Why is the U.S. at war in Afghanistan?

Why are the United States and its allies fighting the war in Afghanistan?

Any suggestion that Afghanistan is a nation comparable to the nations of Europe or the Americas is gravely mistaken.  Afghan law prohibits both forced marriages and flogging.  However, two child brides in Ghor province fled to relatively liberal Herat province disguised as boys.  The police in Herat, after recognizing that the two were in fact girls, returned them to Ghor.  There, authorities flogged both girls for running away from home.  (Rod Norland and Alissa Rubin, “Afghan Child Brides Escape Marriage, but Not Lashes,” New York Times, May 30, 2010)

Apparently, the rule of law does not prevail even in provinces nominally loyal to the Afghan central government.  Many provinces, perhaps a majority, are less than nominally loyal to the Karzai regime.  Expecting that foreign forces can transform a society based on tribal, ethnic, and religious loyalties into a society based on a national identity in a decade, or even several decades, is completely unrealistic.  After almost nine years of occupation, the U.S. and its allies should have learned this lesson.

The situation in Afghanistan so obviously lacks positive indicators of progress that U.S. government officials have now begun to acknowledge setbacks and unresolved difficulties.  A New York Times article quotes unnamed military officers voicing their skepticism: “If anybody thinks Kandahar will be solved this year,” a senior military officer said, “they are kidding themselves.”  The same article quotes a knowledgeable observer of events in Afghanistan: “‘Things are not looking good,’ said Bruce O. Riedel, a regional specialist at the Brookings Institution who helped formulate the administration’s first Afghan strategy in early 2009.  ‘There’s not much sign of the turnaround that people were hoping for.’”  (Peter Baker and Mark Landler, “Setbacks Cloud U.S. Plans to Get Out of Afghanistan,” New York Times, June 14, 2010)  Statistically, violence in Afghanistan is increasing sharply, e.g., the number of suicide bombings is triple the 2009 rate.  (Rod Nordland, “Violence Up Sharply in Afghanistan,” New York Times, June 19, 2010)

Why are the United States and its allies fighting the war in Afghanistan?

Part of the answer is that the Europeans and Americans believe that with the aid of modern technology they can solve any problem.  When Europeans cancelled scheduled air service because of ash clouds from Iceland’s erupting volcano, stranded passengers responded with incredulity:

Indeed, think of all the planes grounded for nearly a week in northern Europe last month, as a volcano poured ash in the atmosphere.  There was no technological fix, and many passengers couldn’t believe it.  Said Mr. Kohut, of Pew Research, “The reaction was: ‘Fix this.  Fix this.  This is outrageous.’”  (Elisabeth Rosenthal, “Our Fix-It Faith and the Oil Spill,” New York Times, May 28, 2010)

Technology allows humans to do wondrous things, but sadly not all problems have known solutions.  A key element of wisdom is differentiating between solvable and unsolvable problems, implementing solutions for the former and learning to mitigate when possible and otherwise to live with the latter.  The U.S. and its allies would do well to listen more carefully to Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, who, according to published news reports, doubts whether foreign forces can defeat the Taliban.  (Dexter Filkins, “Karzai Is Said to Doubt West Can Defeat Taliban,” New York Times, June 11, 2010)

Alleged progress toward a viable democratic government in Iraq offers little hope that U.S. efforts will succeed in Afghanistan, which, by all accounts, is a far more difficult environment in which to establish good governance.  Iraq’s present prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has announced that without his leadership Iraq will return to the violent strife that prevailed before the U.S. surge.  Iraq, Maliki, claims must have a strong central leadership to avoid anarchy.  (Anthony Shadid, “Maliki Says Iraq Needs Him as Leader,” New York Times, June 9, 2010)  His statements are the most direct confirmation of my predictions that Iraq is sadly headed towards another dictatorship.

Comparison shopping by price for healthcare

A number of websites (Castlight Health, Thomson Reuters, and Change:healthcare) have begun to offer some options to consumers for price comparisons when shopping for healthcare.  (Claire Cain Miller, “Bringing Comparison Shopping to the Doctor’s Office,” New York Times, June 10, 2010)

Many economists and pundits have rightly recognized that in an emergency, the consumer does not want to take time to make price comparisons for healthcare.  Most healthcare, however, is not delivered on an emergency basis.

Consumers have grown accustomed to ignoring price when making healthcare decisions.  American consumers value choice, immediacy, and convenience.  Changes to delivering healthcare that limit choice, immediacy, or convenience have consistently produced consumer backlash.  Opponents like to characterize such changes as “socialism,” invariably making invidious comparisons to nations that have socialized medicine.

Consumers must accept some measure of responsibility for personal healthcare.  If part of that responsibility becomes shopping for the best price in non-emergency situations, then the nation will have taken an important step toward controlling healthcare costs.

