Unanswered Questions

 Posted by Mike  Foreign Policy, Middle East, Terrorism, War in Iraq  2 Responses »
Jun 292005
 

In his speech last night, President Bush reiterated his statement once again that we will stay until the end in Iraq; that we will leave troops their as long as necessary. And what exactly are our goals in Iraq? How will we know when the time is right to withdraw? Here is what President Bush had to say on the subject:

Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists. We are helping
Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We are
advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of
violence and instability and laying the foundation of peace for our children and
our grandchildren.

So, let’s take them in order. Our first mission is to hunt down the terrorists. We are certainly doing that in Iraq. Of course, there are always going to be terrorists; there are terrorists who live in every nation in the world, including the United States. So, presumably we cannot hunt down all the terrorists in Iraq, because we would be there forever. I suppose he means that we will hunt down “enough” of the terrorists, which we will get back to in a moment.

The second goal is to “build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror”. (And this from the president who solemnly vowed in his first election never to engage in nation building!) So, then presumably we will stay in Iraq until Iraq is a “free nation”, which presumably means a stable, democratic country. (The other possibility is that Iraq would be free of imperial control, akin to “free Tibet”, but that doesn’t seem to apply.) Of course, then we run into the problem of building a stable democracy in an ethnically heterogeneous state, which is relatively poor, economically reliant on a single exportable resource, relatively uneducated, and has no history of democratic institutions. In the political science world, I would be optimistic to say that this project is possible within a generation; give or take twenty-five years. Of course, for a number of Latin American countries in similar circumstances, it took much longer than that, and several of them are still not stable democracies. A pessimist would say that stable democracy in those conditions is impossible. But hey, miracles do sometimes happen (see India), so maybe Iraq will be the exception.

The last two goals just seem like rhetorical flourishes. The third goal is to “advance freedom in the broader Middle East”. I’m not even sure what this means, nor how our involvement in Iraq can accomplish this task. It seems to be getting at some kind of Democratic Domino Theory, which sounds incredibly suspicious to me. If anyone can give me a clearer, more precise explanation for this phrase, I would be grateful. Our fourth, and last, goal in Iraq is to “remove a source of violence and instability and laying the foundation for peace”. One might point out that Iraq was incredibly stable before we invaded, and that war is a really peculiar way to lay a foundation for peace. But beyond “killing the terrorists” and “building a stable Iraq” I’m not exactly sure what this means either.

I studied warfare for three years in graduate school, and have read more on this subject that most people. So, let me tell you the real problem with the Iraq war, and the above stated goals: we won’t know what victory looks like, even if we do achieve it.

For one, there is the inherent problem of our involvement. By maintaining troops on the ground in Iraq, we have a substantial impact on the security and political situation in Iraq. There is no way of measuring, however, what the stability of Iraq will be once we do pull out; without actually pulling out. And by that point, it will probably be to late to go back in, as President Ford discovered in Vietnam. The Americans are the most powerful player on the political scene in Iraq right now, and everyone is telling us what they want us to hear. Once we leave, however, we take with us a big part of the incentive for Shiites, Sunnis, and especially Kurds to cooperate. We also will take with us a large part of the retaliatory capability of the Iraq security forces, which means that terrorist groups have an incentive to tone down their attacks if it looks like we will pull out, wait for us to go, and then to reveal their real strength.

For another, there is that problem of how do you know when you have killed enough terrorists? In broader terms, when is war ever over? It is actually a much more complicated question than history generally lets on. When two nations are fighting on battlefields with disciplined armies, war is over when the generals, commanders, and political leaders sit down with each other and agree on a peace. But in Iraq right now, there are no battlefields, no disciplined armies, and no established hierarchies of command. Violence will most likely continue for a very long time.

So, the real question in Iraq is: when will enough of the various and numerous anti-government groups decide that it is in their best interests to participate in the political process rather than attempting to subvert it, such that the Iraqi government can maintain law and order within their own territory without American involvement?

Good luck answering that one.

Scenarios for the Supremes

 Posted by Mike  Bush Administration, Judicial System, Nomination and Confirmation, U.S. Politics  2 Responses »
Jun 282005
 

Chief Justice William Rehnquist is expected to resign before the next Supreme Court session begins. Assuming that this happens, it will leave President Bush with two decisions to make. First, he needs to decide who to appoint to fill the court vacancy. Second, he needs to promote one of the nine justices to Chief justice.

