An argument for withdrawal (Part Two)

"He putteth forth his hand upon the rock; he overturneth the mountains by the roots. He cutteth out rivers among the rocks; and his eye seeth every precious thing. He bindeth the floods from overflowing; and the thing that is hid bringeth he forth to light.
But where shall wisdom be found? And where is the place of understanding?
Man knoweth not the price thereof; neither is it found in the land of the living."
- Job 28:9-13

Common arguments for perpetuating the war:

“Better the chaos and slaughter over there than here.”

I have yet to see a single credible intelligence or foreign policy analyst suggest that anything remotely like Iraq could happen here in the U.S. whether U.S. forces are still in Iraq or not. Every serious analyst I’ve looked at from DIA to DHS says that it is very likely that one day in the not too distant future terrorists will manage to pull off a devastating attack once more on American soil whether U.S. forces are in Iraq or not. And, by the way, no level of border security or invasive, warrantless surveillance by federal authorities will be able to make us “safe” either. The bottom line is that there is no possible way the chaos of Iraq can reach the U.S.. Why? Because of fundamental differences between the two nations.

The average Iraqi citizen is increasingly hostile to the American “occupation” and loyal to partisan militias, Americans by and large are not especially sympathetic to terrorists who are trying to kill them. Iraq is plagued by centuries of blood feuds between clans, ethnicities, and religions, America has the Red Sox and the Yankees. Iraq is surrounded by states far more likely to fuel the fires of conflict than Mexico or Canada (though one never knows about that Harper fella, he did refuse to meet with Bono at the G8 summit, and if that doesn’t qualify as "Axis of Evil" material, I don’t know what does). And if one takes a look at where the terrorists are from that have actually tried to conduct attacks on American soil, one would see that they are not from Iraq, they are from Great Britain, Canada, and American citizens. This argument is simply a wholehearted embrace of the politics of Fear.

“If we leave, Iraq will descend into chaos, and we can’t let that happen because…”

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Iraq is getting worse and worse and there seems to be nothing we can do about it. As it turns out (as almost every general who was asked predicted) the troop surge is a spectacular failure. Even the overly optimistic generals on the ground have admitted that the army has been able to secure only a third of the Baghdad neighborhoods they hoped to by this point in the surge. They cite Iraqi army incompetence and cowardice as a reason that U.S. troops have not been able to move on from these few Baghdad neighborhoods. Also it is increasingly noted that Iraq’s police force is essentially just a training ground for the thousands of armed partisans that fill the ranks of local militias (and is it any surprise when we consider that those policemen’s families have to live in these neighborhoods administered by armed militias). Ultimately, whether we are there or not, the situation is going to get far worse before it gets better.

As a side note, although absolute chaos in Iraq is a possibility if we leave, I think the chances of that happening are actually quite low. Probably the most significant reason for this is that the regional powers really don’t have a vested interest in a large, completely failed state in their neighborhood.

“If we leave Iraq, that will send a signal to our enemies that we are weak, and it will embolden them.”

I guess I’ll have to break the bad news once more: that horse left the barn a long, long time ago. I figure the “enemies” must be rogue nation states (i.e. Iran, N. Korea, Syria, etc.) and terrorist groups (Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.). I think both groups are quite aware of the situation in Iraq, and I don’t think they could be any more emboldened than they are now.

The whole world knows that we have failed in Iraq: we have lost. Only the Bush PR machine and about 30% of the American population are desperately clinging to this absurd fantasy of the U.S. smoothly sailing on to victory in Iraq, having only to weather an occasional squall. The reality is that the whole world watched the American people punish Bush for the war in the congressional election of 2006. The whole world can see Bush’s job approval rating is worse than Nixon’s in the process of being impeached. The whole world saw an unprecedented number of generals and admirals (both active and retired) and the Army Times editor calling for the resignation of Rumsfeld. The whole world can see that the U.S. forces, despite a valiant effort to hold the country together, are being killed at an alarming rate, are losing more and more ground to partisan forces, and are having little to no success training up an effective Iraqi army and police force. The whole world can see how our military is broke: two year deployments with a one year turn around, the chief of staff saying that 1/3 of the army’s equipment has been consumed in Iraq and Afghanistan, recruiting grandparents (I kid you not, in my old Guard unit a grandmother and her grandson joined at the same time), felons, and those who declare they one day hope to get a GED: recruiters are scraping the bottom of the barrel. The whole world can see that the Interior Minister of Afghanistan just this week declared that coalition forces rule by day, but “the Taliban rules the night” in his country, and we are powerless to stop it because we are so deeply mired in Iraq. The whole world can see that Bush is about as popular home and abroad as the Bubonic Plague.

