22 May 2004
Admitting the Error of Invading Iraq
No. The U.S., Britain, the other Coalition partners shouldn’t pull out of Iraq – cut and run. It is time, though, for liberal supporters of the invasion to admit that they were duped. This was never a matter of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Nor was it a matter of international terrorism or removal of a dictator. Those arguments, convincing as they might have been, only covered for avenging a death threat to the father of the current U.S. President.
Saddam was an odious oppressor, true; but he kept order and prevented his land from harboring uncontrollable elements like Al Qaeda. Now that he is gone, the Coalition occupation faces resistance from violent nationalists -- “insurgents.” They have every right to seek the ouster of a foreign invader. Tragically, their resort to inhumane methods was inevitable because of the inhumanity of their previous ruler, not to mention the invitation their situation has presented to fundamentalist Islamic terrorists to take advantage.
But now we in America are stuck in Iraq. Our kith and kin are losing their lives and limbs in a conflict that was not necessary to protect our security. (Here is its real similarity to Vietnam. Fortunately, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld found a way to fight such an impetuous war without incurring massive casualties.) But by leaving before putting in place a system for keeping civil order and sustaining personal welfare the Coalition will abandon a hopeless state with no peaceful process for resolving its ethnic divisions.
The logic of Tony Blair’s membership in the Coalition is revealed in that the ultimate outcome of the invasion of Iraq will be to clean up a mess created nearly a century ago when Britain thought it should rescue the remains of the Ottoman Empire. Let us hope the natural wealth of Iraq is great enough and sufficiently widespread to buffer the disintegration of its geopolitical straight jacket.
No. The U.S., Britain, the other Coalition partners shouldn’t pull out of Iraq – cut and run. It is time, though, for liberal supporters of the invasion to admit that they were duped. This was never a matter of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Nor was it a matter of international terrorism or removal of a dictator. Those arguments, convincing as they might have been, only covered for avenging a death threat to the father of the current U.S. President.
Saddam was an odious oppressor, true; but he kept order and prevented his land from harboring uncontrollable elements like Al Qaeda. Now that he is gone, the Coalition occupation faces resistance from violent nationalists -- “insurgents.” They have every right to seek the ouster of a foreign invader. Tragically, their resort to inhumane methods was inevitable because of the inhumanity of their previous ruler, not to mention the invitation their situation has presented to fundamentalist Islamic terrorists to take advantage.
But now we in America are stuck in Iraq. Our kith and kin are losing their lives and limbs in a conflict that was not necessary to protect our security. (Here is its real similarity to Vietnam. Fortunately, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld found a way to fight such an impetuous war without incurring massive casualties.) But by leaving before putting in place a system for keeping civil order and sustaining personal welfare the Coalition will abandon a hopeless state with no peaceful process for resolving its ethnic divisions.
The logic of Tony Blair’s membership in the Coalition is revealed in that the ultimate outcome of the invasion of Iraq will be to clean up a mess created nearly a century ago when Britain thought it should rescue the remains of the Ottoman Empire. Let us hope the natural wealth of Iraq is great enough and sufficiently widespread to buffer the disintegration of its geopolitical straight jacket.
15 May 2004
The Arrogance of Hegemony
The U.S. has become dangerously infatuated with its ascendance to the pinnacle of world power. Widely acknowledged as the sole superpower, the country’s current administration arrogantly dismisses the thought that America’s values are anything but superior to those of other societies. Moreover, it refuses to recognize that even if its values are superior, according to some universal set of standards, it takes commitment and diligence to enforce them in practice.
In the case of the Abu Ghraib abuses, it’s getting tiresome to hear repeated over and over that the telltale photos do not reflect American values. They probably don’t reflect the values of any other civilized societies either; but most of the citizens and officials of those nations are able to control their behavior and avoid worldwide media attention. When a people like the Iraqis, who have been suppressed for decades, are suddenly released to their own devices, they can act inhumanely – take the example of the killings of American contractors in Fallujah. Regrettably, when a society like the U.S. is unchallenged for world domination, arrogance derived from its power can infect the behavior of its members when they are not adequately supervised.
Of course, those individuals who violate our society’s rule of law need to be punished. Courts martial are the appropriate consequence. However, a special burden weighs on people in positions of executive power in a hegemon like the U.S. They must assure that its rule of law is adhered to by its own citizens, particularly in a foreign land where the professed objective of its being there is to impose that rule of law. Failure to carry out that responsibility is also deserving of punishment.