Now, if President Bush were wise, and took seriously his job to represent all Americans and not just those who voted for him, he would spend the next few weeks holding meetings with the leadership of both parties. The goal is to find an associate justice who is strongly pro-life (within the constraints of the law and of legal precedent), well qualified, and yet who holds moderate positions on many issues (e.g. affirmative action, property rights, privacy rights, etc.). In other words, find someone who will not be entirely objectionable to the leadership of either side. This will upset many on the far Right, who will feel betrayed, which gives him the opportunity to placate them with the second decision; by appointing Scalia to be Chief Justice.

This is, of course, not my preference for what would happen exactly, but I’m a liberal talking about a Conservative government, and so I’ll take what I can get. Besides, after so much contentiousness over Appellate nominees, and with two incredibly divisive elections under his belt, it would be refreshing for Bush to take the high-road, pick a moderate Conservative and placate his base with a Chief Justice elevation (Democrats will probably accept this compromise because who is Chief matters less than who is on the court). And yes, I think such a scenario is possible. Unlikely, but possible.

This is, however, the same President who has nominated Ken Starr’s protege for an Appellate court seat and an architect of the Iraq war as ambassador for the UN. So, the more likely scenario is that Bush will attempt to have his cake and eat it too. He will only meet with the Republican leadership, will receive confirmation from Frist that they have the votes to change the filibuster rules if the Democrats attempt to block the nomination, and proceed to nominate the most conservative, hard-liner that they think they can get away with. The confirmation fight will be long, it will lead to a shut-down in Senate business for several weeks, and it will produce rancour among liberals and moderates alike. Oh, and then he’ll try to promote Scalia or Thomas to chief anyway, just because he can. And his first term claims to be a “uniter not a divider” will forever be remembered as one of the greatest campaign lies ever told.

And, as is always true with regards to this presidency, I shall continue to hope for moderation, and continue to expect extremism.

An Evangelist for Christ’s Church

 Posted by Mike  Issues, Religion  No Responses »
Jun 272005
 

Yesterday, Billy Graham preached what is possibly his last sermon at one of his Crusades. As the New York Times article speculated, one of the reasons for this enduring appeal is his attempt to avoid controversial issues. If you listen to Rev. Graham speak, you will hear about God’s love and mercy. Even Jesus’s Second Coming, which Rev. Graham believes is imminent, is framed as an act of love and mercy, in its proper Biblical context.

(Side Note: It is too easy to forget today, but Revelations was written to give hope to oppressed Christians; to tell us that no matter how bad things get, and things will get very bad, that your souls are saved, that God is in charge, and that Christ will rescue you. By creating a fear of the Apocalypse, we are taking the dire warnings about the evils to come out of the context of God’s love for us. We are like the little child who, when when comforted by his mother who says “I’ll protect you when the Boogie Man comes” looks up with fearful eyes and says “The Boogie Man is coming?!?!”)

Rev. Graham attempts to avoid controversial issues. He rarely talks about abortion, homosexuality, or public displays of the Ten Commandments. The whole point of his sermons is that God loves us in spite of our sin, that Jesus died to save our sins, and that repentance is simply a matter of believing in Him and asking forgiveness. That is the central tenet of Christianity; that is ALL it means to be a Christian. The other debates, both political and doctrinal, are secondary considerations. Certainly they are important, but they are not litmus tests for faith, they are not fundamental to our core beliefs, and thoughtful, strong Christians can hold differing opinions on all of them.

Now, contrast that attitude with the attitude coming from many religious conservatives. Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council and primary organizer of “Justice Sunday”, has questioned whether liberals or Democrats can be real Christians. The Republican Party, before the last election, distributed pamphlets accusing Democrats of wanting to ban the Bible; rhetoric that was then picked up by a number of pastors and church leaders as a realistic threat. An unfortunate church in Waynseville, North Carolina splits because the Pastor tells people that people who voted for Kerry should repent or leave the church. Many conservatives deplore his actions as being over-the-top; many others defended him, and many members of his own church left with him.

And, then, of course, we have the Southern Baptist Convention. Now, I grew up Southern Baptist. In fact, my father was a Southern Baptist minister, and I like to think that he would agree with most of the things I say on this sit, so don’t think that I am simply bashing an entire denomination that I know nothing about. But, the Southern Baptist Convention has repeatedly made it clear to any Christian with a different interpretation of the Bible that their presence is not welcome. A couple years ago, it kicked out all churches with female pastors. Last year, they officially celebrated “twenty-five years of the conservative resurgence”, just in case any moderates or liberals did not already feel marginalized. It is no wonder that churches are leaving the convention in droves. But surely the organizers of this movement must take the diminishing numbers as a sign that perhaps they should be more inclusive? Quite the opposite. Paige Patterson, one of the organizers of the “Conservative Resurgence”, and former President of the Southern Baptist Convention as well as the both of the largest Southern Baptist seminaries, is proud of the fact that membership has declined. He thinks that even today, there are too many people sitting in Southern Baptist churches who aren’t real Christians; too many churches even who are not doing God’s work as defined by Paige Patterson. And of course, these people ought to be confronted, and forced to repent or asked to leave.

