What I'm Reading

This month I've been on semester break from university, and busy at home helping with my newborn daughter. I've also been working overtime studying Arabic, because I'm going to take a political science class this next semester entirely in Arabic (until now my classes have been taught in English). A friend gave me a freshman-level political science textbook to help me prepare. I'm working my way through it, but at around 20 minutes a page, it's hard, brain-scrambling work.

All that to say, I've taken a break from serious reading for a few weeks. I've mostly been reading fun stuff. Reading, underlining, and scribbling notes in a serious history book is hard work when you're holding a baby; reading a novel on my Kindle is easy. Here are some of the books I've been reading:

My Arabic-speaking FAO buddy (who comments here as da kine) recommended Wasp by Eric Frank Russell. It's a classic 1950s SF novel about a guy who gets dropped covertly onto an enemy planet with a simple mission: sow as much chaos as possible. It's like John Robb: the Novel. For those of you aren't familiar with Robb's work, his core idea is that it's extremely easy for individuals or small groups to disrupt networks and wreak disproportionate damage in our world today. Wasp is a fun book and short enough to read in an evening or two. I thought the writing was mediocre and the plot far too contrived, but my friend assures me that this is an intentional stylistic feature. I guess I can buy that.

One of my favorite novelists is Tom Wolfe. It's a rare pleasure to read an author who makes me stop after every paragraph and say, "Wow, this guy is a genius." I am Charlotte Simmons, which I read a couple years ago, is one of the most impressive novels I've ever read (and by far the crassest), exposing the mindlessness and debauchery of the modern university. I decided recently to go back and read Wolfe's earlier Bonfire of the Vanities, which is a fascinating sketch of race, power, wealth, poverty, justice, and injustice in New York.

One of my favorite science fiction authors is Kim Stanley Robinson, probably most famous for his Nebula and Hugo-winning Mars trilogy. He has a new book out, Galileo's Dream, which is sort of an alternate history about the life of Galileo Galilei--and the post-human visitors from the 35th century who try to change his destiny.

I'm currently reading Lebanon: A House Divided by Sandra Mackey, which is an enjoyable and highly readable introduction to the complex mosaic of Lebanese identity and history. It's not a scholarly book, but for someone who knows very little about Lebanon, it's a great place to start.

I'm also reading A Journal of the Plague Year by Daniel Defoe, a 1722 piece of journalistic fiction based on the experiences of the author's uncle. It describes life in London during the plague of 1665. I guess this doesn't exactly qualify as light reading, but I've had kind of a morbid fascination with the plague ever since I read Thucydides' account of the plague of Athens. The most chilling and lasting impression I took from Thucydides was the speed with which human pretenses of nobility and civility can collapse into anarchy. We see it in his account of the plague, the breakdown of lofty wartime rhetoric into naked cynicism, and in the barbarism of the war itself. This book offers a rare window (just kidding, Tom) into London life during the plague. It's available on the Kindle for free.

The Two Policies of Digital Freedom

I'm lagging pretty far behind the news with this post because I've been busy with other things, but I think it's important and still worth writing.

Internet Freedom has been all over the news in the past couple months. Google uncovered a massive Chinese hacking operation that targeted at least 34 companies. Google, already frustrated by Chinese censorship, announced that this was a bridge too far and threatened to shut down its China operation entirely. The complex interplay between the corporate world, states, and national security issues has led Google into consultations with the State Department and now the NSA.

On January 21st, probably in response to the attack, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered her Remarks on Internet Freedom. She struck directly at those states that try to curtail Internet freedom, comparing these censorship operations to the Berlin Wall:

Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world's networks. They've expunged words, names, and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in non-violent political speech. These actions contravene the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which tells us that all people have the right "to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information curtain is descending across much of the world. And beyond this partition, viral videos and blog posts are becoming the samizdat of our day."

Here in the Arab world, people aren't impressed by the speech; they're frustrated by US hypocrisy. Two issues have undermined US credibility. The first is the passage of Congressional Resolution 2278, which threatens to sanction Arab television stations inciting terrorism. The second is US laws which deny the populations in sanctioned countries access to key websites.

