F Scott Fitzgerald and The 2012 Election

F Scott Fitzgerald once stated that ‘there are no second acts in American lives’. If President Obama is re-elected in November this could well be the defining description of his second term as he will face a much more restrictive political environment than he faced in 2008. If returned to the White House he will likely be confronted with a House of Representatives controlled by the Republicans and a closely divided Senate. If this is the case then President Obama will be focused on defending the accomplishments of his first term instead rather than pursuing more of the ambitious legislative projects which defined it.  

Whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney wins in November the president will be constrained by the political composition of Congress and particularly the Senate. In contrast to 2008 when the incoming President Obama entered office with a Senate majority of 60, the best the winner of 2012 race can hope for is a slender majority in the upper chamber. If Mitt Romney wins he will face a Democratic Caucus eager to use the full arsenal of procedural delaying tactics that the Republicans used in Obama’s first term.

The USA may be entering a period where the Republican Party seeks to wield power through Congress, the strategy the Democrats used for much of the 20^th century. The recent census resulted in traditionally Democratic states like New Jersey loosing Congressional seats whilst states like Texas gained them. Winning the Senate is a key objective for Republican Super PACs such as Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS who are looking to win the four seats which would secure the Senate for the GOP. With many more Democratic Senators facing re-election in 2012 the Republicans have a structural advantage in the General Election which will make their pursuit of a Senate majority that much easier.

If President Obama wins his second term and faces a Republican controlled House and Senate then his domestic priorities will likely be defensive in nature. He would look to defend the Affordable Care Act, his signature achievement, from any Congressional attempt to defund it. Critically he would seek to defend Democratic spending priorities, such as Medicaid and Medicare, from bearing the brunt of any contraction in federal spending. 

Homeland Review: Eavesdropper, Torturer, POW, Spy

Since the events of 9/11, spy fiction has provided an eerily astute reflection of the US's response to terrorism. The aftermath of 9/11 brought foreign wars, extraordinary rendition and 24. The public's appetite for an aggressive military response was expressed almost to the point of parody by 24 and the carte blanche attitude of its protagonist, Jack Bauer. After a decade public fatigue with endless conflict is reflected in a nation's politics and choice of spy dramas. The US has withdrawn from Iraq and 24.

To fill this gap we now have Homeland, in which the portrayal of spies and intelligence work is much closer to Tinker, Tailor, Solider, Spy than 24. John Le Carre cut across the grain of his genre when he showed the intelligence world to be filled with incompetent and petty bureaucrats rather than uniformly filled with heroic men of action. Homeland follows in Le Carre's tradition, showing us a talented but damaged heroine, in Carrie Mathison, as part of a still talented but damaged CIA.

Played by Claire Danes, Carrie Mathison is a brilliant cypher for all of our concerns about the powers and capabilities of the intelligence services in the post-9/11 era. That she's brilliant and talented there is no doubt. Mathison's perceptions of the world are dark, paranoid and unfortunately often correct. However we find out her abilities are linked to her own bi-polar disorder. Yes she sees darkness and plots where no-one else does, but how many are real or merely projections from her fragile mind?

Mathison's fear of failure is all consuming. Her obsessive nature has caused her to focus her entire life on the validation provided by her job. There has been little time for a personal life as a result. She takes any failure by the agency personally and the audience sees the damage this does to her already damaged psyche.

This fear of failure is mirrored in her employer the CIA. The agency has absorbed the failure of 9/11 and the self-inflicted damage done to its reputation by its involvement in rendition and torture. As a result the CIA is easily manipulated by officials in Washington, who use the agency's failures as leverage. They ensure that the agency adopts a 'play it safe' counter-terrorism strategy which is heavy on the drone strikes at the expense of the nuances and risks of intelligence work.