Contending that consumers do not know enough about medicine or healthcare to choose wisely among various providers seems a shibboleth.  Consumers already choose their healthcare provider – unless the consumer is fortunate enough to be a beneficiary of military medicine or has coverage through an insurance plan that offers no choice.  Medical licensing boards have responsibility for ensuring that the various providers (hospitals, physicians, nurses, etc.) have the requisite skills and education.  Websites to help consumers, such as those mentioned above, will quickly realize that consumers want warnings about sub-par providers.  The emergence of these websites designed to help the consumer find quality, low cost providers represents a significant step forward in healthcare reform.

As a poignant reminder of the possibility of providing healthcare for all, Rwanda, one of the world’s poorest nations has had national health insurance for eleven years; 92% of the nation is now covered for $2 per month.  Although the care is not on a par with what U.S. citizens expect, the coverage includes treating the most common causes of death in Rwanda: malaria, diarrhea, pneumonia, malnutrition, and infected cuts.  Can Rwanda do something that the United States finds impossible?  (Donald G. McNeil, Jr., “In Desperately Poor Rwanda, Most Have Health Insurance,” New York Times, June 14, 2010)

Earlier this month, I had a fascinating conversation with a physician at a University of North Carolina (UNC) operated family practice clinic.  UNC is planning to close the clinic because of the “sour mix” of patients, i.e., too many patients have healthcare coverage with very low reimbursement rates, causing the clinic to operate at or slightly below its break even point.  When the physician queried UNC administrators about their rationale to close the clinic in spite of UNC’s mission to serve the people of North Carolina, the administrators responded that the UNC healthcare system delivers $250 million of unreimbursed care every year.  People with coverage – Medicare, Tricare, private health insurance, self-payers – foot the bill for that unreimbursed care.

A faith not rooted in supernaturalism

In March 2010, philosopher Daniel Dennett and social worker Linda LaScola published “Preachers Who Are Not Believers” first in Evolutionary Psychology and subsequently on the web. The article attracted considerable attention, including at the Episcopal Café. “Preachers Who Are Not Believers” reports on their study of five Protestant pastors who self-identify as having lost their religious faith. The one woman who was originally part of the study, an Episcopal priest, withdrew shortly before the study ended.

What, if anything, does “Preachers Who Are Not Believers” say to the Church?

Prima facie, the study says little to the Church. Five anecdotal stories provide interesting narratives but without any quantitative data about the prevalence of clergy who perceive themselves as hypocrites indicate nothing about the magnitude of this purported problem. Some percentage of every vocation become disillusioned with that vocation’s prevailing ethos or purpose while concurrently feeling vocationally trapped by extenuating factors (family, finances, etc). Furthermore, the Church in its early centuries wisely decided that an individual cleric’s belief did not determine the validity of the sacraments at which that cleric officiated. By extension, the same is true for sacramental acts such as preaching, teaching, and other forms of ministry.

Ministry, unlike most other callings, has no objective standards by which to determine efficacy or content. I, like the five interviewed clergy, have ministered to people who relied upon a literal interpretation of Christianity as a crutch that helped the person to cope with life. Many of these people, in my estimation, would have floundered, perhaps drowned, had I or another cleric attempted to introduce them to a less literal faith perspective. Judiciously employing multiple faith perspectives to help people live more abundantly coheres well with a theology that emphasizes respecting the dignity and worth of every person and that presupposes human language can only speak of ultimate reality through words as metaphor, symbol, and icon.

The study does highlight an important conceptual chasm that separates many twenty-first century Christians and adherents of other religions from some of the most vocal, high profile critics of religion. Contrary to the profoundly mistaken presumption of Dennett, LaScola, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, et al. – as well as the five clergy in their study – religious belief does not inherently entail supernaturalism. The guilt that some of the study’s participants feel from abandoning supernaturalism says more about study participants than about the possible viability of non-supernatural theology.

Anglican Bishops John A.T. Robinson and John Shelby Spong have both worked to deconstruct theological concepts of a supernatural God while adamantly affirming their continuing belief in God. The ancient tradition of the via negativa (God lies beyond all words; words at best function as metaphors, symbols, or icons and at worst construct an idol) certainly does not necessitate supernaturalism. More recently, process theologians, Tillichians, and others such as Episcopal priest John Keenan (The Meaning of Christ: A Mahayana Theology) have sought to speak of God in non-supernatural language. These projects have admittedly struggled to gain widespread traction, failing to articulate icons, symbols, or metaphors that capture modern imaginations. Theological reconstruction is obviously a far more difficult task than is theological deconstruction. However, critics apparently prefer to pillory the supernatural straw man rather than to engage non-supernatural theologians in meaningful dialogue about premises, possibilities, etc.

Finally, Dennett and LaScola’s study illuminates one often-ignored cause of the current Anglican Communion conflicts over sexual ethics. Admittedly, those sadly vicious disputes have several roots. One important root is the issue of authority: will the Anglican Communion continue as a voluntary association of Churches in communion with Canterbury or will the Anglican Communion adopt a more authoritarian, tightly bonded organizational structure consonant with Archbishop Williams’ recent actions? Another important root of the conflict is the opportunity that non-Anglican conservatives saw to use this controversy to advance their own anti-GLBT agenda. Contributions from these conservatives have substantially funded cross-border incursions, disaffections from the Episcopal Church (TEC), and the media attention the resultant conflict has received.

