has taken significant steps to try to free itself of network dependence on the United States in an attempt to secure it’s citizens data from the prying eyes of the NSA.

To understand the United States’ dominance in international data flows consider the following two maps. The first map shows most of the built or planned undersea telecommunications cables. Of the two cables connecting Brazil to Africa or Europe one is built and one is planned. The result is there are currently zero underwater cables directly connecting South America to Africa and Asia.

i

This second map tells more or less the same story. Instead of looking at cables, it looks at the volume of traffic being transmitted per second. Unsurprisingly, most data flows through, to or from the U.S.

In the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations about NSA spying, Brazil’s President Delma Rousseff was one of the most outspoken international leaders. She said the NSA’s “illegal practice of intercepting the communications and data of citizens, companies and members of the Brazilian government constitute a serious act against national sovereignty and individual rights, and [are] incompatible with the democratic coexistence of friendly countries.”

Brazil has initiated a number of projects over the last five years to free itself of U.S. dependence. Since Snowden’s revelations some of those projects have been cloaked in the language of Brazilian national security. However, it’s clear some of Brazil’s efforts, in particular the much publicized Russia to Brazil via South Africa cable seen below, predated Snowden. Other efforts, in particular a law requiring Facebook and Google to store Brazilian user data on servers in Brazil, are more clearly a reaction, effective or not, to Snowden.

 

I tend to fall in the fatalistic camp of believing Brazil’s efforts are for naught–at least from a data security point of view. The United States has a long history of tapping deep sea cables and in order to believe the U.S. won’t be directly intercepting data from the cable you’d have to believe no Americans or allied states (Canada, the UK, Australia or New Zealand) work on building or maintaining the cable. You also have to believe no American technology is used or that none of the seven states–including British Commonwealth country Mauritius–will be convinced to allow the U.S. onto the cable as AT&T did in San Francisco.

The enemy of the Islamic State is America’s enemy

Barack Obama has been heavily criticized for acknowledging he hasn’t developed a strategy to deal with Syria, Iraq and ISIS. I suppose this supports the idea that honesty is never the best policy. The way I see it Obama’s lack of a plan is a statement on the obvious. There isn’t a good long term military option for dealing with ISIS and there aren’t a lot of ‘political options’ either. The war with ISIS is a war of ideas. Short of genocidal annihilation, and I’m not advocating it, you can beat an idea with guns.

ISIS is a combination of former Saddam Hussein supporters, rebel Syrian Sunni Arabs and internationally recruited Muslims intent on creating a caliphate. ISIS is a particular threat to western countries for three reasons. (1) Many westerners, from traditional and non-traditional Muslim groups, have been recruited into the fight. (2) It controls a large swath of territory that threatens to border Europe. (3) They appear to be ideologically driven rather than pragmatic. They really want to, however unrealistic, build the caliphate.

 

While ISIS is an enemy of western countries, the enemies of ISIS are also American enemies. The Syrian regime, who are aligned with Iran and Russia, are an enemy. Iran is an enemy. The Kurds, while seemingly allied with western interests, are arch enemies of NATO member Turkey, Syria, Iran and ultimately Iraqi Shiite as well. It’s true the Kurds have lived relatively peacefully since Saddam was overthrown, but they still have the stated goal of carving Kurdistan out of Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran.

Saying you don’t have a plan is really bad politics and communications, but it’s a perfectly understandable reaction. What side do the Americans come down on? In the absence of a democratic and pluralistic Iraqi coalition or an effective Iraqi Shiite military not getting into bed with Iran, the enemy of the American’s enemy isn’t their friend. Why would Obama sprint to get sucked into a conflict that few others want to get involved in? His options are bad and worse. At some point he may be forced to choose between bad and worse as the Islamic State slaughtering their way to Turkey’s border is in no one’s interest.

Is Putin the next Hitler?

Vladimir Putin is a fascist tyrant. At least that’s what Prince Charles implied when he called Putin the second coming of Hitler. Unfortunately, the amped up rhetoric of politicians and public figures like Prince Charles ignores the role NATO has played in pushing Russia to react.  Indeed, NATO has a significant degree of responsibility for the current standoff.

NATO, the EU and Ukraine have been playing ‘footsie’ with each other for at least a decade. NATO holds joint military operations in western Ukraine every year under the auspices of the Partnership for Peace. NATO also brought the Baltic states into the alliance in spite of post-Cold War promises not to expand into eastern Europe. Russia undeniably interprets NATO’s encroachment through expansion and partnerships as a threat.

If you look at the map of Russia below you’ll see why Russia perceives NATO/EU footsie with Ukraine as a threat. Ukraine and Kazakhstan create a geographical bottleneck in southern Russia. If NATO positioned troops and weapons systems in Ukraine, in the event of a conflict, they could march through the geographic bottleneck straight to the Kazakh border cutting Russia off from the Black and Caspian Sea.

The Black Sea, in particular the bases in Crimea, are of vital military and economic importance to the Russians. In the north their ports freeze in the winter. In the east their ports are thousands of miles away from the bulk of the population and their ships must sail some of the most politically contested waters in the world.

The loss of southern ports would be a catastrophe for the Russians. It would severely hinder Russia’s ability to influence global military and economic affairs. They’d have to circumnavigate Asia or Europe to get to the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. The Russians recognize as A.T. Mahan outlined in his 19th century book , The Influence of Sea Power Upon History 1660-1783, those who control the sea control history.

Of course, none of the preceding is to suggest that Vladimir Putin is a pacifist. It’s not to suggest that he’s morally justified in his actions. It’s to suggest, however, that NATO shouldn’t be able to claim who, what, where, why is this happening? It’s very easy to understand why Russia feels they have a strategic imperative for action.

Personally, in spite of the rhetoric, I’d like to think Putin is a pragmatic man. In spite of some strong rhetoric about being able to take Kiev in two weeks and Russians in eastern Ukraine saying they’ll attack Poland next, Putin understands the costs of a broader conflict and occupying Ukraine.

I believe Putin’s intentions are limited. He wants to a) keep Ukraine in crisis to prevent them from building a stronger partnership with NATO and/or the EU or b) establish a puppet state in eastern Ukraine that would ensure access to the Black Sea and eastern Ukraine’s mines and factories. Whether what I’d like to think with respect to Putin’s ambitions reflect reality or not I suppose we’ll find out.