This is a follow up to Andrew's great picture earlier. I laugh every time.
Also, if you that initial thrill has worn off the bin Laden situation and you want to think a little more about it, here are a couple good things to read. First, Greenwald is asking some important and difficult questions that I think need to be answered:
But what has surprised me somewhat is how little interest there seems to be in finding out what actually happened here. We know very little about the circumstances of bin Laden's killing, because the U.S. government has issued so many contradictory claims, which in turn contradict the reported claims of those at the scene.
...
Beyond the apparent indifference to how this killing took place, what has also surprised me somewhat is the lack of interest in trying to figure out how the bin Laden killing fits into broader principles and viewpoints about state power and the War on Terror. I've seen people who have spent the last decade insisting that the U.S. must accord due process to accused Terrorists before punishing them suddenly mock the notion that bin Laden should have been arrested and tried.
...
Then there's the strange indifference to finding out whether bin Laden was actually captured before executed. . . . How can that not matter? Hasn't the entire debate about torture centered on the proposition that states have a moral and legal obligation not to abuse helpless detainees, given that their captivity means they have been rendered harmless? Shouldn't we want to know if bin Laden was captured before being killed, and wouldn't that make some difference in assessing one's views of his killing?
In response, Balloon Juice agrees but still refuses to get too nuanced about it all (Warning, offensive language, i.e. swears):
I’m the hypocrite here. I’m stridently against extrajudicial killings, the death penalty, targeted assassination, etc. I’d wager most of you are, too. But when I heard that Osama had been killed, I’ll be damned if I didn’t think “Thank God that monster is gone.” Sure, in my ideal world he’d be brought back to the US, tried, and then imprisoned for the rest of his life. But you know what? I can not honestly say I give a damned that he took a double tap to the skull. Sorry. And I’d be also willing to bet that is where most of you all are- this may or may not have been legal, but you don’t give a shit, because that scumbag is at the bottom of an ocean somewhere and got what he deserved. I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that a primitive part of me was sort of sad he didn’t experience any pain.
I am still trying to sort out how much I care about how this was carried out, which is really a question about justice. On the one hand, one exception to the rules (the bin Laden exception, we'll call it) might open the door to increasingly lawless government acting outside of what we consider open and moral bounds for what could at best be considered a ephemeral notion of justice, on the other it was Osama bin Laden, and he got what he deserved and we all know it. Not easy . . .
OBL's death may be largely symbolic, but the symbolism is powerful. The thugs that are Al-Qaeda have stolen the focus for too many years from the billions of peaceful Muslims in the world. If nothing else, I'm hoping his death will undo that supreme injustice.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." -- 6th Amendment
This seems pretty straightforward, right? I believe the historical impetus for this addition to the Bill of Rights was the fact that kings and rulers were accusing the people of crimes and convicting them without a trial by jury, without witnesses, without due process of law, essentially without any safeguards or protections whatsoever against corruption and unchecked power. The founders wisely ensured that if government has the ability to deprive a person of property, freedom, or life (which it does) then the Constitution should require that the government has to submit to certain safeguards against the abuse of that power. I believe those on both the political right and left can feel good about that. Of course, America isn't alone in guaranteeing a public jury trial for criminals. Other countries have such requirements, and stick to them even in cases of terrorist attacks, as Glenn Greenwald outlined:
People in capitals all over the world have hosted trials of high-level terrorist suspects using their normal justice system. They didn't allow fear to drive them to build island-prisons or create special commissions to depart from their rules of justice. Spain held an open trial in Madrid for the individuals accused of that country's 2004 train bombings. The British put those accused of perpetrating the London subway bombings on trial right in their normal courthouse in London. Indonesia gave public trials using standard court procedures to the individuals who bombed a nightclub in Bali. India used a Mumbai courtroom to try the sole surviving terrorist who participated in the 2008 massacre of hundreds of residents. In Argentina, the Israelis captured Adolf Eichmann, one of the most notorious Nazi war criminals, and brought him to Jerusalem to stand trial for his crimes.
But not in America. In America we are stricken with fear that our criminal justice system is suddenly inadequate and that the safeguards found in the Constitution regarding trials of criminals, which have served us well for a couple hundred years, fall short. So we have a Democratic administration, which is daily showing itself to be nothing like liberal as to civil liberties, reversing its promise to close Guantanamo Bay and hold criminal trials for Khalid Sheik Mohammad and the 9/11 plotters. Instead, the administration has decided to hold military tribunals (straight news story here) and eschew our time-tested criminal court system. Tribunals without a jury, behind closed doors, in a different country.
We are allowing, some even demanding, that the government brush aside the important Constitutional safeguards against abuse for merely political considerations. We are also setting up a system where different classes of criminals receive different levels of Constitutional protection. All out of fear, and all backed by "liberal" Pres. Obama. I like the guy, but his record on civil liberties is appalling.
The Libya situation is a classic rubber-hits-the-road situation for an evolving pacifist like myself. On the one hand I believe strongly that the Gospel implores us to practice non-aggression, and practical experience shows that violence never begets less violence but only escalates it. On the other hand you had peaceful protests from Libyans seeking to only secure democracy for themselves, but were met with violence from their government and it seems only right to send our military in to cripple their oppressive and aggressive government. The world is, indeed, a complicated place.
But I can't support military action in Libya. Not only do we have two wars of choice already being fought in the Middle East, not only is our military stretched thin, not only is our budget (and our military budget in particular) spinning out of control, not only does America tend to get bogged down in regime change messes, but I believe escalating the violence is the unethical response. Here is a sampling of where my Christian pacifism comes from:
Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Matthew 5:38-46 38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
Doctrine and Covenants 98:16 Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace, and seek diligently to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children
Doctrine and Covenant 98:33-34 33 And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.
