October 1, 2006 - Like Maine, not like the rest of the country

Sometimes I hate politics -- at least good old fashioned American electoral politics.  In Virginia they are having a surreal debate about whether or not a southern Senator (or his opponent) used the word nigger a lot when he was in college.  While racial sensitivity is important, going back to college and debating about the use of a word is positively insane.  There are issues like budget deficits, taxes, and of course the war in Iraq.  Real issues. 

Turn on talk radio and its a constant drumbeat of propaganda.  It's almost always emotional -- from the right you hear "Speaker Pelosi would be an ultra liberal who doesn't want to defend America" (the mantra that the Democrats don't care to defend America is sickeningly consistent), and from the left its insults of President Bush, and avoidance of stands that would be too likely to lose votes.  My view on midterms is to yawn -- and focus on the races I'm going to vote in.  Political junkies hurling themselves into following every tide and ripple of the campaigns nation wide are at best wasting time, and at worst losing their perspective.

That is what is so wonderful about Maine.  Here we have politics that, at least 90% of the time, is rational.   If the Republicans were all like Tom Delay or the talk radio hounds, I'd never vote Republican and in fact be very alarmed by their ideology and tactics.  But this fall there is a very strong chance I'll vote for a Republican, Olympia Snowe, to be re-elected to the Senate.   Moreover, both the Republican and the Democrat are acceptable for Governor, so I'm free to vote for an independent I can truly support without thinking that somehow I'll be giving the election to someone I'm dead against.  In local elections it's not party that matters, but the person.

The reason I'm almost certain to vote for Snowe is not that I agree with her on most issues -- indeed, it's very likely that if I went down the line I'd find myself agreeing with her opponent more.  But she's the kind of voice we need in politics today -- not a jihadist for their party, not part of an ideological movement, not someone who sees the opposition as evil or dangerous.  Rather, she's a pragmatist, who builds compromise, works with people on both sides of the aisle and seems to follow her mind and conscience on issues, not a party line.  We need that in politics, it's the kind of approach I respect, and something that isn't dead in Maine -- not by a long shot. 

The ideologues on the Right call Snowe a Rino (Republican in name only), and would look at my support for her as a sign that she's too liberal.  Someone on the Left would say that one shouldn't support Republicans because Democrats need to gain a majority in the Senate.  And, even though her seat is safe, my decision to vote for her would not be altered if it were a neck and neck race and I knew I might be securing a GOP majority should she win.  (To be sure, I'd have to look at her opponent far more carefully in such an instance, but it would be hard to beat Snowe's track record).  I don't like partisan politics, I don't like jihadist mentalities to politics, I don't like either side demonizing the other.  I can take really strong stands -- like my stand against the Iraq war.  But I took just as strong a stance against the Kosovo war during the Clinton Administration.  The policy matters, not the party.  So I'll endure the midterm election rhetoric, and stories about who used the word nigger or macaca...but I really think the rest of the country needs to look to the far northeast to see good politics.  The way life should be.

October 3, 2006 - Autumn in Maine

I'm in a philosophical and different sort of mood this morning, as I reflect on the weekend...

Hiking up the short "Small's Falls" path -- a path that is a tad difficult due to rocks and awkward climbs, as they try to preserve the natural setting -- is more difficult if you have a nine month old in a back pack behind you, and a three and a half year old trying to be a dare devil in front of you (though luckily Natasha was keeping Ryan in line).  Kids, autumn foliage, some nice walks...autumn in Maine is simply beautiful.  The crisp cool air, the gorgeous colors, the hills and mountains (the area from Rangely to Farmington, including Mt. Blue State Park is my favorite)...this is indeed, how life should be.

Having two young boys at this time in history has its own quirks.  We need to start keeping a "peace file" for them in case a draft comes back (to help them get conscience objector status), but at least if things really get bad they can provide for us in rural Maine by hunting deer and moose!  It also gives me a strong sense of perspective -- this is what we're endangering by trying to be world cops or shape the way the international system develops.  With budget deficits growing and anti-Americanism at an all time high -- even amongst our allies -- one wonders why we feel a need to risk what we have.  Maine is beautiful, we have a country built on solid ideals.   I think too many people get lost in abstract power calculations and don't appreciate what we have, and how our actions could risk it.

Bob Woodward's new book State of Denial is hitting the shelves, and it paints a picture of a White House hiding the reality of the Iraq war from the public, while focusing on PR to keep up support.  John Murtha, demonized and slandered by the war hawks, is shown to be speaking for the "heart of the military" -- top level officers who detest what is happening, but can't speak out themselves due to the nature of civilian-military relations in our republic. 

Scandals pour out of Washington...a pedophile outted, with Congressional leadership apparently having known about this but doing nothing.  The number of dead in Iraqi violence rising, accompanied by troubling reports out of Afghanistan.   Talk about the fight against "Islamic" or "Islamic extremism," even though most of the violence of extremists is focused on other Muslims -- we've just injected ourselves into the fray due to oil and patronage of corrupt regimes.

Yet one can stand on a hill in western Maine, look at the colorful forest, see lakes nestled in valleys, with the foliage giving way to clear water and reflections of the trees.  You can feel the crisp autumn air, and see hikers, cars, and bikes cruising around, smack in the middle of paradise.  I can watch a laughing three year old scrambling up a hill or chasing after some small animal.  One wants to sink into this scene and hold it forever, and even now I am partially in the countryside. 

Power politics, hard ball politicians, rhetorical warfare on the airwaves, blogs and pundits taking every story seriously, seeking scandal, rationalizing their own positions.  People not realizing what it is we have, and how we risk it.  People lost in abstractions, fearful of vulnerability, caught up in a game or their own perceived role in a "defense of the West," or a "clash of civilizations," or "fighting Islamic fascism."  We in the modern West are disconnected from nature, caught up in abstractions and rationalism, constructing isms and perceived conflicts with self-righteous goals and dangers.  If I were an artist I'd sum up the state of the culture with a painting.  It would be on a hill at Mt. Blue State Park, overlooking Webb lake and large swaths of trees that looked painted with bright fall colors.  On a rock, looking over the scene is a person.  Young, wearing hip clothes, overweight, with Ipod speakers in his ears, and a game boy or some such device in front of him.  Lost in the games, oblivious to the scene around him, caught up in the constructed artificial world of technology and the market.   Unfortunately, I fear that often I veer to that kind of mentality myself...so seductive is our modern world, and too rare is our communion with nature.

October 4, 2006 - What is Hastert thinking?!

I hate commenting on things like scandals, and anyone reading my blog knows that unless it has to do with foreign affairs, I tend to stay away from pop politics, mini-scandals and the like.  I was going to simply not comment on the Foley scandal, but driving home from work yesterday I heard an interview with Dennis Hastert.   The interview convinces me that Hastert is fully out of touch, and has botched this issue big time.

Two scenarios: what Hastert should say, and what he must not say.  Guess which he choose?

What he should say:  Hastert should bring up the fact he is a father, talk about the horror in thinking of what it would be like if someone were after his children.  He should talk about his time as a teacher and a coach, and the damage pedophiles can do, even if the contact is not physical.  He should have expressed regret about not realizing earlier what the e-mails meant, and perhaps said, "I'll look back and wonder why I didn't read more into it, what was I thinking, what should I have thought..." and show real remorse for how this unfolded.  He should push aside questions that minimize the scandal or try to turn it against the Democrats -- the classy and effective way to respond is to be contrite, personal, and apologetic. 

What he must not say:  He must not try to minimize it, try to say that issues like taxes, national security and the like are more important.  There is a time for campaign commercials and a time to respond to a scandal, the two must not be mixed or else he'll appear a heartless politico.   He must not throw out unsubstantiated charges that the Democrats maybe knew about this and set up the timing, or look like he's trying to play politics with this.  If evidence emerges that there was Democratic involvement, that will come out.  But simply making a charge without proof is not only pathetic, but certain to backfire.