Mathison's foil is Sergeant Nicholas Brody, a Marine who was held captive in Iraq by Al Qaeda for 8 years. Returned after a successful raid frees him from an Al Qaeda safe house, Brody is given a hero's welcome by the public and White House officials who see his return as a public relations coup. Tortured and isolated during his time in captivity, Brody carries as many mental scars as Mathison. While the public perceives someone who made it through captivity unscathed, the audience sees the damage done to his memories and temperament. Both Brody and the audience come to realise they can't really trust his memories of captivity, giving the early episodes the feel of the Manchurian Candidate.

The first series hinges on Mathison's distrust of Brody when America as a whole is sweeping to embrace a hero returning home. Only Mathison with her condition would question the return of a POW after so long. What follows is one of the most engaging story driven series since The Wire as Mathison pursues her suspicions about Brody firmly against the grain of expert and popular opinion.

Homeland has already picked up some unexpected praise as President Obama referred to it as among his favourite television programs. It's not hard to see why as Homeland creates one of the most realistic portrayals of intelligence work on screen. In contrast to 24, in which uber-spy Jack Bauer tortures until he gets the information he needs, in Homeland information is uncovered through long conversations with terrorists who happen to be real people as well. The spies do their best work by manipulating the human anxieties of their suspects to get information rather than trying to waterboard their way to a corrupted truth. When violence is used it is shown to be a crude instrument which often results in negative side effects that come back to haunt the agency.

The contrast with 24 is striking throughout. It is interesting to see that it was adapted by two former 24 writers, as Homeland refutes so much of the ethos that 24 tried to impart. One of 24's biggest failings is that it rarely showed the consequences of the violence used by its protagonists in the pursuit of terrorists. Homeland doesn't shy away from this, showing that the repercussions of the CIA's methods are complex and at times disastrous.

Homeland is a television series which portrays the realities of the intelligence world, sophisticated characters and one of the tensest finales you're likely to see on television. Le Carre himself would recognise instantly the world created here with its flawed protagonists, twisted allegiances and spy craft. It's hard to give higher praise.

Charles and the Monarch's Constitutional Hara-Kiri

Republicanism on the Left has traditionally been the counter-part to a keenness for the Gold Standard on the Right: a useful indicator that the beholder has a fondness for ideas comfortably outside the political mainstream.

With the coming Jubilee the UK faces another round of ersatz debate over the monarchy. It is pointless because the relevance of this conversation will remain in stasis until the death of the Queen. Her personal popularity obfuscates any analysis of the monarchy as an institution itself.

The republican movement wastes time and precious oxygen by protesting the Jubilee. However the lifeless sails of republicanism will soon billow and strain from the hot air produced by our current Dauphin. Darwin made no comment on whether being prone to gaffs is a trait which is able to percolate through the genetic line. If it is then Charles is a child strongly of his father’s patrimony.  

The ascension of Prince Charles to the throne will be a victory for Republicanism on a scale not seen since Darth Vader reordered the constitutional foundations of the Empire by throwing the Emperor down into the abyss of the Death Star.  The British people have an affection for the current Queen which is measured by the only metric which seems to matter in modern life, opinion polling. Only the most ardent Royalist would suppose it extends to Charles.

In a liberal democracy a constitutional monarchy is popular and possible when the monarch in question realises the limits of their influence, a necessary limitation Charles has constantly chaffed against.  His influence peddling for the practitioners of pseudo-science is distasteful in particular and scrutiny over how he has used his influence will increase as he moves closer to the throne.

Romney, Gingrich and a Fleeting Consensus

The coverage of the GOP nomination fight so far has been drenched in soggy clichés confidently stating that the Republican electorate will eventually settle for Mitt Romney after flirting with a raft of other potential suitors. The coverage has mainly focused on how other candidates have exploited the weaknesses of front runner Romney, contrasting his apparent moderation with their own bona fide conservatism. This hesitance to accept Romney has led to the party spreading the electorate wealth, with three separate candidates winning the first three primaries.

Looking beyond the relative appeals of the candidates there is a structural reason for the variety of winners. In the 1980s Ronald Reagan created the coalition of social, fiscal and defence conservatives that have been the backbone of Republican electoral success since the 1980s. Until recently the GOP has treated these three positions as orthodoxy. The 2008 election was the first real sign of disunity within the coalition, with the social conservatives in particular being especially unhappy with the nomination of John McCain.