34 And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue;
President Kimball, The False Gods We Worship We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:
“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.”
If we are going to take these words seriously, it means making really, really hard decisions about non-aggression. I'm certainly glad that I have only to make personal decisions and not be in a position to effect the lives of others, but this is an opportunity for us as Christians to unite behind the idea of peace, even when it is perhaps the hardest decision to make. We then turn our safety and aspirations over to the Lord, and put complete trust in Him to protect us and guide us as He has promised to do.
Also, there is the little issue of the war being unconstitutional. The Constitution gives only Congress the power to declare war, and gives the President power as the Commander in Chief to direct wars declared by Congress. Congress did not authorize this military engagement with Libya. As usual, Glenn Greenwald nails it here, and I pretty much fully agree with some ultra-conservatives here.
Let's imagine a worst-case scenario where the United States, through internal factors, disintegrates and splinters. As a result, different states and regions band together to form new nations. One natural fit would be for the people of the "Mormon Belt" to form an alliance and create a new nation, let's call it Deseret.
Now imagine a choice between creating a democracy, similar to the one established in the Constitution, and a theocracy where the prophet was the head of state, similar to the institutions created by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Which would you choose? I'm not sure that is such an easy choice for Mormons.
Now, how does this effect your views on the revolutions taking place in the Middle East? There is considerable hand-wringing by conservatives, given voice by Fox News, and hilariously parodied by Glenn Beck, that the revolutions are distinctly bad because Islamists may take power. After all, Palestinians elected Hamas and in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood has some amount of popularity and political organization. It is certainly not a perfect analogy, but how critical can we be of Muslims choosing to create a theocracy when we, as Mormons, would likely be inclined to do the same?
What you are hearing from Washington insiders regarding the uprising, or revolution, in Egypt is that Pres. Obama is in a very tough spot. Republicans are surprisingly supportive of this view and are standing behind the president as he tries to figure out what to do. It's tricky because we've been supporting, through billions of dollars in aid, Mubarak for decades, this despite the fact that he is an undemocratic autocrat who excludes his people from legitimate public debate and involvement. But the US is okay with that because he has been friendly with Israel, he has been moderate in keeping fundamentalism at bay in Egypt, and the country has been stable under his rule.
This is the classic foreign policy realism point of view. Realism is not concerned with right or wrong, moral or immoral, and the like. Realism is concerned with who has power and how does that effect me? The paramount concern for a foreign policy realist is one's own security and self-interest. From the realist's point of view, Mubarak has been perfectly acceptable. The idea of a revolution in Egypt, with the possibility of chaos or fundamentalism taking hold as a counter-weight to the possibility of real democracy taking hold, is a risk probably not worth taking. So the establishment is treading very carefully, not really sure what to do about it. Of course a stable democracy is the very best thing for America's self-interest, but the cost/benefit analysis is tricky. This is why the Obama administration is making wishy-washy statements and being blamed for being one step behind the situation, and why Republicans are supportive.
And it's all wrong. America's self-interest is second to the inherent right of all people to live under conditions of democracy, peace, and human rights. This is called foreign policy idealism, that our foreign policy is led by our internal philosophies, and America was founded on the ideals of freedom, democracy, and human rights (well, we got there eventually, anyway). These are, for the most part, peaceful demonstrations of people who are throwing off an oppressive dictator and they should have nothing but our full support, and should have had it from the beginning. The same is true of the recent protests in Tunisia, Iran, Jordan, and Yemen.
"Stability in lieu of freedom," as a recent Wall Street Journal editorial stated, was the long-time realist approach to the Middle East, but that is changing now. Even the realists are seeing some value in a democratic and free Egypt. In this case, the realists are on the wrong side of history, flat-footed as they realize that the old conventional wisdom that democracy could not take root naturally in the Middle East was nothing more than haughty American exceptionalism at its worst. The Bush Doctrine of spreading democracy through war has been trounced and we now realize, more than ever before, that peaceful democracy and Islam are not mutually exclusive.
I'm not saying that Pres. Obama's famous Cairo Speech prompted this organic revolution, but as has been noted, the president put himself in the best position possible to support it when he said these words: "America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments -- provided they govern with respect for all their people."
Pres. Obama has not always backed those words with concrete actions, and he has been slow to react correctly to the political upheaval in the Middle East and North Africa, but he at least staked out the correct amount of foreign policy idealism and gave America the flexibility to reject a stable Middle Eastern dictator when the people chose to overthrow him.
For too long America has supported dictators in the Middle East, even Saddam Hussein at one time, in the name of foreign policy realism, and it has left us weaker and more vulnerable, and morally bankrupt. It is now time for America to support democracy and human-rights in the name of foreign policy idealism. Next stop, by the way, must be Palestine.
I had a post all ready to go about the procrastination around ratifying the New Start Treaty between the US and Russia. I've been blown away (pun intended) by the wavering Republicans that wanted to amend the treaty. The New Start Treaty is based on a previous treaty with Russia that is set to expire this month. As such, any amendment would require both countries to go back to negotiations.
I was going to write about Russia's response to the proposed amendments, "I can only underscore that the strategic nuclear arms treaty, worked out on the strict basis of parity, in our view fully answers to the national interests of Russia and the United States,” (Sergey V. Lavrov - Russian foreign minister) “It cannot be opened up and become the subject of new negotiations.”