Alas, Hastert choose the latter.  He came off as utterly unsympathetic, focused on political damage control, and not really understanding the depth of the response by average voters, both Democratic and Republican.  His talk show moderator, Sean Hannity, was even more bizarre, talking about how Democrats almost 25 years ago embraced a Congressman charged with having sex with a page.  If you have to look 25 years back to find a comparable Democratic scandal, that's more embarrassing to the GOP.  I suspect this generation of both Democrats and Republicans look at issues of pedophilia differently than a quarter century in the past. 

Bottom line: the Republicans have hurt themselves in their response to this, appearing more focused on either trying to turn this against the Democrats, or minimizing it (Tony Snowe at first called this 'naughty e-mails,' though he changed his tune quickly).  How can they be so dumb?!  It is about the same kind of thick headedness and denial that Bill Clinton showed during the Lewinsky scandal.  Don't they realize that they need to show they get it, need to show remorse, need to at least pretend to be going over the past interactions and questioning what they could have done differently?  They have to come off as having human concern, rather than just trying political calculations?  I'm amazed at the lack of sensitivity here -- even if politicians tend to feign sensitivity, they usually know that they have to at least play the role.  Here it was clearly all about damage control, and all about politics.

As far as the scandal itself goes, I'm not surprised.   Samantha Bee on the Daily Show said, "I worked in Washington and know how it functions, that's why I work in New York."  I worked in DC, and know that this sort of thing is far more common than most realize -- though I was there before instant messaging and all that.  Sex, power, hardball politics...it's a very bizarre world.  There are idealists and truly principled people there in both parties, but the culture was such I just couldn't stand it.  At least in this case we learned about it, and one rather sick, hypocritical individual has been caught.  Still, compared to the violence, killing and horror in places like Iraq, this is truly minor.  (I don't mean that as a pun...)

Tonight Anderson Cooper covered Congo's problems...I'll try to write about that tomorrow...

October 5, 2006 - Kudos to Anderson Cooper and CNN

As Americans become possessed by a scandal in Washington involving sex, betrayal, denial and hypocrisy, Anderson Cooper at CNN has the honor to report a truly important story, a real crisis that makes the Foley matter appear as what it really is: a meaningless distraction with more entertainment value than importance.

Cooper was on the scene, as were other CNN reporters, detailing stories including interviews with some of the possibly hundreds of thousands of women raped in recent years, and raped brutally, often for days, at times having a spouse killed while watching, and the children forced to watch it all.  Children as young as three are also raped, and the doctors reported of wounds from knives and pistols between the legs as the men mutilated the women after raping.

How can people watch those scenes and not think that something needs to be done.  Saddam was a thug, but even the charges of rape against some of his top aides were nothing like this.  How can we pretend to truly care about humanitarian issues when we don't even try to or want to know about the horrors in Africa.  My respect for Anderson Cooper and CNN is growing, they are bringing to the public a story we're not demanding, but which we need to know.

The crux of the problem is how we get our news.  Usually we learn about the events between leaders.  So when war broke out back in the 90s, it was news.  When the war ended in 2003, that was news.  Now 17,000 UN peace keepers are there, and while rebel armies still operate despite arrest warrants out for their leaders, officially the Congo is trying to make democracy work and is in a precarious peace.

But, of course, if you dig beneath the surface, you find as Cooper noted 70% malnutrition, 1000 people dying a day even after the fighting from either violence or lack of resources, a life expectancy of only 42 for men and 47 for women...but even those are just factoids.  What he gives us, and what we need to see, is the human cost of refugee camps which are often not well protected and do not receive enough needed support.  The difficulty of aid groups both in finding funding and distributing it.  The ongoing examples of violence, from child soldiers to continuing brutal rapes.  A society completely turn apart by war, a state of anarchy with no real government, no real security -- if you have a gun or a militia, you can have power.  There is no accountability.

The story, of course, is the same in much of sub-Saharan Africa, but Congo's problems are obvious because it has been the seen of the worst conflict on the planet since WWII.  It is a poster child for what colonialism wrought: destroyed political cultures, massive corruption, extreme poverty, and no stable political or social structures to allow social or political development.   I've many times in these blog entries noted that this is a very dangerous situation, and we ignore it at our own risk.  In a time of terrorism and globalization, the possibility that the West could be threatened by some movement coming out of the violence ridden anarchy of this region of Africa cannot simply be brushed aside.  But really, the reason we should care and get involved is because we are human, and we should not accept this kind of suffering of others, especially when we enjoy the lap of luxury.

The first step is to raise awareness, and get people to react with more than, "gee, it's a tragedy, but that's Africa..."  We need to develop a kind  of ethic that says it is intolerable to have mass rapes, genocides, crimes against humanity, torture, etc.  We need to say that we as an international community -- and we as Americans -- set that as a fundamental truth about how we view our role in trying to create a better world.  We may not be able to spread western democracy, end all authoritarian governments, make sure that freedom of speech is universal, or stop corruption and abuses of justice.  But at the very least we can look at the worst atrocities and say "no, that just won't do."

The second step is to figure out what to do.  That isn't easy.  Americans have tended to think that you just need force to remove the bad guys -- stop the rapists and militias, defeat them, and then let society blossom.  But that doesn't work, at least not alone.  Rapes, murders, and atrocities exist not because the people doing them are inherently evil, but because the situation creates conditions which lead people down that path.  Unless those conditions are changed, any solution will be short term at best.  It can't just be aid either, it has to be real engagement, including law enforcement, military action in some cases, but also education, aid, humanitarian relief, and efforts to stabilize a social system without trying to control it.  The US can't do this on its own, it will take a true international effort.

But Anderson Cooper did a superb job in bringing this into the open.  This is far more important than any stupid instant messaging scandal, and in fact really more important than just about any other news item right now.  We've been closing our eyes for a long time, blinded first by colonialism, then the Cold War, and then apathy/fear.  That is unacceptable.  

October 6, 2006 - Another Security Council meeting on Sudan

On October 3rd Sudan sent a letter (unsigned) to the United Nations saying that any effort to put in foreign troops other than the African Union troops Sudan has accepted would be seen as an invasion.  Now the Security Council is convening again to determine how to respond.

So how should they respond?  Clearly they have the legal power to tell Sudan that their actions and inactions in Dafur have caused them to lose some of their sovereign rights and that they need to accept foreign troops.   But in the anarchy of African foreign relations legality often means little.  Sudan knows that western military force is probably not going to happen: the Europeans had to stretch to get a force capable of handling the Lebanon mission, and are already finding it impossible to increase forces to Afghanistan to a level needed to counter the resurgent Taliban.  America is bogged down in Iraq, and even if we got ourselves out, the American public, George Clooney's politicking aside, isn't going to be in the mood for another potentially deadly conflict.  Moreover, the US sees Iran, Syria and North Korea as being undeterred by US policy because of how overstretched our military has become.  Going into Sudan would, of course, add to that problem.

Other countries could participate -- Canada, Asian states, etc. -- but almost always these countries (Canada less so) want only to participate when they don't think they're putting much on the line.  Sudan no doubt is convinced that as long as they jump through the minimum hoops, pass certain laws, say the right things, and make at least symbolic efforts to stop the violence, they'll not get pressure they can't handle.  And, of course, even if we could bring to bear a massive force to try to "fix" the Dafur problem, that's only one of many conflict raging in the region...what about Congo, Uganda (that war is starting again as the government has ended its ceasefire with the LRA due to alleged -- and likely real -- LRA violations), Somalia, etc. 

Maybe we should rethink the approach.  Emphasize humanitarian aid and humanitarian workers going to the region.  Bring in military force primarily to protect the workers, not to engage the Janjaweed or other militias directly, unless necessary to provide protection.   Have media sources embedded with these humanitarian efforts, showing the misery, how important help is, and to document aggression from militias.  The media can also win hearts and minds for this kind of battle, one where we need military protection, but can focus on humanitarian assistance as the emphasis.  The level of military involvement would likely be large -- protecting humanitarian conveys in Africa isn't something for a few bodyguards, and will require rules of engagement that go beyond simply 'firing back when fired upon.'   But perhaps the left in Europe, and peole opposed to the war in the US will come to embrace this use of military force, if they see the good being done.

