The Selfish Gene and Altruism

I just finished Matt Ridley's book The Origins of Virtue. It was a great pleasure to read because it consistently managed to stand particular ideas of mine on their heads. Ridley persuasively argues that humans have social instincts, ultimately to be trustworthy. Virtuous behavior has been selected for by our genes.

The Selfish Gene is, of course, a famous book by Richard Dawkins (which I have not read) about a revolution in biology. At its core, the idea is that "individuals do not consistently do things for the good of their group, or their families, or even themselves. They consistently do things that benefit their genes because they are all inevitablly descended from those that did the same. None of your ancestors died celibate."

This conception solved some mysteries in biology. Social insects who help their sisters to breed rather than trying to breed themselves, left more copies of their genes in the next generation. "From the gene's point of view, therefore, the astonishing altruism of the worker ant was purely, unambiguously selfish." But how does that leave space for altruism?

Classical economists had supposed that people act out of self-interest. However, this idea revealed a much more powerful engine of behavior. "Selfish genes sometimes use selfless individuals to achieve their ends. Suddenly, therefore, altruism by individuals can be understood." People really do act selflessly because this tendency is selfishly useful for their genes.

What makes human beings different is culture, which leads to a different kind of evolution; a competition not just between genes, but between culturally different individuals or groups. "A person may thrive at the expense of another not because he has better genes, but because he knows or believes something of practical value."

There is one kind of cultural learning that makes cooperation more likely: conformism. It must be remembered that we evolved as small groups of hunter/gatherers, so conformisn strengthened the group. Thus, we get the tendency that it is usually cheaper and better to do what other people say. Humans have always fragmented into hostile and competitive tribes. This leads to our tendency to perceive the world in terms of us or them (the competing group). And war. This is the dark side of our social instincts.

The book also makes use of game theory; in particular, strategies for dealing with prisoner's dilemmas, a difficulty that occurs whenever there is a conflict between self-interest and the common good. This is a situation where each indidividual in a group will rationally choose a course of action that is not really in his own self-interest, another mind-boggling concept.

The book is full of wonderful anthropological studies, including many hunter/gatherer societies we have encountered in the modern age, and comparative biology between species. Once again, I am forced to realize how little I know, but that just means that there are more interesting surprises in store. On to Genome.

Tony Judt and God

I asked awhile ago why Tony Judt, the brilliant author of Postwar and other books and articles, has seemed to be absent from the public forum lately. The answer is that he has ALS. Here is a very moving description of his condition at present. This is very sad and I think everyone should read it to get some idea what this terrible disease is like. Usually, when it is diagnosed, you have a couple years to live and the end is like Mr. Judt's condition. I have enormous respect for this man's humanity and intellect even though I have never met him. I know others who have gotten such death sentences and I hope I appreciate how lucky I am not to be under one at the moment, although that is the conclusion of all life. As so I apologize for the segway into the next topic; I do not mean to minimize the tragedy of his destination. I thank him for all the erudite and stimulating words he has written. He has made my life immensely richer.

I contrast this tragedy with an insight from reading Matt Ridley's The Origins of Virtue, a wonderful book on evolutionary psychology. Mr. Judt's situation leads one to ask how could there be a Christian God. The following suggests why it is natural to think so. Ultimately, I believe that this metaphysical issue is secondary in importance. My religious friends are often the most dedicated to the common good and treat others with respect. We are on the same side. We cannot settle the metaphysical issue anyway. That is why I am an agnostic.

Why does it seem so natural for people to believe in God? It is ultimately because we evolved largely as social creatures in relatively small hunter/gatherer groups. The possibility of altruism was created by the possibility of reciprocity. I will help you now and share with you now because of the probability that you will do so in the future. People who formed such groups were more likely to survive. However, as in all Utilitarian schemes, there is the problem of the “free-rider.” An individual may say to himself “why should I risk my life or even exert effort to kill the wild animal for food if I will get it from somebody else anyway?" As a result of this problem, humans developed a highly developed unconscious device for detecting cheaters or slackers. And potential cheaters developed devices such as blushing and other facial expressions which made them readable by others in the group.

This was one of our biggest problems as small groups of hunter/gatherers. So we developed the sense that all problems are problems of agency, rather than some naturalistic cause. There were no accidents or luck. We developed beliefs about those events that were very important to us, dangerous or helpful, in terms of agency. That is, we created gods for understanding these occurrences. And we treated them as we may treat any who have power over us; we offered gifts and attempted to avoid behaviors that would antagonize the gods. We routinely anthropomorphized the natural world as a system of social exchanges.