First, the Congressional Resolution. Marc Lynch covered this in-depth on January 25th. He writes that the resolution "is a perfect example of mindless grandstanding which pleases domestic audiences while hurting American interests in the Arab world." Nonetheless, the resolution passed by an overwhelming 395-3. I have no love for Hamas or Hizballah, but the way to defeat them isn't with intrusive government policies that seek to control information; that kind of policy is partly responsible for the intellectual stagnation in the Middle East in the first place. The best thing we can do is open up the intellectual marketplace, let people learn and grow, and trust that good ideas will win in the long run. I quote Marc Lynch again at length:

In short, H.R. 2278 is a deeply irresponsible bill which sharply contradicts American support for media freedom and could not be implemented in the Middle East today as crafted without causing great damage. Even Arab governments who despise Hamas and Hezbollah and Qaradawi and al-Jazeera could not sign on to it. Instead, such governments proposed a pan-Arab Media Commission which would monitor and regulate political content on satellite TV -- an idea which was floated in spring 2008, and mercifully failed. Fortunately, that proposal has again been shelved. The last thing the Arab world needs right now is more state power of censorship over the media -- whether the Arab League over satellite TV or the Jordanian government over the internet. Hillary Clinton just laid out a vision of an America committed to internet freedom, and that should be embraced as part of a broader commitment to free and open media. Nobody should be keen on restoring the power of authoritarian governments over one of the few zones of relative freedom which have evolved over the last decade.

I've seen this story pop up repeatedly over the past few weeks. The Arabic BBC debated the topic on a call-in talk show. Among the questions discussed was whether or not this meant Arab countries had the right to block US programming. The whole issue severely undermines the freedom agenda Secretary Clinton is trying to promote.

The second issue is the sanctioning of US websites. ArabCrunch has been pushing this issue recently. According to its website, "The mission of ArabCrunch.NET is to help accelerate entrepreneurship and technology innovation in the Arab world by delivering an online social platform that connects participants of the technology ecosystem." The ArabCrunch Group supports an entire "Arab centric technology ecosystem." I'm very impressed by these guys and the work they are doing; this is exactly the kind of project the Arab world needs. I'm growing more and more convinced that the development of this region won't come from government initiatives or US foreign assistance; it will come from these motley crews of talented young Arabs who can sip some Arab coffee, push up their glasses, and write business plans or computer code. These guys are the future.

Unfortunately, they're mad--mad because at the same time Secretary Clinton delivered her speech, US laws are blocking access to crucial websites in sanctioned countries. Among these websites are LinkedIn (the Facebook of the professional business world), SourceForge, (the largest open source hosting website in the world), and code.google.com (another open source hosting website). ArabCrunch campaigning has restored partial access to some of these sites, but functionality is still curtailed. I sympathize with their frustrations; as a hobbyist programmer myself, I can't stress enough how important the open source software community is for developers. I use code from SourceForge and Google all the time. If we want to empower these guys to build the future of the Arab world, we need to open up the Internet--as Secretary Clinton said--not play a role in censoring it.

Al-Qa'ida terrorizes Muslims

The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, which consistently produces fantastic research on terrorist threats, has done a great service with its new report. Deadly Vanguards: A Study of Al-Qai'da's Violence Against Muslims uses exclusively Arabic-language news sources to estimate how many Westerners vs. non-Westerners have died at the hands of al-Qa'ida. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here is the key chart:


The report's conclusion says, "Al-Qa'ida represents itself as the vanguard of the Muslim community, committed to upholding Islamic values and defending Muslim people against Western forces, but its behavior represents a callous attitude toward the lives of those the group claims to protect."

This is a message that needs to get out in the Muslim world as frequently and loudly as possible. None of my friends or colleagues here in Jordan like al-Qai'da (my Muslim friends tell me that al-Qa'ida members are not true Muslims, and my secular friends just dismiss them with an angry "f**k al-Qai'da"), but I'm still going to throw a copy of this report in my backpack. I'm looking forward to the day I can pull it out in a classroom discussion.

Zenpundit on the Post-COIN Era

Looks like SWJ has already picked this up, but zenpundit has a great post about the status of the COIN debate, set in the broader context of domestic American politics. It's short and well worth the read.

Things I've Learned #2: All worldchanging is local

I've always cared about making the world a better place. I joined the military partly out of a strong, idealistic belief that US power could be a force for good. I care deeply about global ills like poverty, war, genocide, child soldiering, and sex trafficking. I'm not particularly interested in my career; I'm more interested in where I can go to "make a difference." I spend a lot of time thinking about how I can use my unique experience and abilities in the service of greater good.

My idealism didn't last long on active duty, but even as a committed realist, I still care deeply about making the world a better place. That's why my blog is titled "Building Peace" and that's why I'm living in the Middle East. After a couple years on active duty, watching our country make preventable mistakes because key leaders so deeply misunderstood the region, obtaining an Olmsted scholarship became my new life goal: I would learn the Arabic language, learn the culture, and learn everything I could about the region, so that someday, when I was the guy sitting in a position of authority somewhere, I would know how to make a better decision than my predecessors. My dad once asked me why I was constantly reading "The Economist" or "Foreign Affairs" on Christmas vacations instead of anything fun. I told him that I wasn't studying for the job I'm in now; I was preparing for the job I want to hold in twenty years. I was moved by a visit to Churchill's underground war rooms in London where, at the end of the tour, I saw this quote: "I felt as if I were walking with destiny, and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial." When would my hour or my trial come? When would my moment come to change the world?