As for specifically terrorist groups, Osama bin Laden has rallied his troops for decades by saying “Remember Mogadishu! The West will run if we spill enough of their blood.” I hate to be the furtherer bearer of bad news, but that is enough for zealots to be as emboldened as they can be. That was 1993 and it still emboldens the terrorists, of course, they also are regularly emboldened by remembering the Crusdaes, and how the West was ultimately pushed out of the Arab world by enough blood spilled. When I was in Bosnia, I was an analyst specializing in extremist groups and I watched their propaganda and recruitment videos. Let me assure you that our pulling out of Iraq will be one more thing for them to get excited about, but it will have no discernable effect amongst the warped minds of fundamentalist, religious zealots.

I conclude my argument by summarizing that there are no good reasons to stay in Iraq, there are only scores of very good reasons to leave Iraq.

An argument for withdrawal (Part One)

And the victory that day was turned into mourning unto all the people.
- 2 Samuel 19:2

Recently, I was asked for my thoughts on whether we (the American military presence) should pull out of Iraq or not. Naturally, this became the subject for a blog. The argument that constitutes the following entry goes against my soldierly instinct of “no retreat” and so it was not easily that I settled upon this conclusion: we should pull out of Iraq, and we should do it soon.

The foundation of any effective argument is to understand and frame the problem correctly. In terms of understanding the problem, I do my best to stay up on current events through a variety of sources (from the WSJ to the NYT), and I’d like to think that my background as an army intelligence analyst contributes to a more informed position. In terms of framing the question, I think it is important to understand that there have been 3,521 American military members killed in Iraq since the war began (03/19/03); 25,830 American military seriously wounded (that is the official total, though depending ion the definition of “seriously wounded” NGO’s have placed the figure as high as 75,000); 65,000 – 70,000 Iraqi citizens reported killed in military actions since the war began (those numbers are reported deaths by military action, mind you); and a UN estimate of four million displaced Iraqis flooding into neighboring countries that are entirely unprepared to deal with the massive influx of people. With these kinds of numbers, the onus is not on the one wishing to end such actions as lead to these results; rather, it is the unpleasant obligation of those wishing to perpetuate the situation leading to these atrocities that must offer up many exceptionally good reasons to continue this tragically misguided and obviously failing war.

Let us first evaluate what the war effort in Iraq is accomplishing so as to clearly demonstrate my supposition that the effects of the war have been almost entirely disastrous. After this is established, we’ll consider the most common arguments used to argue that continuing the war is a good idea.

I’ve chosen four substantial effects of the war in Iraq with which to build my supposition.

1) The war in Iraq has made Iran more powerful than the Persians have been since the days of Xerxes. We eliminated the only legitimate opposition to Iran’s position as a regional super-power, while making ourselves too weak to check the growing Iranian nuclear threat. The Shiite government has found a ready ally in Iran, though not as strong an alliance as have the Shiite radical imams, death squads, and numerous partisan militias.

2) Al-Qaeda was on life support after September 11^th, but the war in Iraq has flooded their ranks and made them the most powerful terrorist network on the planet. Daniel Byman (Director of the Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University) reminds us in the most recent issue of Foreign Affairs that there was a time when the whole world (ally or not) was hunting down Al-Qaeda wherever they were to be found. The terrorist network was almost entirely eliminated, but due almost exclusively to the war in Iraq, Al-Qaeda is now larger and more lethal than ever. The network exports increasingly savage tactics, holy warriors, money, and information into Kashmir, Chechnya, Somalia, and ironically back into Afghanistan where Al-Qaeda was formerly centered.