 This does mean perpetrators are more likely to go free; it does mean that militias won't be destroyed if they pull back.  This doesn't solve the problem.  There is no quick fix.  Also, this won't work everywhere.  Similar efforts failed in Iraq, as a generous and ambitious reconstruction effort was ceased due to the inability to protect workers.  The military forces in Sudan and elsewhere in Africa are different than those in Iraq, and in many cases a strong presence will deter them from direct attacks, especially if they can survive by avoiding such engagement.  I don't think there is political will for this sort of thing, and I'm just thinking on my keyboard here, the logistics and details of such a plan would take a long time to develop, and require coordination between countries, NGOs and militaries.  But something has to be done.  We can't go in and colonize or militarily stop all the violence -- and trying to do so would like spur a new cycle of violence, as well as renew anti-colonial sentiments.  With this, as with many problems in the world, old thinking no longer applies.  We need to be creative.

October 8, 2006 - Crunch Time

One thing I try to impress on students is that the most difficult aspect of social science is that, due to the problems of complexity and perspective, one can support almost any position by selectively choosing evidence (and there is so much out there all evidentiary choices are selective) and interpreting it in a particular way (and evidence always has to be interpreted).  So the default for many is to choose and interpret evidence in a way that reinforces their pre-existing belief.  While in social science we are trained to at least try to work against that common tendency, in the world of real politics, people fall into that trap consistently.

That has distressed me about the Iraq war.  Just about every prediction and explanation made in support of the war has been contradicted by events.  We were not greeted as liberators, we did not find WMD programs, democracy was not quickly installed, oil revenues did not pay for reconstruction, terrorism threats were increased (as per the recent National Intelligence Estimate) rather than decreased, it cost far more than imagined at the time, and is now a quagmire with civil war breaking out and things worse than ever.  How can people ignore this reality and still insist that the war is worth it and going well?

The most honest answer comes from those who are convinced that even though the war was not what they expected, it's still necessary to prevail.  Their problem is to explain why we're not doing more if it really is so important.  Others have pointed to bits of good news (turning over peaceful provinces to the Iraqis, elections, etc.) to try to support a claim of progress or success "soon."  All of this is understandable: humans want to avoid cognitive dissonance, especially if an issue involves an emotional commitment (including debates that often become nasty) or extreme importance.  The result is what looks like a "state of denial" to many, but which for the people involved must feel like a kind of unfair persecution by people who want them to fail.

But now we may be nearing a point where it's crunch time.   The US is involved in a "battle for Baghdad" -- the urban warfare we thought  we avoided in 2003 -- with a spike in both American and Iraqi deaths.  The US is demanding that Iraq eliminate private militias, a demand echoed by the Prime Minister (who, ironically, was being protected by private militias!)  General Casey says the next six months are crucial; if after half a year the militias are still in tact, Iraq has developed more stability (less sectarian violence, less sabotage of industries and public services, less corruption, and more political agreements on federalism and other issues), then it will be hard for even the most die hard optimists to consider this war a success.

I doubt they will break from their story.  Instead blame will be put on the Iraqis for not taking the "gift" we gave them and making it work, or on people like me whose opposition to the war helped undercut domestic support for doing what's necessary to accomplish the mission (we know they have a banner ready for when that happens!)   That's the thing about avoiding dissonance; in the end, you can always blame someone else. 

I don't hold it against them personally -- dissonance avoidance is a common defense mechanism, and given the emotion and importance of this debate, it's really hard for people to admit they were wrong.  Yet for each of us, this example provides a challenge.  In every issue for every person it's easy to get caught up in the trap.  Many democrats, for instance, haven't come to grips with the fact that government efforts to combat poverty often didn't work, and that the GOP has a point about the danger of a 'psychology of dependency.'   The left interprets evidence to be favorable to government programs, the right interprets it as favorable to the market.  Reality suggests both err many times, and the key for all of us is to try to keep an open mind and be as self-critical as other-critical.  That also means not getting so emotionally into the debates that we develop a subconscious or even conscious inability to admit that the hated "other" might be right.

We all fall victim to this, we all hold on to illusions longer than we should.  But there usually comes a time when reality cannot be denied, and I think we're nearing that point in Iraq.

October 10, 2006 -  North Dakota

North Dakota, like my home state of South Dakota, has a lot of nuclear fire power.  North Korea, however, probably doesn't.  It's not even clear they actually detonated a nuclear bomb this weekend, the explosion was weak.

As I watch the news media fall all over themselves following this story, the pundits offering troubling scenarios (and the right, of course, blaming Clinton, even though he's been out of office for six years), I find myself only marginally interested. 

True, this is far more important than a silly instant messaging scandal, which for some bizarre reason has gripped the media for a week and a half.  In Afghanistan a NATO commander says that unless we can fix things in six months the country will likely again turn to the Taliban.  In Iraq American deaths have spiked and even hawks are recognizing that the effort there is going very poorly.  And as we near elections we focus on...Dennis Hastert?  Sheesh.  (Click here for a different perspective)

Anyway, even if successful North Korea at best can create a regional stir by introducing nuclear weapons to the region.  The US could counter that by creating a kind of PATO (Pacific Treaty Organization) to deter North Korea from regional ambitions.  But this could be small, nothing like NATO except that the goal would be deterrence and avoidance of a regional arms race.  Theoretically they could sell the weapons, but it's unlikely they'd want to give up control, and we could find ways to create incentives not to.  At worst, we could even engage them and perhaps rachet the tensions down.  But it just doesn't seem to me to be that big of deal, especially since we've known for awhile they likely have nuclear weapons.  Or, as Jon Stewart noted, the good news is that they have one less nuke!  That is, if it were a nuclear device at all. 

The big issue is the future of nuclear proliferation, and North Korea as an example of how even the poorest and most isolated state can develop a nuclear weapon.  If they can, anyone can, including non-state actors.  I doubt force and threats of force will be effective to stop proliferation; indeed, that tactic may hasten it, and perhaps Bush's hardline toward North Korea is one reason they've followed the path they are on.  I'll write more on that down the line, but today is extra busy so I'll end just by noting that I don't see this has a major event, and I'm skeptical about whether or not it was much of an event at all. 

We could send missiles from North Dakota that could devastate North Korea completely and more than match anything they might have.

October 11, 2006 - In praise of single parents

I had started a blog on how Afghanistan is unraveling, and then thought about changing it to deal with the new Lancelet study estimating 650,000 Iraqi civilian deaths since the US invasion.  I want to investigate their methodology a bit, but if true (and I suspect it very well could be), it is even more evidence that invading Iraq was not only a mistake in terms of American interests, but has turned into a humanitarian crisis far beyond what would have happened had Saddam stayed in power.  This could well be a very shameful event for America's foreign policy, especially since it was a war of aggression.  Yet that will be later.  I feel like one of my rare personal blogs.  I generally do not like writing about my personal life in that I suspect its the most effective way to drive people away.  But if I do it rarely, and use it to try to make a point, then I hope it's OK!

For one week my wife has been in Texas at a conference, and to visit some friends who used to live in Maine.  That meant that for the long weekend I had the boys -- 3 1/2 year old Ryan, and 9 month old Dana.  Most of the weekend was magical.  I have this fantastic Kelty baby back pack which allows me to carry Dana without having to hold a 23 pound baby in my hands or push around an awkward stroller.  He loves it, looking around, making noises, but never fussing.  So we went on walks, and the Maine foliage is simply awesome.  Ryan did complain by Monday night, "Daddy, I want mommy to be home, you make me do too many long walks, and it makes my legs tired and wears me out."  But Ryan was also cruising on the driveway on his trike, and I took Dana's high chair outside to feed him there, and then rake up a leaf pile for Ryan to jump into (with Dana laughing with delight as he watched).  In a lot of ways it was really wonderful to have this kind of intense personal time with my two sons.

Yet I got no work done.  Until day care yesterday, I had really no time until after the kids fell asleep -- which was well after 9:00.  Then since wake ups can be as early as 5:30 I had to clean the house as well I could, try to take care of basic personal stuff, and then get to bed.  It was constant.  During the day it was necessary to always be watching the kids (Dana crawls and cruises everywhere, and is fast), juggling their baths, having them compete for attention.  Ryan would get mad at Dana and I'd have to discipline while feeding the baby or changing diapers.  It wasn't hard so much as unceasing -- no time to just say "time out, I need to rest, or watch TV."