The history of religion is one of progression from paganism, worshiping a number of gods, to monotheism, although Hinduism and some other religions do not fit this model. This hardwired ability and tendency to calculate the world as social exchanges or a social contract, keeping score of who has done what, is part of our nature. So people are naturally altruistic (they intend to do good for others for the benefit of the other) even though such a feature arose because of its success in allowing the formation of social units. Those who did not were kicked out of groups or never formed groups, and died out, not spreading their genes. Of course, these hunter/gatherer groups were limited in size due to our score-keeping limitations. The advent of larger groups or societies raises questions of what social ordering forces allowed them to exist. We must assume that the organizing forces were path-dependent, that is they are based on our instinctual nature as social animals.

The Filibuster

In the aftermath of the health care reform bill, there is a lot of talk about why the filibuster, or the mere threat of a filibuster, has become such a significant part of Senate politics in our time. I am looking forward to James Fallows' upcoming article in the Atlantic, but here is an interesting interview with a historian.

The real surge in filibuster use was in the early 1990's, apparently as a feature of partisan politics. Because we had ideologically distinct parties, the minority party realized that if it merely deprived the majority of real victories, they could be successful. The republicans not only didn't pay a price for obstruction, they ended up taking over Congress. But did we really have ideologically distinct parties and, if so, why did that happen?

The power of a mere threat of a filibuster must have something to do with other changes. The airplane made it possible for Congresspersons to travel quickly to their constituents. The increased money required to campaign, partly due to mass media, made it necessary to campaign much more of the time, which the airplane made possible. The mass media also made possible other ways of gaining power and to be a big player. It was less necessary to be on good terms with the senior members; rather, individual members could direct their efforts directly to the media.

Mass media never has stories like "things haven't changed." They always look for a win-lose angle. That is what attracts readers' attention. That addresses one of Zakaria's points about the failure of our government. I still don't understand at all the ideology part, but campaign finance reform in terms of individual contribution limits and perhaps term limits would address the first two points, and perhaps the filibuster. Because the schedules of members of Congress have become so full of fund-raising events, even the threat of a filibuster is potent. However, either of these moves would require a Constitutional amendment. Some of the other ideas floating around about curbing the power of the threatened filibuster seem more attainable. After all, the filibuster is just an outdated Senate rule and is not part of the Constitution.

The Post-American World

Fareed Zakaria’s The Post-American World turned out to be a lively and informed book. Or maybe I just agree with him about a lot of things. He sees America’s hegemonic position as disappearing not because of weakness in America, but because of the rise of other countries out of poverty. The emerging economies of China and India are the clearest examples of challenges to our economic hegemony (not military). I am going to list some points that struck me as insightful or obviously correct.

(1) War and organized violence in the world over the last two decades have declined dramatically, while per capita income has risen dramatically. According to Steven Pinker, we are probably living in the most peaceful time in our species’ existence.

(2) Iraq weakened Al Qaeda because in order to attract Sunni support, it morphed into an anti-Shiite group, thus depriving it of its claim to represent Islam. We ought to be recognizing the distinctness of many of the jihadist groups. The improvised strategy has a crippling weakness; it kills locals, thus alienating ordinary Muslims.

(3) The best counterterrorism policy is resilience; if we are not terrorized, then it doesn’t work.

(4) The financial force that has powered the new era is the free movement of capital around the world. This was largely due to the removal of fixed exchange rates. And the hyperinflation of the 1980's was curtailed due to monetary and fiscal discipline.

(5) The most acute problem of increased wealth in the world is the impact of global growth on natural resources and the environment.

(6) In many countries, there is a pent-up frustration with Western or American narratives. For instance, the standard narrative about World War II is how the U.S. and Britain heroically defeated the Nazis. But the Eastern front involved more land combat than all other theaters of war combined and many more casualties. It was where three-quarters of Germans fought and where they sustained 70% of their casualties. The war is portrayed as a heroic struggle of good over evil, but Britain committed many troops from its empire while denying those people freedom at home. However, the world is currently moving from anger to indifference, from anti-Americanism to post-Americanism. Now that the Cold War has ended, the emerging strong economies can go their own way.