I had a bunch written about how Senator McCain was pushing for a clause to be inserted that would maintain the US's ability to stockpile missiles in Germany and other European countries. As I wrote, I kept thinking about how completely asinine the GOP's arguments were, and how ridiculous the comment from Mr McConnell was accusing Obama of trying to force the treaty forward for political gain, "Our top concern should be the safety and security of our nation, not some politician’s desire to declare a political victory and host a press conference before the end of the year."
Then, just before clicking on the "Publish Post" button, this news was released. I can't express how delighted (and surprised) I am that congress has managed to approve a little bit of common sense. I'm glad that an the publishing of an explosive post was averted. Oh, and I'm pretty happy that congress came to their senses before we had to face the possibility of heating up a Cold War.
So Julian Assange of Wikileaks recently released about 250,000 secret documents from the State Department. The very best thing you could possibly read about Wikileaks is Glenn Greenwald. Here is a smattering, the tip o' the iceberg, of new information that we learned about our government's illegal and immoral activity from these documents that Greenwald put together:
(3) the State Department under Bush and Obama applied continuous pressure on the Spanish Government to suppress investigations of the CIA's torture of its citizens and the 2003 killing of a Spanish photojournalist when the U.S. military fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad (see The Philadelphia Inquirer's Will Bunch today about this: "The day Barack Obama Lied to me");
(6) "American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world" about the Iraq war as it was prosecuted, a conclusion the Post's own former Baghdad Bureau Chief wrote was proven by the WikiLeaks documents;
(9) Hillary Clinton's State Department ordered diplomats to collect passwords, emails, and biometric data on U.N. and other foreign officials, almost certainly in violation of the Vienna Treaty of 1961. And there are many others. In response, Newt Gingrich joined other conservatives in calling for Assange to be considered an enemy combatant. There is a swelling chorus of conservatives and political insiders calling for Assange to be killed and physical, military force to be used to stop Wikileaks, endorsed by Sarah Palin.
I support Wikileaks. Wholeheartedly. If we are going to live in a healthy democracy, if we are going to protect our individual rights against powerful institutions, if we are going to exist in a peaceful world, we have to -- have to -- have transparency. There is no other way. And I don't care if some short term U.S. interests are hurt. We are only safe and empowered over the long term as a citizenry if we have access to full information and we can make decisions based on complete transparency.
We at the Mormon Left have spend a lot of time arguing for increasing the role of government in providing a safety net for Americans. We've supported public welfare, single payer health insurance and the public option, progressive taxation, Social Security, aggressive regulation of the market, and the like. So I can imagine a person thinking that supporting Wikileaks as a check against government and supporting government programs as intellectually dissonant. But it's not.
A government that is transparent, accountable, and honest with its citizens can be incredibly effective at ameliorating social injustices. What other organization has the resources and power to make sure that affordable health care is available to all Americans, or that all the elderly are taken care of? None. But that desire to allow government into our lives is based on the assumption that the government is being honest and accountable and not hiding material information from us. If we find government unresponsive we have two major choices. We can either demand that government stop providing those services that millions rely on in difficult times, or we can keep the services and make government more transparent and open. I choose the latter, and that's why Wikileaks is to be applauded.
I've beaten this drum a few times, but there are certain fairly simple things we can do to improve our government and make it a useful tool in our hands instead of cutting off the social safety net and harming millions of everyday Americans. We can reform campaign finance laws to limit the sway of special interests, enact term limits on all elected politicians, dramatically increase the size of the House of Representatives, reform the broken Senate and its anti-democratic rules, and the like. Now lets add to the list "increase transparency." I want full information in all but the most sensitive situations because when government, or any other institution, becomes secretive it means it is or will soon be doing something wrong. And the Wikileaks documents prove conclusively that the American government, cloaked in secrecy, has been immoral and breaking every law it can get its hands on. The proper response is to reform the way our government works in making it commit to more transparency.
I am so appalled and angered by the violent reaction to Wikileaks, such as those that want to use the military to forcefully destroy their organization and even kill them. I think it could not reflect more poorly on those that want to combat transparency with violence and more secrecy. Ultraconservatives rail against Pres. Obama and his radical and dangerous anti-American ideology, but they recoil in disgust when someone sheds light on how the American government actually works. The tea party shrieks in horror when the government passes a stimulus bill to inject life into the economy as an unconstitutional intrusion into our private lives but whistles nonchalantly and turns the other way when someone reveals the extent to which our government breaks laws and acts immorally and then hides it from its people. That is intellectual dissonance, and it is dangerous for the fate of our country.
Bad Religion has a song called You Are the Government:
That is exactly spot on. We the People. We are the government. The government doesn't have a right to keep its actions hidden because we are the government. We empower the government to do all sorts of good for us, the very least we should receive in return is true transparency and accountability. Wikileaks helps us achieve that. If you don't agree perhaps you'd feel more at home politically in China.
He gave away the public option before the debate even began. Health care reform ended up being a huge win for the health care industry which will soon be flooded with new customers thanks to the mandate.
The stimulus was too small and included too many tax cuts for corporations at the Republicans' behest.
He has failed to follow up on, pursue, and prosecute Bush Administration illegal activities such as torture and illegal wiretapping.
The war in Afghanistan, which pretty much everyone agrees we can't "win" militarily, has been escalated instead of ended.
The financial reform bill was watered down in the face of the powerful financial lobby to the point of likely being completely ineffectual to prevent the sort of the economic meltdown we are currently working our way out of, over two years later and with no end in sight.
