In the following post,1)Originally part of a research paper that I have since revised and made web-friendly. I will utilize the works of Jean Baudrillard (Baudrillard 1994; Baudrillard 1995), Nasser Hussain (Hussain 2013), and others (Dorrian 2014; Introna 2002; Meijer 2013) to make the case that the United States’ strategy of dealing with terrorists in the Horn of Africa and the Middle East via the usage of unoccupied aerial vehicles (drones)2)Drones are officially called “unmanned aerial vehicles,” but I have opted to change the gendered language and use the term “unoccupied” as opposed to “unmanned.” represents a profound shift in the way that war is, and is not conducted. Specifically, I will be arguing that the usage of drones has transformed war for all parties involved in a few ways. First, the usage of surveillance and weaponized drones has abstracted warfare far beyond what could be predicted after the First Gulf War by shifting conflict and conflict zones from the Real to the Hyperreal via the mediation of images from the drone. And second, conflict has become touted as “clean” and “surgical” while iconographies of war have been removed leading to not only a desensitization of war, but also a lack of ethical engagement with the Other (Baudrillard 1995, 32, 40, 62; Introna 2002)
Category Archives: Politics
James Bond as a Commentary on Targeted Killing
With the semi-recent release of the 24th James Bond film, Spectre, there have been renewed calls to kill off Bond. Some think that Spectre ought to be the last Bond film while others think his work his obsolete going so far as to say “[e]xcept for the occasional Seal Team Six operation, we send drones after those [enemies that didn’t learn how to code] kind of terrorists; not a lone-wolf alcoholic”.
Ignoring the critiques of racism/sexism that are leveled at Bond, I want to examine a few issues brought up in Cracked’s short video, “Why the World No Longer Needs James Bond”. Among the main points, apart from the quotation above, are that cyber war is the future and classic spy techniques such as those employed by Bond are obsolete in the face of hackers and drones, Bond fights old villains and ignores the geopolitics of today, and is a “bad role model”.
I argue in this short piece, however, that as the world changes, Bond changes as well ignoring the entertainment value of blowing things up, Spectre serves as a critique of the way in which national security is going. It should go without saying that this post may contain spoilers and thus I suggest you don’t read ahead until you’ve seen the film. Until then, here’s Cracked’s video:
Data Privacy Day 2016
It’s that time of year again! Data Privacy Day! What follows after the jump is an aggregation of posts I’ve written about data security as well as a commentary on web-browsers and a how-to guide for using TOR safely.
Legalizing Marijuana: The Road to Security South of the Border
Three years ago, James Farwell and Rafal Rohozinski published an excellent piece entitled Mexico: America’s Number One Threat wherein they dissect the direct threat to the United States that a drug cartel ridden Mexico poses. Two years later the piece is just as important, and its argument is bolstered by El Chapo’s, the leader of Sinaloa Cartel, escape from prison. Not only does his escape place one of the drug world’s most powerful men back in a position to consolidate power, but it risks further escalation of violence by cartels “if the Mexican government tries to prove they are doing everything they can to recapture him”. Additionally, with alleged alliances between cartels arising, it’s unlikely that the violence will die down naturally. The question obviously becomes what do we do?
With marijuana legalization initiatives being pushed in multiple states, it seems like the tide on US drug policy is changing, and marijuana will be either slowly legalized on a state to state basis, or a change to the Controlled Substances Act will be made at the federal level. The former risks the creation of so called “grey markets” in limbo states (which would foster smuggling and crime to sell legally grown marijuana to states where it is illegal). On the other side, the latter would likely spark political debate and make this coming election more interesting. Given the long timeframe of state by state legalization and the quasi-legal nature of grey markets, broad federal legalization is desirable because, among other things, it would give the US the financial leverage it needs to crush cartel growth in Mexico.
A 2008 RAND study found that between 40 and 67 percent of exported marijuana goes to the US. To put that in perspective, in 2008’s drug landscape marijuana accounted for up to $2 billion in gross income for cartels. In addition to the raw numbers, however, is the fact that if marijuana were legalized suddenly the shock to cartels would force a reshaping of their investments and would weaken cartels to the point that they would have “less capacity to corrupt the judiciary and the police in Mexico with crumpled bills in brown envelopes”. Finally, a sudden and major disruption of cartel profits would damage already fragile market integration hierarchies in other illicit sectors by forcing cartels to shuffle around resources and reorganize their business model quickly and covertly. This would have the impact of crippling cartel’s attempts to “shift” away from marijuana giving law enforcement the time, and resources they are currently wasting fighting grey markets and quasi-legal marijuana, they need to strike the final blow to cartels that will be approaching huge profit losses in all sectors.
In fact, we’ve already seen cartel’s profits and marijuana exports drop sharply since states have started legalizing marijuana. Not only have Mexican law enforcement officials seen a 32% drop in illegal marijuana exports, but the domestic marijuana market grew 74% in one year and directly took away at least $2.7 billion of cartel revenue. In an ironic twist, life-long marijuana growers in Mexico are saying, as their profits are squashed, “I wish the Americans would stop with this legalization”.
Thus we come back to the question asked at the beginning of this post, what do we do? Given the already fragile nature of the Mexican state, the grey markets popping up around states that have legalized recreational marijuana, and the potential to hit cartels where it hurts, the solution seems simple; federally legalize marijuana by amending the Controlled Substances Act and removing marijuana as a schedule 1 drug. If nothing else, it will end the foolish DEA game of whack-a-mole that is wasting government resources and letting harder, more dangerous drugs slip through the border.
UPDATE: It will be interesting to see what happens given the Mexican government’s statement that they recaptured El Chapo.
—-
UPDATE 1/10/16: Analysts recently commented that the capture of El Chapo “won’t have a significant impact [on Sinaloa’s functioning] other than a moral victory”, reports Gawker.
The Virtue of Armed Pacifism
It is common nowadays to hear proponents of change and modern liberalism claim that non-violence is the only legitimate means of resistance to oppression. While that claim may have some merit (that question can be bracketed and returned to in the future if the need arises), it is the claim which inevitably follows that I want to address. With almost eerie regularity, almost every single modern pacifist will inevitably tack on, or implicitly hold to be true, the following claim: since non-violence is the only legitimate means of resistance to oppression, there is no use in having weapons for they [insert anti-weapon logic here]. The issue with this train of thought is that it implies that pacifism is synonymous with disarmament when that it simply not the case.
In what follows, I shall argue that pacifism is not synonymous with disarmament, something the great pacifist idol Gandhi recognized (albeit in a convoluted and culture specific way), and that armed pacifism is preferable to disarmed pacifism both for ensuring the safety of marginalized groups as well as enacting change.