For the paper...A good ending I am thinking about--in terms of the narrative, is to speak some about the Robert Kaplan aticle on "the coming anarchy" (i will have already mentioned this to some extent, but will return to make these final points.) his argument is, roughly, that by looking at the problems in Africa and the way that they are handled, we can see a good example of the way that the world will look in the coming century. I will have already discussed the metaphor of riding in the limo (and the new pattern of its being bulletproofed to protect elites from threats of terror) and his recommendation that we watch nigeria to see what happens there...I will then bring up the recent ruling by the Benue assembly that denied the request of the Akume family for a convoy of bulletproof vehicles after they were attacked by a group of armed rebels. The assembly denied their request, saying: "The Benue State House of Assembly Speaker, Mr Mzenda Iho and the House unanimously agreed that the rising insecurity in the country must be fought through means that could benefit every Nigerian, not a select group. [. . . .] He said that the frequent attacks on top political offices was a manifestation that "the common man on the street has nowhere to run to", and asked the House to pass the resolution of the House that President Olusegun Obasanjo should take measures to protect all Nigerians, saying, "we can't fold our arms and watch sundry criminals place the nation under siege.""

This appeared on the african news service march 7, 2004.

Of course, in following the story further, I find that Akume ended up buying himself one of the bulletproof cars anyway--and the assembly dispassionately approved the purchase after the fact. this makes the scenario a buit more ambiguous, but still and interesting anecdote to note in the context. In this case, Nigeria might be a good example for us in that people were initially concerned that the general lawlessness would not be addressed by the government. and instead the people should be lifted to safety as well.

SuicideGirls > Pin-Up Punk Rock and Goth Girls: Pictures, Journals and Videos.

In looking for military contractors, happened upon this site cmolpetely unrelated to it (from a comment on one of the boards.) Interesting site though. In addition to the regular features of an online community (save the addition of erotic photographs of selected members) they have a touring burlesque show, clothing/merchandise and magazine--along with other celebrity interviews. The members (both men and women--though the women are obviously central) seem to have a diversity of conversations--but most of them seem really tapped into various forms of public life, almost all of which is outside of the mainstream, yet they seem equally involved with pop culture at large. Maybe it is a product of the metropolitan/cosmopolitan location of the site and its photographers (LA, NY) and editors.

Speaking of that, unlike other sites like meta filter or plastic which are basically just community weblogs, this site also has someone pulling some of the strings--an editor or group of editors who arrange some of these outside media events. It is also unique--though I'm not sure how I feel about it--in encouraging women to send them nude/erotic photos--which can then only be viewed by members who have paid a fee to see them. This is simultaneously liberative and exploitative or, more fittingly, it is very commercial, but in a sense quite outside of the mainstream. It also has the effect of creating an air of celebrity to these "ordinary" members so that other members choose their "favorite suicide girls"--presumedly people they've never met but who they might have spoken with over the chat rooms (so it is far more personal than celebrity in the mainstream, but still there is something going on there.) At the same time, one way or another, the women who do this, become more eligible to also take part in offline events--there is a music video on the site which evidently features the "suicide girls" as set dressing. In this sense, becoming a fully invested member is also a sort of alternative resume process (or is presented as such.) To look at this alongside the astronomical explosion of amatuer p-sites--and especially the young ages of these women--I am curious what is going on with sexuality at this time. Then again, to look at the number of hits this site gets (or at least the comments left-- a little under four million) it isn't all that large of a community (though they did get nominated for a webby ward.)

War Profiteers

page from corpwatch (who are often a bit over the top--but then so are appeals to leave the market alone.)

FOXNews.com - Politics - Military Contractors Shoulder Heavy Burden in Iraq

recent fox article on the subject

Windfalls of War - The Center for Public Integrity

more on history of military contractors

Military Contractors

info on some military contractors

Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Threat of US strikes passed to Taliban weeks before NY attack: "Tom Simons, a former US ambassador to Pakistan"

And all of this discussion about the Summer of 2001 has reminded me of some articles that came out immediately after Sept. 11 which were speculating on the nature of some meetings that took place between taliban and US, russian, pakistani and iranian ambassadors. the early story in the guardian claimed that the impetus for the early July meeting was to get the taliban to turn over bin laden. the threat was, basically, turn him over or we're coming after you (keep in mind, this is Mid-July).