Social conservatives maintain strong doubts about Mitt Romney, finding his Mormonism unpalatable and his former moderation on social views unacceptable. Thirty years after the election of Ronald Regan social conservatives have not yet seen their most keenly held ambitions fulfilled. There has been no roll back on the legalisation of abortion or the ban on school prayer. Congress repealed 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' over the protests of social conservatives with the support of several Republican Senators. As a result they have been the most stubborn holdouts to Romney, instead favouring candidates who they consider will be more aggressive in the promotion of social conservatism.

Rick Santorum has sought to capitalise on the frustration of social conservatives as the central theme of his campaign. This frustration among social conservatives has contributed to the truncation of Romney's lead in the polls. Santorum's victory in Iowa damaged Romney's hue of inevitability and opened the door for Newt Gingrich who confounded both rational expectation and expert opinion to carry South Carolina on the back of strong debate performances.

Defence and foreign policy hawks have been given pause for thought by the rise of Ron Paul and his brand of isolationism. The more hawkish elements of the party have long been in the ascendency, but the 2010 Midterm elections saw isolationist tendencies once more appear within the Republican electorate. While Ron Paul is the only candidate who embraces a drastically insular foreign policy, he wouldn't have killed Osama Bin Laden nor would he take military action against a nuclear armed Iran, a section of the Republican electorate has clearly more become more receptive to the central isolationist tenant of his campaign. The appeal of Paul has had an effect on the race with both Michelle Bachmann and Newt Gingrich attacking President Obama's decision to use force in support of the Libyan rebels. Only Mitt Romney has given his full throated endorsement to the traditional platform of defence conservatives, backing an open ended presence in Afghanistan in the same manner McCain did.

Only on Iran, again with the exception of Paul, is there consensus on stopping the Islamic Republic developing a nuclear device. However the Republican position on Iran is ersatz foreign policy. It features so highly on the agenda because of its appeal to a slice of domestic evangelical Christians and orthodox Jews who see Israel as under imminent mortal threat from Iran. The most fervent advocate of military action against Iran is Santorum who draws support heavily from the evangelical movement. That most Republican candidates have endorsed the possibility of action against Iran is more to do with the domestic appeal of this policy to these two groups than the electoral appeal of neo-conservatism.

The attacks from Gingrich and Santorum on Romney's record at Bain Capital are unorthodox within a Republican primary. The party has constantly referred to itself as the champion of free trade and business enterprise and Republican rhetoric praises those who create jobs and wealth. Romney himself promises to designate China as a currency manipulator and to put in place tariffs to balance against this if elected President. Protectionist sentiment concerning China's impact has usually been from the Democrats who traditionally draw support from the northern industrial states which have been squeezed by low cost of Chinese manufacturing. Perhaps this is a reflection that the issue of growing income inequality has percolated into the Republican race for the first time. While the GOP can hardly be accused of abandoning capitalism, it is interesting to see that candidates for the party's nomination can win support through attacks on 'predatory capitalists', language which used to largely be confined to the Democrats.

The attacks on Romney's record at Bain Capital in are all part of the bluster and thunder of an election race. However the attacks on the inequities of US capitalism are sticking to Romney, and Obama, from the State of the Union, will seek to press home this message in the general election. It is an interesting historical quirk that it is the Republicans who have helped manoeuvre the topic of income inequality into the centre of a general election. There is clearly an audience even within the Republican Party which is receptive to arguments on this subject.

The ideas and beliefs on which political parties profess to fight elections has over time shifted and sometimes swerved. It is not always clear if the debates and arguments seen in this primary fight are signs of any great shift in Republican thinking. However the race so far has shown that there is a space within the Republican Party for the questioning of traditional orthodoxy, particularly on foreign and fiscal affairs. Romney's primary record so far has judged him poorly on his ability to be the consensus candidate accepted by all three groups. However this primary race has revealed that parts of the conservative orthodoxy have been challenged by groups within the GOP. Romney is trying to become the consensus candidate at the moment when that consensus is beginning to change.