(7) Globalization and outsourcing have actually helped America’s bottom line. Growth (3% vs. 2%) and productivity (2.5% vs. 1.5%) have averaged a full percentage point higher than Germany or Japan. U.S. exports as a percentage of the world have dropped only 1% since 1980 (from 10% to 9%) and the U.S. remains the most competitive economy in the world.

(8) Most Americans (less so for the young) are ignorant of the world beyond their borders and remain convinced that they do not need to learn about others. Thus, they remain convinced that their way must be the best and most advanced. This makes us increasingly suspicious (afraid) of the emerging global era. We are the only country in the world to issue annual report cards of every other country’s behavior. This isn’t just confined to the chest-thumping machismo of the neocons.

(9) The view of multinational companies is far more positive elsewhere. We want the world to accept American companies but when other companies with overseas bases come here, it is a different matter.

Those are from the first two chapters. He goes on to give an account of how the West became supreme which will be quite recognizable to anyone who has read Germs, Guns and Steel. Early in the 20th century, the process of domination culminated with a handful of Western capitals ruling 85% of the world’s land. He then has a couple of very insightful chapters on China and India. They are different in significant ways from the West. Neither Hinduism nor Confucianism believes in universal commandments or the need to spread the faith. And for practical reasons, they are far more interested in economic development to feed the vast number of poor than to engage in traditional western-style military hegemony.

The Chinese-American relationship is one of mutual dependence. China needs the American market to sell its goods; the U.S. needs China to finance its debt. It would be in the interests of each to cooperate. Ironically, while China’s central government allows it to complete grand projects, India’s multi-ethnic democracy makes such projects difficult. Instead, it’s growth comes from a U.S.-style capitalism now that they jettisoned their failed experiment with socialism. Surprisingly, 50% of their GDP is services and their level of personal consumption is second only to the U.S. (67% vs. 70%). Unwittingly, the legacy of Britain’s English language is a great asset in a world economy. The organized minorities are even more powerful in India than here. Only Americans have a more favorable view of the U.S. than Indians (71% vs. 83%).

The last two chapters trace the passing of the world’s hegemonic superpower status from Britain and lay out principles for approaching changing times. We need to learn from Britain’s successes and failures. A number of sensible reforms could be initiated here (e.g. diminished wasteful spending and subsidies, increased savings, achieving significant efficiencies in energy use, etc.), but our political process seems to have lost its ability to create broad coalitions on complex issues. Politics has been “captured by money, special interests, sensationalist media and ideological attack groups.” We have thrived because of our openness to the world–to goods and services, ideas and inventions, people and cultures. Unfortunately, much of our population has been gripped by fear and loathing that fails to recognize what a positive position historically we are in the world today.

The Eve of ?

One of the many interesting points in the PBS documentary "From Jesus to Christ" is that scholars do not believe that Jesus was born anywhere close to the 25th of December. So what is this really the eve of? I can't help but recall that sixties song "The Eve of Destruction." It wasn't then and it isn't now, at least in the short run.

If all the world's theists recognized that they are all worshiping the same god it would do a lot to ease the religious warfare. It is that simple. Of course, it would help if they stopped seeing God as a Big Guy who bothers to intervene in world events and rather just looked at theism as a way to make sense of the universe or the human race as having a purpose. What gets in the way is the human mind, which mostly evolved in hunter-gatherer societies. But Robert Wright says that religion evolved in ways that keep us from seeing that life is a zero-sum game (if one wins, the other must lose). Rather, like trade, both can win. "If more and more Muslims feel respected by the West and feel they benefit from involvement with it, that will cut support for radical Islam, and westerners will be more secure from terrorism" (page 415). Win-win.

In the shorter term, there are some sticky problems. One is Iran. What we really should hope for the most is that the reform movement succeeds and reestablishes democracy. Unfortunately, this whole argument over the nuclear issue is going to be used by the conservatives to rally people behind nationalistic feelings. Here is a good article about the dilemma.