3) The war in Iraq has made Radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr the most powerful man in Iraq. The gangland style execution of former dictator Saddam Hussein with the executioners chanting “Moqtada! Moqtada! Moqtada!” says it all. He commands as many “allies” in the Iraqi parliament as any single party (bringing the government to a standstill last year when he demanded a boycott of the parliament). His armed followers have thoroughly infiltrated all official Iraqi security forces, control the streets of east Baghdad and the Shiite south, and fill the ranks of numerous death squads who assassinate Iraqi politicians with impunity and terrorize the Sunni minority. Moqtada al-Sadr was a junior cleric of no importance that the war in Iraq has made into a (if not the) actual national leader.

4) Prior to Iraq, Arab dictators were under a great deal of pressure to reform, but they now rest easy. I paraphrase from an excellent article by Marina Ottaway (Director of the Middle East program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace): The failure of U.S. policy in Iraq has provided autocratic regimes in the Middle East a reprieve from the pressure to democratize, as long as they position themselves clearly on the side of Washington in its looming confrontation with Iran, Syria, and Shiite Islamists. Saudi Arabia and Egypt have been the biggest beneficiaries of the U.S. loss of interest in draining the swamp of autocracy once it was confronted by large alligators of its own making such as Iran and its allies. Once again, autocracy is thriving – and so are the alligators.

These four effects of the war effort in Iraq are not all one could offer as support of my supposition. One could talk about the dramatically enhanced standing of China on the world stage as U.S. credibility the world over conversely plummets. One could talk about the obvious lack of military threat from the U.S. to check North Korean nuclear ambitions, the genocide in Darfur, or a hypothetical attack on our own homeland. One could talk about the army being stretched to a breaking point on many levels. One could talk about the still ballooning financial cost of the war $440,397,667,000 as of 06/17/07. One could talk about the ever increasing rate of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq as the partisan forces improve their tactics. – But I imagine the four cited effects of the war in Iraq should be enough to establish that the effects of the war are overwhelmingly negative.

[I will conclude this argument by discussing the more common arguments for continuing the war in the next blog entry.]

“Réalité internationale” ou “Ah, mais c’est la vie américaine, M. Maher!”

Comme le fer aiguise le fer,
Ainsi un homme excite la colère d’un homme.
- Proverbes 27:17

The following is a "guest" essay by Bill Maher. I'm not an especially devoted enthusiast to Mr. Maher, but I must thank him for this delightful and often dead-on essay.

America can learn from France
May 7, 2007

New Rule: Conservatives have to stop rolling their eyes every time they hear the word France. Like just calling something French is the ultimate argument winner. "Aw, you want a healthcare system that covers everybody and costs half as much? You mean like they have in *France?* What's there to say about a country that was too stupid to get on board with our wonderfully conceived and brilliantly executed war in Iraq?"

Earlier this year, the Boston Globe got hold of an internal campaigndocument from GOP contender Mitt Romney, and a recurring strategy was to tie Democrats to the hated French. It said, in the Machiavellian code of the election huckster, "Hillary equals France," and it envisioned bumper stickers that read, "First, not France." Except for one thing: We're not first. America isn't ranked anywhere near first in anything except military might and snotty billionaires. The country that is ranked No. 1 in healthcare, for example, is France. The World Health Organization ranks America at 37 in the world -- not two, or five -- 37, in between Costa Rica and Slovenia, which are both years away from discovering dentistry. Yet an American politician could not survive if he or she uttered the simple, true statement, "France has a better healthcare system than us, and we should steal it." Because here, simply dismissing an idea as French passes for an argument. John Kerry? Can't vote for him -- he looks French. Yeah, as opposed to the other guy, who just looked stupid.

I know, if God had wanted us to learn from the Enlightenment, he wouldn't have given us Sean Hannity.

And I'm not saying France is better than America. Because I assume you've already figured that out by now. I don't want to be French, I just want to take what's best from the French. Stealing, for your own self-interest. Republicans should love this idea. Taking what's best from the French: You know who else did that? The Founding Fathers. Hate to sink your toy boat, Fox News, but the Founding Fathers, the ones you say you revere, were children of the French Enlightenment, and fans of it, and they turned it into a musical called the Constitution of the United States. And they did a helluva job, so good it has been said that it was written by geniuses so it could be run by idiots. But the current administration is putting that to the test. The Founding Fathers were erudite, well-read, European-thinking aristocrats -- they would have had nothing in common with, and no use for, an ill-read xenophobic bumpkin like George W. Bush. The American ideas of individuality, religious tolerance and freedom of speech came directly out of the French Enlightenment -- but, shhh, don't tell Alabama. Voltaire wrote "men are born equal" before Jefferson was wise enough to steal it.