He is now backing down from his stance of letting the tax cuts for the super-wealthy expire and extending the tax cuts for the vast majority of Americans permanently.
What makes these items so infuriating for liberals is that public polling shows that Americans supported the liberal position in nearly ever single one of this issues. Americans wanted a public option, at the time a big stimulus was popular to drag us out of the recession. Americans hate torture and our Middle Eastern wars. Americans wanted tough new regulations for Wall Street to avoid another economic meltdown. Americans want the tax cuts for the wealthy to expire. They want Pres. Obama to deliver on his promises, but he appears to be politically gutless. I can't think of an issue where he has drawn a line in the sand and stood up for what he believes is best for America.
Compromise is inevitable, of course, and I'm glad we have a president who is willing to compromise to get things done. The problem is he never seems to compromise from a position of strength and vigor. When he was elected America had given Democrats complete control of the government because they didn't like where Republicans were taking them. Instead of taking that mandate and arguing with strong voices for the policies that got them elected, Democrats capitulated and seems to retreat at every possible occasion. As Pres. Obama is the leader of the Democratic party it was up to him to set the agenda and the tone. He has so far failed.
I don't expect or even necessarily want a victory on every major point above, but certainly a few victories would be encouraging for liberals. A few moments of inspiring leadership would be much appreciated. A mere occasional reason to gloat wouldn't be the worst thing on earth. If the President and Democrats had managed just a couple big wins in those issues they may have had a base that was more energized for the election and more willing to work hard to defeat the tea party surge. But since there does not seem to be either 1) any real and deeply-held liberal convictions by Democrats or, worse, 2) any real difference between the two parties and thus no real choice, liberals largely stayed home on election day.
Pres. Obama has two more years to show some real leadership, but I'm not convinced he has it in him. And I know Congressional Democrats don't. The liberal renaissance we thought was coming in 2006 and 2008 has flatlined.
In keeping with a recent tradition of writing an entire post just to announce I'm adding another link to the sidebar on a blog that very few people actually read (ahh! self-deprecation is nice!), I'm announcing that I'm adding a new link to the sidebar and I strongly suggest you click on this one. The link is to a blog on the website Foreign Policy by Stephen M. Walt. If you're interests range outside of domestic politics at all, and they really should, then Walt's blog is a must read, in my opinion.
In response to the odious Bill Kristol's recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal which uses fear-mongering to lobby for continuing the current insane level of funding for our bloated military-industrial complex, Walt gives several reasons why cutting "defense" spending is necessary but unlikely. He concludes with this:
Which brings me to my main point. Although it is mind-boggling to realize that five percent of the world's population (the United States) now spends more on defense than the other 95 percent put together, this situation is hard to avoid when you see threats emerging virtually everywhere and when you think all of them are best met by an ambitious and highly interventionst foreign policy. If Americans want to be able to go anywhere and do anything, then they are going to have keep spending lots of money, even if all that activity merely reinforces anti-American extremism and makes more people want to come after us. (And for more on that latter point, read this book).
If you want to cut defense spending significantly, in short, you have to make some non-trivial adjustments in U.S. grand strategy. As some of you know, I think the United States would be both more prosperous and safer if we had a more restrained grand strategy and a more intelligent foreign policy. Until that happens, however, reducing defense spending itself is going to be an uphill fight, and our defense expenditures will be closer to the views of Kristol et al than to mine. Unfortunately.
By a more restrained and intelligent foreign policy, he means this, from another recent post of his:
The solution is not to retreat into isolationism and cede the initiative to others. Rather, the solution is to remind ourselves what American power is good for, and avoid taking on tasks for which it is ill-suited. The United States is very good at deterring large-scale aggression, and thus good at ensuring stability in key regions. (That assumes, of course, that we aren't using that same power to destabilize certain regions on purpose). We are sometimes good at brokering peace deals -- as in Northern Ireland and the Balkans -- when we use our power judiciously and fairly. And we've often done a pretty fair job -- in concert with others -- at encouraging intelligent liberalization of the world economy. The United States is not very good at governing foreign societies, especially when the local inhabitants don't want us there and when we have little understanding of how they work. And if we keep trying to do this sort of thing, we're likely to look inept far more often than we look effective.
In short, regaining an aura of competence isn't just about trying harder, or restoring the work ethic and "can do" attitude that we associate (rightly or wrongly) with earlier eras. It also entails picking the right goals and not squandering time, money and lives on fool's errands.
What a refreshing look at American foreign policy, and way more in line with my sense of Christian peacemaking. Instead of destabilizing regions and starting wars and occupying foreign societies, all of which make us less safe, we should focus our resources on deterring large-scale aggression, brokering peace, and spreading democracy through peaceful means, all of which would make us more safe.
This idea of restrained foreign policy also ties in nicely with the idea that we, as members of the church, should espouse practices and ideas that lead us to more moderation. We are taught to exercise restraint in everything from consumption to debt to ideology. But as Americans, we are taught to believe that the world is our playground, that we have a right to create a world, by force if necessary, where Americans are free to go anywhere they want with no restrictions at all, that everyone should love us and laud our positive influence in every region. The reality is that we simply aren't going to make friends with everyone, there will be places Americans can't go, and we can only improve those conditions through peaceful and patient means.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are disasters. They have cost thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of civilian lives. They will end up costing in the trillions of dollars. They have no objective end point and there is no hope of meaningful victory. They have increased terrorism and hatred towards our country. Our foreign policy is in the hands of people who will not likely learn from these disasters and continue to bluster about military force against Iran, Yemen, and other unfriendly countries. We are not a country that practices a Christian foreign policy, but it isn't too late to change.