The U.S. has become dangerously infatuated with its ascendance to the pinnacle of world power. Widely acknowledged as the sole superpower, the country’s current administration arrogantly dismisses the thought that America’s values are anything but superior to those of other societies. Moreover, it refuses to recognize that even if its values are superior, according to some universal set of standards, it takes commitment and diligence to enforce them in practice.
In the case of the Abu Ghraib abuses, it’s getting tiresome to hear repeated over and over that the telltale photos do not reflect American values. They probably don’t reflect the values of any other civilized societies either; but most of the citizens and officials of those nations are able to control their behavior and avoid worldwide media attention. When a people like the Iraqis, who have been suppressed for decades, are suddenly released to their own devices, they can act inhumanely – take the example of the killings of American contractors in Fallujah. Regrettably, when a society like the U.S. is unchallenged for world domination, arrogance derived from its power can infect the behavior of its members when they are not adequately supervised.
Of course, those individuals who violate our society’s rule of law need to be punished. Courts martial are the appropriate consequence. However, a special burden weighs on people in positions of executive power in a hegemon like the U.S. They must assure that its rule of law is adhered to by its own citizens, particularly in a foreign land where the professed objective of its being there is to impose that rule of law. Failure to carry out that responsibility is also deserving of punishment.
14 May 2004
Jewish Vote Issues
Is the U.S. Jewish vote really tied to a single issue? John Kerry’s campaign seems to think so. That’s the conclusion I draw from his support for the declared policy of Mr. Sharon’s government of Israel to retain and defend certain Israeli settlements in the Palestinian West Bank.
The endorsement of that policy by George Bush also caters to his fundamentalist Christian constituency. In fact, it may be the most important reason for the Bush reelection campaign to show solidarity with Sharon. He wants to solidify the allegiance of the new “Crusaders” who appear to have adopted Israel as their surrogate in face of the perceived Arab threat to the Holy Land. When asked in a television news interview the other day why she supported Bush, in light of her loss of support for the occupation of Iraq, a woman answered “I guess because he’s a Christian.”
Kerry’s campaign probably has won serious support from Jewish-American financial backers and opinion leaders who are reputedly sympathetic to hard-line Israeli survivalists. Nevertheless, he should try to multiply and disaggregate issues that are important to this thoughtful and influential crowd. Each of them is equally concerned about one or more of the following:
• Abortion rights
• Medical care for the aged
• Competing in an increasingly globalized world
• Fiscal responsibility towards future generations (i.e., taxes and deficits)
• Environmental stewardship
• Alternate sources of energy.
Surely these and other issues allow room for the Kerry Campaign to win support among those who some simplistically categorize into Jewish and Christian fundamentalist voting blocks. That strategy would corroborate the professed desire of John Kerry that the national political debate have greater intellectual texture, and not be reduced to the sloganeering that bedecks the massive stage backdrops to Mr. Bush’s campaign appearances.
Is the U.S. Jewish vote really tied to a single issue? John Kerry’s campaign seems to think so. That’s the conclusion I draw from his support for the declared policy of Mr. Sharon’s government of Israel to retain and defend certain Israeli settlements in the Palestinian West Bank.
The endorsement of that policy by George Bush also caters to his fundamentalist Christian constituency. In fact, it may be the most important reason for the Bush reelection campaign to show solidarity with Sharon. He wants to solidify the allegiance of the new “Crusaders” who appear to have adopted Israel as their surrogate in face of the perceived Arab threat to the Holy Land. When asked in a television news interview the other day why she supported Bush, in light of her loss of support for the occupation of Iraq, a woman answered “I guess because he’s a Christian.”
Kerry’s campaign probably has won serious support from Jewish-American financial backers and opinion leaders who are reputedly sympathetic to hard-line Israeli survivalists. Nevertheless, he should try to multiply and disaggregate issues that are important to this thoughtful and influential crowd. Each of them is equally concerned about one or more of the following:
• Abortion rights
• Medical care for the aged
• Competing in an increasingly globalized world
• Fiscal responsibility towards future generations (i.e., taxes and deficits)
• Environmental stewardship
• Alternate sources of energy.
Surely these and other issues allow room for the Kerry Campaign to win support among those who some simplistically categorize into Jewish and Christian fundamentalist voting blocks. That strategy would corroborate the professed desire of John Kerry that the national political debate have greater intellectual texture, and not be reduced to the sloganeering that bedecks the massive stage backdrops to Mr. Bush’s campaign appearances.