I end the week feeling like I've accomplished something special having a week with my boys (realizing that I do get breaks on work days from day care).   But, of course, there are many single parents who have this unceasing routine permanently.  As kids age the challenges differ, but yet for such people life is dominated by children, even if they have jobs.  There are also many women who live that kind of life because the husband thinks that if he works then he's doing his job, and it's the woman who should take care of the kids, especially young ones.   Most men today no longer take a hands off approach, but when they did it wasn't fair to women, especially since the work of raising kids without day care, as most did, prevent a lot of very satisfying diverse activities.  Raising kids is a joy, but if that's all one does, it can become overwhelming.

So I am in awe of single parents who manage to juggle the demands of work and children, and hope they get all the support they get (and aren't demonized by moralistic politicians).   It's also important that men and women truly share the load in raising kids and keeping a house clean and organized -- the way it was done in the past was unfair to women.  Finally, there is nothing wrong with working and having diversity in life activities while raising kids and using day care.  As long as time with children is quality time, the lessons and experiences they can learn at a quality day care focused on fun activities for children can be better for children then just spending time at home. 

Tomorrow I'll get back to politics.  I think spending time with children helps people avoid the abstraction and dehumanization of problems that occurs too often amongst political junkies.  War, global poverty and the like are about children not too much different than our own; we shouldn't lose sight of that. 

October 12, 2006 - Columbus day (traditional)

Cristoforo Columbo, wearing a trenchcoat and smoking a cigar (ooops, wrong Columbo) I mean, sailing with the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria "discovered" the new world and thus opened the way for the spread of western civilization.  In so doing, he battled against European beliefs that the world was flat, and he'd sail over the edge.  His brave and daring mission represents the true explorer spirit, and thus from space shuttles to TV detectives to capital districts, Columbus, Columbia, and Columbo all attest to this glorious explorer's mission.  At least, that's the story.

Very few people in Europe believed the earth was flat by 1492, and Columbus himself never realized he'd discovered the new world.  Based on his conjecture of the Earth's circumference he thought he was in Asia, and he constantly sought a passage to the wealth of India and China.  Moreover, as a Governor of one of the colonies he was accused of friend and foe alike of tyrannical rule and atrocities.  It is almost certain that he does not live up to his mythic image, but is his legacy even more dubious?

Many people argue that we should simply cease celebrating Columbus day (or, the more subversive claim, rename it something like National Genocide Day or Mass Murder Day).  Columbus not only committed atrocities, but brought disease, suffering and ultimately European conquest to a relatively stable and generally peaceful world of Native American nations and tribes.  In that view Columbus is a villain, and it is hypocrisy and dishonesty to even have a day off for him (traditionally today -- October 12th -- the day land was sighted in the Bahamas, though now it's the second Monday in October). 

Ah, Americans and their "evil individual fallacy. (see the June 9th blog)"  Columbus was neither great nor evil.  He isn't worth being celebrated, but he's also not so bad that he should be demonized.  He was not the motivator and enabler of the genocide that followed, he simply was known as one of the first Europeans in what certainly was an inevitable European conquest of the new world.  He committed atrocities, but was not the cause for Spanish massacres in South America, or the low tech holocaust of North American Indian tribes.   Columbus was simply a sailor and a business man, apparently both cruel and arrogant, though supposedly religious as he neared the end of his life. 

But who really cares about the man?  Does the man even matter?  Is it, in fact, a kind of cultural silliness that we fixate on individuals so much, from Columbus to Saddam Hussein?  What happened on this continent from 1500 to about 1900 was a persistent and violent conquest and genocide, which saw entire peoples wiped out by disease and war.  It was the result of a mindset that saw the West as superior and thus western deaths were important, while "savage" deaths were not.  If we could spread our way of life and politics, it was to the benefit of others, even if large masses were killed in the process.  It was a kind of inhumane abstract cultural arrogance that drove the Europeans to this barbarism, mostly unquestioned at the time, and even to this day, not seen clearly or truly accepted.  Do we risk a kind of self-congratulatory sense of "standing up for humanity" by not recognizing this holiday?  Look at our behavior today -- is our culture really that much more advanced in terms of its actions in the world, from treatment of other peoples, exploitation for economic profit, and lack of concern for the environment (despite evidence of devastation being done)?

I don't give a damn about Columbus or Columbus day.  I love having a day off at the peak of autumn foliage, and certainly do not want to give that up, no matter what the day is called or who it is named after.  But Columbus is irrelevant.  Coming to grips with the past isn't telling the true story of Columbus, he was in actuality a bit player, pushed into the limelight through happenstance of history.  Coming to grips with the past encompasses a greater swath of history, a critical look at our ideals and values, and an examination of where we are today.   Attacking celebration of Columbus day is meaningless; coming to grips with the past and its impact on our present way fo thinking really doesn't require us to think too much about Cristoforo Columbo.  

October 13, 2006 - Silly

I received an e-mail from Ally Day, someone I respect greatly, who took exception to my use of the term "silly" to describe the Mark Foley scandal.  Read her comments here.  She raises some very good points.  I think what bothers me is not that the scandal isn't important, but the continued ability of the media push scandal news for over a week while brushing aside really serious problems the US is having in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I also find the lack of outrage over child soldiers in Africa (including such things as cutting childrens' arms and rubbing cocaine into the blood to make the young teens and pre-teens fearless), child sex slaves, and human trafficking in general to be disturbing.  It was wrong to call the scandal silly; but compared to the kinds of exploitation and abuse that we ignore I still find it relatively less important.

One difference in my perspective than that of most Americans is that my reaction to events tends to be the same whether they take place in Uganda or the United States.  In other words, if people are being sold into slavery in southern Sudan, that bothers me as much as if they were being sold into slavery in southern New England.  If people are starving in Somalia, that bothers me as much as if people were starving in Vermont.  One result is that I disengage from American politics; the issues that are so important here seem minor compared to many issues world wide.  But in so doing, I'm taking a very biased perspective.

Ally is right when she notes "The fact of the matter is we need to have an absolute no-tolerance approach when youth are concerned and the abuses of power like Foley and his colleagues have demonstrated are indicative of a much larger problem within American politics. Not to mention, sexual harassment has been down-played before because it is something that affects either women or the queer community, two marginalized groups in America. But harassment is often used as a way to maintain power relationships and can have an incredibly damaging effect on an individual, especially a young individual."   Sure, in the grand scheme of things the 'incredibly damaging effect' may be much less than turning a 12 year old into a cocaine addicted soldier or a thirteen year old into a sex slave, but if we compare everything with the worst atrocities of human kind, it unfairly minimizes other problems.  Sure, says the murderer, I killed a guy, but gee, Stalin killed 20 million!

When I started work in DC (I was there 1983-85) another sex scandal was in the news, with one Republican and one Democrat having been caught having sex with 17 year old pages.  Each was censured, neither resigned.  The attitude wasn't the same as now; at some level people considered that 'par for the course' in the power politics of Capitol Hill.  Yet while as a culture we tolerate it less, given the reaction by Hastert and the GOP leadership, I suspect that the powerful haven't changed their attitudes much.   That is a problem, and it reflects a general sense that the powerful see those less powerful, especially youth and often women, as objects rather than subjects.  And that attitude is precisely the same attitude that those who kidnap children to become soldiers or sex slaves exhibit when they use them for their purposes.  The result of one act may be more horrific than the other, but the root problem is the same, and it is the one Ally identifies.   While a lot of adjectives can be used to describe these abuses, one that shouldn't be used is "silly."

October 16, 2006 - Coup fantasies

The Iraq conflict has been one where illusions have often overpowered reality in the minds of policy makers and pundits, and though some still cling to their illusions with a persistence that borders on the edge of obsession, the number of former war supporters who now realize that they had based their decisions on wrong assumptions and optimistic ideas is growing quite large.  In fact, the best arguments against the war come from the former war supporters who tend towards realistic assessments more than the partisanship of many on the anti-war side.