Gwynne Dyer's piece in the op-ed section of the Trib today suggests that what needs to happen is that the U.S. populace needs to realize that the U.S. needs to pay for most of the reduction in CO2. Mr. Dyer is a Canadien who lives in London and does not realize that this is not going to happen here, at least fast enough to make a difference. And so world meetings are not going to solve the problem. Sorry to be a pessimist on this. Human beings are going to have to adapt or some technological changes are going to have to occur. We have the technology to replace coal-burning plants. It is what France did. Nuclear power. However, we need to solve the transportation problem which causes dependence on oil. Gee, what about plug-in electric cars? We could use better batteries, but the solution is there already. And how about cheap solar energy not dependent on the grid? We just need the technology to be cheaper, or at least cheaper relative to energy from the grid. The U.S. can be a leader here, which would also alleviate the temptation to play superpower in the Middle East.

The brilliant Alma Guillermoprieto, author of several wonderful books on Latin America, has a report from Bolivia which shows just one of the problems that we will have to adapt to or overcome, the shortage of water in a globally warming world.

If one realizes what most of the world was thinking in 1910, one realizes that in 2010 we really have no idea what the world will be like in 30 years. Let's hope we don't have to undergo a history similar to theirs.

Addendum: This article tells me that I should follow my own advice. In 1910, who predicted the personal computer or the internet?

Rain Man

If you read the Salt Lake Tribune today, you probably read this article about Kim Peek, the "Rain Man." Here is a website with some great stuff on savant syndrome and the different kinds of autism. I am impressed that some of the musical savants are attending Berklee School of Music, where my friend Mary's son has a scholarship this year. Tyler Cowen also discusses different kinds of autism in his book Creating Your Own Economy.

Religion

We are in the season of western religious celebrations: Christmas (the birth of Jesus, not the joy of shopping), Hanukkah, Ashura (the martyrdom of Hossein), and others (does this have anything to do with the winter solstice?).

How can so many people believe in a religion? It is pretty clear that what religion a person believes in is usually directly linked to how he or she was raised. Why do so many people in Japan believe in Buddhism while the vast majority in the Middle East believe in Islam? And the vast majority of Americans are Christians. It seems like these beliefs are merely accidents of birth. How do they differ from the stories we were told when we were young which we eventually found out were false? And yet, most people claim that their religion is the one “true” religion.

Even if particular religions cannot logically defend the truth of their beliefs, are people even better off for having religious beliefs? After all, wars are going now and have been for a long time between different religious groups. How many people have been killed in the name of some god or other? The major conflicts of the world now are secondarily between nation-states or communism vs. capitalism. They are primarily between religions. Every major religion it seems is in conflict with every other. You can look at India/Pakistan, Palestine, wherever. Of course, it is not new. Look at the Crusades. How many people died trying to control Jerusalem?

The three major western religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam all believe in prophets. How does such prophecy work? Why should a prophet’s views be given such extraordinary weight? Doesn’t this require some kind of magic? You have all sorts of people running around claiming to be prophets. Which one should you believe?

Divinity experts agree that a large number (if not most) of the utterances attributed to Jesus in the Bible were not made by him. Robert Wright has pointed out how the idea of God has even changed over time in the Bible. Even if you don’t believe in prophets, how can such a text provide guidance? Is it even consistent?

So why do most people have religious beliefs? One way to go about explaining this would be in terms of psychological needs. People have a difficult time tolerating uncertainty. They are afraid of dying. They want to know why they should be good people. They want an explanation of the apparent injustice of the cheaters and liars and other evildoers who appear to profit from their bad behavior (and hence the appeal of karma and reincarnation, as well as God’s laws and heaven). They want to have a sense that their life has a purpose. But how does religion help if you are just a tool of the Big Guy?

It seems that there must be some evolutionary advantage to having religious beliefs. One can see how such beliefs could help bond people together in a society and to enforce a morality that allows individuals to get along harmoniously. However, this may just mean that your beliefs are vestiges of ancient ways of thinking; a useful fiction at best. Why are they still relevant? Are you not just believing in something to make yourself feel good? What does that have to do with truth? Shouldn’t one be more skeptical of beliefs that make you feel good; your reason for believing is that feeling rather than evidence?

While I think that these are powerful arguments against many religious views, I also think that there are responses. I'm still working on that and am rereading the final part of Robert Wright's The Evolution of God as part of the process. But it might begin with a comparison with studying philosophy; one looks for a bigger and more fundamental picture of the world that addresses real human concerns. You may not get answers, but you may get something else.

Up in the Air

We saw Up In the Air yesterday afternoon at the Gateway. It is a terrifically written movie with many funny moments, and along the way has some very smart observations. We loved it. I am beginning to appreciate going to movies again. Being in the theater sweeps one away into another world in a way that a DVD cannot do, even on a 50 inch high def. It is especially fun this time of year when there are so many good movies coming out and it is cold outside.

We also loved A Serious Man. I wonder where the Coen Brothers get their crazy ideas. Men Who Stare at Goats was also funny, although not in the same league as the other two. George Clooney sure gets a lot of great roles. I will be standing in line January 10th for Sundance tickets. Probably won't be much left but we are planning on going to the documentary winner. It is the closest thing to a guaranteed good movie I know (maybe two movies if there is a tie). It looks like Park City has become more difficult to navigate since I've last been there. I fondly remember the days when we had our secret parking place just off Main Street. Looks like you have to take a shuttle bus now.

Addendum: Here are Roger Ebert's favorite movies of 2009.

Sunday musings

This story in the Salt Lake Tribune about the Utah Supreme Court overturning a conviction because of the judge's refusal to allow an expert to testify about the dangers of eyewitness testimony caught my eye. This followed an episode on the PBS newshour looking at the man in Florida who was released after 35 years in prison based on DNA evidence. A group of advocates have overturned many convictions. The biggest culprit in the improper convictions was eyewitness testiimony. Humans are fallible even in perception, but much more so in our perceptual memory. And because we are so convinced by what we think we saw, we convince juries. Another episode in the story of human folly.

This story in the NY Times today reminded me of the superficial way that our mass media reports international news. This ayatollah had to die before anyone in the West heard about him. Our tendency to see the world in simplistic terms is astounding. There are many divisions of opinion in Iran and our perpetual focus on unimportant events, like the current dispute over an oil well, plays into the hands of the conservatives in Iran who are now rampantly abusing its citizens and quashing speech and democracy.

On the note of misunderstanding the Middle East, I have been very much enjoying Eugene's Rogan book The Arabs. But now I am at the point after World War I where the British and French are dividing up the remains of the Ottoman Empire for the own empires. Sorry Niall Ferguson, this colonialism is disgusting and has led to a number of unintended consequencs that we deal with today. Wilson was in favor of self-determination for these peoples. Why didn't that happen?

Finally, here is a good article on politics. The shrill debates about Obama are becoming very tiresome. Of course, those on the right who have been bashing Obama from the beginning for various reasons, such as the birthers, are silly but totally predictable. The bashing from the left is also predictable. What did you think was going to happen after we elected this one guy? He can't change Congress.

On that note, Ezra Klein is doing some good blogging about what is in the Senate health bill. Let's pass the bill and get on to other problems, like the banksters. It does some very good things but it is only the beginning. We can make improvements later.

And finally, the article on politics came from this interesting website which talks about some of the powerful ideas of conventional economics. I think these are very powerful ideas which contain deep insights into the world. I know some of my lefty friends will argue with some of them, but this is a good presentation in terms that are understandable by a person without an economics degree.

Hooman Majd

I just finished Majd's book The Ayatollah Begs to Differ. Here is a review by Steve Coll. It is a wonderfully entertaining book full of insights about Iranians (or Persians, if you will). In the West, we clearly fail to understand them. Here is a post by Majd in September, which gives you an idea of the reason behind Ahmaddinejad's outrageous statements about the holocaust and why the nuclear issue plays into the hands of the conservatives who stole the election. They are deflecting attention from the clash between the reformers and conservatives in Iran. Mr. A has a lot of supporters but most Iranians know he stole the election, a first in the country of which they are very proud. It is not because there is so much difference between A and Mousavi; they are angry that their votes wre taken.

The nuclear question is one on which most Iranians agree, as is the centrality of Shia Islam in their country. As Shias everywhere, they see themselves as persecuted. And Western powers ran Iran for many years prior to the 1979 revolution. They are not interested in a western-style democracy, but they deeply care about their Islamic democracy.

I continually wonder at all the Americans that continue to portray all Muslims as the same. This is real ignorance. Iranians hate the Taliban, who are Sunni fundamentalists. Shia have Ayatollahs, or religous authorities, somewhat similar to Catholics. Sunni's do not. So those who say "why don't their religious leaders protest the terrorism" are guilty of not undertanding Islam on many levels. There are no Sunni authorities per se and the terrorists are Sunnis. Within Iran, there are many views of religion, and different Ayatollahs disagree strongly.

Addendum: Started reading Eugene Rogan's The Arabs. Arabs were ruled by non-Arabs beginning with the Ottoman Turks in 1571. Of course, Persians are not Arabs. Many refer to Arabs as "locust eaters," according to Majd.

Best Books of 2009

Everyone is coming out with their lists. Here are my top 12 books published in 2009.
(1) How Markets Fail by John Cassidy
(2) The Evolution of God by Robert Wright
(3) Lords of Finance by Liaquet Ahamed
(4) The Good Soldiers by David Finkel
(5) Create Your Own Economy by Tyler Cowen
(6) The Media Relations Department of Hizbollah Wishes You A Happy Birthday by Neil MacFarquhar
(7) The Healing of America by T.R. Reid
(8) Guardians of the Revolution by Ray Takeyh
(9) Dangerous Games by Margaret MacMillan
(10) How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer
(11) Justice by Michael Sandel
(12) In Fed We Trust by David Wessel

There are some books that I haven't started or finished which may end up on the list:
The Inheritance of Rome by Chris Wickham
Empire of Liberty by Gordon Wood
The Arabs by Eugene Rogan

Here is my top ten published in 2008:
(1) Fixing Climate by Wallace Broecker and Robert Kunzig
(2) Predicatably Irrational by Dan Ariely
(3) The Purpose of the Past by Gordon Wood
(4) Nixonland by Rick Pearlstein
(5) The Ascent of Money by Niall Ferguson
(6) The Trillion Dollar Meltdown by Charles Morris
(7) The Great Warming by Brian Fagan
(8) The Man Who Loved China by Simon Winchester
(9) The Shadow Factory by James Bamford
(10) The Ayatollah Begs to Differ by Hooman Majd
Also considered are Outliers by Malccom Gladwell, The Logic of Life by Tim Harford and While America Aged by Roger Lowenstein.

Here are top three (or so) for other years:
2007: The Black Swan by Nassim Taleb; A More Perfect Constitution by Larry Sabato; The Forgotten Man by Amity Schlaes
2006: War of the World by Niall Ferguson; Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan; The Prince of the Marshes by Rory Stewart
2005: Postwar by Tony Judt; Collapse by Jared Diamond; My Year of Magical Thinking by Joan Didion; Blink by Malcolm Gladwell and The Undercover Economist by Tim Harford
2004: Ghost Wars by Steve Coll; The Americanization of Ben Franklin by Gordon Wood; The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert Paxton; Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer
2003: Master of the Senate by Robert Caro

Who can believe that it has been nine years since Gladwell's The Tipping Point and over ten years since Germs, Guns and Steel by Jared Diamond and Righteous Victims by Benny Morris? Time flies. And The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman was published in 1962. Hard to believe this wasn't taught in our boring high school history classes. But we now know, as my friend Vern says, that everything we were taught about history there was a lie.

New Gawande

Atul Gawande has an article in the current issue of the New Yorker praising the Senate health care bill for its address of the cost issue in health care reform! His view is partly based on the fact that we do not know all the answers in how to do this, emphasizing both our epistemic position and the fact that there is not one global solution. It is also based on the idea that trial and error is the way to approach this. I very much like this way of thinking, although I would also like to see government create more incentives to cut costs, although maybe I am missing something. His account of the growth of agricultural science is interesting in its own right. I do wonder, though, whether the analogy really holds up, one of the difficulties in arguing by analogy.

On agriculture in developing countries, Daniel Little has a tale of caution. You may increase productivity but at the expense of greatly increasing inequality such that many of the poor are worse off than before. I very much support his reference to Sen in helping people have the basic necessities to flourish. You can argue for this in a number of ways. I prefer a Rawlesian justice argument, but one can see how a utilitarian could also argue for this because once a person has the basic necessities, other goods have decreasing marginal utility. You can also see how this sort of action would violate Rawls' principle of Pareto efficiency; increases in wealth should not make anyone any worse off.

More Af-Pak

The paragraph below is from the Sabrina Taverise article, which you can access here. And here is the Scott Shane article. She is interviewing a Pakistani psychiatrist.

I asked him to spell it out. “It’s coming from Americans, Jews and Indians,” he said. “It’s an axis of evil that’s being supervised by you people....” In recent months, Pakistan has begun challenging the Islamist extremists on its border and the extremists have directed bombings against Pakistani citizens and institutions. Even so, Pakistan’s powerful news media aggressively trumpet the conspiracy theories, which are consumed by anyone who picks up a paper or turns on a TV.