Later discussions (e.g.) from even less "legitimate" sources, claim that the actual impetus was actually to get the pipeline through Afghanistan before the Russians. I don't think this makes sense simply because it seems that Russian and Iran were supposedly both at the meeting. Nevertheless there is a very interesting history to this story and it could be something worth thinking about. In any case, whatever the motivation, the US seems to have had some sort of talks with the taliban and made some sort of threat against them. Many of the discussions around this seem to place this as some sort of indirect cause to 9/11, i.e. bin Laden qua Afghanistan was simply trying to beat the US to the punch and hit us before we hit them. This also has little credibility as the operatives that were supposed to carry all of the 9/11 hijackings out most certainly had their orders and had already been in the process of trainign for the attacks well before July 2001.

A more interesting question--especially in regards to the Clarke allegations and the discussion of FBI/CIA activities around this time--is that W supposedly had the FBI call off some of their investigations around bin Laden in order to protect the family. I have little doubt that this is somewhat true--even if he did ask for the 8/6 pdb. After all, the family was allowed to fly out of the US when no other planes were in the air on 9/11. If he did anything of the sort, then it seems that no one is really talking about it (at least right now.) As this would seem to be the best time for evidence of this sort, even that line of inquiry seems a little off. Nevertheless, they provide some interesting leads. I think it would be very interesting to know what Tom Simons said in that July meeting and I think I will try to contact him (after the conference is over this week).

the above also reminds me of this hypothetical piece I read on the New Republic site:

The New Republic Online: Easterbrook

While this writer is totally correct about the political repercussions that woud have ensued had we gone to war with Afghanistan based on the August 6 PDB. What the writer seems to overlook (in his basically hawkish viewpoint--something Russ Baker has pointed out is inherent in this argument over Clarke) is that there might, possibly, be a range of options for how to handle the threat of Al Queda--maybe even a few that were more measured than an all out war and land invasion. In a way, as funny as his little satire is, it points to the utter lack of imagination present in our culture at this time. We are led to believe the basic litmus test for any threat to national security is "can we justify a military bombardment?" and short of bringing down the hammer of American might in all its shock and awe, the next best thing we can do is simply go back to our vacation and wait until we see something spectacular which can justify our power grab. this is a completely cynical and frankly lazy way of viewing our role in the world. If all that we are capable of is brute force--even in the service of rhetorical claims to liberty or freedom--we're not all that different from any dominant world power that came before us and we share a rationality with the "evil" we're supposed to despise.

I usually find these reader commentaries a bit over the top on the Buzzflash site, but this one makes some interesting observations about how we might percieve the war if there were another imperial power invading.

If the Invading Boots Were Not Our Own -- A BuzzFlash Reader Contribution: "If Russia had invaded Iraq last year against the advice of the US, and everything that has happened to the US soldiers had happened to Russian soldiers, I wonder if the US would be as angry with the insurgent Iraqis as we are now? Would we even call them 'insurgents' or would we call them 'Iraqi defenders'? Would the word at the US water coolers be anti Iraqis or anti Russians? Would we hear rumbles that the US should go into Iraq to help the invaded Iraqis? Would we feel sympathy for the Iraqis as the Russian soldiers tore down the doors of Iraqi homes and forced the families out on the street? When tragic events happened in Iraq would we be supportive of the Russians or would we say that they should have seen it coming? If, during all this death and war, we discovered that Putin had lied to his people in order to receive their support for the Iraq invasion, what would we say? Would we say that Putin should be jailed for his deceit? Would we say that he was justified if he lied to his people because Saddam was a corrupt leader? "

Home - - Center for American Progress

a think tank that seems to be picking up steam. Maybe a good place to work someday.