New blogging opportunities

I'll be publishing new material at a couple of new sites.

At Hackeryblog http://hackeryblog.wordpress.com/author/alexdimascio/

And Sabotage Times http://www.sabotagetimes.com/author/alex-di-mascio/

Hopefully I'll continue to post stuff here for you my loyal reader.

Everything in moderation, including moderation

Thus spoke Oscar Wilde

Moderation, a trait which a substantive and vocal part of the Republican electorate now openly states, is more honoured in the breach than in the observance. This logic places Romney, Huntsman, Pawlenty and Daniels at a severe disadvantage at winning the nomination and really challenging Obama in the 2012 election.

All four have been governors and have differing elements of crossover appeal to the wider electorate. However this experience of governance coupled with the potential to appeal to centrist voters has not warmed any of these men to the base. While all adhere to the core principles of modern conservatism, each according to the base, has dabbled with some unspeakable heresy which rules them unfit to be the party's nominee for President. Romney enacted health care reform in Massachusetts which seems uncomfortably similar to Obama's plan. Huntsman has tacked away from the social conservatives on the issue of gay rights as well has serving the administration as ambassador to China. Pawlenty once advocated cap and trade and Daniels has suggested steering clear of social issues until after the economy is fixed.

The Tea Party, though often amorphous and contradictory, is setting the contours of the debate within the party. It shows no signs of moderating its idealogical commitments in the face of and electorate which in 2012 who will be younger, less white and right wing than 2010 electorate which swept so many of their candidates into office. As a result the otherwise more moderate candidates are having to recast their own records and views in order to appeal a base which is increasingly conservative.

Romney's experience within the party shows the danger of doing this. He quickly embraced the social conservative default on both abortion and gay marriage, while simultaneously stating that his Massachusetts health care proposal was fine at the state level but the almost identical version of it rolled out by Obama was unconstitutional and financially reckless. As the result Romney has managed to recast himself not as the man of all seasons but as the man with two faces. A once plausible candidate with a strong economic record is distrusted by the socially conservative base who rightly notice that he is an inauthentic messenger for their deeply held beliefs while independents and moderates have been put off by his lurch to the right. Ultimately Romney will suffer from his win-at-all costs strategy in 2008 where he overreached in selling himself to conservative voters at the expense of broader national appeal. That or they pull out all together as Daniels did, either not wishing to engage in such intellectual gymnastics or perhaps guessing that he as a moderate would be better served running in 2016.

With the unemployment numbers as they are and the entire national debate being consumed by economic issues it is astonishing that candidates with high profile business and management experience have either decided or been forced by the intellectual climate in their party to focus on their adherence to idealogical sacred cows over social issues, climate change and the debt ceiling. It's interesting that Daniels, one of the stronger candidates, has withdrawn entirely perhaps to save himself for 2016 not wishing to taint his “brand” with the concessions he'd have to make in order to win the 2012 election.

Democracy is fundamentally about competition. The Tea Party's adherence to idealogical commitments above all else will undermine this competition if they are allowed to set the the tone of the debate within the Republican party. The Republicans cannot hope to recapture centrist voters when part of their base sees Mitt Romney's ability to speak French as elitist and out of touch with what they call the “Real America”.   

Why Nick Got the Blues

Many have wondered why Nick Clegg has thrown the fate of his party and his own political fortunes, once riding so high, in with a program of financial austerity which was always going to be politically unpopular. Why has he placed the survival of the coalition ahead of treasured Lib Dem policies like the scrapping of tuition fees? There are two answers, one the background of Clegg himself and two the fear of being blamed for undermining a government which has a severe economic crises to deal with.