The Shane article also has a terrific map that one can click on and enlarge. Some other interesting facts. Karzai is a Pashtun whose father was murdered by the Taliban. He is part of a Pashtun group that supported a return of the King years ago after the exit of the Soviets. However, the CIA and the Saudis funneled their money through the Pakistani ISI, which gave most of it to jihadists like Hekmatyr. Later they supported the Taliban to counteract Indian support of the northern forces (who were also supported by Russia).

Before the Taliban took over, one could not drive through Afghanistan without periodically having to pay extortion (tolls) to bandits. Unless the current surge can make living conditions better, many people will favor the Taliban in spite of their fundamentalist excesses and harboring terrorists. Currently, the government is rated the second most corrupt in the world (Iraq is fourth). So part of what has to happen is for the corruption to lessen.

As long as terrorists and insurgents can merely cross the border into Pakistan and be safe, not much will be achieved. We need Pakistani cooperation.

Terrorists can organize anywhere. The anarchist movement in the era around 1900 is a good example of this. Given all these factors, should we really expect very much long term from this "surge?" Maybe not. Then why spend the money and American lives? On the other hand, what is the danger that if this region is taken over by Taliban-like forces, that terrorists will get nuclear weapons? There is no easy answer to these questions.

Addendum: After posting this, I ran across this article which makes the argument so much better than I did.

Af-Pak

There are three articles in today's New York Times on Afgahnistan and Pakistan. On the front page is an account of how Obama came to his decision. Then there are two in the Week in Review section by Sabrina Tavernise and Scott Shane. Trying to understand how people in these countries think is crucial to our dealing with the region. Southern Afganistan, western Pakistan and eastern Iran are the home of the Pashtun tribe, the originators of the Taliban. One must also understand that Pakistan's biggest long-time enemy is India, who supported the northern forces (Turkmen, Uzbeks, etc.) in the civil war in Afghanistan against the Pashtun Taliban. Pakistan has historically supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, partly as a counter to India's influence. But now Pakistanis are actually feeling the effects of terrorism in their own homes. As with Saudis (and Americans), terrorism is far more acceptable when it happens to somebody else. These are ccomplex and interesting issues. The bottom line is that we want the Afghan central government to succeed and the Taliban to fail, for several reasons, not the least of which is to halt the movement of Islamic extremism whose goal is to take over the Middle East.

For me, this is one more example of Obama's competency. To the dithering charges, I say that GW should have dithered or thought more and not listened to Cheney so much. As to those on the left who say things like "we wanted change and we got more of the same," I say to you who was naive enough to think that electing a new president would change Congress? Domestic policy has to be pursued through Congress, which the Constitution gave the ultimate power to spend. Of course, over the last 50 years the executive branch has increased its power to conduct foreign policy without explicit funding approval by Congress, which is why Obama can be more effective here.

For more on goings on in Afghanistan and Pakistan, check out Steve Coll's (the author of the excellent Ghost Wars) column at the New Yorker magazine and the Af-Pak channel at www.foreignpolicy.com/afpak.

In Fed We Trust

This is a book I just finished by David Wessel on the meltdown of the last couple years mostly from the view of Bernanke and the Fed. It covers how the stage was set going back to August 2007 and is very good on the events of last fall. It is amazing how much was going on that even very knowledgeable people did not understand. And the extreme measures the Fed had to take.

There are some funny moments, too. When Bernanke and Paulson had to go to Congress to request money, Harry Reid commented that it would take the Senate two weeks to pass a bill to flush the toilet.

I'm not sure what to read or finish next. I've got several books started, but either lost interest or they were too long or intimidating. I am feeling intellectually bored and need to find some outlet. So I signed up for the Osher Program at the University of Utah, which is for we seniors over 50 years of age. They have six-week classes that meet once a week for an hour and a half during the daytime. I am taking a class next semester on the history of Iran and how it relates to the present. If anybody has some other ideas, I'd love to hear them. Lifelong learning at the U is too artsy-crafty and I am not sure I want to devote the effort to taking a real class, especially if it meets more than once a week. The great joy of graduate school was reading books and discussing them...with a very knowledgeable instructor. I need to figure out how to replicate that kind of experience.