Glenn Greenwald has documented the increased desire of America to bomb Yemen. Jeffrey Goldberg has documented the increased American desire to bomb Iran. President Obama has committed to escalating the unwinnable war in Afghanistan. Even though we are told that the combat mission in Iraq is coming to a close, there are still 50,000 troops there and combat will likely continue for a long time. Meanwhile, experts are warning America that our reaction against the inaccurately-named "ground zero mosque" is fueling extremists.
We are caught in a self-defeating cycle. Some Islamic extremists hate America and want to hurt us. So America takes military action against Muslims. So more Muslims hate America and want to harm us. So America does something else against Muslims. So they are more enraged and hate us more. So we react again. And so on. If one didn't know any better one might be inclined to think that we are purposefully created conditions that would justify our ongoing military presence in the Middle East. But that would be silly.
In any case, we can either let this go on indefinitely until we have an all-out world war on our hands or we can step back and try to regain our sanity and perspective by trying out the role of peacemaker for a while. We can either be a country that is more and more reliant on a massive military-industrial complex or we can choose to disentangle ourselves from foreign intrigue as George Washington presciently advised.
Frankly, though, I find it slightly terrifying how many people in America support escalating our military presence in the Muslim world. They are positively gleeful at the thought of bombing Afghanistan, and Iraq, and Iran, and Yemen, oh and Pakistan. I don't want to live in a world where war is the preferred way to solve our difficult international problems, but that's where we're headed if we don't start actively opposing it.
Glenn Greenwald highlights, once again, the fundamental problem with America's current foreign policy towards the Middle East. In an effort to combat extremism we have attacked and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, committed torture, held supposed extremists in prison indefinitely without charges or hearings, and failed to push back against Israeli aggressions. As a result, no surprise, we have likely created far more extremism than we have destroyed, we are likely less safe now than we were before 9/11, and we are certainly a bigger target.
After reading Greenwald I stumbled across the following (kind of long) passage from George Washington's farewell address regarding foreign policy:
Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it -- It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it?. . . In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
Our attitude and actions towards the Middle East and certain other countries shows why President Washington was right. We've meddled and meddled so long in this region, mostly because they have a lot of oil and we love oil, that we have become a slave to it. The War in Afghanistan is almost nine years old and the Iraq War is over six years old. We have so much time and emotion and lives and money tied to those wars and our general conduct towards Muslim nations that we are now not able to even extricate ourselves without doing major harm to both ourselves and that region.
I wonder what the situation would be now if we had followed President Washington's advice from the start and treated that region with "an exalted justice and benevolence." I wonder where we would be if we sacrificed our short-term desire for revenge and power for long-term strategies of patience, peace, and harmony. But we didn't, and the prophet Washington was right, our failure to follow his advice in the Middle East has led to " frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy."
It is not at all naive to think that this policy could be implemented today and yield long-term benefits to our nation. It would not only help us in avoiding future wars and avoiding the creation of more extremism and hatred toward America, but it would make us as individual Americans more free. It is not too late to change course and live up to the high ideals upon which the nation was founded.
President Washington is right, our religion and morals require us to have a more benevolent attitude towards nations we currently revile or consider our enemies, and it happens to be good public policy as well.
What came first, the Palestinian terrorism, targeting of civilians, and suicide attacks on Israel chicken or the Israeli targeting of civilians and brutal oppression of Palestinians egg?
The latest escalation of the problem occurred over the weekend when Israeli commandos stormed a humanitarian aid ship headed for Palestine and killed at least ten civilians. The ship was attempting to violate an Israeli embargo of Gaza. This horrendous act is just Israel following the script, though. The next few scenes will inevitably go something like this: Palestinians will react to the killings at sea with protests and violence; Israel will react to Palestinian protests and violence by entrenching further, demolishing a few buildings, tightening their grip on Palestine and the decades-long embargo leading to even more soul-crushing poverty and desperation; Palestinians will resort to suicide bombings and terror; Israel will crush a Palestinian uprising. The rest of the world will have some harsh critiques for the script but allow the play to go on.
* For some reason I'm having difficulties embedding the video, so go watch it on Youtube here.
Glenn Greenwald, of course, does a masterful job outlined just why this latest attack is so repulsive, and the inept handling of the situation by the Obama administration, which refuses to join countries like Russia, Turkey, Brazil, France, Spain, and China in condemning the attack. This was a boat in international waters delivering badly needed food, medicine, and building materials to Palestinian civilians who live in abject poverty and under dictatorial oppression. The United States must send a strong message that human rights and basic human decency are of paramount importance, more important than Israel's right to oppress the Palestinians, and condemn this act. I don't pretend to understand all the complexities of the Middle East conflict. I don't think any American can fully grasp the centuries old dynamics that drive this mess. I understand that Israel is a sovereign nation that has the right to defend itself and maintain its security. I understand that Israel is our most important ally in that chaotic region, and that a strong Israel is a buffer for our own safety. I also understand that Palestinians have just as much of a claim on the territory as the Israelis. I understand that Palestinians are human, too, and the horrible weight of Israeli occupation under which they live is inimical to their basic human dignity and at the very least a major factor driving Palestinians to violence against Israel.
This attack by Israel, though, is the perfect time to take a harder stance and demand more action from Israel to resolve this conflict. With so much international outcry, now is the time to press for lifting the blockade on Gaza, ending illegal Israel settlements in the West Bank, and the creation of a two-state system. Only by giving Palestinians hope for a better future can peace be achieved.
