Are You Raising A Global Child?

A good friend of mine lived abroad when she was of middle-school age. Her mother was in the military, stationed in Okinawa, Japan. Living abroad when old enough to notice the life going on around you, having a life in the States to compare to, and being old enough to appreciate the details and differences of people with whom your rub elbows with every day has an effect on a child. I would argue a good effect. While living abroad is rough on a young person, away from friends, having to learn to adapt to a different culture, she learned to appreciate the differences she saw. Having to adapt meant having to develop initiative to problem-solve, learning to use the subway, buses, eat a different diet, work at a different pace, and perhaps be differential towards elders.

Children, foreign nationals living outside their country of birth, may have a distinct advantage above children which do not live abroad, or later in life, choose to "study abroad." Children exposed at early ages to different food, a different set of cultural or societal rules, different languages, and even different climates should develop skills and attitudes which should make them more successful later in life than their stay-at-home peers in our increasingly globalized world society.

I see adult students every day, living in fear of moving to another county or an adjoining state for education. Students, male and female alike, literally tremble at the thought of the unfamiliar a mere 60+ miles (90km) away. Meanwhile, 10%-15% of campus is comprised of students not hundreds of miles from home, but 8,000 miles or more from home.

The United States' geography is both blessing and course. The U.S. has avoided the devastating effects of two world wars. Historically, North American was not the convenient cultural crossroads of Asia Minor or Europe. The benefit of distance has encouraged us to be aloof, buffered from political, economic, and cultural interactions common throughout Europe. Sure, we have experienced our own discord, our Civil War, our Civil Rights, literal battles over organized labor. We have had the added benefit, though, of not also having to worry about disagreements brought about by cultural factions, as evidenced by the controversial European Union, language barriers, or multiple currencies, to name only a few complicating forces.

Our geography has made us aloof, given us a sense of protection and ease, which few other global realms enjoy. We have only two immediate neighbors, Canada and Mexico. Canada is very similar to the United States culturally, politically, and with a shared British and French history. We expect immigrants to conform to our society and make little to no allowance to accept theirs. Immigrants fare better in urban areas where cultural diversity is normal and people from the same ethnic background offer support. Rural areas, locations of most state colleges and universities, immigrants and foreign students are met with more varied reactions.

The remainder of the world, I argue, does not realistically have an option to ignore or downplay the influence of their neighbors. They are forced to learn, listen, cope, i.e. interact with their neighbors as a part of doing business.

Children capable of handling diversity, being introduced to diversity in language, arts, culture, and expression I see as being the future.

For more reading: How To Raise A Global Kid (Lisa Miller, Newsweek)

The above article highlights many issues associated with the increasing amount of global interaction our current generation is a part of. But, we cannot simply be a part of the interaction without some analysis of how to better prepare both ourselves for what lay ahead tomorrow and prepare our children for lies ahead for them.

"I a worried that in this interconnected world, our country risks being disconnected from the contributions of other countries and cultures" (Arne Duncan, U.S. Education Secretary, 2010.)

I am worried, as well. I can't raise a global child; I don't have any children. I spend most of my time attempting to convince adults to become "Global Adults." My hopes are my students will accept some of what we discuss in class, what they learn themselves by reading English-language editions of foreign newspapers, and what they read in their textbooks, and through what little exposure I coach, the realization will dawn on them how much they need to pay attention to current events, if not for themselves, but for their children, and their children's children.

200 million Chinese schoolchildren are studying English

Some U.S. citizens say, "Yeah, our language is important. Good for them!" I don't disagree but the problem is the learning transaction is only one-way. Few of us are learning Chinese. They have a greater ability to understand us than we have of understanding them - and there are 4x's more Chinese than U.S. citizens.

"South Korean parents ... demand that their children begin English instruction in the 1st grade, rather than the 2nd grade."

Again, no argument from me, yet South Korea is one of the most important economies in all of East Asia and Southeast outside of China. Having competent people who can play well with others, and raising competent people who can play nice can has all sorts of benefits, from the individual to our general U.S. social fabric.

