Tag: country

Categories
international affairs

Victory & Surrender

courage, caution, strength, fun, play

Former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker sums up in a single word the recently announced framework of an agreement between the United States of America and the Taliban: Surrender.

“This current process bears an unfortunate resemblance to the Paris peace talks during the Vietnam War,” writes Crocker in a Washington Post op-ed. “Then, as now, it was clear that by going to the table we were surrendering; we were just negotiating the terms of our surrender.”

He’s not wrong. 

It may seem strange that, after successfully toppling the Taliban government, a savage regime that had given safe haven to Al-Qaeda to launch its 911 attacks against us, we would now, nearly two decades later, be anxious to cut a deal with that same Taliban, even possibly bringing them into a power-sharing role.

Anything to get the heck out of Kabul and back to the good ol’ USA. And it is a recognition, right or wrong, that the Afghan government is unsustainable.

The alternative? Keep a significant contingent of U.S. troops in Afghanistan . . . forever. Or until we have fashioned a brand new westernized-Afghanistan that is no possible threat to us.

Yep, forever. 

“Winning may not be an available option,” contends a new Rand report, “but losing . . . would be a blow to American credibility, the weakening of deterrence and the value of U.S. reassurance elsewhere, an increased terrorist threat emanating from the Afghan region, and the distinct possibility of a necessary return there under worse conditions.” 

The same mistaken reasons we stayed in Vietnam. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom individual achievement

Desert Royalty

Suyash Dixit, Bir Tawil, freedom, country, seasteading, @KingSuyashDixit.

I know people who are trying to set up their own countries. Folks at the Seasteading Institute, run by Milton Friedman’s grandson, Patri, are preparing for a floating civilization. But that scheme depends on homesteading the open sea.

Land would be easier, no?

Trouble is, there is not much land on the planet unclaimed by any modern state.

But there is at least one.

Which is where Suyash Dixit comes in. Mr. Dixit, described as an “Indian adventurer” at The Telegraph, “has declared himself the ruler of an unclaimed strip of land in North Africa and is encouraging interested parties to apply for citizenship,” writes Mark Molloy.

That “strip” of land (I’d call it a “patch,” since it looks like an irregular quadrilateral to me) is Bir Tawil. As a result of the vagaries of the British Empire’s map drawing and re-drawing efforts, and the subsequent push and pull of local politics, neither bordering nation (Egypt and Sudan) claims it as theirs.

Oops.

But their oops is Mr. Dixit’s opportunity. He hired a cab (paying a huge fare, he says) and travelled to and around the uninhabited region.

No one lives there. There is not much but desert sand and rock. But it is technically livable.

According to Dixit, the “ethics and rules” of ancient civilizations required that “to claim a land” one must “grow crops on it. I have added a seed and poured some water on it today. It is mine.” He calls Bir Tawil the Kingdom of Dixit, now, and has dubbed himself (à lá Game of Thrones?) “Suyash Dixit, first of my name.”

You can find him on Facebook as @KingSuyashDixit.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
general freedom ideological culture initiative, referendum, and recall local leaders national politics & policies political challengers

Not a Joke

Washington, secession, division, exit, legislature, legislation, city, country, representation, initiative, ballot

Yesterday, the chief sponsor of a Washington State legislative bill withdrew it. He said it was “a joke.” His co-sponsor wasn’t laughing, however . . . even proclaimed an intent to introduce the bill again next year.

The legislation’s purpose? Split the state into two.

The eastern, drier half of the State is much less populated, and the wet, western half gets its way almost all the time. The bill’s sponsor mentioned his intent: to call attention to the persistent lack of effective representation.

It was not a funny* joke. What he meant, surely, was “a stunt.”

This is just one of many ongoing secessionist movements in the United States. Most represent the eternal struggle between more self-reliant, community-centered and less statist country folk and the more atomized, fearful statists of the cities. But also present is the problem of representation. There is not enough of it. Many people do not have a voice. Hence the desire for exit.

“Voice” vs. “exit” are two crucial aspects of constitutional politics, particularly relating to different kinds of “freedom.”

Many states could use splitting, California, especially.

But exit is not the only option. Representation itself could increase in sheer numbers; California, anyway, has (astoundingly!) too few politicians, er, representatives . . . per residents.

Another key constitutional change would be to set the bar higher to passing new legislation, especially regarding adding tax burdens.

But not for the people. We are best represented by our own votes, which means initiative and referendum rights extended to all states. Citizens of Washington State (still intact) lack the ability to change their constitution by initiative — an important process for future state shape shifts.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Originally, the new state’s name was to be Liberty, much better than the states of Tyranny, Servitude and Denial. Now I read that the proposed name is Lincoln, awkwardly tied to our union’s most determined anti-secessionist. That is a bit funny.

Printable PDF