The ideologues are not rational, and thus definitely should be sent packing once the serious SysAdmin work begins

ARTICLE: "Political thought not rational: Scans find subject fires brain's emotional centers in both liberals and conservatives," by Benedict Carey, New York Times, 29 January 2006, pulled from web.

ARTICLE: "Hurrican Investigators See 'Fog of War' at White House," by Eric Lipton, New York Times, 28 January 2006, pulled from web.

When politics enters the brain, the freaky-deaky portions are excited and the logic portions are left wanting. That lack of "cold reasoning" explains the Right's bizarro hatred of Clinton and the Left's bizarro hatred of Bush.

But it also explains, I would argue, what happens when you let the ideologues of any administration, like Doug Feith in DoD or Karl Rove in the White House hold too much power during important security transitions like the postwar occupation of Iraq or the postdisaster non-occupation of New Orleans. Let the ideologues hold sway, and the sheer logic of what should be done is often superceded but the emotional logic of what seems best or most safe for the administration. Naturally, the long-term harm that's done by such political short-term logic typically outweighs the temporary gain of such steps as declaring "mission accomplished" and taking the requisite photo ops.

And the danger is different at home versus overseas: abroad the politicos typically want too much control of what should be left to the military, while at home the politicos are typically too fearful of being bold with the military at exactly those moments when a pro-active approach yields the best outcome.

Fog of war ain't that hard. Fog of postwar and postdisaster? That's really hard.

But unless you authorize, there ain't no authority. Northcom is a command, not a political entity. And DHS is a political entity, not a commander of anything.

No, the military-market nexus needs its own bureaucratic center of gravity, and that's why I call for a Department of Everything Else.

Comments

[IJ]

National governments are unlikely to want to be constrained. They won't welcome a concept of disciplining them for breaking global rule-sets - with enforcement by global Leviathan and SysAdmin forces. But are we talking about 'global public goods'?

Thinking is evolving. The Independent reports today that trillions of dollars could be made available for global public goods if nations surrendered some of their political sovereignty:

At the heart of the proposal, unveiled at a gathering of world business leaders at the Swiss ski resort of Davos, is a push to get countries to account for the cost of failed policies, and use the money saved "up front" to avert crises before they hit.

The proposal is supported by many, including the UK's Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz.

[Don Hodges]

ARTICLE: "Problems Mar Iraq Reconstruction, Audit Finds"
By YOCHI J. DREAZEN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
January 31, 2006; Page A7

"WASHINGTON -- Poor oversight and security woes are keeping Iraq's electricity, water and oil production far below prewar levels despite the infusion of billions of dollars in American money, according to a new audit by the Bush administration's Iraq rebuilding watchdog."

Seems to be a cogent example, and from Tom's favorite source, although buried on Page A7...