"Not training our kids to be able to work and live in an international environment is like leaving them illiterate."

Raising a global child is about helping your kids be successful. Traits developed in making them a "global child" also make them into good people. There is no downside. Essentially, parents of "global children" are helping their children be "globally literate" and "globally functional." Our geography impairs us, creating a sense of aloofness, a false sense of security, and an inflated ego, that we are better than we really are.

We can see evidence of our national ego today. Our foreign policy certainly exemplifies our national ego, e.g. "You either stand with us or against us," and our unilateral policies associated with Afghanistan, Iraq, and our demands for China to devalue its currency against the dollar. We can literally stand apart and command without having to face any immediate threat or retaliation, unlike South Korea, Taiwan, or Israel.

Some U.S. schools are making some progress. Last year, I wrote a brief post on a Delaware school introducing Chinese language classes ("Red Clay CSD Building Chinese language program".) I have not followed-up with the program, and one of the concerns voiced was how well the program would fare in light of the demands of state and federal curriculum standards and assessments. To wit, I respond with, to hell with those standards; those standards obviously not only do not set a very high bar, they do not address the future needs to students, the state of Delaware, or our country, in general.

At times, I often wonder why "algebra" has not been banned. Or, perhaps not banned, but legislation written, changing the name of the bane of all high school and some college students to a more Anglo-friendly term, like "Freedom Math," or "Patriot Math," or other nonsense. Our so-called "English" language is rife with foreign words and derivatives and I await the pronouncement from some heretofore anonymous group to announce they have written legislation removing all Arabic, Chinese, or African words from the American language lexicon. Yep, I'm cynical.

See, the another danger of being so physically remote from other cultures is the perceived threat Americans have from those different from us. Should our children learn Chinese, they could become stark raving mad atheist Communists. Or, even worse, should they learn Arabic, they might come home one day with a mullah beard, reciting the Qu'ran, and proclaim the house and all which falls under the roof as the "domain of Allah."

Recently, in Arizona, some people were upset over the term, "haboob." No, not because the second syllable references slang for human anatomy, but because the term is of Arabic origins, meaning "dust storm." No seems upset over "alcohol" or "banana," though.

For further reading: "Haboobs cause storm of complaints" (July 12, 2011; Time)

Antagonism towards diversity has only negative consequences. At an individual level, antagonism to diversity inspires fear, trepidation, bigotry, and bias. We succumb to stereotypes and myths are are no better off today than yesterday, and the future won't be much different. Adults who ascribed to these traits pass them along to their kids. A mother in one of my classes related how her son was called names and berated for looking Arab during local high school games. Even more disgusting, the coaching staff of the opposing team not only did nothing to stop the abuse but assistant coaches were right there with the players shouting the same insults. The family was not Arab but Greek, but dark-skinned. The family has since moved from the area.

Old news, from last year, a Texas school tried to institute Arabic language classes. Community outcry halted progress on implementing the language program.

For further reading: "Teaching Arabic Is No Cause For Fear" (February 2011, CNN)

As long as all domestic policy is viewed through the lens of 9/11, we will never be as free, as creative, or as adaptable as we need to be in order to ensure our long-term economic and social success. Yes, 9/11 was tragic, yet the more insular we become, the more fears of diversity we harbor and pass along to our kids, the weaker our society becomes. Our leaders, from local school boards, governors, to National figures, have allowed our society to be compromised and undermined and weakened by the actions of 19+ men. Even Europe has overcome aversion to Germans, the Wehrmacht, and the Nazis, for the most part.

So, to you parents coaching yourselves to be "Global Parents" so your kids will be "global kids," you tuck the Fate of the World in every night. You should be proud of that.

Three Decades of Spineless Governing of the World’s Waning Superpower

This is an old essay, written in December, 2011. After rereading, and committing some edits, my sentiments still feel the same.