And I've said it before and I will reiterate it now: As members of the church, living the Gospel of Peace, we should be among the strongest voices for peace in this conflict and worldwide. We should stand up and say that the atrocities committed by both sides must end and not fall into the trap of turning a blind eye to Israeli aggressions. I would love for the church to call for a concerted effort among the members to gather and ship humanitarian aid to the Palestinians to relieve their suffering and demonstrate that Christlike love for neighbors and enemies alike.
In 1981 the First Presidency, in a statement opposing the storage of nuclear weapons in Utah and Nevada, made the following statement:
First, by way of general observation we repeat our warnings against the terrifying arms race in which the nations of the earth are presently engaged. We deplore in particular the building of vast arsenals of nuclear weaponry. We are advised that there is already enough such weaponry to destroy in large measure our civilization, with consequent suffering and misery of incalculable extent.
It is my feeling that nuclear weapons are evil, and that part of the responsibility of bearing the Gospel of Peace is speaking out against them. I would love for members of the church to take the lead in opposing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and encouraging the nations of the world to disarm. This goal can only be achieved through full international cooperation, and since the church is an international entity preaching peace we should have a strong and loud voice.
And there is a lot going on in the world of nuclear weapons these days. President Obama recently signed a new START Treaty and Protocol with the Russians which will significantly reduce the number of weaponized nuclear warheads in both countries and increase monitoring of the progress of that reduction. This is important for two reasons. First, we want to live in a world with fewer nuclear weapons, not more. We want to live in a world that values and engenders peaceful conflict resolution, not saber-rattling and faux macho-ism. We want to live in a world where there is a lesser chance of nuclear weapons and materials falling into the hands of terrorists than a greater chance. Since the United States and Russia possess more than 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons, this treaty and those that will follow are crucial.
Second, it is necessary in our efforts to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons in other parts of the world. The United States and other signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are in the business not only of not proliferating themselves but of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons to currently non-nuclear states. We can only ask for the latter of other countries with a straight face if we are doing the former. Non-nuclear states have no incentive not to pursue nuclear weapons if we are not offering to disarm ourselves.
On that note, the Obama Administration has called a nuclear security summit next week which will bring leaders from 46 nations to Washington to discuss how to protect and secure the world's nuclear material and punish those nations like Iran and North Korea that refuse to cooperate. But, as the invaluable Foreign Policy Magazine points out, all 46 visiting nations have their own agendas and the issues are varied. It is not as easy and just everyone agreeing to the reduction and securing of nuclear weapons, everyone wants something different in return for cooperation and it is almost unimaginable complex.
Which brings us to the appropriate foil in this whole nuclear story. As part of the administrations emphasis on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, it recently released a new Nuclear Posture Review. One of the very sensible things it does is, again in an effort to create a more peaceful world and gain the cooperation of non-nuclear nations, declare that the United States will not use nuclear weapons against conforming NPT nations. It says the fundamental use for nukes is deterrence.
Our foil -- you guessed it, Sarah Palin -- had this to say in response:
It's unbelievable. Unbelievable. No administration in America's history would, I think, ever have considered such a step that we just found out President Obama is supporting today. It's kinda like getting out there on a playground, a bunch of kids, getting ready to fight, and one of the kids saying, "Go ahead, punch me in the face and I'm not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me."
It goes without saying that she got the facts wrong. But more embarrassing, she has managed to reduce this entire complex and downright scary issue to a childishly simplistic playground fight analogy. I don't think we can overstate how dangerous she could be to America, and let me say here that I am becoming absolutely convinced that Palin is the 2012 Republican frontrunner. She gets the biggest crowds by far, she gets the most media attention by far, she is the preferred candidate among the vocal and energized TPN. And her response to Pres. Obama trying to get the world to reduce and retard the number of nuclear weapons to a comparison of a couple kids fighting during recess.
I don't know if I'm mortified at the prospect of her leading the nation, not to mention a major political party, or giddy at the thought of an Obama-Palin matchup in 2012 which would likely end in a Reagan-esque 1984. I guess both.
I read an article about the state of war in Africa and have been rolling it around in my head for the last few days. Sometimes you read something about the world which just slaps you in the face, and this was one of those times for me.
I tend to be an optimist on both a micro and macro level. Many would call this naivete or willful delusion, but I consider it asset. I believe that things will work out okay for me personally during difficult times (my wife might say this causes me to be less proactive than I should be, and maybe she's right), and I believe that the world is actually doing okay. Sure there are problems, big ugly problems, but there are also a lot of good people doing their best to solve those problems.
We live in a world that has less slavery than ever before, less racism and sexism, more tolerance and understanding. Mass communication has allowed us to perceive and react to inhumanities worldwide where before they would go unnoticed. For every war or earthquake there are aid groups like the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders who rush in to help improve the situation. And, of course, our church and many others donate hundreds of millions of dollars worth of supplies and volunteer time every year to help the disadvantaged. For every instance of cruelty in the world I look for and see equal instances of charity.
But, man, Africa.
That article from Foreign Policy is sobering. The county is teeming with armed groups whose only goals are crime, banditry, rape, and terror. But not terror in the sense of terrorism with a political motivation, terror for terror's sake. You cannot negotiate with them because they want no land, seek no political power, have no demands. They only want to keep committing crime. And because the people hate them, they can't muster up recruits, so they steal children from villagers and teach them to be killers before they reach puberty.