Yet there is a group of hard cores who believe that the problem is not the socio-political realities in Iraq, but simply the supposed fact that al-Maliki is too weak.  If only he had the will to bring Iraq to safety, or as one pundit it put it, he should 'grow some stones.'  But Maliki replaced Ibrahim Jaafari precisely because the latter was seen as too weak and ineffective.  The US strongly pushed to have him dumped, leading to a crisis which delayed the formation of a government, thereby further weakening governmental structures.  Before that Iyad Allawi was rejected by Iraqi voters due to the fact he had been ineffective; the insurgency developed on his watch.  Now, does this mean that Iraq's politicians are simply spineless wusses who could, if only they had courage, snap their fingers and bring order  to Iraq?  Or, perhaps, is this a sign of a deep instability with no clear solution?

The idea of a coup (and the reality of one, if it were to happen) is perhaps the final grasping at straws for those who hope that some turning point will create something better in Iraq.  It was first the elections, then the constitution, then the elections again, the capture of Saddam, the death of Zarqawi, etc.  Now, some surmise, if only a really competent government were to take over, then things would get better. 

The general thinking seems to be that a coup would have to have members from all ethnic groups who could between them decide on how to split the spoils of oil revenue and reign in extremists from their particular constituencies.  The problems with that scenario are immense.  First, instability flows bottom up.  Even if you could find five respected people who would engage in such a plot their power would be limited; they'd have to some how convince militias they mean business, clean up the infiltrated and weak police and military units, and assure that their orders and commands weren't sabotaged from below.  That's difficult.  Moreover, the history of coups is one whereby many start with a number of people, but end with the most ruthless in charge.  Is that what we want?  If so, then our best bet might just be to sneak Saddam out of his prison and give him back the office of President of Iraq.  It would take someone with his "stones" to bring Iraq to stability.  Even then, the anarchy of the past couple years, sectarian violence, and rise of militias create conditions where the self-perceived Iraqi "Godfather" could not make his nation "an offer they can't refuse." 

The fantasy that 'better leaders' could fix the deep divisions and culture of violence which has overtaken Iraq (a very well armed Iraq -- again, disarming militias isn't something new leadership can magically achieve) is misplaced.  This will not end soon, and probably will end with partition.  The best thing for us to do remains to engage Iran and Syria along with a broad spectrum of Iraqi groups to negotiate a timetable for withdrawal, one which involves certain acts by various groups to create conditions to allow settlement of sectarian disputes.  Syria is Baathist and secular, Iran is Shi'ite fundamentalist.  They can help, if people get over their idealism and embrace some hard nosed realism in terms of diplomacy.

A coup will succeed only if it is so ruthless as to give us something pretty much like Saddam's Iraq.  Otherwise, the anarchy is sure to overwhelm any governmental changes.  The fantasies and illusions have to end -- too many people, perhaps even 650,000 (and despite the President's dismissal of that number, having my MA from Johns Hopkins, the university who did the study, I'll stick by my alma mater -- Hopkins is a first rate research institution) have died.  The idea of spreading democracy was idealist and naive, and I can accept it was good intentioned.  But the road it paved leads to desolation, and we need a change.  The coup option is not a solution.

October 17, 2006 - A Realistic Policy on North Korea

Since I am so often a critic of the Administration's foreign policy (and that was actually true back in the Clinton era as well), I'll take this opportunity to praise what seems to be an effective response to North Korea's nuclear test.  The US has avoided calls for bilateral negotiations with North Korea, which is good.   When the US makes non-proliferation something to approach unilaterally (like the Iraq war in 2003), we set ourselves up for bad choices.  Non-proliferation is an issue for all states, and clearly the six parties in the talks on North Korea all have a stake. 

Second, the US did not war monger or turn this into some kind of 'Cuban Missile Crisis II.'   That's what foot-fetish Dick Morris suggested, arguing it could save the Midterms for Bush.  He thought Bush should lean on Japan and South Korea to arm themselves, which would have been insane.  No, the US worked to build quick consensus at the Security Council, making real compromises with China and Russia, and coming up with a solid agreement.   The US would have wanted tougher sanctions, China was skeptical.  But the compromise is good.  China also has a point in its skepticism: North Korea may be near collapse, China doesn't want North Korean refugees streaming across the border.

Ultimately, North Korea has the capacity to thumb its nose at the world and the US for as long as it can survive as an isolated pariah state.  At some point carrots can be offered for a verifiable agreement to dump its nuclear weapons program, but that will only work if North Korea believes that the US is unwilling to deal on North Korean terms.  That might take awhile.  Until then, the US has to send North Korea a message: your policies are a minor irritant, nothing more.  At the same time, the US can sure up alliances in the Pacific, convince South Korea and especially Japan that we will protect them and there is no need for them to go nuclear, and work with China on a mutual interest in helping North Koreans choose a policy of economic survival.

Add to this the rumors that Jim Baker's bi-partisan group (Jim Baker is a long time confidant of the Bush family and Republican activist) reviewing policy on Iraq seems like to recommend a withdrawal involving negotiations with Syria and Iran, something I've been advocating for some time, and it appears that a wave of realism is hitting the Bush Administration.  Bush's approval stands at near lows, and by all appearances the Democrats will take the House and maybe the Senate.  I think that would be good, since I like the idea of real checks and balances.  But ironically I approve of Bush's foreign policy more now than at any time during the administration, especially if we see a real move towards getting out of Iraq.  We shouldn't be in the mess we're in, but at least there are signs of realism in the White House.  Let's hope.

October 18, 2006 - Realism on Iraq?

A short entry today as I've far too much to do!  I never realized when I thought I had too much to do in the past how having two young children would give new meaning to "no time," especially when one is awake for two hours in the middle of the night and feeling tired the next day.  (Sorry, I ramble when I'm tired).

Jim Baker, a senior Republican operative and a long time aide and confidant of the Bush family, is chairing a commission to study the Iraq war and make policy suggestions.  Their report will come out after the election, but rumors are already flying.  Baker also has a new book out -- Work Hard, Study, and Keep out of Politics (advice given to him by his father, I believe) -- so he's definitely remaining active! 

His policy suggestion is said to include engaging Iran and Syria to negotiate a staged withdrawal from Iraq.  Sound familiar?  If you've been reading this blog you'll know that's been my policy suggestion for quite some time.  It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this is necessary, only: a) recognition that the current policy is failing; and b) acceptance that diplomacy means dealing with states whose governments and policies do things we don't like.  Moreover, any long term solution to the crises in the Mideast, including Islamic extremism, requires some kind of engagement with Syria and Iran.  A lot of so-called "neo-conservatives" have preferred to think that the way to deal with Syria and Iran is regime change or war (they were calling for a widened war along that lines during the Israel-Lebanon conflict). 

Now even the most hawkish and idealistic neo-conservative has to recognize that such a policy is unrealistic.  The neo-conservatives are driven by a kind of idealism, a belief that spreading democracy means expanding human rights and freeing people from tyranny.   The lesson we've learned is that it is exceedingly difficult to do this with military force, and force might actually make things worse. 

So we're back to a kind of realism in foreign policy -- diplomacy, an emphasis on interests rather than spreading ideals, and a recognition that even if the status quo isn't optimal, efforts to change it too quickly risk instability and violence.   A policy shift in Iraq, coupled with a pretty solid policy on North Korea, give me hope that the final two years of the Bush Administration might see a much improved US foreign policy.  There are still those who say that Bush is determined to strike Iran militarily and the neo-conservatives still have a lot of clout.  It could be that Jim Baker and his group's suggestions are ignored (and we don't yet know them in detail).  But there has been a drift towards realism over the past year, and while it still isn't the policy I would choose if I were President, it's much better than the approach of the Bush Administration up until now.  We'll see if it continues.

October 19, 2006 -  Tired today

Last night I started out in my bed late, after grading papers.  Then Dana, my nearly 10 month old son, starts crying upstairs.  So I go up, and rock him, then put him down...luckily there is an extra bed in his room.  He kept waking up and needed to be rocked -- we're trying to get him off his middle of the night bottle.  Finally he falls asleep, but so do I.  A couple hours later Ryan, age 3 1/2 is yelling "daddy, daddy."  I start to leap out of bed ready to run upstairs --  and run smack into a wall.  Oh, that's right, I'm already upstairs, in Dana's room.

I cross the hall and Ryan asks, "Daddy, is it morning yet?"  No, I tell him, it's still the middle of the night.  "Daddy, lay with me," he then asks.  He makes room on his bed and I lay down.  After a few minutes we're both asleep.  Finally I wake up at 5:30 and realize I'm still upstairs, and head back downstairs to bed.  A half hour later, Dana is up again and the morning begins.  All week a mix of late grading and kids not sleeping through the night have left me too tired to be able to type up a coherent blog.  Hopefully I'll be able to do one tomorrow!

October 20, 2006 - Hubris, revisited

On August 9th I had a blog entry about hubris -- American hubris in the decision to go to war in Iraq.  (BTW, my blogs in the summer months were better than recent blogs -- I had more time then!).  However, we in the West don't have a monopoly on hubris.  It could well be that countries in the Mideast, seeing the success of Hezbollah last summer, and the failure of the US military in Iraq currently, could overplay their hands.

Here was how I introduced the post on hubris last August:  "Wikipedia defines hubris as such: “Hubris or hybris (Greek ‛′Υβρις), according to its modern usage, is exaggerated pride or self-confidence, often resulting in fatal retribution. In Ancient Greek, however, hubris referred to a reckless disregard for the rights of another person resulting in social degradation for the victim.”  It almost seems like modern American culture has managed to blend the two apparently different definitions."

I generally don't subscribe to the view that sees Ahmadinejad in Iran and Assad in Syria as somehow plotting a major war to destroy Israel.  To be sure, historically the Arab states have launched such wars before, but the last major war was in 1973 (not counting the limited Lebanese wars), and with Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia apparently not wanting to mess with Israel, it's hard to imagine anything that would be gained by a major conflict.  While some point to rhetoric, Iranian and Syrian foreign policy has been conservative in action.

Clearly the anti-Israeli rhetoric from Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria shows complete disregard for Israel's right to exist.   As justified as the arguments against Israeli policy in the occupied territories might be, it remains unacceptable to call for the destruction of an existing, sovereign, state.  The argument mirrors President Bush's "axis of evil" rhetoric and calls for regime change.  Despite vast differences in perspective, there is a troubling similarity in rhetorical style.

But would these groups truly launch an all out war against Israel -- Hamas from within, Hezbollah from Lebanon, and Syria to take the Golan Heights?  One could imagine a sense that given Israeli policy now might be the best time to do it; Israel wouldn't be able to fight a multi-front war, and the new style of warfare -- terrorism and insurgency rather than direct armed conflict -- will tip the scales to the Arab side.  If so, then I suspect they'll learn the kind of lesson that we're learning in Iraq.  Aggression may sound like it should succeed in theory, but in reality things don't go as planned.   Despite Israeli blunders in the summer war -- and I was extremely critical of Israeli tactics which killed far more civilians than Hezbollah fighters -- it would be wrong to think that the Jewish state, facing an existential crisis, wouldn't find the capacity to deliver a serious and perhaps devastating blow to Syria and, if necessary, Iran.  Ultimately Hamas and Hezbollah's capacity to fight is limited.

It is hard to see how to break the logjam in the Mideast with an entrenched Hezbollah, a weakened America, and the threat of new insurgent/terror tactics in the region.  Israelis certainly are in more fear of the future than in the recent past, and the governments opposing them seem less willing to compromise.   One gets the feeling that something has to give at some time, though if the past is the guide, muddling through with slow progress and some backslides may continue.  If, however, Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah decide that they are strong enough to take on Israel and alter the region, they would likely fall victim to the same kind of hubris that has befallen America.   We live in interesting times!

October 22, 2006 - American Politics

It's about two weeks until the Midterm elections, and political junkies (a class I am not a part of, by the way) seem to be falling all over themselves with predictions, warnings and opinions.  So I'll break from my focus on foreign affairs and give my thoughts about what seems an over-hyped set of elections.

Whether or not the Republicans lose control of the House and Senate, President Bush will find the path difficult ahead.  Republicans know he's an unpopular lame duck, and thus will not feel much compulsion to support him or his initiatives.  Moreover, the Republicans and Democrats with the best shot of winning their districts bzw. states are centrists.  (bzw = Beziehungsweise, a German abbreviation for 'or as the case may be' -- we really need an abbreviation for that kind of statement, so I'll steal it from the Germans).  No matter who wins in these elections, centrists will control the agenda.  President Bush will have veto power, so the Democrats, if they take control, won't be able to undertake major changes, so the odds are that no matter who wins, there will be little substantive change in the next two years.  In fact, looking at 2008, the "loser" in this election may be in a better position to "win" in 2008.  More likely, though, 2008 will have its own dynamic, and this election will mean little to what party comes out on top in two years.

My opinion: these elections are local.  I hear the GOP talk about fear of Speaker Pelosi or impeachment of Bush.  That's just talk to scare their base into not sitting out the elections, and it may be effective.  The Democrats, on the other hand, are not talking about massive change, and I think they are smart enough to know that while accountability of the Executive Branch is needed, impeachment or something like that would be not only unnecessary with a lame duck, but could really hurt them politically (unless something major happens).   I can't imagine someone voting for an individual because of national talk about Republicans and Democrats.  They will, and should, look at the individuals running.  Who is more honest, whose views are closer to ones' own, who is more likely to work towards compromise on major issues facing us?  For me these three questions are of primary importance, and none dominates.  That can lead one to vote Republican or Democrat, or Green, or independent.  What should matter is the person running, not the party.

So what will happen?  Not following things like the polls closely, my guess would be that there are three plausible scenarios: 1) The Republicans hang out, perhaps barely, due to an advantage in spending in the final days of the campaign.  The GOP is known for having a lot more to spend on these races, and that could make a difference; 2) fed up with how things are going, an anti-incumbent mood, focused primarily on the party in power, will sweep the Democrats into power in perhaps both houses; or 3) The GOP spending helps them, but they either lose control of one house (probably the House of Reps) barely, leaving a closely divided government.  Scenarios 1 and 2 strike me as equally plausible, and I don't have enough information to make any kind of informed guess.  If I had to bet, I'd probably choose scenario 3.  Either way, I think the result will be the same -- a House veering to the center, without the prospect of getting a lot done in the next two years.  Even if the GOP retains control, they will probably be more willing to investigate the President and Vice President than in the past, so I don't think no matter what the result the next two years will be easy for the President.

So I believe one should vote for the person they want to represent them.  Trustworthiness and ability to work for compromise should be as important as issue stands and party, perhaps more important.  The national picture will take care of itself.     

October 23, 2006 - A surge in violence

Iraq has experienced a major surge in violence corresponding to increased American military efforts to control Baghdad.  In a rare moment, President Bush admitted that this could be compared to the Tet Offensive in Vietnam when public opinion turned against that effort.  Perhaps, though the public has been far more opposed to the Iraq war than they were to Vietnam, despite the lack of widespread protests.

Two facts have to be stated clearly: a) The US is clearly operating from a point of unprecedented weakness in the international system since World War II.  This is a startling development, and certainly one not expected in 2003 when Saddam fell so quickly; and b) The Iraq war defies military victory. 

Although some pundits try to claim that the Vietnam war "could have been won," those arguments are meaningless.  Anyone can imagine scenarios where history would have been different "if only," but the factors driving events had a logic that could not be denied.  Moreover, even the most optimistic scenarios of what "could have been" in Vietnam neglect the staying power and adaptability of a force fighting for a cause they believed in.  By backing a corrupt dictatorship against a popular nationalist leader, the US was pre-destined to failure.