As I write this, the country is caught in the midst of bickering that encroaches upon racism and bigotry. Two basic controversies test the U.S., under the guise of of one theme: Islam. First, we have the Birthers, people that despite all evidence to the contrary, believe Pres. Obama is an illegitimate president and a Muslim. Then, we have controversy surrounding the building of mosques and community centers. In Nashville, over the weekend, a building site was vandalized, building materials set afire. In New York, NY, a planned community center, two blocks from the former World Trade Center site, is driving a huge wedge between politicians and common Americans. The argument: Muslims are violent, anti-Christian, anti-American, and their places of worship, or simply of gathering, are places for the training of suicide bombers and terrorists, and therefore have no place in American society.

Stupid. People are just so stupid. Individually and in groups, regardless of size. A two-person group seems to be as ignorant as a 200-person group these days. And Americans do not seem to be aware that we are the root cause of this ignorance, bigotry, and racism. Those Americans that seem to be aware that we are the problem do not appear to be pointing the fingers in the right direction (“Republicans are evil,” or “Democrats are evil,” or “the government is evil”). The Finger of Blaming Pointing is too unidirectional, in my opinion, and therefore is pointless. And ignorance is a plague as deadly and destructive as any real disease.

Politicians are creations of the common people. We elect politicians and support them or not depending on their campaign rhetoric which translates via elections into a “win” or “loss.” The Body Politic was never meant to be a career. Politicians that have served for decades are really not people to be admired, at least not according to those that helped developed our federal system. Serve, then leave. Like serving on a jury. Represent your constituency then go home.

Rules change, and change they did. People today, especially the group known as the “Tea Party,” do not seem to grasp that. Which rules do they want to adhere to? The Constitution is not a very large document. Other documents, unarguably, carry more immediate weight, I argue. The Constitution is not going to protect your business against legal suits, or guide businesses in conducting businesses. The framers of the American Constitution did not construct the Constitution to cover such details. Instead, we have the Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch to handle laws and legalities. When Tea Party supporters argue against some topic as “not being in the Constitution,” or “not being allowed within the Constitution,” they are completely correct. But they miss the point. Nearly every claim about taxation that the Tea Partiers claim is unconstitutional, is constitutional because those laws were created by the Legislative Branch of our government, by duly elected representatives, and therefore are, in fact, legal. We might not like those laws, or those taxes, but the Constitution does give the Legislative Branch exclusive rights to raise taxes in order to cover the expenses of government.

And, guess what? We, the People, by voicing our needs to our legislators, create those government expenses. The Government does not do this; the government is nothing but a paper artifact. Human beings power that government, and human beings put people into positions of power to create that legislation.

Again, we have only ourselves to blame. We put our faith in strangers, really. We don’t know who these people are, what agendas he or she might have. Snapshots of careers and resumes really do not tell the complete tale.

Politicians are not evil, not inherently evil, anyway. Unless we are. No, they are a product of us, of our personal ignorance. Our ignorance about our government, our political system, our own society and culture. Really, our own ignorance about ourselves.

Our own ignorance will be the downfall of the United States. Our ignorance began over three decades ago, and has progressed unchecked, really. My unfortunate prediction is this: our momentum of ignorance has too much energy to stop, too much inertia to change direction.

We have already lost our edge. We cannot blame Pres. Obama; not his fault, not even close. Nor can we completely blame George W. Bush, though he is certainly culpable, certainly due to his ignorance of American energy addiction that was borderline criminal, and two fruitless wars which stole generations of American tax dollars that would have been better used at home. Nor can we blame Clinton, though, again, culpable, as he certainly was intelligent enough to create both an economic policy and energy policy, just too lazy to accomplish either. Nor can we place blame entirely on George Bush, Sr. However, if he had the foresight, he could have altered the course of American culture. Many idolize Reagan; however, had he the foresight, the temerity, the leadership zeal, Ronald Reagan might have been the right person at the right time, with the personality, to push America in the right direction. Instead, he failed, too. People castigate President Carter. He will always be associated with the 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis, and viewed through the Oil Crisis Lens, his presidency has always been seen as a failure.

People forget Carter first bailed out General Motors in 1979. And we forget that he help begin the work to limit nuclear weapons in cooperation with the Soviet Union. Of even greater importance, especially when viewed today, was his interest in reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil, and his interest in pursuing alternative energy sources.