I got the scholarship I desired. I'm learning Arabic. I'm living in the Middle East. But it didn't take me very long at all to realize something crucial: I'm not that important. I speak Arabic pretty well, but 250 million Arabs speak it far better (and a lot of them also speak English). The military produces a lot of people who are way smarter than I am. I'll have a good career ahead of me in sha' allah, but there is never going to be a job where I can say, "Ah, this is my moment to bring positive change to the world." At what point do you start making a difference? When you're a colonel? A general? An undersecretary? The head of a think tank? The President? Look at how little President Obama has been able to steer the ship of American foreign policy, despite his firm intentions to change course. I've realized that no one person or office is equipped to change the world.

So what is a would-be worldchanger supposed to do? I've learned to get realistic. I've realized that all worldchanging is local. It's like the old saying: life is a journey, not a destination. If we wait for a life situation that will let us change the world, most of us will be disappointed (or will cause tremendous damage). The real worldchangers are the ones who routinely leave small imprints at every step of the journey. They bring positive change wherever they are planted. The best thing we can do is live actively and selflessly within our sphere of influence, however big or small that might be.

My predecessor in Jordan, a good friend and fantastic officer who also flies C-17s, had a good philosophy about this. He was moved by a Biblical passage about an occupying Roman centurion that helps the local Jews build a synagogue. My friend wanted to offer these sorts of small blessings wherever he could, one person at a time. He helped his Arabic tutor get a job at DLI. He helped a friend from university fill out visa paperwork and apply for a work-study program in the US (it was a life-changing experience for this friend). He helped his professor's son apply for an exchange program at West Point (he got in and is studying there now). He did a fantastic job using his unique situation, experience, and knowledge to serve and help others. I'm trying to adopt the same philosophy.

I've never read the book Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, but someone told me about one of its models, which I've always found helpful. All of us have a large "sphere of concern" that includes those issues we care about--everything from faith, family, friends, and hobbies on up to the big issues like war, health care policy, and the economic crisis. Within that circle we have a much smaller "sphere of influence", which encompasses all the things we can actually affect in our lives. It might include things like our personal relationships, our local community, our job, our volunteer activities, how we vote, or where we give our money. The best any of us can do is live well within our sphere of influence. We can also try to expand our sphere of influence, which will allow us to work more effectively for the things we care about. My current scholarship is a perfect example. These same rules apply whether you're sixteen years old or the President of the United States.

If we all took this advice to heart, the world would be a better place. Globalization has shrunk our world and made our spheres of concern larger than ever; it's easy to feel crushed by the weight of the war in Afghanistan or the earthquake in Haiti. The sense of helplessness leads to a lot of fear and anger. Recognizing the difference between the sphere of concern and the sphere of influence is liberating; it teaches humility, helps us admit we can't change all these problems by ourselves, and gives us freedom to live peacefully within our own local domain. At the same time, most of us never really explore our full circle of influence (how many Americans vote?). If we really believe that all worldchanging is local, there is a lot we can do.

Previous:
Thing I've Learned #1: Don't get angry unless you mean to

A Cross-Cultural Story

Here's a cross-cultural story about the international incident I almost caused. It just goes to show that you never know where cross-cultural misunderstandings can flare up.

A few months ago my family and I went on a brief vacation to the Jordanian coastal city of Aqaba. On the way we stopped at a gas station/rest stop in the middle of the desert. I stocked up on junk food, then asked some of the locals if there was a bathroom. They directed me to an adjacent building, which was apparently part of the rest stop. The men's room was clearly marked. I went inside and saw a sight familiar to any American: a long trough against one wall, with a few spigots for rinsing/flushing. Ah yes, the trough urinal. I stood looking at it. Something didn't seem quite right; I'd never seen a trough urinal in the country before. I decided to explore a little more. Deeper in the bathroom I found ordinary urinals, took care of business, and left.

I didn't think about it again until I stopped at the same rest stop recently. The parking lot was packed. Men were pouring into the building. This was a mosque, I realized; the nondescript building must house a prayer room for travelers. I went inside to use the bathroom, and saw a crowd of men standing in what I'd mistaken for a trough urinal--washing their feet to cleanse themselves before prayers.

I have no idea what the consequence is for peeing in the ceremonial foot-washing trough, but I'm happy I didn't find out.

C-17 Airdrops in Haiti

I saw this mentioned briefly on BBC. I can't imagine what kind of DZ the military opened up in Haiti, but these must be some pretty hair-raising missions. Good job, guys.