What Really Matters

Is the U.S. rebuilding Iraq or dismantling old alliances?

Gayle Smith, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, asks important questions in an article called Rebuilding Iraq, or Dismantling Old Alliances? She writes:

"The Bush administration has poured another bucket of cold water on efforts to internationalize the stabilization of Iraq. With its public announcement yesterday that reconstruction contracts will be limited to coalition partners--and withheld from 'Old Europe' - the Pentagon has increased the cost to Americans, weakened the traditional alliances America needs to defeat terrorism, and undermined Iraq's long-term future. [...]

"The longer term implications are staggering. The administration has legitimized political interference in government procurement operations, setting the stage for future contracts to be subjected to the whims of individual government agencies. It has upended trade relations by using its status as occupying authority to monopolize a single market. And it has certainly lent credence to the view held by some that one of its aims is to secure the spoils of victory.

"The Bush administration's spin is that excluding other nations from bidding on reconstruction contracts is in the interests of U.S. taxpayers. If the administration really wants to serve the interests of U.S. taxpayers, it needs to focus less on revenge and more on the tasks at hand - expanding troop contributions from other nations, leveraging an increase in donor contributions to Iraq's reconstruction, and ensuring that the rebuilding of Iraq paves the way for the emergence of a vibrant, integrated economy."

Is loyalty a legitimate factor on which to decide military (or any other) contracts? Does it make sense to let one act (or lack of action) negate decades of cooperation and define "loyalty"? If loyalty is so easily negated does it have any real meaning or impact?

Deomocracy and Technology

Mitch Ratcliffe and Jon Lebkowsky are working together on a book about democracy and technology. Mitch recently posted a draft of the first chapter and has some interesting things to say about what he calls the creation of "Extreme Democracy," about the change from a hierarchical model of political parties to a more fluid form fueled by public debate and participation enabled by the Internet. To quote two paragraphs from the piece :

"Political parties are very much like corporations were before the advent of the networked computer. They are hierarchical and rigid with leadership that is hard to displace or enter on any terms other than those laid down by the longest serving veterans. As the networked computer broke down the old boys networks within companies and opened the membrane surrounding senior management, not to mention unleashed a wave of outsourcing and exporting of formerly core assets to partners and overseas, the Internet is about to hollow out the major political parties. [...]

[...] As more people connect and learn through the Internet, public debate about the direction government should take has reached a critical mass that could transform the very notion of democratic systems. This transition will not end differences of opinion, nor will it abolish ideology from public debate. It will simply make the debate more fluid, with many more specific perspectives represented, because the massive party infrastructures are becoming more porous. The Howard Dean campaign, where it was possible to find far-left Democrats hoping to stop the war in Iraq working with moderate and center-right Republicans angry about runaway deficits working together, demonstrates how an extremely democratic technology can bring together many perspectives. Its massive fund-raising success of the Howard Dean campaign during 2003 and early 2004, which built a war chest of $45 million for a candidate who began his quest for the White House as an asterisk, is the proof point for the transformation of politics via network. That campaign failed for a variety of reasons, but the example is a clear statement about people’s willingness to work together despite their differences when they see a clear opportunity to make a difference."

Would Howard Dean’s supporters have been as visible and effective without the Internet connection? Will technology give individuals a louder voice within party politics or will it be the demise of the existing hierarchies? Will the desire of those in power to remain in power slow the development of technological tools? Or can such development be stalled?