Now, I ask you; what would Jesus do? Was Jesus the kind of person, do we worship the kind of God, who demands doctrinal purity; who would encourage an all-or-nothing, legalistic kind of Christianity? Or was Christ the kind of teacher who said “don’t worry about the entirity of the Law and the Ten Commandments; worry about loving your God and your neighbor and the rest will take care of itself”? Was Jesus the kind who would refuse salvation from all but the perfect, or do you really believe that the Bible is correct when it says that “and all those who believe in Him shall not perish”? Billy Graham has his faults, he is just a man. But he is a Man of God, something that has become abundantly clear over time.

And for those who take a hard-line on legalism and doctrinal purity: I’ll be praying for you.

The Gitmo Two-Step

 Posted by Mike  Bush Administration, Foreign Policy, Terrorism, U.S. Politics  1 Response »
Jun 242005
 

The Bush Administration’s ability to deflect criticism is at time awe-inspiring.

Take the Guantanamo Bay Prison story. Abuses at Guantanamo, and other newly constructed prison camps, have been widely reported from a variety sources. The Bush Administration first denies all of them, repeating over and over that the sources are not credible and that the prisoner’s there are in fact being treated just fine. When one of those stories turns out to be unverifiable, the Newsweek story on the Koran being flushed down the toilet, Newsweek is made responsible for all of the bad press and anti-American sentiment that the Bush Administration’s treatment of prisoner’s has spawned. Oh, and they publicize a Pentagon report on Koran abuses, showing that only five have happened in the last couple of years. Of course, even after reading that report, I am still unclear the process by which an air-vent accidentally blows a guard’s urine onto a prisoner’s holy book; it makes me wonder to what extent the information in that report represents only the minimum of what the Pentagon was forced to admit to.

So, then Amnesty International publishes a report detailing abuses at Guantanamo, and other places. The Bush Administration attackes them for not knowing what they are talking about; never mind that the Bush Administration was only too willing to cite AI reports on Iraq, Iran, and North Korea to justify its own foreign policy. Apparently criticism against America’s enemies is always correct, whereas criticism of America is always incorrect, or something like that. Anyway, the AI report also used an unfortunate analogy; comparing the US-run prison camps to Soviet Gulags. Suddenly, the big issue is not whether or not prisoners are being treated fairly and humanely, but whether or not the Gulag is an appropriate metaphor. The new standard of humane treatment is no longer the Geneva Convention, it is Soviet Prison Camps–lets just say that is a much easier litmus test to pass.

Then, Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin makes the mistake of comparing American treatment of prisoners to Nazis. (He also compared it to Pol Pot’s camps, but since no one knows about Cambodia, we let that one slide.) Again, now the standard of behavior is the Holocaust. Well, of course American actions aren’t nearly as bad as the Holocaust, and so it creates a public outcry for Durbin to apologize, and FOX News starts speculating about whether or not Durbin should resign. But look, once again, no one is talking about whether or not prisoner’s at these camps are being treated fairly.

And of course, my favorite bait and switch of all, the Bush Administration has responded to calls that the prison camps at Guantanamo Bay be closed by saying that they will consider doing so; and moving the camps somewhere else. As if the abuses are a function of being in Cuba and not a function of Administration policy.

Look, prisoner abuses of a variety of sorts–and by abuse, I mean things that would never, ever be tolerated in American jails–are most likely common-place in Guantanamo, and the other prison camps. That is to be expected, given the ad-hoc nature of the camps and the inadequate training of the guards and interrogators. But fundamentally, the problem starts at the top, with President Bush’s explicit refusal to grant these prisoners the rights of either POWs or common criminals. Because the prisoner’s lack a country who will stand up for their rights, the Bush Administration has denied them a traditional status that would guarantee them rights. Therefore, it gets to decide how to treat these people; it can create its own moral code with regards to these prisoners. That is, plainly and simply, wrong. It violates the spirit, if not the letter, of both the Geneva Convention and the United States Constitution. But, given that every single day since 9/11, the Administration has attempted to use the fear of terrorism to give itself a blank-check, such behavior should not be surprising.

And we all know that Fear ought to be the primary motivator of any Christian Presidency, right?