In the mid-70s, the oil crisis hit the world hard. Oil prices soared as OPEC nations organized, set production quotas, and set prices. Demand did not decrease, and people paid the higher prices for gasoline. OPEC nations were fed by higher oil incomes, including Russia. Russia funded a war in Afghanistan, and subsidized inefficient industries and agriculture with its oil income.

Carter seemingly saw what was happening, that the United States could be manipulated through our dependence upon oil. He took efforts to turn himself into a model of reduced energy dependence. Solar panels were installed on the White House, and temperatures were modulated such that people had to dress differently to compensate for warmer or cooler inside temperatures. He was trying to get it right, yet he too came up short.

Outside of Pres. Carter’s meager efforts to institute energy policy in the United States, no president in the last 30 years has shown the leadership nor the responsibility to be a steward of the American people. None.

Americans are at this point in our history due to a complete and utter failure of any true leader to assume responsibility and set America on the proper path. As a result, we find ourselves bickering and fighting over whether a president is an American or not, a Muslim, or not, or whether it is OK to build a mosque, or not, issues that are banal and soporific.

Such events are symptomatic of weak leadership and the related lack of goals, direction, fortitude, education, and over-abundance of ignorance, lethargy, greed, and selfishness prevalent among Americans.

Government must exist. People who argue to the contrary are simply morons. Really. Walk directly away from them. Unfriend them from Facebook. Never ever speak to them again.

People must be organized, and that is one job of government, to keep us organized. Government, ideally, helps us use our resources more efficiently. Believe it or not. Governments help us manage our resources more efficiently internally and between us and other countries. Representative governments do this better than monarchies, dictatorships, and Communism.

A primary weakness of representative governments is the election process. Election cycles churn people through the Legislative Branch. Campaign cycles burn copious amounts of time and stupid amounts of money, and thus consume irresponsible amounts of resources. Because of these cycles, legislators have very short attention spans, looking only as far as their next election cycle. These cycles being short, has benefits. An election can put new blood in relatively quickly, or get the bum out, relatively quickly.

An unfortunate result of short cycles is that a legislator can enact laws or policies that do not come into play until years down the road. Not in office in ten years, people have short memories, and people forget that that these laws were enacted a decade or so ago. All accountability is lost.

Again, weak government leadership is responsible. Long-term goals, policies that have a horizon that persists beyond an election cycle can mitigate against legislators in government for short-term gain.

For at least 30 years, the United States has not had the leadership needed to keep us ahead of the game, to secure a sound future as a world power and a world leader. As a result, our leadership role globally is being eroded. Eventually, China, and India, will have more bargaining power than the United States.

We concede our leadership to China, and eventually, India. Our leadership role was not taken away; our national leadership, or lack thereof, gave away our economic, political, and cultural competitive advantage.

Our national leaders gave away our competitive advantage through two utterly avoidable failures.

First, the United States has no comprehensive economic development plan. Every administration since Eisenhower has taken a liaise faire attitude towards economic growth and development. No president, to my knowledge, has ever developed a strategic plan identifying key areas of development or education to ensure that the United States is at the fore-front of research and technology, to ensure that our workforce is constantly adapting and forward-looking, Our national leaders have left these goals to individuals and corporations and has provided little guidance or leadership.

China, India, most of northern and western Europe, Japan, and South Korea all have long-term economic development policies that direct laws, investment, and policies. In particular, China and India.

The leadership of the United States has not leveraged our strengths to ensure that those strengths continue into the future.

Second, the United States has no comprehensive energy plan. Pres. Carter attempted to address our addiction to oil. He was laughed from office. Who is laughing today, as our oil dollars go to Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, who tells America to “go to hell.” Russia, who had its infant democracy stolen nearly overnight by Vladimir Putin, and who stole democracy yet again when his appointed successor, Medvedev, took over as president, and Putin assumed the role as Prime Minister.

Americans need to understand this: there is no way to drill all the oil we need to feed our addiction. China has 300 million people already that need oil, too. China also has five more “Americas” waiting, and they will want oil, too. India has thee “Americas” waiting for oil.

