gizblog

Iraq

$2 trillion dollars, several hundred thousand (?) lives, soldiers convicted of human rights abuses, a thumping at the ballot box, a damning report from the ISG, public disagreements with neo-con allies, and now with Tony Blair, and a failed summit that had to take place in Amman because Baghdad is too dangerous. What else will it take for Bush to face up to the problems in Iraq?

 

I originally supported the war: I believed there was a problem, even if I never bought the idea that there was a clear and present danger, and that the long term stability of the region would be best secured without Saddam. I had also lost faith in a UN based approach to dealing with the problem. But above all I naievely thought that it was better in the long run to support the US to avoid them becoming unilateralist or isolationist.

I hadn't banked on the arrogance, incompetence and unilateralism of the Bush administration. Nor that they would be so disinterested in the views, and needs, of an ally. And now the situation is so much worse: Simon Hoggart's description of Bush in yesterday's press conference as a dead fish twitching is not a heartening image for the leader of the free world.

It strikes me that four things are needed, and all are reminders of US successes in the late 1940's. First, provide enough troops to do the job (many more, not many fewer in the short term, as this interesting post suggests). Second, re-engage in multi-national organisations such as the UN, recognising them as the least worst option in an interdependent world. Third, engage in diplomacy across the region, and particularly in providing impetus to solving the Israel-Palestine problem. And finally, spend a small fraction of the cost of the military campaign on winning hearts and minds: where's the magnanimity and vision of a Marshall plan, whose purpose was as much about rebuffing communism as  rebuilding Germany?

Unfortnately, it seems that there's a  fifth (and pre-requisite) item: a US president who's up to the job, or who's willing to engage with and listen to alternative views. Wittgenstein commented that  to someone who only has a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you've only got neo-cons whose advice isn't working, you're doomed to repeat mistakes. Without a constitutional crisis the prospects for the next two years aren't encouraging.

An increasingly multi-polar and interdependent world needs US leadership. But America seems much weaker and uncertain than it was 6 years ago, and the effects could last a generation.

 

Politics, regulation and the Long Tail

An interesting day at the Parliament and the Internet conference. We were corporate sponsors, which meant we could attend, and I also gave a speech (the overview of which was blogged here)

I'm not a policy wonk, and I find the pace and detail of the debates hard going. But I have real respect for the people who were there, drawn largely from the regulators, industry and parliament. The UK's good at striking the right balance between letting the online sector thrive and providing the rules and protection for those who need them.

A couple of interesting ideas, in particular, caught my attention. The first follows on from Eric Schmidt's speech to the Tory conference last week where he described the current generation of politicians as being from the TV generation, implying that though they understand that the internet's important they're not quite sure how to deal with its consequences. I think he's got a point. Politicians are used to a world in which they could easily access attention. In the emerging world that will be harder, as demonstrated by the low rankings of their websites (the three main parties appear to have only a few tens of thousands of visitors, and rank below the BNP). Equally, politicians have been used to a role in which they exercise judgement on behalf of their constituents, and we have only used referenda in rare and particular circumstances. Going forward, their judgements will be open to much more scrutiny, and (at its logical extreme) almost anything could be put to a public online vote. In theory, nothing could be more liberating and democratic. In practice, this is uncharted and un-nerving territory.

The second issue that caught my attention concerned e-crime. One delegate asked how law enforcement would work with virtual goods: if you buy a sword, or some property, in an online game for real money, and it's stolen from you, it's effectively a crime. But can you report it to the police? Would they know what to do? I've got no idea where to start on this one, but it's good that someone's wrestling with it.