Much has been made of Clegg's social background and the parallels with Cameron which have enabled a harmonious relationship between both leaders. However while the personal relationship between Cameron and Clegg is probably important it's hardly enough to keep the coalition together during periods of strife. Clegg's background as an MEP has been largely ignored by the UK press, who have always maintained that European politics is a form of exile. The flippant dismissal of his background in European politics ignores that EU politics consists heavily of coalitions and compromise between parties. To what extent then has his background in European politics informed his decision making over the domestic?

Clegg's priority has been to maintain the stability of the coalition as he needs to show that they are a viable form of government for the UK which has been traditionally used to a single party being in charge. The UK public is used to governments which have the discipline and power to enact change on their own terms. Clegg has calculated that they would not tolerate a coalition in a time of financial crises if their contribution was seen to be excessively obstructionist. To 'break the public' in to the idea of coalitions, for want of a better metaphor, Clegg has viewed decisions through the lens of coalition integrity. For better or for worse the coalition must stand if the Liberal Democrats are to be seen as a responsible governing party.

They key word there is 'excessively'. To what extent will the public and the Lib Dem voters accept acquiescence towards the Conservatives in the name of government stability. Clegg was hammered and rightly so for his capitulation on tuition fees, with the public rightly reckoning that he and the senior party leadership rolled far too easily on the issue of the fee increase. Thus is the unpleasant role of the junior coalition member. Can you exert influence without being considered a hostage taker? Will your compliance be viewed as collaboration?

I would argue that Clegg was correct in recognising that the public would not have tolerated the Liberal Democrats, as the party who came in third, taking the policy initiative in the aftermath of the election. While Cameron did not win outright, he still pulled in the largest number of seats and thus possessed the legitimacy to govern. What has dammed Clegg is his party's derogation from the 'Mr Nice' role in front line politics. No longer will the Liberal Democrats be able to offer what amounts to a money laundering service in politics. Vote for us and you've participated in democracy and because we'll never get into power your vote will never connected with the dirty business of actual government.

Alex Salmond: Living the Dream

Could First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, take up the legendary mantel of Peter Risdale and economically destroy an institution he professes to love, largely to appease his own ego? Let me explain.

We remember back to those halcyon days, when Leeds were not only in the Premier League but challenging Manchester Utd for the title. More impressive was the run all the way to the semi-final of the Champions league where they were eventually beaten by runners up Valencia. Unfortunately if Leeds were adopt the mantel of legend it was to be of Icarus, rather than Hercules. Their flight to the top was financially disastrous with the the club splashing out on expensive players like Rio Ferdinand, gambling that continued, extended runs in Europe would fund their purchase and wages. To complete the metaphor , Leeds flew too close to the sun, eventually plummeting into the depths of League 1 as the financial adhesive which kept them airborne disintegrated. The experience of Leeds, serves a cautionary tale not just in football, but is an effective warning against hubris in other less important arenas. The governance of Scotland for example.

The rest of the SNP victory in these Parliamentary elections was the collapse of the Labour and Liberal Democrat vote, with these voters defecting largely to the SNP. This has handed the party a majority of seats, winning 69 out of the 129 available. As a result, this gives the SNP the chance to bring a long held dream to fruition, a referendum on independence. There are several issues of interest here.

To start on a lighter note, parts of the right-wing press have furiously denounced Labour as both architects of devolution, which has brought this constitutional calamity to a head by allowing those rouge Scots an independent parliament. Secondly they attack Labour and the Liberal Democrats for failing to 'hold the line in Scotland'. Alan Cochrane in the Telegraph refers to the 'little people' who run Scottish Labour as being no match for the political skills of Alex Salmond and as a result has brought us 'to the break up of the Union'. There is a certain irony in the Tories, who have long abandoned Scotland electorally, criticising the two parties who are still electorally relevant in Scotland for not stopping the SNP. What a potential Scottish referendum might bring is a debate on the nature of governance in the UK, over the centralising power of Westminster vs the desire for constitutional institutions which draw their power and legitimacy from the region which they represent. Fat chance, a debate over Scottish independence, and ultimately the fate of the union will be more underhanded, intellectually pointless than the AV referendum. With the three Westminster parties and the SNP playing for keeps, a referendum will not be a pleasant affair.

