The Times Online carried a January 16, 2009 article, “War in Gaza 'entering final act' ahead of Obama inauguration” that included two sharply contrasting views of Israel’s recent invasion of Gaza:
Israel’s leaders argue that they have established the principle of deterrence, restored the prestige of its military after its unsuccessful attempt to crush Hezbollah in southern Lebanon in 2006 and served an unmistakable warning to its Arab neighbours that they attack Israel at their peril. Domestically the war has proved enormously popular, with one poll showing 78 per cent considering it a success. The Israeli media has been so supportive that even the leftish newspaper Haaretz relegated Israel’s bombing of a UN relief agency’s warehouse to a single paragraph on page two today.
And this one
But the prospect of peace between Jews and Arabs looks more remote than ever, and Israel’s global standing has been battered by harrowing pictures of Palestinian women and children caught in the crossfire, its shelling of schools and shelters, and its defiance of UN demands for an immediate ceasefire. More than 1,000 Palestinians — half of them civilians — have been killed, 5000 wounded and thousands more left homeless.
From my perspective, Israel may be winning the battle but is assuredly losing the war. Only peace will secure Israel the future it wants. And peace will only being by breaking the cycle of violence – bomb for bomb, attack for attack – and genuinely recognizing the other’s right to an independent, viable state. Who has the wisdom and courage to make the first move in a new game?
Given the long history of injustice and broken trust on both sides, whoever makes that first move should expect a period of testing before the other side accepts that the move toward peace is indeed genuine. Yet until the Palestinians or Israelis dare to make that first move, the violence will continue and both sides will continue to lose.
Israel’s blockade that prevents aid from flowing into Gaza (cf. “At a Border Crossing, Drivers and Truckloads of Aid for Gaza Go Nowhere” New York Times, January 27, 2009) continues the cycle of violence, immorally targeting all who live in Gaza, Hamas fighters and non-combatants, killers and little children, alike. Lasting security is built through mutual respect and friendship, not on the dead bodies of the guilty and innocent. Treating all who live in Gaza alike is tantamount to declaring them all guilty, all enemies, a policy eerily evocative of war crimes in other times and places.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Middle East updates
Three items in today’s media reports caught my attention, each relating to previous entries in this blog. First, the U.N. has appealed for $613 million in aid for Gaza to avoid a humanitarian crisis there. The U.N. humanitarian coordinator, John Holmes, plead with Israel to open all of the border crossings. Otherwise, sufficient aid will never arrive in time. Hamas has released Palestinian casualty figures from the recent Israeli incursion into Gaza: 1330 people killed and another 5450 wounded; about half were civilians. Medical facilities, housing, crops, and critical infrastructure all suffered substantial destruction. (“UN asks for $600m to avert new humanitarian crisis in Gaza,” The Times Online, January 29, 2009.)
Israel will never achieve security for itself without regional stability, which is dependent upon security, survival, sufficient succor for the Palestinians. Clearly, the recent incursion into Gaza at best resulted in a temporary diminution of Hamas missile attacks on Israel but at the considerable cost of increased animosity by Palestinians toward Israel and increased regional instability. Terrorism demands new, more moral, more efficacious responses.
Second, Afghanistan delayed its presidential election scheduled for April until August 2009 because too many regions are now too unsafe and unstable to conduct the election. This contravenes Afghanistan’s constitution and raises serious questions about the continuing legitimacy of President Hamid Karzai’s government. (Dexter Filkins, “Afghan Presidential Election Delayed,” New York Times, January 29, 2009.)
The delay highlights both the reality behind the myth of Afghanistan functioning as a unified democratic nation and the challenges that the pending NATO troop surge faces. Expecting thirty thousand additional U.S. troops to enable Afghanistan’s central government to establish the rule of law and order throughout that mountainous country in which ethnicity, tribe, and religion have divided the people for millennia seems an impossible dream.
Third, provincial elections in Iraq are proving more problematic than the initial optimistic reports suggested. In much of Iraq, the election prognosis appears good. But in places like Mosul in which violence continues between Kurds and Arabs and the rule of law is not yet established, the election outcome seems unlikely to reflect the actual political sentiments of the residents. (Ian Fisher, “In Violent Mosul, a Test for Iraq’s Democracy,” New York Times, January 29, 2009.)
The troubling aspect of this report is that it unfortunately confirms the deep fault lines that divide Iraq still need bridging. Until people adopt a sense of national identity that they value more than their other loyalties (tribe, ethnicity, religion) democracy will not long survive the withdrawal of U.S. forces.
Israel will never achieve security for itself without regional stability, which is dependent upon security, survival, sufficient succor for the Palestinians. Clearly, the recent incursion into Gaza at best resulted in a temporary diminution of Hamas missile attacks on Israel but at the considerable cost of increased animosity by Palestinians toward Israel and increased regional instability. Terrorism demands new, more moral, more efficacious responses.
Second, Afghanistan delayed its presidential election scheduled for April until August 2009 because too many regions are now too unsafe and unstable to conduct the election. This contravenes Afghanistan’s constitution and raises serious questions about the continuing legitimacy of President Hamid Karzai’s government. (Dexter Filkins, “Afghan Presidential Election Delayed,” New York Times, January 29, 2009.)
The delay highlights both the reality behind the myth of Afghanistan functioning as a unified democratic nation and the challenges that the pending NATO troop surge faces. Expecting thirty thousand additional U.S. troops to enable Afghanistan’s central government to establish the rule of law and order throughout that mountainous country in which ethnicity, tribe, and religion have divided the people for millennia seems an impossible dream.
Third, provincial elections in Iraq are proving more problematic than the initial optimistic reports suggested. In much of Iraq, the election prognosis appears good. But in places like Mosul in which violence continues between Kurds and Arabs and the rule of law is not yet established, the election outcome seems unlikely to reflect the actual political sentiments of the residents. (Ian Fisher, “In Violent Mosul, a Test for Iraq’s Democracy,” New York Times, January 29, 2009.)
The troubling aspect of this report is that it unfortunately confirms the deep fault lines that divide Iraq still need bridging. Until people adopt a sense of national identity that they value more than their other loyalties (tribe, ethnicity, religion) democracy will not long survive the withdrawal of U.S. forces.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Reconciling Israeli and Palestinian Land Claims
Gary Anderson, in a recent Christian Century article, “Does the promise still hold? Israel and the land: An essay and responses,” argues that the Jews have a supernatural claim to the land of Israel: “The Jews' claim to a land is of a completely different order. Canaan is theirs not by dint of any set of conventional circumstances; it came to them as a gift from God. Israel's claim to the land is of a supernatural order.” God's promises, he contends, are inviolable.
Anderson’s argument first turns to the Apostle Paul who writes that the advantage of the Jews is that they “were entrusted with the promises of God.” Then Anderson explicitly relies on a prima facie reading of Genesis. “The book of Genesis could not be clearer: Israel is God's chosen nation, and the land of Canaan will be its land for all eternity (Gen. 13:15).” Why take that statement, in contrast to so many other sentences in Genesis literally? Why not accept as scientific fact this statement about creation, “And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters" (1:6)? Why not accept Sarah’s stated lifespan of one hundred and twenty-seven years (23:1) as accurate reportage? Is Joseph’s story (Gen. 30:24-50:26) entirely historical?
Admittedly, the Genesis record of God promising the land of Canaan to Israel has played a far larger, more central role in both the Jewish and Christian scriptures and thinking than the other passages cited above. That prominence alone, however, does not justify concluding that the promise was in fact from God.
Many Old Testament scholars view the patriarchal narratives, including that of Abraham, as stories their authors intended to create a common heritage for the disparate nomads that we call Hebrews who occupied the land of Canaan. Retrospectively creating a common narrative and claim to ownership by projecting a promise of eternal ownership onto God certainly makes challenging the Jews’ claim to the land problematic.
Prior to nineteenth century Zionism, the Jews for centuries understood the promised land metaphorically rather than literally. Probably the greatest obstacle that Theodor Herzl and other early Zionists faced was convincing other Jews to interpret God's promise of Canaan to Israel as more than a metaphor.
The nation of Israel exists. I strongly support its continued existence. Rooting Israel’s claim to existence in a divine promise, however, greatly diminishes the likelihood of peace in the Middle East. Asserting that, “God gave us this land in perpetuity,” is a claim that brooks no dissent, forever placing the Palestinians in an impossible situation. For those who do not recognize Israel’s theological claim to the land, talk of such promises sounds like any other uncompromising ideology wrapped in God language.
Even if one believes that God did promise the land to the Jews, the boundaries of that land were not set, an issue that continuously bedevils contemporary Israeli politics. Did God intend for the Jews to have ten acres, ten square miles, or all of the land that David ruled? Scriptural studies cannot definitively resolve that conundrum.
Furthermore, the promise did not stipulate that the land was Israel’s exclusive possession, i.e., the promise does not preclude non-Jews residing in the promised land. Jewish scholars unanimously agree that the only wars Israel (or Jews) can morally wage are defensive wars. Waging war to purge the land of all non-Jews is not an option. Expropriation of non-Jewish lands – a fancy term that means stealing – as has happened repeatedly since the 1947 is also immoral. In other words, regardless of how Jews or Christians may understand any alleged promises of God to the Jews about the ownership of the land of Canaan, today’s reality is that two disparate groups of people lay claim to the same land and the Jews lack any moral options for gaining exclusive title.
Christian interest in the land of Israel muddles the issue. Not until the fourth century, did Christians begin to evince an interest in the land of Jesus. Constantine’s mother identified the sites at which important events in Jesus’ life occurred, relying on legend and “divine guidance.” People had long ago forgotten the facts about where Jesus had done what. Jesus, born to a specific family in a particular time and place, is, we Christians believe, the cosmic Christ. Thus, Christian aspirations for owning the “holy land” dishonor Christianity’s Jewish roots and distort Christianity’s non-racial, non-ethnic character. Pretending that Christianity in anyway supersedes Judaism is wrong and a red herring in interfaith relations. Genuine Christian support for peace in the Middle East most helpfully begins with disavowing any claim on that embattled land.
Christian support for peace in the Middle East next affirms that God's promise to Abraham is sufficiently vague to allow multiple claims on the same land. God loves Muslim and Jew equally. Whatever the Jewish identity as the Chosen People means, it does not entail preferential love or treatment. Peace in the twenty-first century cannot, will not, come without a two state solution, both states viable, secure, and co-existent, one for Palestinians and one for Jews. Both realpolitik and Christianity converge on the issue of Middle Eastern peace, emphasizing the inescapable necessity and rightness of a two state solution. Actions that progress towards a two state solution represent progress; all other actions constitute unhelpful or even destructive regress.
Anderson’s argument first turns to the Apostle Paul who writes that the advantage of the Jews is that they “were entrusted with the promises of God.” Then Anderson explicitly relies on a prima facie reading of Genesis. “The book of Genesis could not be clearer: Israel is God's chosen nation, and the land of Canaan will be its land for all eternity (Gen. 13:15).” Why take that statement, in contrast to so many other sentences in Genesis literally? Why not accept as scientific fact this statement about creation, “And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters" (1:6)? Why not accept Sarah’s stated lifespan of one hundred and twenty-seven years (23:1) as accurate reportage? Is Joseph’s story (Gen. 30:24-50:26) entirely historical?
Admittedly, the Genesis record of God promising the land of Canaan to Israel has played a far larger, more central role in both the Jewish and Christian scriptures and thinking than the other passages cited above. That prominence alone, however, does not justify concluding that the promise was in fact from God.
Many Old Testament scholars view the patriarchal narratives, including that of Abraham, as stories their authors intended to create a common heritage for the disparate nomads that we call Hebrews who occupied the land of Canaan. Retrospectively creating a common narrative and claim to ownership by projecting a promise of eternal ownership onto God certainly makes challenging the Jews’ claim to the land problematic.
Prior to nineteenth century Zionism, the Jews for centuries understood the promised land metaphorically rather than literally. Probably the greatest obstacle that Theodor Herzl and other early Zionists faced was convincing other Jews to interpret God's promise of Canaan to Israel as more than a metaphor.
The nation of Israel exists. I strongly support its continued existence. Rooting Israel’s claim to existence in a divine promise, however, greatly diminishes the likelihood of peace in the Middle East. Asserting that, “God gave us this land in perpetuity,” is a claim that brooks no dissent, forever placing the Palestinians in an impossible situation. For those who do not recognize Israel’s theological claim to the land, talk of such promises sounds like any other uncompromising ideology wrapped in God language.
Even if one believes that God did promise the land to the Jews, the boundaries of that land were not set, an issue that continuously bedevils contemporary Israeli politics. Did God intend for the Jews to have ten acres, ten square miles, or all of the land that David ruled? Scriptural studies cannot definitively resolve that conundrum.
Furthermore, the promise did not stipulate that the land was Israel’s exclusive possession, i.e., the promise does not preclude non-Jews residing in the promised land. Jewish scholars unanimously agree that the only wars Israel (or Jews) can morally wage are defensive wars. Waging war to purge the land of all non-Jews is not an option. Expropriation of non-Jewish lands – a fancy term that means stealing – as has happened repeatedly since the 1947 is also immoral. In other words, regardless of how Jews or Christians may understand any alleged promises of God to the Jews about the ownership of the land of Canaan, today’s reality is that two disparate groups of people lay claim to the same land and the Jews lack any moral options for gaining exclusive title.
Christian interest in the land of Israel muddles the issue. Not until the fourth century, did Christians begin to evince an interest in the land of Jesus. Constantine’s mother identified the sites at which important events in Jesus’ life occurred, relying on legend and “divine guidance.” People had long ago forgotten the facts about where Jesus had done what. Jesus, born to a specific family in a particular time and place, is, we Christians believe, the cosmic Christ. Thus, Christian aspirations for owning the “holy land” dishonor Christianity’s Jewish roots and distort Christianity’s non-racial, non-ethnic character. Pretending that Christianity in anyway supersedes Judaism is wrong and a red herring in interfaith relations. Genuine Christian support for peace in the Middle East most helpfully begins with disavowing any claim on that embattled land.
Christian support for peace in the Middle East next affirms that God's promise to Abraham is sufficiently vague to allow multiple claims on the same land. God loves Muslim and Jew equally. Whatever the Jewish identity as the Chosen People means, it does not entail preferential love or treatment. Peace in the twenty-first century cannot, will not, come without a two state solution, both states viable, secure, and co-existent, one for Palestinians and one for Jews. Both realpolitik and Christianity converge on the issue of Middle Eastern peace, emphasizing the inescapable necessity and rightness of a two state solution. Actions that progress towards a two state solution represent progress; all other actions constitute unhelpful or even destructive regress.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Bagram detainees
Eric Schmitt in “Afghan Prison Poses Problem in Overhaul of Detainee Policy” (New York Times, January 27, 2009) discusses the problem posed by the confinement of over 500 detainees at the U.S. base in Bagram, Afghanistan. Most have had no access to lawyers, some have endured harsh interrogation techniques widely classified as torture, and many if released will resume their efforts in support of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or other violent groups if released.
Tragically, the United States now reaps what it has sown. Respect for human rights is so fundamental to our identity as a nation and as human beings that ignoring egregious violations in order to avoid possible future attack is immoral. That argument may appear naïve if based on a deontological claim to respect human rights under all circumstances and regardless of the consequences. However, utilitarian and virtue based analyses lead to the same conclusion.
Utilitarian ethical analysis asks, what is best for all? One sums the costs and benefits, short and long run, for everyone and the option that leads to the best result is the most moral. Too often utilitarian calculus values some people more than others, e.g., one’s fellow citizens, religionists, or tribal members more than those who belong to other groups. Utilitarian calculus similarly errs if it focuses on only near-term consequences rather than including both near and long-term affects.
Indefinite incarceration of suspected terrorists and other enemies may prevent those individuals from perpetrating violence against others. Over an extended period, the costs of detention escalate. These costs include financial ones, the psychic violence inflicted on guards, the animosity that the injustice of no trials engenders among the detainees’ families and communities, and the recruiting incentive that this approach provides to terrorist organizations. As Israel learned to its chagrin, this indefinite detention is a self-defeating approach to the problem of terrorist violence.
Virtue ethical analysis emphasizes the kind of person that one wants to become, how he or she would act. Often, one obtains insights about virtuous action by looking at a moral exemplar. Did Mohammed ever indefinitely detain suspected enemies? Would Jesus treat a suspected terrorist in this fashion? Detention with no hope of justice creates a type of people – both those who establish and enforce the system and detainees – on whom I would not want to model my life.
The United States committed serious moral errors when it began sequestering suspected terrorists and other enemies in prisons at Guantánamo Bay and Bagram, Afghanistan. (For my comments on torture, click here) Now the United States must identify the best option for moving ahead. That option should set reclaiming the moral high ground as the first priority. If the U.S. wishes to have any realistic hope for a peace without unending violence, protecting people from future harm must take a back seat to that priority, no matter how counter-intuitive that contention appears. Doing otherwise, as the Israelis sadly learned, is self-defeating, and further narrows the set of available options. The price that we pay for past mistakes is living in the immediate present with an increased level of threat. However, even as the injustice that we sowed yields renewed violence, so will sewing justice plant seeds that will one day blossom into greater levels of security and increased levels of justice for all. This is the paradoxical promise of the Abrahamic faiths.
Tragically, the United States now reaps what it has sown. Respect for human rights is so fundamental to our identity as a nation and as human beings that ignoring egregious violations in order to avoid possible future attack is immoral. That argument may appear naïve if based on a deontological claim to respect human rights under all circumstances and regardless of the consequences. However, utilitarian and virtue based analyses lead to the same conclusion.
Utilitarian ethical analysis asks, what is best for all? One sums the costs and benefits, short and long run, for everyone and the option that leads to the best result is the most moral. Too often utilitarian calculus values some people more than others, e.g., one’s fellow citizens, religionists, or tribal members more than those who belong to other groups. Utilitarian calculus similarly errs if it focuses on only near-term consequences rather than including both near and long-term affects.
Indefinite incarceration of suspected terrorists and other enemies may prevent those individuals from perpetrating violence against others. Over an extended period, the costs of detention escalate. These costs include financial ones, the psychic violence inflicted on guards, the animosity that the injustice of no trials engenders among the detainees’ families and communities, and the recruiting incentive that this approach provides to terrorist organizations. As Israel learned to its chagrin, this indefinite detention is a self-defeating approach to the problem of terrorist violence.
Virtue ethical analysis emphasizes the kind of person that one wants to become, how he or she would act. Often, one obtains insights about virtuous action by looking at a moral exemplar. Did Mohammed ever indefinitely detain suspected enemies? Would Jesus treat a suspected terrorist in this fashion? Detention with no hope of justice creates a type of people – both those who establish and enforce the system and detainees – on whom I would not want to model my life.
The United States committed serious moral errors when it began sequestering suspected terrorists and other enemies in prisons at Guantánamo Bay and Bagram, Afghanistan. (For my comments on torture, click here) Now the United States must identify the best option for moving ahead. That option should set reclaiming the moral high ground as the first priority. If the U.S. wishes to have any realistic hope for a peace without unending violence, protecting people from future harm must take a back seat to that priority, no matter how counter-intuitive that contention appears. Doing otherwise, as the Israelis sadly learned, is self-defeating, and further narrows the set of available options. The price that we pay for past mistakes is living in the immediate present with an increased level of threat. However, even as the injustice that we sowed yields renewed violence, so will sewing justice plant seeds that will one day blossom into greater levels of security and increased levels of justice for all. This is the paradoxical promise of the Abrahamic faiths.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Iraqi elections
Two recent news reports about the upcoming Iraqi elections signal trouble. First, Anthony Shadid in the Washington Post highlights the continuing importance of tribal affiliations and influence among Iraqis (“Iraq Election Highlights Ascendancy of Tribes,” January 25, 2009). The persistent importance of tribes highlights the continuing lack of national unity in Iraq.
Second, the U.S. military commander in Iraq, Army General Ray Odierno, has identified Iraq holding peaceful elections next week as a key indicator that the post-war rebuilding of Iraq has reached a point where the U.S. can safely withdraw its forces. The general’s comments appear to presume that completing a third cycle of elections is possible because Iraq will have moved from dictatorship to the democratic rule of law (“Exclusive: Iraq commander says Iraqi election outcome key to U.S. withdrawal,” McClatchy News Service, January 21, 2009). That view seems out of touch with the lack of Iraqi national unity and widespread absence of national identity among Iraqis.
Events unfolding in Iraq have begun to remind me of the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam. The United States, for a variety of reasons, essentially declared victory and went home. For different reasons, the United States seems set on taking that same course in Iraq.
Withdrawal is the correct policy. No viable option exists, as I have previously argued in this blog. However, withdrawing and leaving the Iraqis to their fate without seeking to make the best of the bad situation that the Gulf War created is immoral. Even worse, withdrawing and then reinvading portends many more deaths, much more suffering, and even greater destruction.
The preconditions necessary for democracy to flourish do not now exist in Iraq. No amount of wishful, positive thinking will establish those preconditions. Pegging the U.S. military withdrawal to peaceful elections seems most likely to ensure the emergence of a new Iraqi dictator, perhaps the current Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki.
Realistically, the best option remains allowing Iraq to become three separate nations. This course of action will also minimize the likelihood of an Iraqi Shiite alliance with Iran. In the absence of a common enemy, the mutual animosity between Arab Iraqis and Persians will make such an alliance highly unlikely. Aligning internal political or other external forces against Iraqi Shiites will invariably have the undesirable consequence of pushing the Iraqi and Iranian Shiites into an alliance.
Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, avoided this problem through vicious and unrelenting oppression of Iraqi Shiites. A Shiite dictator will face challenges from Iraqi Sunnis accustomed to a century of dominance, al Qaeda Iraq that views Shiites as apostate Muslims, and Iraqi Kurds who want their independence.
A new dictator will have no viable choice but to emulate Saddam Hussein’s repressive authoritarianism in order to stay in power. Alternatively, a dictator who fails to exercise strong central authority will unintentionally unleash violent dissent from multiple, well-armed factions across Iraq. Either way, the outcome bodes ill for the average Iraqi.
Second, the U.S. military commander in Iraq, Army General Ray Odierno, has identified Iraq holding peaceful elections next week as a key indicator that the post-war rebuilding of Iraq has reached a point where the U.S. can safely withdraw its forces. The general’s comments appear to presume that completing a third cycle of elections is possible because Iraq will have moved from dictatorship to the democratic rule of law (“Exclusive: Iraq commander says Iraqi election outcome key to U.S. withdrawal,” McClatchy News Service, January 21, 2009). That view seems out of touch with the lack of Iraqi national unity and widespread absence of national identity among Iraqis.
Events unfolding in Iraq have begun to remind me of the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam. The United States, for a variety of reasons, essentially declared victory and went home. For different reasons, the United States seems set on taking that same course in Iraq.
Withdrawal is the correct policy. No viable option exists, as I have previously argued in this blog. However, withdrawing and leaving the Iraqis to their fate without seeking to make the best of the bad situation that the Gulf War created is immoral. Even worse, withdrawing and then reinvading portends many more deaths, much more suffering, and even greater destruction.
The preconditions necessary for democracy to flourish do not now exist in Iraq. No amount of wishful, positive thinking will establish those preconditions. Pegging the U.S. military withdrawal to peaceful elections seems most likely to ensure the emergence of a new Iraqi dictator, perhaps the current Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki.
Realistically, the best option remains allowing Iraq to become three separate nations. This course of action will also minimize the likelihood of an Iraqi Shiite alliance with Iran. In the absence of a common enemy, the mutual animosity between Arab Iraqis and Persians will make such an alliance highly unlikely. Aligning internal political or other external forces against Iraqi Shiites will invariably have the undesirable consequence of pushing the Iraqi and Iranian Shiites into an alliance.
Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, avoided this problem through vicious and unrelenting oppression of Iraqi Shiites. A Shiite dictator will face challenges from Iraqi Sunnis accustomed to a century of dominance, al Qaeda Iraq that views Shiites as apostate Muslims, and Iraqi Kurds who want their independence.
A new dictator will have no viable choice but to emulate Saddam Hussein’s repressive authoritarianism in order to stay in power. Alternatively, a dictator who fails to exercise strong central authority will unintentionally unleash violent dissent from multiple, well-armed factions across Iraq. Either way, the outcome bodes ill for the average Iraqi.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Abortion
Roman Catholic Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life and an Italian, recently accused U.S. President Obama of “arrogance” for overturning Bush administration “global gag rules” on government funding for non-governmental organizations that facilitate abortions overseas. President Obama manifested arrogance by acting as one “who believes he knows what is right” in opening “the door to abortion and thus to the destruction of human life.” Fisichella also stated that he did not believe Americans who had voted for Obama had considered ethical issues when deciding for whom to vote. (For a fuller report, cf. “Vatican hits out at 'arrogant' Barack Obama over abortion,” published in The Times Online, January 25, 2009.)
Fisichella’s highly insulting comments display a hubris that understandably alienates rather than reconciles. He presumes that the Roman Catholic Church’s position that the moment of conception marks the creation of a fully human life is irrefutably correct. Yet no biblical passages explicitly support that view; Christian ethicists and theologians have not reached any consensus on this issue. Other major religious traditions, including the Jewish and Anglican traditions, do not presume to identify the exact first moment at which a new human life fully exists. Scientific and philosophical opinions are also divided on this issue, with the weight of opinion favoring a point well after conception.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that at conception the human is “ensouled,” i.e., God gives the fertilized egg a human soul, the person’s spiritual aspect created in the image of God. This teaching owes at least as much to Platonic thought as to Hebraic sources. Positing an eternal, spiritual soul poses problems of body-soul dualism, e.g., determining the connection and mode of interaction between body and soul. The ancient Hebrew perspective was that a person is her or his body. That perspective coheres well with contemporary scientific and theological insights (for example, cf. chapter 6 in Keith Ward’s The Big Questions in Science and Religion).
Fisichella in dismissing President Obama’s comments as arrogant insults the President by implying that anyone who rejects Roman Catholic teachings obviously has given the issue insufficient thought. Regardless of whether one agrees with Obama’s views, the new President clearly analyzes issues carefully before reaching an opinion. Similarly, Fisichella’s cavalier assessment that American voters ignored ethical issues because otherwise they would not have elected Obama as President makes the same assumption.
As a Christian priest, professional ethicist, and member of the U.S. electorate who voted for Obama, I find Fisichella’s comments highly insulting and ironic. I voted for Obama precisely because of his ethical stances, stances with which I found more substantive agreement than with those of John McCain, another ethical individual. I thank God that the United Sates has a president whose morality I respect, a president who honors the diversity of beliefs, and a president humble enough to know his own fallibility.
Intransigent, close-minded partisans like Fisichella whose condescending opinions shut down conversations before they begin are a major reason why the abortion debate remains so divisive in the United States today. Democracy requires supporting diversity of belief and action. The new policies governing government funded family planning programs abroad exemplify democracy in action. The policies importantly do not require but allow information disseminated to include facts about abortion.
Fisichella’s highly insulting comments display a hubris that understandably alienates rather than reconciles. He presumes that the Roman Catholic Church’s position that the moment of conception marks the creation of a fully human life is irrefutably correct. Yet no biblical passages explicitly support that view; Christian ethicists and theologians have not reached any consensus on this issue. Other major religious traditions, including the Jewish and Anglican traditions, do not presume to identify the exact first moment at which a new human life fully exists. Scientific and philosophical opinions are also divided on this issue, with the weight of opinion favoring a point well after conception.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that at conception the human is “ensouled,” i.e., God gives the fertilized egg a human soul, the person’s spiritual aspect created in the image of God. This teaching owes at least as much to Platonic thought as to Hebraic sources. Positing an eternal, spiritual soul poses problems of body-soul dualism, e.g., determining the connection and mode of interaction between body and soul. The ancient Hebrew perspective was that a person is her or his body. That perspective coheres well with contemporary scientific and theological insights (for example, cf. chapter 6 in Keith Ward’s The Big Questions in Science and Religion).
Fisichella in dismissing President Obama’s comments as arrogant insults the President by implying that anyone who rejects Roman Catholic teachings obviously has given the issue insufficient thought. Regardless of whether one agrees with Obama’s views, the new President clearly analyzes issues carefully before reaching an opinion. Similarly, Fisichella’s cavalier assessment that American voters ignored ethical issues because otherwise they would not have elected Obama as President makes the same assumption.
As a Christian priest, professional ethicist, and member of the U.S. electorate who voted for Obama, I find Fisichella’s comments highly insulting and ironic. I voted for Obama precisely because of his ethical stances, stances with which I found more substantive agreement than with those of John McCain, another ethical individual. I thank God that the United Sates has a president whose morality I respect, a president who honors the diversity of beliefs, and a president humble enough to know his own fallibility.
Intransigent, close-minded partisans like Fisichella whose condescending opinions shut down conversations before they begin are a major reason why the abortion debate remains so divisive in the United States today. Democracy requires supporting diversity of belief and action. The new policies governing government funded family planning programs abroad exemplify democracy in action. The policies importantly do not require but allow information disseminated to include facts about abortion.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Moral principles: Essential but sometimes costly
Recent media articles have reported that a former Guantánamo Bay detainee, Said Ali al-Shihri, is now the deputy of al Qaeda in Yemen (cf. “Freed by the U.S., Saudi Becomes a Qaeda Chief,” New York Times, January 23, 2009). After seven years of confinement at Guantánamo, the U.S. released al-Shihri, an alleged militant, to a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before he reappeared in Yemen in 2007.
These media reports prompt three important observations. First, the U.S. apparently lacked sufficient evidence to try al-Shihri in either a military tribunal or federal court. Both the U.S. justice system and its military tribunals correctly presume that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Suspicions, rumors, non-judicial assessments of evidence, etc. are insufficient to convict a person. If al-Shihri was in fact guilty of crimes known to U.S. officials and provable in court, then the U.S. officials erred by failing to prosecute him. Appropriate safeguards in the past have protected secrets vital to national security while permitting prosecution of criminals, e.g., in the cases of spies who stole nuclear weapons secrets. Trials of suspected terrorists could reasonably employ similar safeguards. Regardless of nationality, al-Shihri is a human being morally entitled to the same rights and legal protections as any human. A system that denies justice for some ultimately, in ways direct and indirect, denies justice to all.
Second, no human system ever functions perfectly. Perhaps U.S. officials lacked sufficient evidence to prosecute al-Shihri. Perhaps the Saudi jihadist rehabilitation program failed. Perhaps al-Shihri’s indefinite confinement at Guantánamo Bay radicalized a heretofore non-radical. In any event, holding to one’s moral standards is frequently costly. Questions about ways in which to improve detention, adjudication, and the release of terror suspects can no doubt benefit everyone. Aiming for zero defects in that system, whereby any terror suspect who once passes through the system never again harms anyone, sets an unrealistic goal. Furthermore, that goal has a high likelihood of leading to egregious human rights abuses. Although those abuses may reduce terrorism in the short run; in the long run, abuses will lead to an increase in terrorist violence.
Third, treatment of detainees should fully comply with the law, unlike what has happened in the past. In general, compliance will include the right to counsel, the right to habeas corpus (being charged with a crime or released), visits by representatives from non-governmental organizations like the Red Cross/Red Crescent, requisite medical care, decent confinement conditions in accord with relevant laws, etc. The U.S. should classify each person apprehended as either a criminal or a prisoner of war; international and national laws recognize no other category of detainee. Maximizing the system’s transparency to the greatest extent compatible with national security will help to establish appropriate accountability for all involved.
Moral principles are costly. The child who declines an opportunity to cheat and instead fails a test for which he/she has inadequately prepared experiences a moral cost. The business that insists on full compliance with local wage laws regardless of the impact those laws may have on its ability to compete with firms in other geographic locales experiences a moral cost. A society that treats all people as humans, aware that some of those individuals will behave in destructive or harmful ways, experiences a moral cost. Yet in each of those examples, Christian ethicists repeatedly argue that holding fast to moral principles is well worth the cost. Terrorism does not constitute an exception to this general principle.
These media reports prompt three important observations. First, the U.S. apparently lacked sufficient evidence to try al-Shihri in either a military tribunal or federal court. Both the U.S. justice system and its military tribunals correctly presume that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Suspicions, rumors, non-judicial assessments of evidence, etc. are insufficient to convict a person. If al-Shihri was in fact guilty of crimes known to U.S. officials and provable in court, then the U.S. officials erred by failing to prosecute him. Appropriate safeguards in the past have protected secrets vital to national security while permitting prosecution of criminals, e.g., in the cases of spies who stole nuclear weapons secrets. Trials of suspected terrorists could reasonably employ similar safeguards. Regardless of nationality, al-Shihri is a human being morally entitled to the same rights and legal protections as any human. A system that denies justice for some ultimately, in ways direct and indirect, denies justice to all.
Second, no human system ever functions perfectly. Perhaps U.S. officials lacked sufficient evidence to prosecute al-Shihri. Perhaps the Saudi jihadist rehabilitation program failed. Perhaps al-Shihri’s indefinite confinement at Guantánamo Bay radicalized a heretofore non-radical. In any event, holding to one’s moral standards is frequently costly. Questions about ways in which to improve detention, adjudication, and the release of terror suspects can no doubt benefit everyone. Aiming for zero defects in that system, whereby any terror suspect who once passes through the system never again harms anyone, sets an unrealistic goal. Furthermore, that goal has a high likelihood of leading to egregious human rights abuses. Although those abuses may reduce terrorism in the short run; in the long run, abuses will lead to an increase in terrorist violence.
Third, treatment of detainees should fully comply with the law, unlike what has happened in the past. In general, compliance will include the right to counsel, the right to habeas corpus (being charged with a crime or released), visits by representatives from non-governmental organizations like the Red Cross/Red Crescent, requisite medical care, decent confinement conditions in accord with relevant laws, etc. The U.S. should classify each person apprehended as either a criminal or a prisoner of war; international and national laws recognize no other category of detainee. Maximizing the system’s transparency to the greatest extent compatible with national security will help to establish appropriate accountability for all involved.
Moral principles are costly. The child who declines an opportunity to cheat and instead fails a test for which he/she has inadequately prepared experiences a moral cost. The business that insists on full compliance with local wage laws regardless of the impact those laws may have on its ability to compete with firms in other geographic locales experiences a moral cost. A society that treats all people as humans, aware that some of those individuals will behave in destructive or harmful ways, experiences a moral cost. Yet in each of those examples, Christian ethicists repeatedly argue that holding fast to moral principles is well worth the cost. Terrorism does not constitute an exception to this general principle.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Torture
ADM Dennis Blair, in his testimony during confirmation hearings before the Senate Intelligence Committee, described torture as “not moral, legal or effective.” (Blair Pledges New Approach to Counterterrorism – New York Times, January 22, 2009). His comments echo my September 13, 2008 post, “Torture: Evil and ineffective” and represent a welcome change in U.S. policy.
On Palestinian Question, Tough Choices for Obama
In the January 22, 2009, online edition of the New York Times, the story, “On Palestinian Question, Tough Choices for Obama,” states that the Obama administration faces a binary choice: support a Palestinian unity government or continue to isolate Hamas.
That type of dichotomous thinking reflects two serious mistakes. First, the choice forces the United States to take sides. The dispute between Israel and the Palestinians is not a dispute in which the United States is a direct participant. The United States, if it is truly to respect the dignity and worth of all people, must stand equally for both Palestinian and Israeli. They, not the United States, must make the tough choices about their preferred means of self-determination. The Israelis have no more right to select Palestinian leadership than Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens have a right to select Israel’s leaders.
Second, the right of both the Palestinians and Israeli to have a viable, independent state is non-negotiable. Approaches that tilt in one direction or the other, especially any approach that entails a crucial binary choice, will exclude other options. In this instance, the binary choices exclude strongly encouraging Israel to change its policies and for the Obama administration, along with other international groups, to respect the leadership choices of the Palestinian people.
That type of dichotomous thinking reflects two serious mistakes. First, the choice forces the United States to take sides. The dispute between Israel and the Palestinians is not a dispute in which the United States is a direct participant. The United States, if it is truly to respect the dignity and worth of all people, must stand equally for both Palestinian and Israeli. They, not the United States, must make the tough choices about their preferred means of self-determination. The Israelis have no more right to select Palestinian leadership than Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens have a right to select Israel’s leaders.
Second, the right of both the Palestinians and Israeli to have a viable, independent state is non-negotiable. Approaches that tilt in one direction or the other, especially any approach that entails a crucial binary choice, will exclude other options. In this instance, the binary choices exclude strongly encouraging Israel to change its policies and for the Obama administration, along with other international groups, to respect the leadership choices of the Palestinian people.
Gaza: what is the right thing to do?
In his essay at the Daily Episcopalian, “Gaza: what is the right thing to do?” Lauren R. Stanley asks, “What are we to do?” He answers pray, feeling helpless in the face of an apparently intractable problem. In fact, the United States has a number of constructive steps, morally responsible steps, which it should take.
First, the United States must equally support, preferably using identical language, Israel and the Palestinians. For example, Stanley stated that Israel’s right to exist is non-negotiable but omitted the same commitment to the Palestinians right to have an independent, viable country. That too should be a non-negotiable.
Second, the United States should equally pressure both sides to act in moral ways. With respect to Israel, the U.S. should criticize openly and forcefully the excessive force and failure to honor non-combatant immunity that their Gaza blockade and recent invasion of Gaza consistently demonstrate. Israel’s failure to fight morally invariably strengthens loyalties to Hamas and undermines the Palestinian Authority. In other words, Israel’s actions may satisfy the immediate demands by Israelis that their government takes action, but those actions are ultimately self-defeating. Similarly, with respect to Hamas the U.S. should openly criticize their attacks on Israeli civilians for the same reasons. Hamas’ missile attacks against Israel are also self-defeating, moving the Palestinians further from a viable state. U.S. influence can occur through increasing/decreasing economic/military aid, diplomatic initiatives, and persistent humanitarian aid for all parties.
Third, the United States can bring parties together to negotiate. Hamas’ denial of Israel’s right to exist should not be a showstopper. A Hamas whose duly elected representatives lead an independent, viable Palestinian state will have a substantial stake in peaceful co-existence with Israel, unlike the Hamas that confronts an Israel (and United States) that generally seem committed to the destruction of Hamas. Mutual respect only develops when one or the other party is willing to risk the first step. Current U.S. policy demands that the Palestinians take that first step, a highly unlikely step given the strong current U.S. and Israeli biases against Hamas and the almost seven decades of first Zionist and then Israeli infringement of Palestinian human and property rights. Palestinians and Israelis must formulate the actual solution – locations of boundary lines, for example. They, not we, are the ones who will live in the two nations that emerge from such talks.
Fourth, the United States as part of an international coalition equally can guarantee the continuing independence and viability of the two states that result from those negotiations. Both states are non-negotiable and violations on either side should provoke an equivalent response. Credible external guarantors, not walls, will lead to lasting security and prosperity for Israelis and Palestinians.
These recommendations are not exhaustive but suggest ways in which the United States can use its military power and global influence in a morally responsible yet not imperial manner as catalysts to move the Middle East in the direction of peace.
First, the United States must equally support, preferably using identical language, Israel and the Palestinians. For example, Stanley stated that Israel’s right to exist is non-negotiable but omitted the same commitment to the Palestinians right to have an independent, viable country. That too should be a non-negotiable.
Second, the United States should equally pressure both sides to act in moral ways. With respect to Israel, the U.S. should criticize openly and forcefully the excessive force and failure to honor non-combatant immunity that their Gaza blockade and recent invasion of Gaza consistently demonstrate. Israel’s failure to fight morally invariably strengthens loyalties to Hamas and undermines the Palestinian Authority. In other words, Israel’s actions may satisfy the immediate demands by Israelis that their government takes action, but those actions are ultimately self-defeating. Similarly, with respect to Hamas the U.S. should openly criticize their attacks on Israeli civilians for the same reasons. Hamas’ missile attacks against Israel are also self-defeating, moving the Palestinians further from a viable state. U.S. influence can occur through increasing/decreasing economic/military aid, diplomatic initiatives, and persistent humanitarian aid for all parties.
Third, the United States can bring parties together to negotiate. Hamas’ denial of Israel’s right to exist should not be a showstopper. A Hamas whose duly elected representatives lead an independent, viable Palestinian state will have a substantial stake in peaceful co-existence with Israel, unlike the Hamas that confronts an Israel (and United States) that generally seem committed to the destruction of Hamas. Mutual respect only develops when one or the other party is willing to risk the first step. Current U.S. policy demands that the Palestinians take that first step, a highly unlikely step given the strong current U.S. and Israeli biases against Hamas and the almost seven decades of first Zionist and then Israeli infringement of Palestinian human and property rights. Palestinians and Israelis must formulate the actual solution – locations of boundary lines, for example. They, not we, are the ones who will live in the two nations that emerge from such talks.
Fourth, the United States as part of an international coalition equally can guarantee the continuing independence and viability of the two states that result from those negotiations. Both states are non-negotiable and violations on either side should provoke an equivalent response. Credible external guarantors, not walls, will lead to lasting security and prosperity for Israelis and Palestinians.
These recommendations are not exhaustive but suggest ways in which the United States can use its military power and global influence in a morally responsible yet not imperial manner as catalysts to move the Middle East in the direction of peace.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
A new dictator?
Western news media are beginning to report comments by Iraqis nominally allied with Nouri al Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, that describe him as the dictator who replaced Saddam Hussein, e.g., “In Iraq's Provincial Elections, Main Issue Is Maliki Himself” in the January 17, 2009 Washington Post.
Maliki is popular in much of Iraq because of the strong-arm tactics that make him unpopular with his political allies, tactics popularly credited with quieting violence in Iraq. However, many who want Iraq to become an Islamic state criticize Maliki for being insufficient ardent in his commitment to Islam. Conversely, Western analysts tend to see Maliki’s popularity as a sign that Iraq is moving toward a Western style democracy.
I predict that time will show that only Maliki’s nominal political allies have correctly read the Iraqi political situation. Democrat states do not emerge and thrive unless a substantial majority of the citizenry is committed both to the nation as a unified state and to democracy, conditions Iraq obviously does not fulfill.
When the U.S. withdraws, temporarily dormant centrifugal forces will significantly increase. Shiites and Sunnis who want an Islamic state in the mold of their version of Islam will push ever more vigorously and violently to achieve their desired objectives. Kurds will continue to disengage from the Iraqi state. And, Mr. Maliki, who has come to enjoy power, will react with increasing militarism to maintain his fragile hold on power, giving more evidence to those who allege that he aspires to become Iraq’s next dictator. Left to their own devices, the future that Iraqis will choose for themselves remains uncertain.
Iraq is a problem that the United States and its few remaining allies cannot solve, if by solving one means establish a Western style democracy. To think otherwise is an act of hubris incompatible with Christian anthropology, i.e., humans are less than perfect and therefore unable to solve every problem in an optimal manner.
Christian realism, popularized in the twentieth century by Reinhold Niebuhr, suggests that the United States and its allies should instead focus on making the best of a bad situation. Few Iraqis welcome a continuing U.S. presence. How can the United States withdraw expeditiously while helping the people of Iraq establish the best possible life for themselves?
Past alliances with dictators (the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein, for example) inevitably have led to alienation between the United States and the people the dictator governed. Drawing too close to Prime Minister Maliki potentially aligns the U.S. with another dictator and, ironically, will alienate him and his government from militant anti-American elements in Iraq.
Alternatively, moderate Islamic states not only pose no threat to other nations but are respected members of the global community. Perhaps a tripartite division of Iraq (Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites) with the independence of the three new entities guaranteed by Organization of Islamic Conference member states. A new administration in the United States, led by President Obama who has both Christian and Muslim roots, might have the credibility to move in that direction.
Peace, not petroleum or narrowly defined national interests, is the constant aim and guiding light in attempting to articulate a Christian perspective on foreign policy.
Maliki is popular in much of Iraq because of the strong-arm tactics that make him unpopular with his political allies, tactics popularly credited with quieting violence in Iraq. However, many who want Iraq to become an Islamic state criticize Maliki for being insufficient ardent in his commitment to Islam. Conversely, Western analysts tend to see Maliki’s popularity as a sign that Iraq is moving toward a Western style democracy.
I predict that time will show that only Maliki’s nominal political allies have correctly read the Iraqi political situation. Democrat states do not emerge and thrive unless a substantial majority of the citizenry is committed both to the nation as a unified state and to democracy, conditions Iraq obviously does not fulfill.
When the U.S. withdraws, temporarily dormant centrifugal forces will significantly increase. Shiites and Sunnis who want an Islamic state in the mold of their version of Islam will push ever more vigorously and violently to achieve their desired objectives. Kurds will continue to disengage from the Iraqi state. And, Mr. Maliki, who has come to enjoy power, will react with increasing militarism to maintain his fragile hold on power, giving more evidence to those who allege that he aspires to become Iraq’s next dictator. Left to their own devices, the future that Iraqis will choose for themselves remains uncertain.
Iraq is a problem that the United States and its few remaining allies cannot solve, if by solving one means establish a Western style democracy. To think otherwise is an act of hubris incompatible with Christian anthropology, i.e., humans are less than perfect and therefore unable to solve every problem in an optimal manner.
Christian realism, popularized in the twentieth century by Reinhold Niebuhr, suggests that the United States and its allies should instead focus on making the best of a bad situation. Few Iraqis welcome a continuing U.S. presence. How can the United States withdraw expeditiously while helping the people of Iraq establish the best possible life for themselves?
Past alliances with dictators (the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein, for example) inevitably have led to alienation between the United States and the people the dictator governed. Drawing too close to Prime Minister Maliki potentially aligns the U.S. with another dictator and, ironically, will alienate him and his government from militant anti-American elements in Iraq.
Alternatively, moderate Islamic states not only pose no threat to other nations but are respected members of the global community. Perhaps a tripartite division of Iraq (Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites) with the independence of the three new entities guaranteed by Organization of Islamic Conference member states. A new administration in the United States, led by President Obama who has both Christian and Muslim roots, might have the credibility to move in that direction.
Peace, not petroleum or narrowly defined national interests, is the constant aim and guiding light in attempting to articulate a Christian perspective on foreign policy.
Friday, January 16, 2009
So help me God
A federal judge has denied the request of atheists to order Chief Justice Roberts not to add the words "so help me God" to the oath that Barack Obama will swear when he becomes the 44th President of the United States. Obama has informed Roberts of his desire to have the phrase appended to the oath on January 20.
The thirty-five word oath of office in the Constitution does not include that phrase: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Historians debate which President first added those words, some contending that the practice began with George Washington and others that it began with Chester Arthur. (For more details, see this January 16, 2009 Washington Post article.)
The inaugural is obviously, and rightly, a public ceremony. Sustaining democracy through important transitions requires the transparency that accompanies public ceremonies. However, the person taking the oath of office as President does not cease to have rights as a citizen. The oath of office does not impose Obama’s beliefs on anyone else.
With the enormous responsibilities and powers invested in the President of the United States, I would hope that a President would rely upon every resource at his or her disposal for the wisdom, courage, strength, and compassion to fulfill the duties of the office to best of her or his ability. Obama has self-identified himself as a Christian so his preference to add, “so help me to God,” reflects a personal integrity that all citizens – atheists or believers – should applaud. Similarly, should the nation elect an atheist, I would expect the atheist to opt to omit the phrase. A person of a different faith tradition might choose slightly different phrasing, e.g., “so help me Gaia.” Persons uncomfortable with “Gaia” should honor that choice and applaud the new President’s desire to obtain all available assistance in fulfilling the duties of the office.
Civil religion – a tacit transformation of patriotism into a religion that identifies God’s values and agenda with perceived national interests – is widely pervasive in the United States. Many Americans (a majority?) support the inclusion of prayers in important public events for reasons of protocol, tradition, and the affirmation of “American” values. How many listening to the ceremony will actually pray, in their own way and thoughts, during the Inaugural invocation and benediction? How many will regard the prayers simply as bookends that mark the ceremony’s opening and closing moments?
Sometimes atheists take religion more seriously than do many purported believers. At least atheists object to the prayers because the prayers, from an atheist’ perspective, express worship of an imagined deity. I hope that at the Inauguration the words, “so help me God,” remind all believers to pray for the new President of the United States. I am confident that God will hear Obama’s words as the prayer, the plea, for assistance that he intends.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Leadership, Political and Ecclesial
In today's Washington Post, Bob Woodward distills his four volumes on the Bush presidency into ten words of advice to the incoming administration, "10 Take Aways from the Bush Years." Those ten observations represent profound insights into democratic leadership that, with slight modifications, are great advice to leaders in the Episcopal Church at all levels. The ten emphasize basic concepts such as transparency, civility, and responsibility that I derive from the gospel. Recent discourse within the Anglican Communion generally and the Episcopal Church specifically suggest that many of us need to relearn these basic lessons.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Progress in Iraq?
I read the December 2008 Department of Defense report, “Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq,” with interest. The full text of the report is available at http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/9010_Report_to_Congress_Dec_08.pdf. The report’s introduction begins by highlighting indicators of progress, e.g., decreased violence. Yet the report concludes:
This report is the final one that the Department of Defense will submit to Congress on Iraq during President Bush’s second term in office. The report’s positive spin is not surprising, as the United States military rightly works for the nation’s civilian leadership. However, a careful reading of the report raises serious questions about Iraq’s future and the U.S. involvement there.
The major indicator of progress that the report cites is the Status of Forces Agreement implemented between Iraq and the United States. That agreement does much to expedite the disengagement of U.S. forces from urban areas and the eventual withdrawal of most U.S. forces.
A new question now looms large: What will this war have achieved?
The longer-term outlook for Iraq remains grim. Today’s Washington Post featured an article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/12/AR2009011203295_pf.html) about a popular Sunni Mullah who laid aside his al Qaeda involvement to begin a business. He figures that he does not need to kill Americans; they will soon withdraw. Then he can exert his newfound power and strength. His present passive toleration of the U.S. presence and Shiite dominated Iraqi government represents a tactical move rather than a strategic change. He is far from alone in adopting that tactical ploy. Similarly, the Kurds still disdain meaningful participation in the national government, concentrating on pursuing their agenda of an independent Kurdistan.
Following U.S. withdrawal of most of its forces, Iraq still appears headed toward either a dictatorship or splitting into three independent regions with minimal or no linkage to a common national identity. A Western style democracy is not viable in the near term. Will any new dictator be less brutal than Saddam was? If so, for how long will that be the case? Alternatively, what will life look like in each of the three regions?
From a Christian perspective, Gulf War II continues to represent a moral failure, an assessment unlikely to change. Acts intended to support U.S. national interests may have political justifications but, from a Christian perspective, lack moral justification. God loves and values all people, regardless of race or religion, equally. The tens of thousands who have died since the U.S. invasion (4200 plus Americans and unknown tens of thousands of Iraqis) and the dramatically diminished quality of life experienced by the vast majority of Iraqis cannot justify a war waged without just cause. The U.S. – its citizens and policymakers alike – should stop thinking in terms of a justifiable war and instead begin thinking about how to make the best of an unfortunate situation.
The great sacrifices of U.S. military personnel in Iraq, the wounds with which many will live for years to come, and the future sacrifices of U.S. taxpayers footing the bill ($576 billion to date) for a war mostly funded with debt represent costs that could have done far more to advance God's reign on earth had that money funded multi-faceted relief efforts in Africa. With a new administration taking office next week, I encourage prayers for the President, other elected officials, and political appointees to help them in charting and steering a more moral foreign policy course.
In spite of the continued progress, however, the underlying sources ofDiscouraging details to support that conclusion are found buried in the text’s pages.
instability in Iraq have yet to be resolved. Iraq remains fragile because its
major power brokers do not share a unified national vision. They disagree on the
nature of the state and are reluctant to share power and resources. As security
has improved, enduring political disputes have risen to the forefront, and
political tension remains a problem. To achieve sustainable stability and
exercise its full sovereignty, the [Government of Iraq] must continue to build
its legitimacy by effectively providing for the needs of the Iraqi people, while
continuing to try to resolve these political and sectarian divisions.
- p. vii, Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq, December 2008, Report
to Congress, in accordance with the Department of Defense Supplemental
Appropriations Act 2008 (Section 9204, Public Law 110-252)
This report is the final one that the Department of Defense will submit to Congress on Iraq during President Bush’s second term in office. The report’s positive spin is not surprising, as the United States military rightly works for the nation’s civilian leadership. However, a careful reading of the report raises serious questions about Iraq’s future and the U.S. involvement there.
The major indicator of progress that the report cites is the Status of Forces Agreement implemented between Iraq and the United States. That agreement does much to expedite the disengagement of U.S. forces from urban areas and the eventual withdrawal of most U.S. forces.
A new question now looms large: What will this war have achieved?
The longer-term outlook for Iraq remains grim. Today’s Washington Post featured an article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/12/AR2009011203295_pf.html) about a popular Sunni Mullah who laid aside his al Qaeda involvement to begin a business. He figures that he does not need to kill Americans; they will soon withdraw. Then he can exert his newfound power and strength. His present passive toleration of the U.S. presence and Shiite dominated Iraqi government represents a tactical move rather than a strategic change. He is far from alone in adopting that tactical ploy. Similarly, the Kurds still disdain meaningful participation in the national government, concentrating on pursuing their agenda of an independent Kurdistan.
Following U.S. withdrawal of most of its forces, Iraq still appears headed toward either a dictatorship or splitting into three independent regions with minimal or no linkage to a common national identity. A Western style democracy is not viable in the near term. Will any new dictator be less brutal than Saddam was? If so, for how long will that be the case? Alternatively, what will life look like in each of the three regions?
From a Christian perspective, Gulf War II continues to represent a moral failure, an assessment unlikely to change. Acts intended to support U.S. national interests may have political justifications but, from a Christian perspective, lack moral justification. God loves and values all people, regardless of race or religion, equally. The tens of thousands who have died since the U.S. invasion (4200 plus Americans and unknown tens of thousands of Iraqis) and the dramatically diminished quality of life experienced by the vast majority of Iraqis cannot justify a war waged without just cause. The U.S. – its citizens and policymakers alike – should stop thinking in terms of a justifiable war and instead begin thinking about how to make the best of an unfortunate situation.
The great sacrifices of U.S. military personnel in Iraq, the wounds with which many will live for years to come, and the future sacrifices of U.S. taxpayers footing the bill ($576 billion to date) for a war mostly funded with debt represent costs that could have done far more to advance God's reign on earth had that money funded multi-faceted relief efforts in Africa. With a new administration taking office next week, I encourage prayers for the President, other elected officials, and political appointees to help them in charting and steering a more moral foreign policy course.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Auto bailouts
Thomas Friedman in his New York Times on December 14, 2008 wrote that the real problem with U.S. automobile manufacturers was that they had attempted to produce cars that the American consumer wanted rather than cars that the consumer did not know they wanted until the car appeared in the marketplace. As an example to illustrate his meaning, he wrote that his Sony Walkman had fully satisfied him until Apple recognized that what he really wanted as an iPod; today, the iPod is his constant companion and he has no use for his Sony Walkman.
From a marketing perspective, the U.S. automobile market as a saturated mature market in which product differentiation (design, performance, reliability, etc.) is difficult to achieve. Foreign manufacturers have achieved product differentiation better than their U.S. counterparts have, e.g., building safer, more reliable, and more energy efficient vehicles. The steadily increasing market share of these foreign brands traces their successful product differentiation.
What Friedman suggests is that U.S. should end that losing competition by redefining the market. Instead of selling cars as status symbols or integral to a vision of the American way of life (e.g., mini-van driving soccer moms), the auto companies should leapfrog their competitors into the green transportation (my idea of what will be the next market for personal/small group transport).
Economically, bailing out a dead-end business makes no sense. Allowing GM and Chrysler to blow threw roughly $15 billion per quarter may keep them afloat but entails no prospect of those companies radically changing direction. Their problems have developed over the last couple of decades and been obvious for at least several years. Why should anyone expect that a few more months will radically alter the situation?
Our obligation as Christians is not to preserve mismanaged corporate entities that have lost their once dominant market positions but to the people involved. Transition assistance (unemployment compensation, relocation assistance, job training benefits, healthcare coverage, etc.) represents a much better investment of tax dollars. Financing transportation innovation that offers a realistic hope of commercial viability also constitutes a good investment of tax dollars.
Last-minute mindless responses to crises have a long, unbroken history of failure. Good intentions do not suffice to make an act ethical or responsible. The U.S. needs to act but should do so in a way that has a reasonable change of success because it addresses the fundamental problems and issues.
From a marketing perspective, the U.S. automobile market as a saturated mature market in which product differentiation (design, performance, reliability, etc.) is difficult to achieve. Foreign manufacturers have achieved product differentiation better than their U.S. counterparts have, e.g., building safer, more reliable, and more energy efficient vehicles. The steadily increasing market share of these foreign brands traces their successful product differentiation.
What Friedman suggests is that U.S. should end that losing competition by redefining the market. Instead of selling cars as status symbols or integral to a vision of the American way of life (e.g., mini-van driving soccer moms), the auto companies should leapfrog their competitors into the green transportation (my idea of what will be the next market for personal/small group transport).
Economically, bailing out a dead-end business makes no sense. Allowing GM and Chrysler to blow threw roughly $15 billion per quarter may keep them afloat but entails no prospect of those companies radically changing direction. Their problems have developed over the last couple of decades and been obvious for at least several years. Why should anyone expect that a few more months will radically alter the situation?
Our obligation as Christians is not to preserve mismanaged corporate entities that have lost their once dominant market positions but to the people involved. Transition assistance (unemployment compensation, relocation assistance, job training benefits, healthcare coverage, etc.) represents a much better investment of tax dollars. Financing transportation innovation that offers a realistic hope of commercial viability also constitutes a good investment of tax dollars.
Last-minute mindless responses to crises have a long, unbroken history of failure. Good intentions do not suffice to make an act ethical or responsible. The U.S. needs to act but should do so in a way that has a reasonable change of success because it addresses the fundamental problems and issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)