The Star-Spangled Banner

 Posted by Mike  U.S. Politics  No Responses »
Jun 232005
 

“The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States” — Proposed “Flag Burning” Amendment

The United States House of Representatives, once again, passed the above Constitutional Amendment with the necessary 2/3 vote. Now it goes to the Senate, although this time it looks like the Senate might actually pass it. Supporters need 2/3 there as well, or 67 Senators. Then it only lacks passage in 2/3 of the state legislatures, 38 for those keeping track at home, within the next seven years to become an official amendment to the Constitution. For more information on flag burning and desecration, click here.

If this passes, it will be the stupidest wording ever inserted into the Constitution, easily passing Prohibition for that honor.

First of all, we need to ask ourselves, why do we need this amendment? What problem is it going to solve? The oft-stated logic goes something like this:

1) Patriots, heroes, and Soldiers died to protect this flag
2) The Flag is a Great Symbol of American Ideals
3) Therefore Desecration of the Flag is despicable and offensive.
4) Therefore it ought to be illegal
5) However the “activist judges” ruled that Flag Burning was protected speech under the First Amendment.
6) Therefore we need the amendment, so that Congress can make flag desecration illegal, and/or authorize the states to do so as well.

Of course, the logical error in this argument is #4: just because something is despicable and offensive, does not mean that it should be illegal. The whole point of free speech is that I cannot be held criminally liable for expressing ideas or beliefs that you find offensive. This is a good thing; it is the difference between a Free society and a tyrannical one, which is what the Flag really represents. For this reason alone, the Flag Burning Amendment is moronic: the American Flag is a symbol of Freedom, and the Amendment strives to protect that Symbol by eliminating one of our Freedoms.

There are other problems as well. My first thought when a good friend pointed this out to me yesterday was “What is the scope of the problem?”. In other words, how many flags are being burned per year? Or otherwise desecrated per year? The answer is incredibly complicated, because it really depends on how you define “flag” and “desecration”, but the short answer is: probably not that many, but no one really knows. Supposedly at the Republican National Convention a few years ago, their was a common claim that about six flags were burned in protest each year in the United States. All I can really say for certainty, however, is that the last time I remember seeing flags burned in the United States on the news was at the Seattle World Bank protests in the mid-1990s. In any case, I don’t think that there is a wide-spread flag-burning phenomenon going on in this country, although as this amendment progresses look for many flags to be burned in protest of the progression of the Flag Burning Amendment. (How is that for irony?)

Besides, what is the penalty for Flag Burning? Are we passing a Constitutional Amendment so that police officers can hand out tickets? Or are we going to lock these people up and throw away the key? Is Flag Burning a crime similar to rape? Robbery? Vandalism? Speeding? Or is this really just an excuse to imprison people who are protesting things that we don’t think they should be protesting?

Back to the problem of definitions. If you read the Flag-Burning website I linked to above, you will discover that laws against flag desecration have generally defined both “flag” and “desecration” pretty broadly. First of all, what is an American flag? We could go by the strict definition: 50 stars on a blue field, 7 red stripes, 6 white stripes, sewn on a rectangular cloth banner. But then, of course, all a protester has to do is show that the flag that was burned had one too few stars on it. So, the definition needs to be a bit broader than that. On the other extreme, some laws have basically said that anything that is red, white, and/or blue that is meant to evoke the image of the flag is sacred. This would then include clothing, buttons, stationary, birthday cakes, and the uniforms of the New England Patriots, and of course pictures of these things. So, for all you Sports Illustrated subscribers out there, don’t burn your trash during football season, you might be burning a flag!

Still, let us assume for the moment that we can properly identify a flag, how do we know when it is desecrated? Sure, spray-painting words on a American flag and burning it in front of the capital building is easy. But what if some guy’s Stars-and-Stripes tie catches on fire as I’m grilling my Fourth-of-July burgers? Or his wife uses their Flag Napkins to wipe the bottom of their two-year-old? If it is the same lady, with the same napkin, and the same two-year-old, but she was wearing a hippy dress and they were at a protest rally, would that make a difference? So much of desecration and disrespect is in the intent. But intent is incredibly hard to define in these kind of situations, and all too often it comes down to who the perpetrator is. If its a Republican businessman, well, obviously the flag desecration was an accident. If it was a liberal college-student, then obviously the intent was malicious.

And that’s really my biggest problem with this whole thing. The Flag Burning Amendment is not meant to imprison law-abiding Americans who were careless. It was meant to imprison people who think and act outside the mainstream.

Although, just in case the amendment passes, you might want to know how to take care of a flag properly. So, check out the Boy Scout’s website on proper care and handling of the flag. But notice the how-to on destroying worn-out flags: “When the national flag is worn beyond repair, burn it thoroughly and completely on a modest, but blazing, fire.” Better stay away from that one, especially if you voted for Kerry.

 Older Entries
© 2012 leftfielder.org Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha