June 1 - Sound bite politics
May has been the deadliest month for American GIs since 2004, and Iraqi deaths have been constant. Public support for the war has evaporated and even war supporters are admitting it won’t come back. There is strategic uncertainty about how to deal with counter-terrorism given the fiasco in Iraq, and even concern that increased chatter among terror groups hints at a strike soon. They’ve improved their capacities since 9-11, especially after Iraq distracted the US and the world, and are patiently waiting for the right time. So in the US the political talk should be about Iraq and how to handle the challenges of an age of globalization and terrorism, right? Wrong.
The Republican party is being ripped apart by a surreal debate over immigration driven more by slogans and sound bites than real data and analysis. Why?
In part, it’s an effort to get the conversation on something other than Iraq. Politicians, pundits and talk radio jocks are finding their hawkish views harder to sell as their ratings recede and the public seems to move away from the conservative dynamism that prevailed not that long ago. Immigration can get peoples’ juices flowing. Rather than defend a policy where results can be seen they can attack a policy by positing results are scary and troubling as their imagination can make them. Slogans like “amnesty” and claims that Mexicans will be taking up our tax dollars or, in the most bizarre and almost fascistic charge, that the Democrats want to create more dependents so they can get votes. Some are claiming the Democratic party wants to base itself on the votes of those dependent on government. As absurd as many of these charges are – and the not so hidden racism – they resonate with a public used to sound bites and emotion driving political rhetoric.
One can also see this in the way politicians are handled. If someone disagrees with a position they are attacked personally. A small fringe, for instance, has been attacking Jimmy Carter as a person for his position on issues. They often don’t even talk about or refute his position, they just go for the ad hominem. That has emotion. That’s the red meat, that’s the politics of anger and enmity, that’s America in the early 21st century.
Or is it? Despite all the attacks and vicious rhetoric, the public seems to have tired of sound bite politics, save a core group of talk radio listeners and partisan bloggers on both sides. Even many of these are seeing talk radio and blogs as mostly entertainment and are not taking seriously the effort to stoke emotion for either ratings or political effect. The impact of personal attacks as a mode of political discourse has created more distrust for politicians of all stripes than any time in a long time and politics becomes more about theater than policy.
And that brings us back to immigration. It seems we have a choice: a) Do nothing, and allow millions of illegal immigrants to work in the US at low wages without documentation and control; b) undertake a mass deportation effort, which would cost billions and create huge disruptions in especially the south west; or c) give guest worker status to those here, improve border security and processes for entering the country, and create a path towards citizenship for those who gain legal status. The bill generating so much controversy is choice “c,” and if anything it’s geared towards the conservative perspective by making the path to citizenship so tough that many are likely to maintain guest worker status. Now, “c” seems a rational choice given the other options, but how “c” is done yields numerous debates and controversies. Those aren’t really being fleshed out because that’s policy and reason. Slogans of “amnesty” and “they are criminals” fire up the emotional juices, which politicians and pundits hope will somehow be harnessed to their advantage.
So as the country goes through perhaps its most period since World War II – dealing with new threats, a protracted and failed military engagement, and challenges of globalization, we sputter along with emotion-driven political slogans dominating the scene, politicians focused on fund raising and personality, and not enough real debate and discussion between people of different perspectives on the great issues of the day. Many believe the US is in decline, if so, the current political discourse may be a reason how a great nation can decline without doing what it takes to re-establish what made it great. It gets so self-absorbed and petty that the public become unable to grasp the reality around them.
June 6 - The Way Life Should Be
If you’ve been to Maine (and I suspect almost everyone who reads this has – this isn’t a widely read blog!), you recognize the above as the state motto. And while people often criticize Maine based on taxes that are too high or black flies too numerous, as summer begins and I look out into the woods right by my house the motto rings true. Yet it raises some questions that are often politically incorrect and for some uncomfortable.
But first, the idyllic side of Maine. With two boys growing up it’s nice to be able to go into the backyard and then on to a trail that leads to a river and a series of trails in the woods and countryside. These are ATV and snow mobile trails, but hikers and cross country skiers can use them too. There are risks living in the woods. It’s great that the boys can grow up in nature, catching frogs, watching fireflies, and getting muddy. But you have to watch out for ticks, worry about animal bites and rabies, and, of course, be very careful in hunting season. Still, in a world where nature seems to give way increasingly to cyber-reality and safety precautions inspired by fear of law suits, it’s nice to be somewhere natural.
Maine also has a strong sense of freedom and cooperation. Land owners tend to be willing to allow others to use their land for recreational purposes and hunting, as long as their rules and interests are respected. People working for state and local bureaucracies are usually friendly and helpful, and while the rest of the country is locked in a red state vs. blue state battle, Mainers support Republican Senators Collins and Snowe (both known as moderates trying to build bridges between parties in the Senate) and Democrat Representatives Michaud and Allen. When groups get fiercely partisan and personal, they tend to lose clout, and individuals lose status in Maine politics.
Once, when I had a small accident and was waiting at the side of the road for a triple AAA tow truck to come get my car, about 40 cars passed while I was waiting. Almost every one slowed down to ask if I needed help. That sense of community permeates life here, especially in rural Maine where there isn’t as much wealth, but a high quality of life. A colleague had a elderly neighbor whose house had a fire. She was amazed by how helpful not just neighbors were, but the fire department and even businesses and the insurance agent. People help each other. Maine is in many ways quite tolerant; it is one of the few states where, when gay rights was brought to a referendum, the pro-gay rights side won. Both Republican Senators are pro-choice, and it’s not because they are “liberal” like the partisans down south claim when they call them “rinos – Republican in name only,” rather, they don’t like government getting any more involved with peoples’ lives than necessary.
Yet there are dark sides. First, rural poverty is real, as are rates of domestic and sexual abuse. These are crimes that often do not get noticed, but can harm children and create subcultures of violence/abuse. Second, there is little diversity. One troubling question that comes up about Maine is whether or not our sense of community and safety is in part caused by our lack of diversity. That question gets dismissed by some as politically incorrect, but it has to be asked. This doesn’t imply racist ideas like blacks or Hispanics are more violent/criminal. Rather, because Maine is so homogeneous minorities who come here have to integrate. They aren’t seen as true Mainers by many, but neither am I – I come from the flatlands out west, and many see me as an outsider who might, if I become politically active in state issues, threaten Maine’s essence. But despite that, would Maine be the way it is if suddenly there were an influx of minorities – blacks, Hispanics, Chinese, etc.? Would it be the way it is if there were an influx of whites from other places, such as Massachusetts or even South Dakota (where I grew up)? The answer has to be no. A culture and a society is built on traditions and shared values. When new people come they bring different ideals and values which may not be at all worse, but still create tensions. This can be destructive – the European conquest of Africa destroyed the existing culture there and is a main reason why poverty and instability persist – it’s hard to rebuild a culture destroyed. This can also be handled well, many parts of the US have slowly adapted to changing populations. It is the issue being faced by Europe, as its own “indigenous” population declines relative to a growing number of Muslim and mostly African immigrants.
This is the challenge of globalization, a challenge that has to be met directly without fear of asking questions that might make the politically correct nervous. It’s a challenge that can’t be avoided, the xenophobes can try to promote nationalism as much as they want, but economies and countries are linked, and populations are moving. For all the questions about economics and politics, the issue of how mixing cultures can weaken a sense of identity and community and lead to subcultures and division which is the most difficult to handle, in part because some people are afraid to confront it. Don’t get me wrong, I completely reject the xenophobes who want to somehow deny reality and protect their notion of culture, which at least in the US is usually lily white and dines on Wonderbread and Jiff peanut butter. When John Gibson at Fox says white people should have more babies to stop the growing minority population, he shows himself as part of the problem. Trying to prevent necessary changes to maintain community only enhances the difficulty and increases the probability that division and lack of social cohesion will increase.
Since this post is long I won’t try to delve further into the complexities, but instead offer a partial answer. We have to balance the desire to integrate/assimilate with the desire to maintain separate cultural traditions. Nobody and no culture gets out of this kind of thing unchanged. When new comers enter a place they need to learn the language and customs, and try to adapt, even while maintaining their own ways. Natives need to try to understand new comers and work with them, accepting that some of the ways of the new comers are going to be adopted in the culture. The only way to do that effectively is to find a way to stop looking at this in terms of collective identities. To see the new family not as “Hispanics” but as “Luis, Maria, Jesus and little Maya,” individuals who are interesting, can be fun to talk to, and whose cultural ‘quirks’ are simply part of their life, not a threat to mine. And for Maine the good thing is that this is the Maine way – to focus on individuals not groups. Still, as the era of globalization continues the allure and emotion of promoting collective identities and collective fears is hard to resist. The best way to do it is to treat others as individuals in all cases, whether native or new comer. That’s the way life should be.
June 7 - Alex Zivojinovich, Gary Lee Weinrib and Neil Peart Do it Again
“The snakes and arrows a child is heir to are enough to
leave a thousand cuts…”
-- from Armor and Sword
If those names are unfamiliar, this might help. The literal translation of Zivojinovich from Polish is Lifeson. Gary Lee Weinrib’s grandmother, with a heavy Jewish accent, pronounced his name Geddy Lee. Alex Lifeson, Geddy Lee and Neil Peart form the rock bank Rush, whose 18th studio album, Snakes and Arrows has been out since May. It is perhaps their best work ever. While one often gets smitten by a new release, I was not as impressed with Vapor Trails (2002) and Test for Echo (1997), their last two studio albums; this one dazzles me with lyrical brilliance and a musical style which seems to literally blend sounds and styles of the last 33 years (their first release was in 1974).
The album confronts the way in which the world at this point seems in the clutches of superstition, glibly an attack on the religious right (here, in the Mideast, and elsewhere), but actually a reflection on the state of the world and how we as humans try to understand and find a place within it. I’m going to quote snippets of songs below, but it does not do justice to the full lyrics, nor does it give a sense of the music.
The first tune, Far Cry sets the tone: this is not the world we thought we’d have, the music and the lyrics convey a kind of restlessness “It’s a far cry from the world we thought we’d inherit, it’s a far cry from the way we thought we’d share it, you can almost feel the current flowing, you can almost see the circuits blowing…” Armor and Sword communicates rather ingeniously the psychology of how religion can yield violence. “We hold beliefs as consolation, a way to take us out of ourselves, meditation or medication, a comfort or a promised reward, Sometimes that spirit is too strong or the flesh is too weak, sometimes the need is just too great for the solace we seek, the suit of shining armor becomes a keen and bloody sword.”
The album takes on more than that though, but confronts other questions which often faith and reason seem unable to solve. In The Larger Bowl without preaching Peart (the band’s lyricist) lays bear a stark truth “If we’re so much the same, like I always hear, why such different fortunes and fates.” The lyrics were apparently written while he was biking across Africa years ago.
The most overtly political, The Way the Wind Blows has an awe inspiring mix of music and lyrics. The music shifts from a fast kinetic and almost confusing pace, reflecting a kind of restless uncertainty and chaos to a melodic and even inspiring statement of what by the words seems like pure resignation to the fates of our times. Yet with the music, it seems like there is almost a bit of hope. It’s hard to explain. You have to listen to it!
Faithless is a clear rejection of religion as some kind of organized system of belief: “I’ve got my own moral compass to steer by, a guiding star beats a spirit in the sky” clearly points out that he does not need a myth to have a sense of moral purpose. He makes his profession of faithlessness “I don’t have faith in faith, and I don’t believe in belief, you can call me faithless. But I still cling to hope, and I believe in love, and that’s faith enough for me,” and a direct statement on the danger of religion: “And all the shouting voices try to throw me off my course, some by sermons, some by force, fools and thieves are dangerous in the temple and marketplace. Like a forest bows to winter beneath the deep white silence, I will quietly resist.”
One of my favorites is bravest face, where Peart’s lyrics confront the mix of life’s beauty and the pain, both of which are part of the world: “In the sweetest child there’s a vicious streak, in the strongest man there’s a child so weak, in the whole wide world there’s no magic place, so you might as well rise, put on your bravest face.”
The final cut (and I've skipped some) is We Hold On, which to me has two meanings, one being about a modern relationship where it’s difficult to keep things together and tempting to say it’s not worth the effort – yet we hold on. The other is about life in the early 21st century, with all the problems and pain, we still hold on. This ties to a theme of resistance, albeit quiet and personal resistance, throughout the CD. The result is a musical and lyrical journey lasting 62 and a half minutes (three instrumentals are included in the CD, all deserve to be there), leaving one feeling both the weight of the apparent insanity of our era but also strong enough to confront it with a clear head.
I also listened to Rik Emmett’s Good Faith CD recently; Emmett’s spiritual optimism contrasts with Peart’s cynical realism. In my heart I’m with Emmett, in my head I’m with Peart (and my heart almost always wins out over my head so I tend to take a perspective more like Emmett’s). But in listening to both of these it’s nice to know that in an era of pop silliness, religious irrationality and fundamentalism, violence and bigotry, there are meaningful thoughtful reflections on issues of spirit and reason that transcend the traditional political and academic discourses. And its not surprising to me that you find that in music and lyrics. In this era we need poets and visionaries, not just technicians and entertainers.
June 12 - Summertime
Summer is here! People are traveling, camping, boating, and having fun. There are a few complaints about gas prices but overall people are ready to recreate and enjoy the good times. Grill some juicy steaks (or veggie burgers if one prefers), have picnics with friends, get the garden looking beautiful, and take on a few projects in the home that are hard to do in winter. This is the life!
Yet as Americans enjoy their summer bliss, the so-called “surge” in Iraq has slowly become a true escalation as it has become clear that the objectives are much harder to achieve than originally thought. Moreover, impatience by Republicans in Congress means that the White House has to show real progress soon. But with bridge bombings now dominating the news and one of the highest rates of American troop death in the entire four years, progress is elusive. Even the one bit of good news – that tribes in the Anbar province, while not pro-American, were at least working together to fight al qaeda, is uneven and risks blowback.
Even as we hike and worry about looking good on the beach, famine and war continue to spread across much of Africa and parts of Asia, as the gap between the first and third worlds continues. Even as we fill our tanks, and enjoy cool breeze by the lake or ocean, global climate change threatens fundamental disruptions of our lifestyles in the future.
It’s a bit surreal. For families who have loved ones either overseas or perhaps killed, wounded or psychologically scarred, the summer no doubt has a very different feel. But that’s a minority, and as a society we’ve been very “good” at compartmentalizing the so-called war and the suffering and not letting it get in the way of our shopping and partying.
Those of us who think it was a big mistake and we should alter policy quickly watch as Bush slowly, ever so slowly, shifts towards a more realistic policy in the region. But it’s not clear. Some on the right complain about Rice, Gates and the “realism” of the new Bush policy, claiming it’s going to endanger Israel, help Iran, or weaken the US. Some on the left claim that there is a plot to attack Iran next year, and that the Bush administration is oblivious to the pressure – after all, he’s not running for anything again, and neither is Cheney. The reality seems to be a drift towards realism, but it’s hard to figure out this administration – with a mix of neo-conservatives and realists on board, the administration is probably riddled with divisions and uncertainties on Iraq as well.
And as summer drifts along, it’s tempting not to keep Iraq or the problems of the world in sight because, well, what can any one of us do about them, and there is fun to be had now. History goes at its own pace, we need to grab the moment.
It’s hard to argue with that. And indeed, I would not wish anybody to miss out on as much joy and celebration this summer as they can muster, life is too short not to fill it with experience and activity. Fretting over the state of affairs in Somalia and Sudan doesn’t do any good and may sour ones’ mood. Yet somehow, in a democracy that happens to be the world’s most powerful and wealthy state, it seems that people should at least be reflecting on the state of affairs, concerned about the future. People could look at their own lives, the policies of the country and the problems of the world and engage in discussion about the situation more, and have more informed choices at elections. I don’t think one would have to sacrifice too much fun; indeed, there is joy in vigorous discussion and in learning about the true state of the world. I doubt ignorance is truly bliss. So this summer my goal is to have a lot of fun (and get a paper written, a chapter re-written, teach a summer course and put together a research proposal – it’s a myth that college faculty get the ‘summer off’), but also to stay engaged and reflect on the state of the world in 2007. After all, I want my sons to have even better opportunities for enjoying the summer forty years from now.
June 14 - Mideast Worst Case Scenarios
In Gaza the fighting between Fatah and Hamas has become a virtual civil war, with Hamas routing Fatah and even shooting on demonstrators who took the street to urge peace, expressing anger that Palestinians were killing Palestinians. While the violence is tragic, it underscores a growing trend. Hamas is by far more religiously fundamentalist and extremist than Fatah or the Palestinian population in general. Using charity and a lack of corruption (as opposed to the corruption riddled Palestinian Authority under Fatah) they gained a majority in the Palestinian parliament and support from a growing number of Palestinians. But they know that their ability to control Gaza and ultimately the West Bank will not come by persuasion or natural governance, so they have chosen violence. And so far, they’re coming out ahead.
In Lebanon the violence continues to escalate. Syria allegedly is behind the murder of a Palestinian parliament member yesterday, but that’s not certain. Al qaeda extremists, who are religiously and politically the opposite of the Syrian Baath party leadership, are also trying to make inroads in Lebanon. Their rivals are Syria and Hezbollah, the Shi’ite militia/terrorist organization dominant in the south. Syria was weakened when forced to leave Lebanon two years ago, but their support of Hezbollah in its successful fight against Israel has made them a player in an increasingly fractured Lebanon.
In Iraq the bombing of a Shi’ite mosque in Samarra – the same mosque that was attacked two years ago to ignite the sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shi’ites, threatens to renew that violence, with Sunni mosques targeted. Within the Shi’ite community nationalist cleric Moqtada al Sadr preaches a radical anti-American form of Islam, while mainstream parties, closer to Iran, have various levels of secularism. It isn’t unthinkable that an internal Shi’ite fight could erupt. The Sunnis, on the other hand, are resisting al qaeda elements, who want to make Iraq a place where they can operate freely. America flounders with a strategy that focuses on Baghdad and doesn’t have the people to truly bring stability to Iraq. The situation is likely to get worse before getting better.
In Iran things are murky. On the plus side Iran is a regional power whose Guardian Council is unlikely to put at risk with a nuclear strike against Israel or some other wild act of aggression. On the negative side Iran seems to be progressing towards the capacity to have nuclear weapons, and they have shown little morality in their tactics – as long as they can get away with something, they do it. They seem very good at figuring out what they can get away with, and when to pull back. They are playing a dangerous game, but finessing it well.
For countries like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia this is all very disturbing. A massive increase in violence within the Arab world, combined with growing Shi’ite/Persian influence from Iran, risks the essential basis upon which their reigns rely. If those governments were to fall, extremists would be in a good position to benefit. They could create violence and disrupt those countries even if the government stays in place. For Israel the war last year with Hezbollah was a wake up call. Gone are the days when the Arab threat could be brushed aside by pointing out the massive Israeli army and how the Arabs without Egypt (or even with Egypt) could offer nothing comparable. Now massive armies aren’t necessarily effective, the enemies are non-state actors with different kinds of weapons.
Other powers in the region, like Russia and China, have mixed interests. Neither wants fundamentalism to spread into their own Moslem populations, but each have oil interests. Russia has oil, likes high prices and petrodollars (soon to be petroeuros?) and instability in the region directly helps Russia that way. China simply wants oil access, and wants, as much as possible, not to get involved in the internal affairs of other states (witness their support of Sudan despite Darfur). Both want to minimize US influence, and hence are leveraging the anti-Americanism caused by the Iraq debacle into more influence both in the Mideast and the world. Both are permanent members on the UN Security Council, meaning they will have a hand in shaping any UN effort in Iraq or the region.
So what is the worst case scenario: violence spreading through the regions, governments falling or tottering in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and/or Jordan, Israel riddled with terrorist activity, together could create situations that make the Iraq war look like a minor skirmish. Gas could hit $10 a gallon easily, terrorist groups would benefit from the chaos and operate, train, and gain access to ever more dangerous weapons. The stability of governments in the West, including the US, could be called into question. The 21st century could be bleak indeed.
The good news: I do not think the worst case scenario is at all inevitable, and we could do a lot to avoid it (which I’ll write about another day). The bad news is that these threats are real and the status quo is unsustainable. So with that in mind, go back to enjoying your summer fun. You never know when summers like this could become a pleasant memory.
June 15 - Get dirty
The latest issue of Discover notes that certain kinds of microbacteria seem useful in healing depression. These can potentially be taken by sniffing in the bacteria though you get free doses by simply gardening or walking in the woods. In the same article they mention the theory that the reason allergies have become so prominent in our society is our obsession with cleanliness – children who grow up on farms don’t have the same level of allergies, and perhaps contact with soil and bacteria help develop the immune system properly.
I remember reading once that when John Travolta had a child, they (I have no idea who is wife is) shampooed the carpets every week to keep germs away. The baby got very sick – from the chemicals in the shampoo! Once on a popular biking trail when my then 1 year old dropped his pacifier in the dirt, people gave me a shocked look when I simply wiped it off and gave it back to him. Doesn’t it need to be sterilized?!
To be sure, we bathe our kids regularly (daily in the summer) and I take a shower just about every day. We keep the house as clean as possible with two working parents and two children. I’m not in favor of filth. But the fear of germs that overtakes some people may indeed be counter productive. It’s understandable, I can relate to the thinking that might cause someone to shampoo their carpets weekly. Babies seem so vulnerable, and if you read about potential diseases and infections it’s natural to imagine it happening to your child, and to see the world as a place filled with dangerous diseases and accidents waiting to happen. You read a story where a child gets paralyzed from a small fall, and suddenly every time ones’ own child climbs that fear gets magnified. You read about a sexual abuser and every stranger seems suspicious. Our instinct to protect can cause a bit of irrationality, and that’s not all bad. But we need to be realistic.
Let kids play in the dirt. Don’t freak out when they eat food that’s fallen on the floor, or even outside in the gravel. Enjoy the woods and nature more, watch TV less. Thirty minutes getting dirty and climbing on stumps and walking a bit too close to the ledge by the river is probably far less dangerous to a child’s development than sitting in a sterile environment and watching Thomas the Tank Engine prove how really useful he is. Though, to be sure, there’s nothing wrong with some TV either – I actually find I like children’s programming and movies like Cars and Charlotte’s Web, but in moderation, and not in the middle of the day when the sun is shining and the woods beckon.
As a culture even those without children have a fear of germs and viruses. Only in America would it be routine for people to carry a bottle of liquid to kill germs on their hands. Sure, people with eczema or skin problems might benefit, but most people can simply wash their hands now and then (and the dirty secret is that stuff doesn’t kill viruses anyway). The drug industry is the fastest growing health care cost, as people seek pills t somehow assure perfect health and performance. In much of the world people live in squalor and poverty. Most survive, even if there are problems with disease and health. Our bodies are not only more resilient than people often think (including children) but we need the dirt, the outdoors, the bacteria, and the connection with nature that our modern world distrusts. We rarely need medications, no matter what the TV tries to tell us. And it’s good, not bad, when a child comes in from playing in the woods, dirty, with grass and mud stains on the clothes, and itching mosquito bites. Check for ticks. Get the bath water running. And next time, go out and get dirty yourself.
June 19 - Surging to nowhere?
Well, the “surge” in Iraq is up to full strength, and the offensive has begun. The pressure is on to get results or there will be a strong Congressional move to end support for the war, perhaps gaining considerable GOP support. In that case, the Bush Administration seems now to have settled on a plan to scale back American involvement in hopes of trading a withdrawal of a large number of American troops for support for a longer term commitment of a small number of troops. The idea is to keep a foot hold in Iraq, and be able to exert some pressure on the government. More importantly, should a worst case scenario unfold where al qaeda elements seem to be getting the upper hand (very unlikely) the US would have a presence and could build on it.
However, there is little reason for optimism that the “surge offensive” will work. First, the strategy and strength have been so well advertised that, unless there is a major surprise in what takes place, the insurgents have had time to adapt, prepare, and shift locations. Not only that, but they can change the strategy almost at will – bombings the like the Samarra mosque attack force the US to devote large resources to trying to prevent a large counter attack and increasing Sunni-Shi’ite violence, detracting from efforts against insurgent groups or al qaeda. Second, the “surge” remains limited in size and geography, making it unlikely that it can achieve any sort of nation wide result. Third, there is difficulty matching the military offensive with a civilian one. The State Department is unable to staff positions in Iraq because of lack of personnel, and in fact they’re having problems keeping personnel for their world wide missions. Many don’t believe in the foreign policy they have to represent, and resent the increased danger they are faced with, in part because of US policy, in part just because of the growing terror threat. Finally, beating an old drum here, Iraq’s problems are structural and societal. A lot of Americans think that if only the Iraqi government would “get its act together” things would turn around. But the problem is that the government is limited to what it can do by the society it is a part of. So it’s unlikely things will turn around quickly.
Given all that, the idea of the surge strikes me as sort of a last grasp for some kind of success before throwing in the towel. With Lute, Gates, and Rice now apparently outmaneuvering Cheney and the few hawks left in the Administration, there is a lot more pressure to change direction, with people on board who weren’t responsible anyway for past policy choices. They can support change without having to backtrack on things they said in the past. Lute apparently opposed the surge, and Gates was a main player on the Iraq study group. But Bush and Cheney remain, and I suspect the surge was an effort to find a bureaucratic middle ground between the hawks and the realists, to say “OK, we change policy, but on our terms, and after a show of strength.”
Beyond that, events beyond our control may take over. Gaza is in civil war and an Israeli invasion seems on the horizon. What happens if an Israeli invasion of Gaza ignites a wider war, and what if Israel again is unable to achieve its goals? What if Hezbollah again creates trouble, what if Lebanon continues a spiral of violence? What if Iran decides to leave the Non-proliferation treaty, or if the US decides to strike Iranian nuclear facilities? The summer of 2007 might be witness to some very dramatic and historically important events in the Mideast, we may be on the verge of an historical tipping point, where the old regional system becomes untenable and collapses.
What then of the surge? If events overwhelm the region, Iraq cannot stabilize, and the US will be in an untenable position of having an island of forces – overstretched and unwelcomed – in one part of a region undergoing tremendous change. If that happens it will be a surge to nowhere, and Iraq will cease to be the primary problem – the entire region will be engulfed by crisis. It didn’t have to be this way, but the choices made after 9-11 are bearing a bitter fruit right now, and I’m not sure how much we can now impact how events are going to unfold. Hold on!
June 25 - Why I love my job
If you are one of the few people who read my blog regularly, you probably noticed that I have not been writing much this month. It wasn't that the busy summer time routine that left me little time to write. I had time to write, despite being busy. Rather, I just couldn't think of much to write about. During the school year I have fun with the blogs, as I have two or three topics on my mind at a time, and have to think what to write about today, tomorrow, etc. So why was I finding it hard to get inspired earlier this summer?
I don't think it was the lack of news. There have been intriguing developments in Iraq and Iran, the G8 summit and American-Russian relations both had interesting twists, and Chinese products are increasingly under scrutiny due to bad and often dishonest manufacturing claims (I had to take away my sons' James and Skarlooey trains from the Thomas collection due to lead in the paint). There have been a variety of political issues, and in the EU Merkel is trying to revive the European constitution, something she stated last year as her goal for the German Presidency. I read these things, but somehow, I didn't feel inspired to write a blog entry on any of them. The result is it is June 25th and this is my 7th blog of the month.
But today my summer course, "The Politics of Developing Countries" began, with stimulating discussion on what third world states are going through, and how it's wrong to think of development in purely economic and political terms. I suddenly started thinking about writing a blog entry on that, using some current stories as a take off point. Finally, I thought, inspiration! But then it occurred to me that it was more interesting, at least to me, where this inspiration came from. It came from preparing for and being in class, talking with students, and engaging this material. In fact, my blogging during the school year often comes from course work and discussions I have with students, it intellectually engages me, inspires me to think and write, and makes life a bit more interesting.
What if I didn't have this job? Would I be thinking about these issues (my blogs range from issues of politics to religion, science, history, and culture)? Or would I simply follow the news passively, learning about the world but not actively trying to reflect and analyze what current events say about the human condition and where our society is going? If the past couple weeks is any indication, I suspect I'd find it very easy to think more about my everyday routine and things I need to do than to take the time to reflect on issues and consider what kind of world I'm a part of. Last year I noted that one of the main reasons I write this blog is to leave a record of my thoughts and reflections for my two sons -- even if no one else reads it, it's there for them. They'll know how I reacted to world affairs, how I was reflecting on issues and dilemmas, some based on current events, others on timeless ethical or intellectual questions. Doing this publicly in real time also allows me to step out of my classroom approach of trying to avoid bias and thus show different perspectives so students can make up their own mind, to sharing my personal thoughts on the issues of the day -- including doubts, uncertainties, and strong points of view. But beyond that, I do this because it's fun. I like writing, I like the intellectual activity of thinking about topics and putting together an analysis or reflection. It is meaningful to me.
I do this more often when I'm teaching, when I have to communicate ideas and work with students on helping them reflect and analyze material. Working with students turns on a part of my brain. I move out of "passive observation of reality outside my direct control" to real engagement with events and issues in the world. My work pushes me to the kind of meaningful reflection that I enjoy, and which makes my life more rewarding and fun. That makes me really happy to have the job I have -- I wouldn't trade this for almost any other job, even if the pay was much, much higher. It also shows me the challenge of trying to interest students in becoming life long learners and remaining engaged themselves. It's so easy to fall into the "passive observation" mode, and when that happens, I think life becomes a little less meaningful. To be sure, not everyone enjoys it the way I do. I can't help but think, though, that life is richer when one engages the values, ideals and issues of the world in which one finds oneself, rather than going along with the flow and just trying to get through the next day.
June 26 - Western Blindness
If the news from Iraq can be trusted, it appears that the military has perhaps the most realistic assessment of the difficulties being faced in Iraq. That’s been the case for some time; consider the retired Generals who vehemently spoke out against the strategies of Donald Rumsfeld. They were criticized at the time, but now it it’s clear they were right. Even the most ardent hawks on Iraq now admit earlier policies were failures. They may selectively forget that at one point they supported them and argued that “slow progress” was being made, but reality has forced a re-assessment.
However I don’t think this is a partisan thing. Look at the positions taken by Democrats in 2002 and even 2004; few truly echoed the arguments made by experts in the region about the dangers of going to war. They bought into the belief that our military power, followed by generous reconstruction, would be successful in Iraq and were positioning themselves for being on the right side of the issue. European leaders had a more realistic assessment, and within the administration Secretary Powell and many in the military and CIA did as well. But they were pushed aside by the political theorists and operators who thought that the naysayers lacked vision and boldness.
What caused that western blindness? In general I think we in the West don’t comprehend the deep cultural and social barriers to change in any society outside the West, especially those with the kind of heritage of violence and authoritarianism of Iraq.
The West modernized between the 13th and 20th century, 600 years of change. I know, most people see the modern era emerging in the early 17th century as Aristotelian scholasticism gave way to science and critical thinking. Yet I’d argue that when Aquinas brought Aristotelian ideas into the Catholic church, he introduced a ticking time bomb. By saying faith and reason were complementary, it opened the door to put reason ahead of faith. The change was slow; for 300 years Aristotelian thought slowly took hold, logic was applied to problems, and the methods and ways of thinking honed. Then scholars like Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo and later Newton made the scientific breakthroughs of the 17th century. They all were devout in their faith; Newton believed his theories proved God had to exist. But again, the European mind was changing. 500 years after Aquinas brought Aristotle into mix, Deism and even atheism were emerging to challenge Christian thought. Reason was turned against tradition and towards manipulating and controlling both the environment and other humans. It took that long for the European mind to develop in this way, slow generational changes and revolutions building on each other.
Despite that, it was violent. First the wars of reformation were fought as the Catholic church was challenged within Christianity. Then as reason moved forward and tradition receded, the French revolution was followed by Napoleon’s nationalism and conquest of Europe. Burke and later Nietzsche realized that the changes meant that society was losing its traditional identity, and thus might fight over ideas, ideologies, and constructed identities. In the 19th century the Europeans conquered the world; in the 20th they turned on themselves with holocausts, purges, and two massive wars. The West has taken 700 years to get to a point where democracy and markets seem to function pretty well – and even then there are still quite a few problems.
Western blindness over how difficult it is to handle difficulties in other countries – how to develop, avoid conflicts, settle ethnic disputes, or handle religions in transition – comes not because our culture is so different than theirs, but we have forgot our own history, we haven’t internalized just how difficult, bloody and contentious our route from the traditional to the modern really was. So we think that Iraqis will “think like us,” and some even branded as “racist” the idea that the political culture there might not be ready for a stable western style democracy; indeed, democracy in the region will likely have an Islamic character and develop slowly.
We’re learning. The military realizes that in Iraq the politicians can’t be trusted, the economic elites are corrupt (as are the politicians) and even the best military strategy can’t remake a political culture. Yet western blindness continues. Iraq is an abstraction to both the pro-war and anti-war sides, the debate gets surreally put in domestic terms, and the tough issues facing both sides get danced around. Unfortunately, things in the Mideast will force decisions soon. If things go bad in Israel, Iraq may seem like a side show to an emerging Mideast conflict. One hopes that the result of this is not some kind of belief that “our tactics were wrong but the policy right,” but a real rethinking of how much we can expect to spread “democracy and freedom” by force. Patience is a virtue, they say, and we’re looking at changes that will take generations.
June 28 - An alternate reality -- Bush without 9-11
(On September 9, 2001, arrests of a number of al qaeda operatives in the US thwarted a plan to launch a terror attack using jet airliners. The US used the information to launch a covert war against al qaeda, culminating in the death of Osama Bin Laden and a number of his deputies in 2003. The Taliban broke its support of al qaeda, which was pushed to the barren lands on the Pakistan-Afghan border).
June 28, 2007, The Bush Legacy? (alternate reality blog entry)
Republicans continue to gleefully compare President Bush to Ronald Reagan, noting that his efforts to produce an ‘ownership society’ have created the biggest overhaul in American fiscal policy since Reagan. The book is still out on what social security privatization will mean in the long run, but none of the top Democratic contenders for the 2008 nomination are talking any more of repealing it. Still, overall it’s too early to assess whether the changes brought by the ‘Bush revolution’ are good or bad. But President Bush has left his mark on the country, and with a year and half left has an approval rating above 60, a far cry from the contentious fight over his 2000 election and the red state/blue state battles that raged afterwards. He has kept at least one campaign promise: America is more united, even if partisan sparks still sometimes fly.
Foreign policy: Despite anger in many quarters that President Bush has stood steadfast in his opposition to the Kyoto treaty, the biggest story from the first decade of the 21st century has been the threat posed by global warming to the planet. The Stoiber-Bush pact, later agreed to by most of the rest of the EU and Japan, creates a complementary approach that allows for the US to cooperate without agreeing to the strict regulations of Kyoto. Stoiber, who defeated Gerhard Schröder in the 2002 German election, shares the President’s distrust of a regulatory approach to dealing with global warming, and has helped create a middle ground. The other big issue has been Chinese-American relations, especially as the competition for oil grows and prices rise. Despite calls for a harder line, President Bush has maintained good relations with China after the low early in his administration due to the spy plane incident. The left criticizes Bush for not doing more to counter the brutal Taliban regime in Afghanistan (the short 2004 Afghan-Iranian war brought real change to neither regime), and progress on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has been slow. There has also been criticism of the 2005 Lebanon intervention, which was seen by many as showing overt support for Israel by dealing a crippling blow to the terror organization Hezbollah. However, that may have actually helped push the peace process forward and optimism is higher than at any point in the last ten years that a two state solution can be found. Efforts to keep North Korea and Iran from moving forward on nuclear research seem to be working, though cynics warn that we cannot trust promises from these states.
Domestic policy: Sweeping social security reform, a comprehensive immigration bill (derided as amnesty by some, but overwhelmingly passed by Congress), a permanent reduction in tax rates, and a major overhaul of Medicaid/medicare attest to the ambitious nature of a Presidency focused on domestic reform. Second term projects such as a shift of bureaucratic authority from the federal to state levels, and efforts to craft a comprehensive medical care bill that would address the problem of rising health care costs without creating a massive federal program remain unfinished this late in the term. Still those ideas will dominate the 2008 campaign and persist into the next term. Many Republicans see this as a “continuation” of the earlier Reagan revolution, and the President enjoys the comparisons to the earlier GOP hero, even if many on the left expect it as being the result of a marketing strategy hatched by Karl Rove. Still, one couldn’t have imagined Ronald Reagan touring the southwest and giving speeches in both Spanish and English as he pushed for an immigration reform both sides hated at first, but then came to accept. “He’s winning on the strength of his popularity,” one political scientist noted.
The legacy? The recession early in the President’s term is now a memory, and most people will likely recall the economic growth of the last year as indicative of the Bush administration. Yet the gap between the rich and the poor is still huge in both the US and the world. The budget surpluses the President expected never materialized, and the US still faces some major economic hurdles. Rising oil prices despite a lack of crisis in the Mideast create fears that a oil crisis far worse than that of earlier times may be on the horizon. Despite the crippling blows to Hezbollah and al qaeda, there is still a danger of rising Islamic extremism, and the newly found moderation of Hamas may be an illusion. Ultimately, the Bush legacy will depend on how events unfold and how well his domestic reforms function. He will be remembered in any event for the bold nature of his domestic agenda, and how well he was able to pass it and bring together a country that had been very divided.
(Summer 2007, near the Pakistan-Afghan border, two al qaeda members lament how the Taliban turned on them after Bin Laden’s death, and how the jihadist spirit was fading amongst the youth. “If we had succeeded in hitting America in 2001,” one asks, “would it have been different? Could one success have turned things around?” The other stares ahead, “whatever Allah wills,” he says, and with a resigned air sips his coffee.)
June 29 - Clarity on Iraq, Part II
Last month I noted that the picture on Iraq was clearing, and we could see the end in sight, and pretty well predict how it was going to play out from here. This week Republican Senators Richard Lugar and George Voinovich expressed skepticism about the Iraq policy, considering the current policy a failure and calling for a change, with Voinovich going the farthest in calling for withdrawal. This is huge. Lugar has for decades been considered the Republican foreign policy expert of the Senate, a moderate who despite skepticism of the Iraq war, has remained subdued in this response, carries a lot of weight. People who might dismiss mavericks like Hagel or pundits like Pat Buchanan will listen to Dick Lugar. With Democrats smarting from a (likely short term) loss in popularity due to their inability to stand up to the President on Iraq, the deck is stacked for a Congressional revolt over the Iraq policy.
And what of the “surge?” The surge was never a strategy designed to win, it was designed to give the Iraqis the opportunity to take over security and achieve political stability. The goal is to eliminate as much of al qaeda as possible, build alliances with the tribes, and set the framework for national reconciliation. On the military front, early results are mixed, but not promising. Of course the military will win any battle it fights, and can control any city it truly wants to control. But with the force levels at hand the trick is to prevent insurgents from playing cat and mouse, from moving from one city to another, only to return when the US moves on. Their tactic is to escape the American onslaught and leave low level fighters there to at least make the US pay a price. They then watch American tactics and adapt, knowing they have time on their side. While hawks point to success in controlling territory and dismiss the escape of most of the leaders and top fighters of the insurgency, that kind of success is illusory. The al qaeda and insurgent leaders are in Iraq, stirring up trouble, and able to stay a step ahead of American forces, set to wait out the American military and public. The surge can provide short terms pockets of stability, but not military victory.
And, of course, the American military (reportedly planning a pull out already, at least to much lower force levels) and the White House know that. The surge had a “best case scenario” goal of having the Iraqis settle disputes, embrace reconciliation and reconstruction, and develop security forces able to take a short term military success and build it into long term stability. The “most likely case,” though, has always been to provide cover for American withdrawal – label the operation successful, and let the Iraqis take over, perhaps leaving some American troops to continue an anti-al qaeda campaign when necessary. But the result could be worse than that, especially if sectarian violence grows and the US finds itself fighting a variety of opponents. Officially the military states it is set to combat Shi’ite and Sunni extremists/militias as well as al qaeda, but realistically they can only focus on al qaeda elements and Sunni insurgents allied with them. The general unpopularity of al qaeda in Iraq makes them the easiest target, as many Iraqis hate al qaeda more than they hate the US. But to try to expand the list of “enemies” in any realistic sense is beyond American capacity at current force levels.
So now it comes to this. After over four years a last ditch effort, stretching the military and going all out to try a powerful offensive against insurgents seems destined to yield mixed results, relying on the Iraqis for any semblance of success. The prospects look poor, the nation has turned against the war, and even Republican leaders not focused on the politics of 2008 have come to see this conflict as not being in America's interest. It’s excruciating to see this play out, to know the result will not be any kind of victory, even as deaths continue to pile up for Americans and especially Iraqis. It’s almost surreal. Yet, Iraq is not a in a vacuum. In Israel there are fears of conflict involving Hamas, Hezbollah, and perhaps Iran and Syria. Islamic extremism, buoyed by the Iraq war, is still seeking places to recruit, still hoping to stir unrest. Ironically the choice to end military operations (or sharply reduce them) in Iraq may be the easy call. What to do next in such a tumultuous region is a far more difficult question.