The media, the commentators, sound like people addicted to heroine or methamphetamine, “we just need to drill more. Come on, man, I need a fix! You can’t abandon me!” Like a junkie, America staggers down Energy Alley looking for their next hit.

Its time for rehab. Our national leaders run a perpetually irresponsible Methadone clinic. They get paid, and do not have any personal interest in changing a pattern of destructive behavior. They have figured out that Americans are addicted. And like addicts, we do not think rationally. Stupid issues rise to incendiary levels, and we turn on ourselves, like junkies.

And our elected leaders feed off of our irresponsible behavior, directly, by augmenting bigotry or racism, by propagating misinformation, or simply by out-right lies; or, indirectly by not standing up and making hard choices, or by going along with the crowd. or by remaining silent.

Even if a person were to rise above the national noise, with a clear, sensible message, that person would be drowned out amid the current chaos.

Even if a person were to rise above the national noise, and garner enough consensus to be elevated to a high office, or even the highest office, time to institute change may have already run out for the United States to affect any kind of positive change within a generation.

Instituting change is not easy. Changing people attitudes and behaviors to more moderate and inclusive modes is not easy. Overcoming inertia is not easy. Getting a nation of people, who have been led to believe that being an individual is a God-given right, and being allowed to be ignorant is a positive character trait, is nigh on impossible. Convincing people to work to their best ability, to work to their advantage, to ensure the future of their family and children and grandchildren might require more effort than reaching Mars.

And like a mission to Mars, convincing Americans to work towards national goals would require as much dedication.

Book Review: Pakistan On The Brink, by Ahmed Rashid

I have grave concerns over the future health of Ahmed Rashid. Pakistan is not friendly towards journalists, aid workers, politicians, business people, or anyone critical of Pakistani leadership.

Since 1992, 42 journalists have been killed in Pakistan (CPJ.com.) April 20th, 2012, Mutaza Rizvi was found murdered in Karachi, the southern port city of Pakistan. Rizvi was a senior editor for "the Dawn" newspaper, a leading newsource in Pakistan. He had been bound and strangled (ABCNews.com.) According to the web site, "Violence Against Journalists in Afghanistan," eight journalists were bullied, threatened, beaten, or killed in 2011.

Mr. Rashid is a highly esteemed Pakistani author, journalist, former revolutionary, and Central Asian expert. Pakistan On The Brink is the third book in a series which began with Taliban and continued with Descent into Chaos.



In Pakistan on the Brink, Ahmed Rashid presents in a series of essays the importance of Pakistan in the regional affairs of South Asia. The key to a successful Afghanistan is a stable Pakistan. In fact, the cornerstone of a stable South Asia, from Afghanistan to Bangladesh, is a stable democracy and the Rule of Law in Pakistan. The last 12 years in Pakistan, and South Asia, has been anything but stable.

Weaving together a continuous narrative of events transpiring since September 11th, 2001, Mr. Rashid pulls all regional players, the United States, and NATO supporters to describe the political calculus of the Afghanistan-Pakistan relationship, referred to as AFPAK. One cannot adequately analyze, interpret, or seek to explain the nature of geopolitical affairs in Afghanistan nor Pakistan without considering them as AFPAK. Any analysis must also include the influence of respective neighbors, including Iran, India, China, and Russia.

The sub-title of his book, "The Future of America, Pakistan, and Afghanistan," is not accurate, in my opinion. Mr. Rashid's essays describe recent conditions and the state of affairs as of 2011 between people, political parties, and countries named, not so much future-looking commentary. If Taliban was a treatise on the modern history of the Taliban, and Descent Into Chaos an examination of the U.S. role in Pakistan during the Bush Presidency (2001-2008), then Pakistan On The Brink provides an interesting framing of the delicate economic, social, and political climate currently existing in Pakistan.