Right, back to Peter Risdale. The second, more pressing issue for Scotland is if increased political independence is worth truncating the Union as well as splitting Scotland off from the larger economic unit of the UK. Salmond has spoken in grandiose language about the establishment of a renewable energy manufacturing base, which will help to re-industrialise Scotland. The critical issue is over the North Sea oil and gas, can this provide the needed capital to re-invest in Scotland and make it economically viable in a globalised economy. Opponents of independence, frequently point to the importance of the bloc grant from Westminster to Scotland's economic performance as well as its provision of social services. Salmon's greatest test as a politician will be to explain that the potential for cuts in social services are a price worth paying for independence or that they will not manifest in any meaningful way.

If this is the case then Salmond will be recast as Peter Risdale but now in charge of a nation. Can the desire for what Salmond sees as the ultimate prize be reconciled with economic realities? If Scotland does vote to seek independence, then the best of luck to them both politically and economically. However what Salmond might discover is that the numbers simply don't add up and that these grandiose ambitions will be worth nothing if Scotland cannot rapidly establish itself as a viable nation state. If not a slow decent into the lower league of nations is on the cards. On the upside, scraping to defeat Liechtenstein’s football team wont be as bad in comparison.

My Three Foreign Policy Books

My Three Foreign Policy Books

1. Icarus Syndrome – Peter Beinart

I really enjoyed reading Icarus Syndrome, it's an extremely well written book by an eloquent commentator and previous advocate for liberal interventionism. Beinart, like Hitchens and other liberal hawks backed the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This excellent book is partly a way of Beinart explaining why he and other liberal interventionists supported the war and part how a nation like the US could be seduced by moments of hubris which would lead to ruination.

This book analyses three distinct and important periods in the history of American foreign policy: the Paris Peace Accords of 1919, the Vietnam War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Beinart discusses why the US made certain critical decisions during these three critical junctures and how the repercussions have shaped the US's role and outlook in the world.

The book is not a comprehensive history of the three periods. For this I would recommend Paris 1919, The Best and the Brightest and the Rise of the Vulcans. What Beinart offers is to show how the lessons and perceived lessons that have resulted from major world events have been learnt and internalised by institutions and individuals. Beinart's work shows how these perceived lessons are just as important in shaping policy as hard facts. This attention to the perceived lessons is the most intriguing part of the book as it reveals an often unappreciated part of diplomatic history. What individuals and institutions take from situations will shape policy often regardless of the facts on the ground. Both governments and societies should not ingrain any lesson or maxim to the extent that it can overrule what is clearly in front of them.

2. The Shia Revival – Vali Nasser

This book is important as it is a telling reminder that there was a Middle East, with its own rich history and internal rivalries long before the West became involved in the region. Islam's great divide between Shia and Sunni has set the tune to the movements of different countries and groups of the region and it continues to do so despite the influence of oil, terrorism and other external factors. The book shows how recent developments in the region fit into the much longer history of the Sunni/Shia struggle and how the preferences and beliefs of the two groups has shaped their fortunes up to now.

The most interesting and eye opening theme that I encountered is the almost forgotten idea that the 2003 has not just affected the region vis a vis the West. Western involvement, especially the invasion of Iraq has unsettled the balance of power and history between the two groups with the primary beneficiary of the toppling of Saddam being Iran. Vasser shows how the Shia have an chance to recast parts of the Middle East in their favour and that this will be strongly resisted by the Sunni states, focused around Saudi Arabia. The tensions between these two states will be the defining factor over regional stability.

The key issue is that policies will be lost in the region if they do not respect that Western efforts will feed into a larger history of the region rather than supplanted it.

3. Descent into Chaos – Ahmed Rashid

It's important to read a book about how things go wrong, how the best intentions can be for nothing and how a few critical mistakes can have such a terribly detrimental effect on both policy and the fate of a nation.

Rashid describes this elegantly in Descent into Chaos as he charts how the twin US objectives to both thwart Al Qaeda and develop Afghanistan often clashed to the detriment of both. Throw in a generous helping of cynicism from many in the Bush Administration coupled with the inevitable problems involved with such an ambitious nation building project and the causes of the in problems in Afghanistan becomes clearer.

The book elegantly imparts a large amount of information, imparting both a comprehensive picture of the fate of Afghanistan since the 9/11 attacks as well as portraying how errors, miss steps and chance have shaped it. This focus on the unintended consequences is the general theme of my three picks. What the West gleaned from the demise of the USSR was an overconfidence in capability of our arms and the extent of our knowledge. Instead of recognising our lack of appropriate knowledge about the rest of the world we insisted it could be reformed into an copy of ourselves. The West has had to relearn this humility at great cost to the prestige of its nations and the lives of so many of its citizens.

Libya - Intervention Rises Up From The Dead

This week we saw the issue of interventionism rise up from its seemingly permanent exile from the pallet of respectable/plausible policy options. The vote by the Arab League gave cover for nations some hesitant, some enthusiastic, to back a UN Security Council mandated no-fly zone and the recent bombardment of Libyan air defence systems it has enabled.

Libya has divided opinion unlike the other regimes who have fallen in the recently christened ‘Arab Spring’. Relatively quickly it became apparent that Qaddafi would not go quietly into the night. Mubarak and Ben Ali despite their numerous faults, recognised when their position had become untenable, and reluctantly left office. Qaddafi quickly made the decision however that the storm could be weathered out, and that the deployment of domestic security forces, augmented with foreign mercenaries and his own air force would see off domestic rebellions centred around Benghazi, which has a historically adversarial relationship with Tripoli.

However the series of victories that Qaddafi has won, while pushing the rebels back to Benghazi has coalesced international opinion against him into something a little stronger. However while NATO and other allied nations may now be able to protect Benghazi from the final onslaught that Qaddafi was about to unleash, national leaders must now decide the limits of their ambitions vis a vis Qaddafi. The intervention by international forces will most likely swing domestic opinion behind the Qaddafi regime. The regimes rhetoric suggests this change in confidence, shifting from its focus on Al Qaeda to resisting Western imperialism and protecting Libya’s own oil reserves from a rapacious West. If this does come to pass then Benghazi might become all the more isolated as peoples sympathies realign from the rebels to this nationalist and anti-colonialist message.

If this is the case then Obama, Cameron and other leaders will be faced with the choice of for how long they are willing to protect Benghazi as an outpost of resistance to Qaddafi, especially if the country swings back to him in response to the air strikes? For the rebels this conflict has now be transformed from an emancipatory objective, to one of survival. The international community has intervened to protect Benghazi from the slaughter Qaddafi was to commit. However with regime change spearheaded by Western forces off the table, how long will international forces agree to protect the city and the rebels from a regime which controls the rest of the country. While certain Western leaders such as Cameron and Sarkozy have been more enthusiastic about intervening, none have any appetite for a long mission to maintain Benghazi as an Libyan West Berlin within the surrounding country.

International forces rightly stayed out of Libya during the early stages of the civil war. Any intervention would have undermined the rebels credibility and undercut their ability to win popular support. However what the recent air strikes have done is to protect Benghazi and its inhabitants but at the cost of the wider popular appeal of the anti-Qaddafi movement. If this is the case then the UN backed forces will have found themselves in the middle of a civil war, and will be forced to take sides.

International opinion must decide to what extent they are willing to protect the citizens of the city from Qaddafi, if they aren’t prepared for a potentially long deployment to protect the city with a no fly zone then a deal will have to be struck with the regime in order to gain some amnesty for the rebels. Although it is hard to see the regime honouring such a commitment when the eyes of the world are drawn elsewhere.

We can only hope that popular opposition does throw him and his family out of Libya, however if it does not some difficult questions lie ahead.

As always other commentators provide more stimulating, insightful and intellectually coherent takes on these issue. Here are some of the best I’ve found.

http://www.slate.com/id/2288214/ Christopher Hitchens

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0801483115 Robert Pape ‘Bombing to Win’

http://thinkstrat.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/what-to-do-in-libya/ Aaron Ellis

England vs Hungary

Last night me and a companion had the pleasure of seeing England's Brave Boys© play and beat the Hungarians.  Any football fan needs no introduction to the heritage to Hungarian football, which created a team which punished England mightily many years ago. Many see their ultimate failure to win the World Cup as a footballing travesty and I personally feel that they deserve the unwanted title of best team never to have won the World Cup, beating the efforts of the Dutch 74 and Brazilian 82 outfits. They can of course never hope to live up to that amazing heritage, a nation the size of Hungary will mightily struggle to produce a team like that again.

Still they played well, giving England a good game. Certainly for a pre-season friendly the quality was pretty good. a treat for the 70,000 or so people who turned up to see it.

I was disappointed by the squad choices. The 'Golden Generation' for its successes and faults has come to an end. These players, these household names; Gerrard, Lampard, Terry and Ferdinand will not be at the next world cup in Brazil. Age and injuries will not allow it. Old hopes will have to be carried by new players. Unfortunately with Capello's contract not reaching to the next World Cup he has no reason to dispense with old and take proper risks to blood the new players. The press would have slaughtered him if he had lost. Fundamentally this raises the question, why have an international manager who wont be going to the next world cup? Logic would suggest that Capello will make do with what he has, getting adequate performances out of the players to ensure his survival and qualification to the Euros. Why put this on the line by player Wilshire and Rodwell then?

The FA's plan should revolve around the WC, players and management should reflect this.

The iPad, A review by somebody who can't afford to buy one

The UK's High Priest of Apple, the Reverend Stephen Fry has already has his.

Wired says that tablets will change the world of computing.

Filthy Glasses says: who are ya?

Both Apple and the Catholic Church have been in the news recently. Both are secretive and highly profitable organisations led by a supreme leader, beloved by his disciples and mocked by the rest of us. Each promises in their own way to show us a better way of living, free from the sordid clutches of the unbelievers. This salvation however comes at a price. It the Catholic Church's example..... I'm gonna avoid because I don't want to be sued for libel. In Apple's case however it's any resemblance of being a fan boy.

Full disclosure, I have an iPhone. I'm not especially proud of the fact but it allows me to feed my obsessions  with football and politics to an extend I never thought possible. 

To give Apple their due they have consistently punched above their weight in directing the development of consumer technology and services that we all consume. Responsible for popularising MP3 players and touch screens. Apple didn't develop these technologies but they gave them a polish and a desirability which introduced them to a wider audience. 

The success of the iPod and iPhone products have been to introduce mainstream consumers to Apple products. People, now familiar to the design and idiosyncrasies of the products feel comfortable in purchasing the laptops and desktops. These items are mainstream and feature in annoying adverts featuring beloved comedians  shamelessly selling out and professional midgets. 

While it might be now acceptable to have these products, its gonna be a long time before the iPad looses its status as the crown jewel of fan boyism. There will be no escape if you purchase one of these devices. You will have purchased an indelible mark, highlighting your commitment to being an early adopter and a rabid consumer of the shoddy Mk.1 products that technology companies always release. Only a true devotee would buy a device which costs twice as much as the laptop I'm currently ranting on. 

In a few years when the hype has rescinded tablet computers may become socially acceptable, this will be a slow process and will involve a few brave souls claiming the format back. Society will progress and maybe we will all one day by party to a world that looks more and more like that shitty film, Minority Report.

Until then we wait. 

An Obscured View of the World

Hello unwashed masses.

I have succumbed and finally decided to do a blog. This means you, the uninterested and oblivious public will have unfettered access to the rabbit warren of banal/libellous thoughts that rattle around inside my head. Hopefully my unedited musings on life, politics, films and West Ham's chances of avoiding relegation will be of some interest to somebody. If not please feel free to troll the shit out of the site.

Alex Di Mascio