It's not that I didn't know things were bad in Africa, we've all heard about genocides, failed states, blood diamonds, military coups, oppressive totalitarians, famine, hunger, and disease. But we also know about the temples, the fall of apartheid, and successful nations like Kenya. When I served my mission in France there were many Africans who had immigrated and they were generally good, humble, God-fearing people. They really don't deserve what is happening.
So the hard question is what to do about it. There is always the no-action alternative where we do nothing because it's not our problem. There is the military alternative where we go in and maintain the peace by force. There is the foreign aid option where we try to pump money into African economies and the World Bank/IMF and hope the improved economic conditions can lift the countries out of chaos.
America spends about 25 times more on military matters than foreign aid. We spend about 0.1% of GNP on foreign aid, well below other developed countries and below the NATO goal of 0.7% of GNP. As a side note, the church has spent tens of millions of dollars in supplies, volunteer hours, and loans to Africa over the past 25 years. Pres. Obama promised to increase America's foreign aid, but with a faltering economy has not had the political capital to increase that spending.
In a world where our foreign policy is most concerned about stopping terrorism and rogue nuclear weapons, we have to put an emphasis on Africa. The lawlessness and despair in many African countries is a cauldron for the creation of terrorists and failed states. America has to be dedicated to improving conditions in Africa just like we are dedicated to spreading democracy in the Middle East. I am truly grateful to be a member of a church that has donated so much in humanitarian aid to Africa, but I realize that it is not enough. Our nation has to increase our reach in Africa.
But we shouldn't just do it as a mechanism for self-protection, though that is a persuasive political argument. If we want true success our motivation will be purely humanitarian, what Christians would call charity. We should do it because it's right, because we are all God's children and as citizens of the most prosperous and powerful nation on earth we have the added responsibility to help those that are in need. I can't think of any people in greater need right now than Africa.
As President Obama gets ready to deliver his State of the Union address (which, thankfully, will not conflict with the season premier of Lost, which would have been a deal-breaker for me, and not just for watching the speech but for supporting the president at all), I thought I'd give my own little state of the president.
Let's start with the polls in this post and then get to specific issues and opinions in the next post.
Americans like Pres. Obama. You may disagree with his policies, but you can't disagree with the polls that show his popularity remains fairly high. Take a look at his favorability ratings here. Remember to scroll down and look through all the polls. After the mean-spirited contention of the health care debate and the attacks on the president from the right, I was expecting some dismal numbers. It turns out, however, that he is sitting around +15 across the board, which is a big number.
Favorability measures how much we like Pres. Obama, which is a lot, but job approval might be a little more substantive. Yet even here we see that the president is holding his own after a difficult first year in office. Take a look at some polls here and here and the Gallup daily tracking here. He has a stable number since around last August or September fluctuating between +3 and +10. Again, this was a brutal year to be a politician, and president in particular, and he came out with the support of the majority of Americans.
Now for the more sobering polls. When it breaks down to specific issues there are some major areas of concern. See the polls here. On domestic issues Pres. Obama typically gets poor marks. On the economy he's about -10, on healthcare he is about -15, on taxes he's about even, on jobs he's about -10. Those aren't good, but I will say a couple things about them. The economy has, by all indicators, hit its nadir and is on the rise. This year should see solid growth, so I expect improved numbers on the economy, taxes, and jobs. If the economy continues to dawdle along, though, those numbers could get even worse.
As for health care, many polls are showing (example here) that more people disapprove of the bill for not going far enough than for going too far. So it is not the case that a strong majority disapproves of the direction of health insurance reform, a strong majority actually wants the reform. So I expect that once the bill is passed and the hysteria has died down these numbers will improve some because the large portion of the president's base which is showing dissatisfaction will come back around. That is the nature of bases.
On the international front, the president is getting much better marks from the American people. On foreign affairs he's around +5 (and with such efficient response to the Haiti earthquake, government aid is already on the ground there, that could go up), on Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorism he is anywhere from even to about +8 or so.
So a strong majority of Americans have a favorable opinion of the president and a solid majority approve of the job he is doing. This after one of the most contentious partisan years America has endured in quite some time.
Liberals, I sense, are starting to feel defeated, but this is qualified good news I think. We gave away a public option, Copenhagen essentially failed, and Democrats are facing losses in the midterm elections. But it has only been one year of a four-year first term for the president and progress is being made and a majority of America still supports our president. Once the health insurance bill is passed and the government moves on to focusing on the economy, jobs, and energy reform things should start to look better, but there is no question that right now Democrats are hurting, and liberals are hurting even more.
This coming year, though, may be crucial, which is where we'll pick up next week.
Al Qaeda is gaining momentum in the Arabian peninsula, and in particular in Yemen. Underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab confessed to being trained by al Qaeda in Yemen. As a result there is a growing sentiment among many conservatives that we should be preparing to launch a military campaign in Yemen. War.
I do not understand this insatiable desire to be at war. Dick Cheney continually complains that Pres. Obama refuses to admit that we are at war (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Dick Cheney has an honesty problem). Many conservatives fear that if liberals do not regularly admit to and discuss being at war with Islamic extremists that the extremists will destroy America. The assumption underlying this rhetoric is that war is the only way to make America safe.
This assumption is wrong. The United States government, even under the Bush administration, and other independent sources have all concluded that our wars with and occupations of Islamic nations is the single greatest factor in creating anti-American extremists. We often hear that these extremists hate America for its freedoms and ideals, which is generally not the case. They hate America for its wars and occupation of Muslim nations and lands. This is not necessarily a reason for America to act differently, but it should absolutely be treated seriously.