In Iraq, the US didn't support a dictatorship, but instead tried to replace one with a democracy.  Nonetheless, there was a similar lack of understanding about the nature of the endeavor.  The realities of Iraqi and Mideast culture was ignored in favor of a view that quick military victory plus loads of reconstruction money would buy good will and success.  When lecturing on the Iraq war it becomes painfully obvious when comparing statements and goals of 2003/04 to the present, with a tracing of how things slowly collapsed, that the war as been an unmitigated disaster.  Yet we still see people claiming "if only..." as if different choices in 2003 and 2004 would have yielded a stable democratic pro-American Iraq.  It is always fascinating how, when reality doesn't get in the way, people can always find ways to use fantasy and speculation to protect a cherished belief.

The US needs to wake up.  We're risking our status as a true superpower, and our ideals of liberty and human rights for a conflict that has cost us dearly, and eroded our moral standing.   To this day images of Abu Ghraib and Haditha dominate foreign media coverage of the Iraq war, and we seem to have, in three and a half short years, squandered our ideals and our power in a struggle that seems now to be virtually meaningless.   Over 80 Americans dead in Iraq this month so far; probably more than that many Iraqis killed in civil war violence there every day. 

When I ponder this I can't help but think that this may be bigger than we realize, we could be seeing the start of the unraveling of American and western power.  The Dow hits 12,000, election campaigns focus on scandals and fear tactics, and the media seems to tire of Iraq coverage.  Yet somehow the world we inhabit is different than the one of March 19, 2003.   The choice to go to war in Iraq will likely cause far greater long term  damage to the US than did the attacks on 9-11.  Hindsight has 20-20 vision, so we need now focus on finding foresight.  What is the best path forward -- not just out of Iraq, but to rebuild our national reputation and standing.  I think we can, but on a rainy, cold and rather dreary October evening I sense we're in more trouble as a nation than at any time since the Great Depression.

October 24, 2006 - Clash or Dialogue?

My blog of September 22nd, "Defending Papa Ratzi" made the point that the hubbub around his Regensburg speech might be a good thing, in that it may bring his call for dialogue between faiths more attention.  Check out this "open letter" to the Pope from 38 Muslim scholars in Islamica magazine:

http://www.islamicamagazine.com/online-analysis/open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-benedict-xvi.html

This is precisely the kind of dialogue that's needed, and shows that there are, indeed, many opportunities for cooperation and co-existence between the two faiths, they aren't headed for an inevitable clash.  Both faiths stress freedom, love, and respect, even if you have extremists who want to use the faith and the power of belief for their advantage.

We secular minded folk tend to focus on politics and power to deal with issues.  We tend to forget the fact that religion is at the core of our culture.  Modernism is a kind of secularized Western/Christian tradition, shaped in large part by the way in which reason and faith combined during the Middle Ages.  As much as we want to deny it, our thinking and our culture is shaped very much by our Judeo-Christian heritage.  I'm not taking a stand on the truth of the Jewish or Christian religions; rather, pointing out that we are in a culture that cannot escape its roots.  The Western/Christian tradition emerged with a linking of Christian and Greek thought (concepts like the trinity, dualism between spirit and body, idealistic monastic orders, and even the temporal power of the Pope can be traced to Plato.

There is no reason to expect a modern Islamic culture to develop the same way; Islamic democracy, concepts of rights, and notions of philosophy will evolve, perhaps in ways we may think odd or misguided.  But that's how cultures change.  That also means that a purely secular or political approach to the relationship between the western and Islamic worlds is unlikely to succeed.  Either it turns out to be "how do we get Islam to do what Christianity did" or "how do we get them to be more like us."  The arrogance in such a view, hidden often by our own good intentions in regard to freedom and human rights, is nonetheless counterproductive.

Enter an unlikely hero, an elderly Pope Benedict XVI of the Christian world, whose reputation is less that of a loving conciliator and more that of an obstinate intellectual.   He reached out, if awkwardly, to the Islamic world, and they have responded.  They argue with some of what the Pope said, but do so in a constructive manner, one that build dialogue.  Ultimately, this is where dialogue has to begin.  Religion represents that part of the culture that is seen as true almost by definition, an emotive, foundational part.  That includes we secular types, who have a lot of views about what is moral and immoral, and though we rationalize these views with intellectual theories, our secular side can always critique and question the basis for our moral judgments.  But something in us tells us that right is right and wrong is wrong.  For religious folk, that comes from their faith; for secular people that comes very much from the culture in which we are raised, and the impact of faith and religion on that culture.  We can't escape it, it is part of who and what we are.

Although the headlines still scream of politics and war, talk radio hotheads yell about Islamo-fascism or some other demonization of the other, and Islamic extremists call for acts of terror and oppression in the name of their faith, this need not define the future of the relationship between the West and the Islamic world.  The key is not only dialogue, but dialogue which begins at a fundamental, foundational level: the core values and beliefs which underlie each culture.  Such a dialogue is beginning, thanks to the Pope and 38 Muslim clerics who responded.   That may be more important in the long run than most people realize.

October 25, 2006 - The Osama Factor

In today's Washington Times on line, a columnist argues that if the Republicans lose the House, Bin Laden and his supporters will celebrate, having brought down another government.  The message: voting Republican is against Bin Laden, voting Democratic is for Bin Laden.  We are not choosing on the basis of various national issues or personalities running in our districts; rather, it's all about Bin Laden.  So, I guess, the message is we have no choice any more who to vote for, we have to vote Republican or else the terrorists win.

But let's not move too quickly here.  Ron Suskind, in his book The One Percent Doctrine quotes White House officials as interpreting Bin Laden's near election message in 2004 as a sign that he wanted Bush to win.  The idea there was that Bush's policies have been good for Bin Laden, as America gets stretched militarily and distracted by Iraq.  So if you buy that argument, then if you vote Democrat you're voting against Bin Laden, and if you vote Republican you support him. 

Or how about a third option: Forget about Bin Laden's supposed preferences!  Vote for the person you trust more, and whose stance on important issues fits more closely with yours.  I'd also take into account the ability of someone to work with people across the aisle to develop compromises on key issues, and move the country away from partisanship scarred territory.  Again, I take all three of these into account.  Honesty is probably most important, but the other two matter too.  If one votes for a candidate, Democrat or Republican, based on what they think Bin Laden might want, they are giving Bin Laden the power over their vote.  I don't want to give him that power.  The only way Bin Laden should be a factor is in terms of ones' position on counter-terrorism.  And there reasonable people can disagree.

October 27, 2006 - Warrior Nation

It never fails to amaze how much in denial Americans are about the militarist nature of our foreign policy.  It's obvious when you look at the United States from the perspective of someone in Europe, Asia or Africa: America is a warrior nation, constantly intervening with military power in other conflicts, trying to shape the international system, and has no qualms about obvious double standards in terms of what the US defends its right to do, but wishes to deny others the right to do.

We are the modern Rome, with a foreign policy defined by neo-imperialism.  We don't actually invade, conquer and occupy other states.  Iraq is an exception to that rule which goes a long way to explaining why old style imperialism doesn't work: it's too costly.  If we had defined our goal as just getting rid of Saddam and verifying that he didn't have WMD we'd have been out in a couple of months.  Instead, there was a goal of setting up a government friendly to the US (originally to be led by Chalabi who was more or less a con man, then Allawi who had worked for both the CIA and the Baath party), guaranteeing American companies and their friends lucrative oil contracts, and assuring a base of operations so the US could maintain security over Persian Gulf oil resources.

Those oil resources had been clearly protected through 1979 by America's ally Iran.  Iran had been brought into the fold in a less costly manner.  It's democratically elected by instable government under Mossadegh was overthrown by a CIA engineered coup.  The new Shah could call on support from those who supported his father to garner the rest of what was needed to establish a stable state.  Then the US showered money and armaments on this ally so it could assure the Soviets wouldn't undertake some gambit to get Persian Gulf oil.  Since Iran fell, the US has been trying to find some way to alter the arrangement...support Saddam, open to Iran (the Iran-Contra affair), and now a high stakes effort to topple a regime and put something pro-American in its place.  This efforts looks like it will fail.  That is not surprising, most experts on the Mideast and Iraq were extremely skeptical, but American leaders tend to under-estimate the importance of local conditions.

