Military Intervention - Works Well With Others

My friend at The Camel's Nose argues that the U.S. should be wary of "buck-passing" in the Middle East, where we take on all the costs of providing public goods like security. I agree with him, but for different reasons.

He says we have no special obligation to countries like Libya and therefore we should conserve our resources by working with others.

For me, whether one has an "obligation" or not isn't so important. Nor is whether everyone lifts their fair share. Rather, it's just a matter of costs and benefits.

Working with others tends to decrease economic, military, and moral costs of intervention, but it does entail some loss of efficiency. At the same time, international cooperation also increases the likelihood of success. In short, costs go down, benefits go up.

But that doesn't mean there's a general rule that intervention requires multilateralism. Some interventions, even with support, just aren't worth it. Other interventions, even without support, are still worth it.

In cases like Libya where there are good arguments for and against intervention, international support - or the lack thereof - can tilt the scales.

What Can We Learn from Iran?

There is no doubt that America faces a health care crisis. According to The Times, "the Mississippi Delta has some of the worst health statistics in the country, including infant mortality rates for non-whites at Third World levels." In fact, Mississippi has the country's highest rates of child obesity, hypertension, and teenage pregnancy, with over 20% of the population uninsured. And yet, the state spends the third most per capita on health expenditures in the country.

Clearly, Mississippi needs help - and they can't wait for Washington to stop bickering with itself and finally pass health care reform. So, they have turned elsewhere...to Iran.

As the article explains, after the Islamic Revolution, the Iranian government launched a program that set up "health houses" to serve local communities. Ordinary citizens known as behvarz received health training and would travel around offering advice and basic medical services. The program was wildly successful, reducing child mortality rates by 69% and maternal mortality rates dropped from 300 per 100,000 births to 30. Currently, there are 17,000 health houses throughout Iran, serving 90% of Iran's rural population of 23 million people.

A group representing a rural hospital in Mississippi learned of Iran's success story, formed a partnership with Shiraz University, and sent a delegation to Iran to learn more about the program. In turn, Iranian experts visited Mississippi to help advise the opening of the state's first health house, due to open next month. Better yet, the first American behvarz health assistants will be trained in Iran next spring.

Beyond the obvious fact that we shouldn't have to look to Iran to resolve our health crisis, it is comforting that we can. But it wasn’t easy. As the article explains, the Mississippi group had to request special permission from the Treasury Department to avoid sanctions restrictions, as well as skirt potential political sensitivities. Oddly, even the Mississippi governor hasn't been informed of the program!

Obviously, some people would feel uncomfortable dealing with Iran, our political adversary that sponsors terrorism and likely seeks to develop nuclear weapons. But too often we confuse the government of Iran with its people. As the Green Movement has clearly shown, the actions and rhetoric of a dictatorial government reveals nothing about its people.

That is why labels like the "Axis of Evil" confuse more than they clarify. Though Ahmadinejad and Khamenei may be the true Great Satans, the Iranian people are anything but demons. In fact, they simply seek the same rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that Americans cherish. Just as they take comfort in our moral support for their struggle for freedom, we should take comfort in their ability and willingness to help improve American lives.

More generally, America's obsession with our own exceptionalism might prove a philosophical roadblock to accepting Iranian assistance . We have always believed our country should be a city upon a hill, an exemplar for all other countries to follow. We have also held the inverse to be true as well: America should not be a follower. Such logic is the source for much of the neoconservative critique of President Obama's foreign policy that complains Obama treats America as a partner, and not a hegemon, in the international system.

But such arguments misinterpret why America is an exceptional country. It is not because we are objectively better than the rest of the world. Plenty of indices of wealth, happiness, healthiness, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press prove otherwise. Rather, we are exceptional as the first nation in history to be defined by what we believe in, not who we are or where we are from.

As our Constitution states, we established our government “in order to form a more perfect union.” The implication is our union is not yet perfect, our city upon the hill is not yet finished. For over two centuries, we have tirelessly built upon our city to form a more perfect union, using our ideals as a blueprint and our progress as our brick and mortar.

That is why we are an exceptional nation. That is why the world looks up to us. That is why we should not be scared to confront our shortcomings. And that is why we should not only accept, but actively seek help from others - even from Iran.

As we consider imposing enhanced sanctions on the Iranian regime, we should not only seek to minimize the harm inflicted upon the Iranian people. We must also consider the opportunity cost in lost cultural, educational, and technical exchanges that would benefit Iranians and Americans alike.