If we followed the conservative hawks' desire to start a war with Yemen, it would do more harm than good. It would create more terrorists than it would destroy. It would stretch our military even more and put Americans abroad in even more risk. And then Al Qaeda would simply pack up and move to a new country. And we can't just start a new war with every nation that harbors terrorists, we do not have unlimited resources. When America became sufficiently blase about Yemen, like we have about Afghanistan, the extremists would move back in, like they have in Afghanistan. This is a conflict that simply cannot be won through war.
And let's not forget the human side. Most of us are so detached from actual war that we have no idea what it actually means for the nations we attack. I know I don't. But take a look at this article and this photo essay about Yemen and its citizens from Foreign Policy magazine. These are real people living normal lives who harbor no ill-will towards America. These are people whose homes, families, and ways of life would be forever shattered by a misguided attack by America. It was the same for Afghans and and Iraqis. That is not to say that war is never justified, but, again, we have to take it into account.
As members of the church we should be even more acutely aware of these issues. Do we really believe that Muslims are sons and daughters of God? Do we really believe that the Gospel is universal? Can we reconcile these beliefs with disdain for Arabs, disparagement of Islam, and a thirst for war? Protection of America against terrorists is certainly not mutually exclusive to the Gospel, but the way in which we go about it and the emotions and motivations that propel us should be carefully evaluated.
I’ve been considering the phrase from Ecclesiastes 3 for a while, and wonder what exactly was meant by the term “everything.” Does it mean that there is a time and place for certain things to happen, or does it literally mean that everything has its time and place? I can understand the seasons of peace and the horrible reality of war, but what about the details? Does peace include complete abandonment of politics, religion, culture and the punishment of crimes? Does war include rape, pillage, torture, murder and the wanton destruction of cities?
A first thought would be that, in some cases, there are extenuating circumstances that define each situation. Worldwide peace likely consists of different components than national peace. Likewise, war likely consists of different mechanisms for religious conflicts and political battles. But does “everything” find a time and place to appear along the spectrum?
Admittedly, I have never been to war. I have never been a soldier. I do not understand the details of warfare from firsthand knowledge. Nevertheless, there is no part of me that can accept certain aspects of modern day warfare; namely rape, murder, and torture. I don’t care what information is gleamed from certain “tactics.” I don’t care how many lives were saved by information obtained by interrogation. I don't believe that the clause in Ecclesiastes is all inclusive.
On April 16, 2009 the Justice Department released memos that detailed the "interrogation techniques" used by the CIA, with the promise from President Obama that those involved would not be prosecuted. You can read the heinous documents for yourself. If you read nothing else, I encourage you to read the first 4-5 pages of the documents and come to your own conclusions. Some of the practices detailed and approved in the memos include: attention grasp, walling, facial hold, facial slap, cramped confinement, wall standing, stress positions, sleep deprivation, insects in a box, and water-boarding, mock executions, and sexual exploitation. Granted there is no Jack Bauer-like burning or electrocution, but they are truly inhuman and degrading and therefore in violation of international treaty. Also, there is a nice catch all that allows interrogators to "use these techniques in some combination" in an "escalating fashion." Luckily for the interrogators, one is not limited to one technique at a time, and isn't even limited to stopping at these methods.
Shortly after release of this information, two dissimilar ideologies began to emerge. From former Vice President Dick Cheney in an interview on Fox:
CHENEY: Chris, my sort of overwhelming view is that the enhanced interrogation techniques were absolutely essential in saving thousands of American lives and preventing further attacks against the United States, and giving us the intelligence we needed to go find Al Qaeda, to find their camps, to find out how they were being financed. Those interrogations were involved in the arrest of nearly all the Al Qaeda members that we were able to bring to justice. I think they were directly responsible for the fact that for eight years, we had no further mass casualty attacks against the United States.
It was good policy. It was properly carried out. It worked very, very well.
WALLACE: So even these cases where they went beyond the specific legal authorization, you’re OK with it?
CHENEY: I am.
Cheney admitted to being aware of waterboarding, and other extreme measures, but instead of backing down he "stuck to his guns." Instead of concerning himself with humanity or dignity, he defends the policies of that Administration as essential and effective when there is in fact no scientific evidence to support it. In contrast, President Obama reflected:
This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America's ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.
The United States is a nation of laws. My administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakeable commitment to our ideals. That is why we have released these memos, and that is why we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again.
At this point, we must answer the real question - is torture acceptable under any circumstance? If the answer is yes, then one would agree with Cheney's assertion that it gave valuable information and there will be a time in the future that requires us to repeat the techniques. If the answer is no, then one would agree with Obama, and this dark page should be turned and only reviewed in order to prevent the action from being repeated.
Turning again to the scriptures gives insight into approach that we, as humans, and as Mormons, should take. There is not one instance of torture mentioned anywhere in the current set of scriptures that was used by godly people to obtain anything. Captain Moroni did not interrogate detainees for tactical information, he did require that they repent and change, but did so humanely. David didn't waterboard Goliath. Nephi didn't throw his brothers in a box and toss in a couple of spiders. In contrast, every mention of torture is related to "evil" people and their actions. From Alma and Amulek being beaten, starved, and forced to watch women and children burned alive; to Jeremiah being beaten and placed in stocks; to the abhorrent torture and crucifixion of our Savior.
I'm not claiming that the scriptures are short in violence. There are countless stories of warfare and bloodshed, but I would argue that these are the "seasons" of war that are necessary, and that none of these include documentation of torture. The scriptures show that the godly are always the victims, not the enforcers. As such, we must do everything we can to realign the actions of ourselves and the actions of our government to eliminate torture of any form as a "tactical" choice.