Countries are like people -- they tend to get smarter as they get older. Noted military genius Donald Rumsfeld famously dismissed France as part of Old Europe, but the French are ... what's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah, "mature." We think they're rude and snobby, but maybe that's because they're talking to us. For example, France just had an election,and people over there approach an election differently. They vote. Eighty-five percent turned out. The only thing 85 percent of Americans ever voted on was Sanjaya.

Maybe the high turnout has something to do with the fact that the French candidates are never asked where they stand on evolution, prayer in school, abortion, stem cell research or gay marriage. And if the candidate knows about a character in a book other than Jesus, it's not a drawback. There is no Pierre Six-pack who can be fooled by childish wedge issues. And the electorate doesn't vote for the guy they want to have a croissant with. Nor do they care about the candidate's private lives: In the current race, Ségolène Royal has four kids but never bothered to get married. And she's a socialist. In America, if a Democrat even thinks you're calling him a liberal he immediately grabs an orange vest and a rifle and heads into the woods to kill something. The conservative candidate is married, but he and his wife live apart and lead separate lives. They aren't asked about it in the media, and the people are OK with it, for the same reason the people are OK with nude beaches: because they're not a nation of 6-year-olds who scream and giggle if they see pee-pee parts. They have weird ideas about privacy. They think it should be private.

France has its faults -- the country has high unemployment, a nasty immigrant problem and all that ridiculous accordion music. But its healthcare is the best, it's not dependent on Mideast oil, it has the lowest poverty rate and the lowest income-inequality rate among industrialized nations, and it's the greenest, with the lowest carbon dumping and the lowest electricity bill. France has 20,000 miles of railroads that work. We have the trolley at the mall that takes you from Pottery Barn to the Gap. It has bullet trains. We have bullets. France has public intellectuals. We have Dr. Phil. And France invented sex during the day, lingerie and the thong. And the French are not fat.

Can't we just admit we could learn something from them?

- Bill Maher

A form of godliness...

"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." - 2 Timothy 3:1-2, 5

There really was a limitless array of verses I could have chosen to introduce this topic. But before I begin, let me say that the next few entries will tackle other subjects of some import to me than politics. The following writing is a good bridge between subjects, and it is one very important to me.

Most of my life has been spent in a loving, nurturing, Christian family; with good friends and a good community, it was an upbringing one could only hope for. Part of my experience growing up was to be deeply immersed in the sub-culture of Evangelicalism. Let me say at the outset that there are things about the Evangelical sub-culture that I admire, but there is one point especially that troubles me about modern Evangelicalism: the politicization of Faith. I could write for days on this subject, but I wish only to address one aspect of this disastrous tendency in modern Evangelicalism: this absurd assumption that President Bush and his administration are in any way “Christian.”

I understand that the campaign Public Relations machine produced hundreds of photos of Bush in prayer and speaking to Evangelical leaders. I also understand the Bush PR machine worked hard in 2000 to mobilize conservative Evangelical groups like Focus on the Family, though the results were not satisfactory to Karl Rove who declared there were at least four million evangelicals who didn’t vote in 2000, something he would remedy in 2004. [U.S. News and World Report, Gilgoff, 03/05/07]

For their part, Focus on the Family finally came out in force in 2004 in favor of the Bush campaign. I personally heard Dobson (during the Dobson Family Minute on my local Christian music radio station) call voters to go out and vote Republican (anti-gay, anti-abortion) with no mention of any other quality one should demand of a Presidential candidate. And why did Focus on the Family rise up in arms in 2004?

