ADF: Keeping the fear alive

The Age has reported Air Chief Marshal Houston saying that a ‘Terror Surge‘ will be the result of pulling out of Afghanistan.

Like ants trapped in honey, the The Age pounced on it.

“If we were to all withdraw now, we would leave the country in a situation where I think there would be a civil war,” Air Chief Marshal Houston said.
“And there is a very strong possibility the Taliban would prevail,” he said.
“If the Taliban were to prevail we would be likely to go back to the circumstances that we had before 2001 where the Taliban hosted groups like al-Qaeda.”

Doesn’t quite read as straight forward as:

Troop exit ‘may cause terror surge’

It’s a bit of a stretch – even from the quote. Basically, the argument is this:

If A then maybe B.

If B then probably C.

If C, then likely D.

The implication is that D = Twin Towers II/America demolishing the White House in favour of a White Mosque/Whatever else keeps rednecks up at night.

Its brilliant when you think about it. The media becomes the fall guy – printing the alarmist stories of resurgent terrorism. But if you look at what Houston said, you cannot finger him for anything.

Look out for Angus in parliament soon- that’s PM potential politiking going on here.

In Other News: Jemaah Islamiyah strikes again

Jakarta: Western media has been rife with reports that JI has sent suicide bombers to detonate explosives in two western hotels in Indonesia on Friday. Bombs were detonated at the Ritz-Carlton, and the Mariott hotel in Jakarta, killing nine people, many of whom  were foreign nationals on business.

In other news, approximately 8,499, 991 people survived bomb blasts in Jakarta. It is said that up to 4,600 of these people were tourists or business visitors. Tourists who survived the night were shocked. ‘I can’t believe I survived. Do you know that only 99.99989% of people in Jakarta survive bombings like this? And tourists are at even greater risk. Did you know that 0.999994% of tourists are not killed each year in terrorist bombings in Jakarta? It is an outrage, and something must be done immediately to guarantee visitor safety’ said concerned traveller Whatta Nidiot.

John Howard was said to offer to come out of retirement to impose draconian laws on Australian citizens in order to prevent terrorist actions like this. Kevin Rudd has been quoted as telling Mr Howard to ‘get out of the limelight old man, this bombing is mine to milk for poltical capital. In desperate times like these, a congenial and diligent system of governance and legal cavalry is crucial to ensure the the outright prevention of, and indeed expulsion of the outlying prospect that a foreign national may come to some sort of bodily harm at any time during execution of their business itinery.’

The press gallery fell asleep during this speech, and were awoken only by Rudd’s billowing laughter that he himself had imposed draconian laws limits Australian citizens human rights and privacy while they were asleep listening to his incomprehensible babble.

When is everyone going to get it – you have to be exceptionally unlucky to be killed by a terrorist. More people win millions in lotteries than die in a terrorist bombing.

The terrorists win by striking irrational fear into the hearts of the masses. Crazy laws are passed, some people are given limitless power which they are very likely to abuse, and the rest have none. The terrorists are winning. And our media is complicit.

The winners and losers of Balkanisation

In light of Sri Lanka’s recent attempts to crush the Tamil Tiger movement, I’ve been reflecting the process of Balkanisation. There are plenty of countries undergoing, or recently completing the process: East Timor, West Papua, Aceh, Kosovo, South Ossetia…..hell even Quebec has started talking about it! Not to mention the breakaway regions of my homeland – Antarctica.

Despite the popularity of breaking away, it seems to go against everything the world has learnt over the last 50 years about economics, education, productivity and technological development. So why? There’s the obvious answer – the terrible brutality of the overlords of the bad bad ‘mother’ country. But what do you expect when you behave like a rabid dog?

To get a better handle, let’s look at who wins, and who loses.

The ‘Old’ Government
In almost all situations, they are a big loser. In a monetary sense, a seceding state is not such a big deal – provided there are no natural resources involved.

The reason most governments fight so hard against breakaway states is the crucial and indeed foundation element of governance: stability. It sets a precedent, visible and in the minds of all citizens, that their government will allow itself to be pushed around by what may, or may not be violent radicals (in the literal, rather than pejorative sense).

East Timor is a great example of this. West Papua (formerly Irian Jaya), and Aceh are looking to follow the example of their close neighbour, one of the worlds newest countries.

It can also undermine social cohesion in other ways. Secession is a war that is won as much with hearts and minds, as with tanks and bombs. Inevitably, stories of brutality by the old guard will surface (true, justifiable or otherwise). Regardless of the truth, mitigating circumstances, or unreported facts, these stories cut to the heart of any middle class. They can become self-perpetuating: reported brutality, leading to violence, leading to actual brutality to end, or in retaliation for the ongoing violence.

Governments have almost nothing to gain – unless they use the opportunity to slip a few draconian police state laws through, although most governments wouldn’t waste their political capital now that media fuelled ‘terrorism’ provides an unchallenged route for most cringeworthy laws.

The People
Not everyone in a breakaway state is a part of the movement. They may be supporters, they may be indifferent, the may be opponents, yet they often have much more to lose than it seems.

As soon as a state begin a secession attempt, the people can become easy targets for government brutality. If the state is breaking away due to a real lack of government attention, or too much bad attention, a coup is a shore way of moving down the ladder. Armed and media presence may rise, but investment – both business and government, infrastructure, safety nets and other forms of government expenditure may soon be scrutinised, or even put to a complete halt. Which is quite fitting, because they will have to get used to getting things done alone. Even if the government does not go to great lengths to inflict pain, when a secession begins, the real fight has just begun.

By the time a country secedes, businesses are fleeing, law and order is at its perigee, infrastructure will be destroyed, unfit for purpose or just not there, meaning that any resources will not be paying dividends any time soon. There is no mechanism for preventing or uncovering corruption. Just after breaking away, the government will be effectively broke. There is no government money to open schools, hospitals. Where money is provided by international backers, it will be in the form of loans to be paid by the people at a later date.

The people are in for years of misery to come. Maybe the initial conditions were bad, but things will not improve for a long time without very large amounts of money.

The Separatist Leaders\Miltia
Provided they survive long enough to see their new country born, they have little to lose. They will forever be a target of assassination, and political persecution, but what is on offer?

A place in history. Rising from the unterklasse, to the uberklasse. Wealth and riches (if only metered access to it). Mingling with other government leaders. And dont forget POWER.

The movement leaders stand to gain alot, provided they can dodge the bullets, and pull off the coup successfully. But someone stands to gain more.

The Regional Powers
Ever wondered why powers support some breakaway states, and oppose others?

The answer is simple, it is about consolidating power. The smaller, and more fractious their neighbours, the more leverage they have. The larger neighbours of the regional power will have less credibility and morale. They begin to look like a beacon of human decency and stability in comparison. All for the price of a few thousand arms and political support.

Think about it: Russia supports South Ossettia, but not North Ossettia. One represents the weakening of a US ally, the other is a weakening of themselves.

Secession also provides the side benefit of a safe area to fight proxy wars with other regional powers, serving the dick-measuring needs of both militaries. Georgia – must I say any more.

Wrap-up
When i think about this, being a penguin, i think back to cold, windy winters in Antarctica when the colony huddles together. You may not like the guy huddled next to you, but if you go it alone to get away from him you will soon be a popsicle for a passing seal. If you hate him that much, the best solution is to remove the cause of the problem with a quick roundhouse kick to the head.

 

Maybe breakaway states could take a lesson in that.