His essays are captivating for those with little a priori knowledge of the geopolitical mires of South Asia. Even with some knowledge, Mr. Rashid clearly demystifies the web of intrigue in AFPAK relations. Mr. Rashid names specific people and organization he views as responsible for tactical and strategic failures across the region. Politicians across the board are implicated, President George Bush, President Obama, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, and the current Pakistani President Asif Zardari and the Pakistani Prime Minister Raza Gilani. Bush was described as "congenial," establishing a rapport with Afghan President Karzai but Afghanistan never was a priority for him. Obama is characterized as aloof, cool and distant, especially in regards to Afghan leadership, yet has done more for Afghanistan in his tenure as U.S. President than in all eight years of Bush's presidency. Economic and military aid for Afghanistan increased substantially under Obama but his reticence to develop a relationship with Karzai has undermined peace negotiations.

The Pakistani leaderships comes across as nothing more than stooges for the Pakistani military and the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI). Zardari and Gilani are completely ineffectual for a number of reasons. First and foremost, each is fearful of being removed from office (in the best case), or killed (in the worst case.) The military is the most powerful leadership authority in Pakistan currently, with the ISI close behind. Zardari and Gilani have done nothing to restrain the military and have gone as far as to support myths, lies, and anti-American propaganda aimed at the United States. The 2011 assassination of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan under the noses of the military, ISI, and Pakistan's government gave evidence to Pakistani anti-American sentiments. Silent for two months after the killing, the first Pakistani government comments protested the violation of their airspace. Later, neither Zardari nor Gilani would quell rumors among the general Pakistani population the assassination was an utter fabrication.

Military officials on all sides are named and their ineffectual leadership decisions detailed. The Pakistani military is no doubt complicit in aiding and abetting the Haqqani Network, and by proxy, al-Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Taiba. The Haqqani Network is a family-run terrorist organization, operated by Jalaluddin Haqqani. With considerable wealth earned in business and construction, Haqqani is able to purchase equipment and run terrorist cells against anyone or any organization in the region. The Haqqani Network is known to support and train al-Qaeda, plus Lashkar-e-Taiba, a terrorist organization managed in Pakistan against organizations in India.

The Taliban cannot be described as a unitary organization. While affiliations may overlap, the Taliban consists of at least two groups, one based on Afghanistan, and one based in Pakistan. Membership may overlap, some philosophies may parallel, both favor the withdrawal of U.S./NATO forces from Afghanistan. The Afghan Taliban are "nationalists," they support an independent Afghan state, free of U.S., Pakistani, or Iranian influence. The Taliban in Afghanistan today are not the same Taliban faced by the U.S. military in the early 2000s. The U.S. military dealt with those Taliban already; the previous leaders are dead. Today's Taliban are the sons and cousins of those earlier Taliban leaders. Under the current Taliban authority, some restrictions have eased. About 100 schools have been built throughout Afghanistan, thought most in the north and northwest. Girls are allowed schooling, and more girls are in school in Afghanistan than ever before, over 8 million. The Taliban have banned attacks against schools and have allowed UN organizations to inoculate children.

The Pakistani Taliban, on the other hand, aid and support al-Qaeda, the Haqqanis, and train suicide bombers. The Pakistani Taliban actively fight against the Pakistani government. Members are far more extreme in their ideals. Pakistani Taliban favor overthrowing the Pakistani government, the creation of a regional state based completely on Sharia. Al-Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Taiba are their allies.

Mr. Rashid's writing is compelling. As a Pakistani, his frustration with his country is evident. He often says so, citing Pakistan's important geography, wedged between Iran and Iran, a potential conduit for a world's worth of goods and services, with a population of once highly educated people and noted not long ago as a viable destination of foreign direct investment. How could Pakistan not be successful? he argues.

Pakistan will not be successful for the foreseeable future. The government is weak and unwilling to restrain the military or the ISI. The Pakistani military and the ISI leverage all sides against the other, incite fear and violence, work with adversaries of the U.S. and NATO. The government is fearful of an Afghanistan influenced by Shia Iran. The Pakistani government is fearful of an Afghanistan influenced by rising economic powerhouse of India. External players like the United States, vacillating between support and withdrawal, cutting economic aid and repairing damaging relations simply add to the chaos.