“ Officials inside Focus on the Family's public policy shop argued that they had been much less gung-ho about mobilizing evangelical voters in 2000 than in 2004 because candidate Bush was something of an unknown quantity; he promoted ‘compassionate conservatism’ and a ‘big tent’ GOP rather than play up antiabortion and antigay rights themes. ‘We didn't really know George Bush till he was inaugurated,’ said Focus on the Family public policy director Tom Minnery. ‘At that inauguration, he had Franklin Graham ... there were church hymns being sung. It was a Christian service was what it was.’” [ibed.]

Well, amen. So I guess the trappings of Evangelical Christianity is all it takes in the modern world to bring out millions of Christian/”Family Values”/”The Moral Vote” voters in favor of God’s very own candidate, George W. Bush. Does it matter that Bush didn’t touch either of the “Moral Vote” issues his first four years? Despite a blank check congress, Bush didn’t touch either of those issues. So how can we possibly address whether Bush (his PR campaign aside) acted even remotely Christ-like? Well, I may be a bit biased, but I'd like to think that when it comes to determining whether something is Christ-like or not, the Bible is a good place to start.

“Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right. The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord hath made even both of them. (Proverbs 20:11-12)

Let us then look and hear. The Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality in three places (Leviticus 18:12; 20:13; Romans 1:27). On the other hand, the Bible explicitly directs us to help the poor and widows hundreds upon hundreds of times. The Bible never explicitly mentions abortion, though there are three verses that could be used in an argument against abortion (Psalm 22:9-10; Isaiah 46:3-4; Jeremiah 1:4-5). On the other hand, Jesus explicitly calls for peacemakers, and the Bible demands social justice throughout the entirety of the Scriptures. The Bible clearly calls for humility over pride scores of times, and the Bible clearly urges accountability and responsibility in leaders of men.

I know how thorough the sub-culture of Evangelicalism can be, but it takes only a moment to look at the last six years of the Bush administration to see that Bush has made the wealthy far wealthier and the poor far poorer. He has embraced a policy of foolish pride since his first days in office, pride that has led to disasters of all kinds. He has started two major wars that have led to thousands upon thousands of deaths (only one of those wars is even remotely “just” by any standard). He nurtures incompetence, zero accountability amongst leaders, policies of deceit against the population he serves, and championing policies and lifestyles of ignorance, fear, and hatred of those who are different. He mocks those who seek peace and abuses horribly those who are truly helpless, enemies though they may be. If Christ were immersed in his mission today, he would most certainly be labeled by the Bush machine as anti-American, pro-terrorist, anti-troops, and weak-willed. Despite all this effort given to war mongering, perhaps Bush would reserve some effort to aid the helpless, give relief to the poor, care for the widows, etc. Well, Hurricane Katrina and Walter Reed sure cleared that up for us.

Again, I could write for days citing well-acknowledged cases of Bush’s actions clearly making him the least Christ-like president I’ve ever heard of. Rather than waste time doing that, I'd like to finish with a remark or two concerning the "moral vote." It amazes me that the PR whitewash by groups like Dr. Dobson’s can embrace such false Christianity and rally those people who only seek to do God’s will behind this truly puzzling “Moral Vote,” while what the Bible actually has to say is going largely ignored by the “Christian Right.” The reason for my passion in this writing is that I am a Christian, and it saddens me to think that the majority of the world now thinks of Christianity as this absurd parody of the Faith that is trumpeted by groups like Focus on the Family when it comes to politics.

Only a week ago I was speaking with a co-worker (who happened to belong to the Assemblies of God denomination) who learned that I was a Christian. He said with a conspiratorial wink, “Then can I safely assume that you’re a Republican?” I said I wasn’t specifically a member of any political party, so he went on, “But you’re looking for a good, moral, Christian man to be the next president, right?” The emphasis was on the word moral, and I knew exactly what he meant by it. I can’t tell you how sad it made me that he thought of Christianity in terms of depriving homosexual Americans of legal rights and projecting an opinion against abortion but having absolutely no intention of doing anything about it. That, apparently, is the "moral vote" he and others have been duped into supporting based on their faith.