Speaking Arafrenglish

This weekend, Lebanon's Prime Minister, Saad Hariri, met with Syrian President Assad in Damascus. It was a historic visit for many reasons, perhaps most of all because of the very personal ramifications involved. As The New York Times explains, "the trip epitomized a national story with anguished, almost operatic dimensions: a young leader forced to shake hands with the man who he believes killed his father."

And yet, the story circulating around the blogosphere has nothing to do with that, or Syrian interference in Lebanon's politics, or Hezbollah's arsenal, or anything political at all. Rather, it's a video of Hariri attempting - and failing - to deliver a recent speech in front of the Lebanese Parliament. Quite simply, he doesn't speak Arabic very well.

Now, we Americans know what it's like to have a President who doesn't speak very eloquently We like politicians who are "folksy" and "speak to the people." After all, it's the policies that matter...right?

But in Arabic culture, literacy is extremely important. The Arabic language, with its case endings and its beating rhythm, is meant to be spoken, not read. Poets are revered as noble, and everyone worth his hummus writes the occasional verse or two. In fact, the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed, is well known for his poetic ability - so much so that his official webpage features an entire section on poetry. Even the holy Qu'ran, literally meaning "The Recitation," is not meant to be read, but spoken and heard.

But, as usual, Lebanon is a bit different. Due to its history and politics, the Lebanese people speak a mixture of Arabic, French, and English. Or, for the people I met, they often speak a mixture of all three, mixing and matching vocabulary and even grammar willy nilly. For an American Arabic student who knows a little French, everything sounded familiar and yet incomprehensible at the same time.

The result is that while many Lebanese speak all three languages very well, they don't speak any of them extremely fluently. Usually, a person's most-fluent language indicates what kind of education he/she have received (e.g. American University in Beirut, Université Saint-Joseph, Beirut Arab University, or none at all). Meanwhile, there are many minority groups, like the Armenians, who speak their own languages all together. In this way, language can reveal the religious, ethnic and socioeconomic stratification in Lebanese society.

For example, the Christian Free Patriotic Movement campaigned this summer with English slogans like "I vote for change" and French slogans like "Sois belle et vote" (Be beautiful and vote). In comparison, Shi'ite Hezbollah campaigned in Arabic with the slogan "Not your Lebanon, not our Lebanon, not their Lebanon, but Lebanon."

While Hariri's Future party campaigned in Arabic, Hariri grew up outside of Lebanon and received his education in America. As such, like so many other elite Lebanese, he speaks some combination of Arabic, English, and French. He speaks the unique Lebanese dialect of Arafrenglish.

So let's give Hariri a break. So he's no Khalil Gibran. Big deal. Neither am I, and I can only speak English. Sorta.

Censoring Playstation

The Babylon and Beyond blog reports that a new computer game is causing a stir in the United Arab Emirates. The premise of "Spec Ops: The Line" is simple enough. You lead an elite corp of special-ops forces on a secret mission after massive sandstorms destroy Dubai. Per Babylon and Beyond:

Dubai's once-glittering skyline has been reduced to a wasteland of concrete skeletons and jagged steel, half-buried under the dunes that are slowly reclaiming the so-called "city of superlatives." In this macabre dreamscape, corpses swing from streetlights as Burj Dubai, the world's tallest building, looms in the background.

Sounds like a pretty sweet game, right?

Well, not so much for the government of the UAE. Between Dubai's confidence already teetering from financial troubles and their notoriously thin-skin when it comes to criticism, they're apparently in no mood to watch the digital destruction of their desert dream. Therefore, the government is considering banning the game.

But they're looking at this all the wrong. In the gaming world, immolation - not imitation - is the deepest form of flattery. According to the game's producer, Dubai is "such a fantastic location from an architectural standpoint. The contrast between the exterior devastation and the interior opulence and beautiful architecture seemed to be a really beautiful and effective image."

Fifteen years ago, no American software company would have even known what Dubai was, let alone decide it'd be a perfect setting for the next major blockbuster video game. This game is a testament to Dubai's success.

Besides, we Americans see our monuments destroyed all the time in games and movies. In fact, a landmark is not a landmark in America until a chest-thumping gorilla, laser-blasting alien, or fire-breathing lizard decimates it. It's no coincidence that the video game Modern Warfare 2, which broke the record with sales over $550 million in its first five days, features the full-scale destruction of Washington D.C.