Here's where the foreign policy elites, usually given a rather free hand, run into a problem.  America's public accepts the neo-imperial militarism as long as its costless and couched in idealistic and benevolent terms.   And, of course, if there is a true threat to the United States, Americans will eagerly defend the country and its liberties.   But if people start to wake up to the true nature of neo-imperialism and its reliance on military power, they start to question things.  Is this what our nation stands for?  Why exactly are our children being killed in Iraq?  Can one really justify any military action we choose to take by raising the specter of terrorism and so-called 'Islamofascsm'?

Our culture has been built to accept war, to see soldiers as heroes, and to somehow think its normal and benevolent to constantly become involved in other peoples' affairs.  Of course we can have massive numbers of nukes and Iran can't.  Of course we can determine what kind of government should lead another country, and engineer coups (which are cheap and don't raise public ire) or aid dictators if it serves our cause.  As a nation we're very quick to believe our leaders because we see them as good, normal people.  The image much of the rest of the world has of America isn't the norm at home.

That has to change.  Military power can't solve the current issues or guarantee American economic security.  The Iraq war is showing that, if not backed up by support and cooperation, America isn't near as powerful as many believed.  Without the Soviet boogey man, many allies are unwilling to embrace America's tactics (though many other western states have no problem with neo-imperialism so long as its primarily economic and done with peaceful cooperative institutions -- Europe and Japan are hardly blameless in that regard!)  The country needs to have a real, serious and honest debate about our role in the world, and our values.  Yet as I look at the political discourse in the current campaign -- an off year election at that -- I doubt we'll undertake the necessary self-reflection in time.  That does not bode well for the future.

October 30 -  George Will on target

George Will is the ultimate conservative pundit.  From hosting parties for the Reagans after his election, to his trademark bowtie, love of baseball and respect for the classics, he has always been a consummate conservative establishment icon.  He speaks for a large segment of the conservative population in America.  In this week's Newsweek he was on target:

Many months ago it became obvious to all but the most ideologically blinkered that America is losing the war launched to deal with a chimeric problem (an arsenal of WMD) and to achieve a delusory goal (a democracy that would inspire emulation, transforming the region). Last week the president retired his mantra "stay the course" because it does not do justice to the nimbleness and subtlety of U.S. tactics for winning the war.   A surreal and ultimately disgusting facet of the Iraq fiasco is the lag between when a fact becomes obvious and when the fiasco's architects acknowledge that fact. Iraq's civil war has been raging for more than a year; so has the Washington debate about whether it is what it is.  - George Will (Read the whole thing at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15460708/site/newsweek/)

He goes on to directly criticize Vice President Cheney for being unable to admit the obvious errors in his statements, and finishes with some stories that touch on the human cost of the war.   It seems that the White House is lost in some kind of fog, with members of the Administration unable to bring themselves to admit what is obvious to everyone, including a growing number of Republicans and conservative pundits. 

While the hardcore hawks prefer to either fantasize that killing al-Sadr would solve the problem (these guys never learn from their mistakes, it seems, they think victory is just a few good kills away) or blame American culture or the American media for the problems, reality is getting harder and harder to ignore.  It is surreal and disgusting, as Will notes -- and anyone reading this blog frequently will recognize that I've often stated sentiments similar to Will's (though not as eloquently stated).

What really fascinates me, as someone who studies foreign policy, is the question of whether or not the White House truly is lost in a surreal fog, caused by group think, psychological biases, and imagination driven understandings of reality, or if they are trying to simply spin what they know is a disaster.  What is going on behind closed doors?  What are the conversations really like?  I've leaned towards the interpretation that at this point they are in spin mode, trying to declare victory while leaving.  Witness the departure of the neo-cons from high levels (save Cheney and Rumsfeld, to be sure), and the apparent rise of realists like Rice. 

Yet we still get the rhetoric of "our civilization is at stake," and comparisons to the Cold War or even the run up to WWII.  We still hear stories of war plans against Iran.  Moreover, it seems insane that such a political White House -- one apparently planning to release the Saddam verdict the day before the Midterm elections -- would launch a major offensive in Iraq in September unless they thought it would be a success and allow them to claim that the corner had been turned.  Instead it's failed, American deaths have skyrocketed, and all but the most obstinate or loyal to the cause are bailing.  Even the hard core hawks are getting their stories ready, preparing a revision of history to suggest that victory was possible but a few errors and weak willed public lost it, a "stab in the back" legend similar to what some even claim about Vietnam.

The good news for conservatives and Republicans is that people like Will and Buchanan represent the conservative soul; neo-conservatives are really Wilsonian liberals with machine guns -- militarist idealists.   In a best case scenario, a more realist form of democratic idealism will emerge again within the GOP, and that will allow Democrats and Republicans to ultimately develop an effective bipartisan approach to counter terrorism and policies in the Mideast.   American is re-learning a hard lesson about the limits of superpower.  It's a lesson that both Democrats and Republicans didn't really understand until now.   And, to be frank, some of the best ideas and criticisms of current policy are coming from anti-war conservatives, many who once supported the war.  So it's time to put partisanship aside and come together as a nation to say, "yes, this war in Iraq was a failure, a fiasco...now let's figure out how to change course in a way that reflects our values and interests."    

October 31 - It is not in your rational self-interest to vote

The campaigns are everywhere -- your vote matters, your vote makes a difference, it is in your interest to vote, etc.  The goal: convince people that it is rational to vote, that out of your own self-interest you should make your voice heard.

Poppycock.  Any rational analysis of the act of voting would have to conclude that the opportunity cost in the time you spend to go vote, plus residual expenses like gas to get to the polling place, far outweighs any benefit you gain.  Indeed, the odds that your vote will determine the outcome of any election is miniscule.  What if everyone thought that way?  That's not the relevant question, the relevant question is "what if everyone choose not to vote?"  If non-voting rose, at some level it would become rational to vote; if everyone stayed home, one vote could determine the outcome.  Of course, that's not going to happen, so except for elections that are very local, you will serve your rational self-interest best by staying home or doing something else than voting. 

Am I advocating not voting?  No.  Rather, I want to make a point that gets missed by the current 'get out the vote' campaigns: voting is an ethical duty or moral responsibility if you believe in our democratic form of government.  Consider: is it in your self-interest to tell the truth or not take advantage of those weaker than you?  Probably not.  You'd probably be best off by pretending to be honest, lie when you can get away with it, and take advantage of people to the extent that it doesn't damage your reputation significantly.  Indeed, just go read The Prince by Machiavelli for an example of how to do such calculations.

Of course I'm not advocating that either.  The point is that life is defined not just by rational self-interest, but rather by self-interest combined with moral/ethical responsibilities.  Ethical responsibilities arise when the good of everyone, including oneself ultimately, is served by putting aside rational self-interest in favor of actions that create a collective good.  Because society is better off when people are generally honest and don't try to unjustly harm others, it is best for us to follow those moral imperatives even when it would be in our self-interest not to.  If you find a wallet you should seek the owner rather than pocket the money.

Voting is the same way.  It's never going to be worth it in a rational self-interest sense.  Trying to appeal to people to vote to "make a difference" or because "their vote matters" is going to fail because people are rational enough to know that the election almost certainly won't be decided by one vote.  Rather, one should vote because it is a moral responsibility to vote.  We partake of the benefits of this democratic republic, which is stable, prosperous and free.  These benefits accrue because, compared to governments over much of the world, we have a governmental system that has legitimacy and is effective.  That only continues because people make choices to vote, among other things.  If you rely on others to vote out of individual self-interest, you are essentially becoming a 'free rider,' someone who benefits without sharing the cost.  And while some free riders due so out of ideological delusion (e.g., anarcho-capitalists who fantasize that 'no government' is possible), most do so just because sharing the cost is inconvenient.

So just as you would go against your self-interest to return a found wallet, help a stranger, or do volunteer work, it's important to simply out of a sense of duty and moral responsibility go vote.  It's a small price to pay -- spread out amongst over 200 million people -- to maintain a stable, prosperous democratic system.   That's the reason to vote; not to make a difference in the outcome, but to participate in what is required to make our political system function.