I have often had occasion in the past to wonder why Republicans never actually do anything in terms of “family values” unless it is guaranteed to fail and the G.O.P. needs to energize its base. For all its lip service, why does the G.O.P. , Bush in particular, never actually do a thing about homosexuality/abortion? I think the answer is quite simple. If Roe v. Wade were overturned or legislated into irrelevance, and if homosexual marriage were banned under the constitution, then the Republicans would lose the “moral vote.” They would actually have to look at real moral issues; issues Jesus truly cared about. Suddenly making the rich richer and the poor poorer would be at the forefront. Destroying the environment that we are stewards of in the name of making more money might be frowned upon. One might be forced to ask some tough questions about how the lone superpower in the world should act in the face of terrorism. The danger is that the “moral vote” might actually become a moral vote. And there is no way this modern "form of godliness" could stand up to that standard.

Deus Misereatur

"It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness: for the throne is established by righteousness." - Proverbs 16:12

I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to VP Cheney, was convicted Tuesday of lying to a grand jury and to F.B.I. agents investigating the leak of the identity of a CIA operative in the summer of 2003. Much more revealing during the course of the trial was how it became obvious that Libby was simply a fall guy for Cheney. Even the jury was asking why the obviously guilty Cheney wasn't before them, lamenting that they had to go through with convicting the sacrificial lamb (there seems to be quite a few people taking bullets for and from Cheney these days). Not that this sacrificial lamb was without blame, but it is further shameful activity from the most powerful VP in American history with alarming implications concerning the president as well (declassifying top secret information for Libby to distribute to whomever based on the VP's demand).

Maybe it is because of my nine years spent in army intelligence, but I take the leaking of an undercover CIA agent's name as a means of political manipulation very seriously. Yes, I'd like to see Cheney imprisoned, but the reality is that this administration will just go on with business as usual.

By "business as usual" I mean the systematic deception of the American people to cover up failure after failure of the administration. Of course, they now have an opposition congress that won't give a blank check to support and cover up Bush's incompetence from Katrina to Walter Reed. Not that the Bush administration is solely responsible by any means, but it is a by product of going to war without sufficient resources. "Surely it can be no surprise that the war's wounded have been hidden away in the shadows of moldy buildings by an administration that refused to let photographers take pictures of returning coffins. Or a White House that keeps claiming victory in this failed and ever more costly war is always just a few more months away." (NYT 03/07/07) Amen. And the Wilson/Plame situation is yet another criminal disgrace that is hardly shocking from this administration.

While the White House was pressuring intelligence collectors and warping intelligence to justify their primary reason for invading Iraq (Iraq seeking WMD material), career diplomat Joseph Wilson was sent to Africa to discover if British intelligence that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa was legitimate or not. Meanwhile, his wife was undercover for the CIA in the area of nuclear proliferation. When Wilson realized the Bush administration was ignoring him when he declared those intelligence reports to be illegitimate, he decided to write an Op-Ed article in the Times, stating these claims the White House was using to take the nation to war were entirely false. At this point, the administration had the option of making one of their rare good decisions. The diplomat sent to evaluate the WMD claims and his CIA wife with a specialty in WMD trade are declaring there is no validity to the assertion that Iraq is seeking WMDs in Africa. Instead of listening to this couple, Cheney leaks through Libby Valerie Plame Wilson's status as an undercover CIA agent, thus endangering her life and ending her career. The Bush administration's message to American intelligence professionals and American diplomats all over the world was clear: if you aren't going to say exactly what we want to hear, then don't say anything at all or we'll jeopardize your career and life.

When an administration cuts off all input but what they want to hear, only disaster can follow: disaster in New Orleans, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, Sudan, and the UN. What type of idiocy drives the administration to fire or remove generals who oppose Bush's plans, U.S. attorneys who dare to think differently from the VP, intelligence professionals and diplomats who are far more qualified than anyone in the administration to speak about security matters but happen to disagree with the party line. Before invading Iraq, the only official kept in the dark about the majority of operations was the only person who had any claim at all to knowing what he was doing in war-related matters, Colin Powell. The best leaders I've known in my army service or outside the military were those who surrounded themselves with very smart people who thought differently than the leaders. From Abraham Lincoln to Robert Kennedy, great American statesmen have shared that very same trait.

It shames me to think this is my country's leadership. It makes me afraid that these reckless, criminal, incompetent people will be in the White House for another two years. And I am
saddened that there are still Americans who believe all the lies.
Deus misereatur.