And just for fun:

The Grass is Greener

Gallup has released an interesting poll that asked people if they wanted to emigrate permanently from their home country and, if so, where would they go. In all, 16% of the world's adult population would leave their homeland if given the chance. That's approximately 700 million people.

Africans clearly stand out as the most willing to move from home, followed by Middle Easterners. Asians, meanwhile, seem most content where they are. Americans just slightly edge out Europeans as happier with their homes. Because the data is aggregated into regions, we shouldn't read draw too many conclusions from the map. For example, it's hard to imagine that the French are more willing to emigrate than the Afghans.




The second map, however, does break the data down into countries, revealing both some predictable and unexpected results. Predictably, as Andrew Sullivan points out, the United States is the most popular destination amongst the would-be emigrants. Approximately one quarter of the respondents, around 165 million people, chose the U.S. as their new home. Other popular countries included Canada, the U.K, France and Spain.

But surprisingly, even though 23% of Middle Easterners want to move elsewhere, Saudi Arabia was one of the most popular destination choices for emigrants, with 30 million people naming the desert Kingdom. In fact, if everyone actually moved to where they desired, Saudi Arabia's population would increase by 180%. Only Singapore would experience a larger percentage increase.


So, why do so many people want to move to a country that its own citizens want to leave? Without more exact data, it's hard to say for sure, but I'd bet the major factor is Islam. The Saudi interpretation of Islam, called Salafism, follows an extremely strict reading of the Qur'an. As such, it's largely a love it or hate it movement, with passionate followers and vehement detractors alike.


The Muslims who adhere to Salafism would understandably want to live in a country like Saudi Arabia. But I'd also imagine many Muslims around the world would willingly abide by such a strict interpretation of Islam, even if they personally do not subscribe to all of its tenants, in order to live near the birthplace of the Prophet Mohammed and the revelation of Islam. But at the same time, many Saudis find the conservative culture of their country constricting. In fact, Saudis are notorious for traveling to more liberal countries, like Egypt and Lebanon, in order to, putting it nicely, enjoy themselves and let loose.


In fact, you may have noticed that Egypt is another popular destination, likely for that very reason. As both a Muslim-majority and (relatively) socially liberal country, Egypt offers a good compromise for Muslims who are seeking a more open atmosphere that still maintains a level of cultural and religious familiarity. As such, I'd guess many Saudis would prefer Egypt over the United States, but that's just a hunch.


In short, we likely have a case of the grass is greener on the other side. Many Muslims want to live in a more conservative society like Saudi Arabia, while some Saudis wouldn't mind a little more freedom.


*As a side note, the Gallup poll only included Arab nationals and expatriates while surveying the Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia. In other words, the huge numbers of migrant workers (usually from South Asia) that work throughout the Gulf Arab countires were ignored. This brings up another motivation to move to Saudi Arabia - finding employment.

Which is Safer?

Last night, I got mugged a few blocks away from my Columbia Heights apartment. Maybe I looked like easy prey in my Halloween attire. In any case, a taser, gun and stolen wallet later, I began to ask the question: was I safer in the Middle East?

On one hand, I never felt unsafe in any of the countries I visited. It didn't matter what time it was, what I street I was on, what I was doing or who I was doing it with. I was safe (admittedly, girls often have a different experience). All in all, the only muggers in the Middle East tend to be the thieves who run the government and the thugs who work for it.

On the other hand, there is no hiding the political and religious violence that troubles nearly every country. While I was in Cairo, terrorists bombed the famous market/tourist trap Khan Khalili. When I was in Dubai, I met a dozen Palestinian children maimed during the January war in Gaza. In Israel, I saw a bomb removal squad detonate a suspicious package. And then there's crossing the street, an all together different kind of terror.

In comparison, political and religious violence is relatively rare in United States. But miscreants, muggers and murderers abound. They're so common place that a police officer told me to not bother reporting my mugging - too many of them to deal with.

So which is safer? The sporadic, sensational, arbitrary violence of the Middle East? Or the frequent, common, ho hum violence of the United States?

Objectively, I'd have to go with the Middle East (I have no data, just anecdotal evidence). But safety hinges not so much on objectivity but on a psychological state of mind. There is a certain perverse logic to mugging. They took my money so they can spend it. I can understand that. In contrast, it's much harder to rationalize a bomb that indiscriminately kills civilians to make a political or religious point. It is that incomprehensibility that makes terrorism so frightening. And, in turn, it is what gives the Middle East its over-exaggerated reputation for danger.