Mr. Rashid's writing feels fast and loose. Months and days are frequently mentioned but no year. Getting lost in all of the details is easy, I discovered. I found myself searching the web for events so I could better establish timelines as his telling might move back and forth over days, months, and years upon a single page.

The level of detail and his familiarity with many of the important people made for fascinating reading. Mr Rashid had lunch, dinner, and breakfast with most of the top-level personalities, Asif Zardari, President Bush, President Obama, and Hamid Karzai. His love of Pakistan and his concern for his country, people, and culture is beyond reproach.

To truly understand the geopolitical complexity of peace and stability in South Asia, in Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and become quickly educated on the regional nuances, Mr. Rashid's "Pakistan On The Brink," should not be passed over.

Pakistan On The Brink. Ahmed Rashid. Penguin/Viking Hardback. 212pgs. 2012. $26.95

Book Review: Ropes of Sand, and, See No Evil

My new tattoo says, "through wisdom, strength." Only through questioning, wondering, researching with open minds can society overcome those elements that seek to undermine our lives. We have to release our egos, biases, judgments, and notions, let them go. As we distance ourselves from these hobgoblins, we can then see them for what they really are, and also the forces that drive them. OK, enough exposition, but there is a reason.

Both books follow a man's life living abroad, working for the United States government. Wilbur Eveland ("Ropes of Sand;" 1980) worked for the Central Intelligence Agency, when the agency was called the Office of Strategic Services. Eveland continued his intelligence career into the CIA. His autobiographical book covers his experiences as a CIA Section Chief in the Middle East.

Robert "Bob" Baer ("See No Evil;" 2002) provided the inspiration for the movie, "Syriana." George Clooney played the part of Baer, though in the movie his name was Bob Barnes. Bob Baer was perhaps one of the best CIA Case Officers during his time with the agency. Most people misunderstand the CIA. Spying is not precisely the business of the CIA. A CIA Case Officer finds local, indigenous people whom they can encourage to provide sensitive information. A Case Officer is like District Manager for Frito-Lay who manages the sales reps who take or deliver orders, keep customers happy, and file reports for the corporate offices. Human Intelligence is what this action is called, and falls within the directive of the National Clandestine Service (NCS), formerly known as the Directorate of Operations (DO) of the CIA.

Both of these autobiographical works share a common theme - the failure of U.S. policy-makers to recognize the importance of Knowledge.

Eveland exposes many policies supported not by facts or knowledge, but supported simply by the sheer will of a select number of people. One such "policy" was the creation of a Jewish Homeland. Today, people commonly assume that all Jews were in favor of the creation of Israel. The reality was much different. Zionist Jews, those that advocated for a Jewish Homeland, comprised less than 10% of the Jewish diaspora. Christians were far more interested in creating a Jewish Homeland than the Jews were, in total. Eveland's work is annotated, referenced, and indexed, creating a scholarly work for a life of intelligence-gathering, a career spanning the end of World War II until Vietnam. {For further reading about this, consult "The Israel-Arab Reader," "Righteous Victims," and "Power, Faith, and Fantasy."}

Baer may have worked with Eveland, as both were Middle East operatives. Not only do their careers overlap, but Eveland was a CIA Section Chief in the Middle East, and Baer was a CIA Case Officer in the Middle East. Baer's job was to find local people who had government positions that were "unhappy" or "concerned" that his/her government was not behaving correctly. These disgruntled individuals, "human intelligence," (HUMINT) would be cultivated into providing information, considered sensitive, to Bob, which he would then pass along to a Section Chief or the Pentagon. New-gained knowledge would then be used to sculpt U.S. foreign policy, used to keep foreign governments honest, or perhaps be used to overthrow a government.

Baer's book is a quick, exciting albeit uncomfortable read. Uncomfortable in the sense that he quickly outlines how diplomacy and satellites replaced boots-on-the-ground, real human-gathered intelligence. He essentially makes the point that satellites and hand-shaking ambassadors, all the while ignoring HUMINT, and closing CIA offices around the world, led to ineffectual data-collection. The absence of human intelligence allowed organizations such as al-Qaeda to develop and mature. The cannibalization of the CIA by the Department of State (diplomats) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), neither of which allegedly has the background or experience in running intelligence operations in foreign countries, created a vacancy of knowledge in which al-Qaeda, et. al., flourished.