Tony Blair and a battle for global values

“And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood." - Isaiah 1:15

As I was reading through the current (Jan/Feb 2007) Foreign Affairs journal, I came upon an essay written by Tony Blair entitled "A Battle for Global Values." He essentially declares that the battle against "global extremism" cannot be won in any sort of conventional way; rather, this battle will be won as the Good Guys demonstrate that their values are far superior to the values of the Bad Guys, thus converting the moderate population at large to the side of the Good Guys. Who are these Good Guys? He goes out of his way to say that they are Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. who all "believe in religious tolerance, in openness to others, in democracy, in liberty, and in human rights administered in secular courts." I have to wonder if Tony Blair ever looked across the pond at his ally and wondered just how much any of these traits truly apply to him or those who still adore him.

In the article's introduction, Blair declares, "We will never get real support for the tough actions
that may well be essential to safeguarding our way of life unless we also attack global poverty, environmental degradation, and injustice with equal valor." I only wish that Bush were on the same page as Blair when it comes to the global war on terror, but this essay just cemented my opinion that the Blair and Bush alliance is one of necessity. Blair sees his own goals clearly, but he is entirely incapable of working toward those goals without finding a larger ally moving in roughly the same direction.

Of course Blair is right when he says that the credibility and Values capital of "The Coalition of the Willing," hinges on the unrelenting demonstration of religious tolerance, openness to others, democracy, liberty, and human rights administered in secular courts. Every Abu Ghraib; every introduction of religious extremism into the courts of Iraq, Afghanistan, or the United States; every time the United States embraces the hubris of "go it alone" statecraft; every time Newt Gingrich makes headlines talking about the need for limiting free speech in the name of security the war on Values is lost to a few thousand more of those moderates around the world who are watching the Coalition of the Willing so closely. And he rightly recognizes that the War on Terror is doomed to fail unless we attack global poverty, environmental degradation, and injustice with equal valor.

Blair's essay made me sad that the War on Terror looks absolutely nothing like the one he describes.

“Power without oversight” or “What I learned from the frogs”

"Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men. For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night... So teach us to number our days, that we might apply our hearts unto wisdom." - Psalm 90

Yesterday (Thurs. Jan 11th) evening, I watched President Bush blatantly ignore the will of 80% of the voting public, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and a number of his own generals (many of whom have found themselves promptly reassigned) as he escalated American involvement in the Iraqi civil war. His wildly delusional assessment of the situation in Iraq and his subsequent bull-headed decision to add over 20,000 troops to the forces in Baghdad is disheartening.
This type of reckless decision-making is to be expected from the President, and I'm not sure why I was holding out hope that he'd take note of those around him who are far more qualified to be making these decisions than he is. I'm not sure why I continued to hope that he'd take note of an overwhelming majority of American citizens, those who he theoretically serves.

I taught in France for one year, and I never thought I'd miss that which I am longing for now: the ability of the people to check an official gone amok. I witnessed multiple general strikes and an active citizenry bring a Prime Minister to his knees. They didn't have to wait until the next election to check their leader.
Despite losing the popular vote in 2000 and gaining office only through a 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision, President Bush ran wild as if he'd won in a landslide of public support. Despite the most embarrassingly failure-ridden and corrupt administration in recent memory, the President did not hold a single relevant official accountable during his first six years of office (until the American people pummeled the Republicans in 2006 and Rumsfeld was justly fired the next day). Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the President continued to insist the war in Iraq was being won until only weeks ago as the region teeters on the brink of unrestrained civil war. And yet, thanks to 52% of the voting public in 2004, we must endure two more years with absolutely no say in Bush's erroneous policies.
I can't say that I necessarily enjoyed the immediate effects of the combined student protests, limited strikes, and general strikes. The demonstrations around government buildings were fun, but I was rather annoyed by having to walk everywhere and wake up every day wondering whether it was time to go back to work again or just strap on my walking shoes and see where the demonstrations were that day. In spite of the inconveniences, I can now look back with longing at the power the French people reserve as a right; the power to check their elected leaders immediately for direct results.
Lacking any such power in the United States, I can only pray. I pray that this Iraqi nightmare is soon past my country. And I pray that the future leaders of the United States will be people who apply their hearts unto wisdom.