The world, in spite of sleek iPhones, XBoxes, and Kindles, is an ugly, dirty place. Satellites, fantastically cool technology, should augment HUMINT, not replace HUMINT. Bob argues that replacing field agents with desk-jockey analysts who never put boots-on-the-ground is like making the restaurant manager the Head Chef – that one can be a chef simply because one knows the restaurant business does not follow. We have seen how terrorists defeat technology from horseback or bicycles, setting up Pony Express-style courier systems and hand-delivering messages and materials.

Without elaborate networks of "friendly" people, the world will continue to be a playground for those who decide to play with an alternate set of rules. The management of HUMINT assets requires people who speak languages, Arabic, Russian, Chinese, Farsi, and French, can work "outside the box," and can read people, environments, and situations. However, the networks are of no use if the policy-makers, in their own arrogance, prefer their own counsel.

Listen to legislators, people running for office, or government employees who denigrate the CIA. That person is probably an intelligence failure waiting to happen. Anyone who criticizes the inclusion of foreign languages in Primary or Secondary Education is also a diplomatic and/or intelligence failure. In order to have intelligent thoughts about the world, we have to act in intelligent ways. The only way I know to accomplish this is through the promotion of Education. A little bit of education helps, and more education is always better.

Finally, both authors also suggest that diplomacy has been undermined by global energy interests. Perhaps "infiltrated" might be a better word. Oil and Natural Gas companies drive much of the world's politics. These companies have lobbyists who constantly follow lawmakers. These companies find ways of subverting U.S. or foreign law to work abroad. To which companies do I refer? Name any; no matter. They are all guilty.

"See No Evil" I recommend simply because the events are within most reader's generation, and may have some memory of. Many names may be recognizable. Many events described were memorable - the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut (1983) or the Lockerbie Bombing (1988.) The Lockerbie Bombing (PanAm 103) may have actually been planned in Iran, though Libya was blamed.

I personally would not be surprised if some within the Iranian government, or perhaps the Pakistani ISI, were involved in 9/11.

Shutting down knowledge-gathering efforts, out of fear, out of arrogance, or cultural egotism has proven to be a dangerous, deadly, tragically costly and grievously short-sighted mistake. Knowledge coupled with living experience is power and cannot be replaced with technology. At least, not yet. Augmented with technology, yes. But seeing people eye-to-eye, reading body language, skiing, hunting, fishing, and eating with them, that is how we learn what lies ahead.

Technorati Tags: Robert Baer,CIA,human intelligence,terrorism,foreign policy,technology,see no evil

Iran and the Debates

I hope everyone has been watching the debates. They are informative in their content, and, conversely, informative in what they do not contain. Listen for comments about China and India. Are there any ???

Let me be clear, I am not going to use this venue to support either party. I do want to point something out in this venue, though.

The President of Iran is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Not to diminish his power or his authority, but the reality of Iran is that M. Ahmadinejad is not the real power in Iran. The real power in Iran sits with the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei.

The Supreme Leader of Iran is in control of the military, not the President. When we hear President, we think, generally, that the person in the role of President has the same powers as the US President. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a dictator - he is up for re-election next summer. He cannot launch an attack against Israel, as command of the military is outside his powers.

Many countries have a President and a Prime Minister. The President takes care of domestic affairs. The Prime Minister handles international affairs. Sometimes, the role of President may be termed, "Chancellor," such as the case of Great Britain. In the USA, we combine both the domestic duties and international duties into one position, the President.

Becoming more informed about the world is what this blog is about. When we learn, we are then able to see that things may not always be what they seem. Perhaps, we become more curious and ask more questions. That is part of becoming educated - being able to ask better questions, or question the answers.

I encourage everyone to explore debate comments.

Middle East Reality

Not only a good blog on the Middle East but also contains links to other interesting blogs, as well.