But another, less visible yet significant cause of the deep conflict within the Anglican Communion is the divergent Christian worldviews represented among Anglicans. In a sweeping generalization with numerous exceptions, the many Anglicans who subscribe to a supernatural theology tend to believe that scripture communicates propositional truths that include definitive teachings about human sexuality. This position is more common among people who do not engage in critical study of the Bible but by no means unique to them. Conversely, the many Anglicans who reject supernatural theology, explicitly (they have given the subject conscious thought) or implicitly (they use the language of supernaturalism but hold a worldview that de facto excludes supernaturalism), tend to disbelieve that scripture communicates propositional truths about human sexuality.

Theological deconstructions of supernaturalism have usually emphasized clashes between science and supernaturalism. Fewer deconstructions recognize globalization’s important consequences for diminishing the attractiveness of supernaturalism. Globalization often increases a person’s awareness of: our common humanity that transcends cultural differences; the theological, ethical, functional, and social commonalities Christianity shares with other world religions; and the exclusive truth claims found in the scriptures of various religions. Analogous to the way in which science pushes theology to abandon comfortable, time-honored images of a supernatural God for a deeper, less easily articulated but more immediate awareness of the holy, globalization pushes theology to broaden its perspective, freeing itself from culturally situated language. In a development unimaginable in prior centuries, some contemporary Christians (clergy and laity) find ideas or praxis from another religion sufficiently insightful or helpful that the person incorporates the material into her or his Christian theology and praxis. Some, but not all, of these Christians have difficulty with that integration, adopting positions that seem oddly incongruous or incompatible. Others, like Episcopal priest John Keenan, manage the integration with a fidelity to their Christian identity.

Following the American Revolution, colonial Anglicans distanced themselves from the Church of England. This was an existential necessity: continued allegiance to the British crown would have effectively sounded Anglican’s death knell in the nascent United States; continuing as Anglicans required the post-colonial Church to obtain bishops who could administer confirmation and ordain clergy.

TEC’s current struggle within the Anglican Communion is also existential. Denying full inclusion to all people, GLBT as well as heterosexual, puts TEC on the right side of history, something each passing year makes more obvious. Insisting that all faithful Christians tenaciously cling to an anachronistic supernaturalism with its attendant claim to discern propositional truths about sexuality and sexual ethics in scripture will surely sound Anglican Christianity’s death knell. Similarly, moderns with scientific educations or global perspectives increasingly find themselves choosing between the atheism of Dennett and company, agnosticism, or trying to chart new theological understandings in light of the deconstructions of Robinson and company. Not surprisingly, these struggles occasion much conflict in the Church.

Anglican’s traditional “big tent” genius allowed people to pray together in spite of sharply opposing views. Preserving “big tent” Anglicanism represents a better future for the Anglican Communion than does adopting a more authoritarian structure. Trying to enforce homogeneity stifles creativity, unhelpfully masks dissent as assent, fosters schism, and eventually leads to institutional ill health, as glaringly evidenced in the Roman Catholic Church’s history and problems. TEC does well to stay its present course faithfully of practicing a radical hospitality that welcomes everyone and of commending that practice to the Anglican Communion.

In search of simplicity

Across the country, a growing number of people are living “off the grid,” i.e., people who have disconnected from the electrical grid in order to develop a greener lifestyle. This You Tube video, featured in the New York Times, tells the story of one Pasadena family:

The idea of living more simply has fascinated me for years. The continuing popularity of Henry David Thoreau’s Walden suggests that I am far from alone in my fascination with a simple lifestyle.

One reason for the fascination is the appeal of self-reliant independence. Another reason is the appeal of living in a more environmentally friendly manner that respects other life forms and emphasizes sustainability rather than maximizing benefits for the present generation. Yet another component of the fascination is believing that the truly valuable aspects of life tend to be those unrelated to consumerism and rejecting the idea that more possessions equates to a better life. Imelda Marcos notwithstanding, most individuals only want a limited number of shoes, even if the shoes are free.

The publication of Twelve by Twelve, William Powers’ narrative of living for a year in a 12’ by 12’ cabin near Chapel Hill that is off the grid caught my attention (for a review, cf. Jerry Cope, Living Off The Grid: William Powers' Extraordinary 12 X 12, The Huffington Post, June 23, 2010). If he could do this, so near to where I live, could I do it?

Yet the hard truth is that I’m not ready to live out my life in 144 square feet with minimal electricity. Realistically, I know that human community reflects our basic nature as social animals and that improved quality of life is a significant benefit of communal living. People contributing their skills, talents, time, and interests collectively can benefit all (or most), a concept that economists call specialization of labor.

Powers lived in a small community of like-minded people. The New York Times video features a family not an individual. The vast majority of people attempting to live off the grid are not isolated hermits but part of a small community.

These small communities, however, perform a beneficial moral function similar to the role played by hermits a thousand years ago. Hermits bore witness to non-material values and an interiority that many people ignored. Those living off the grid today similarly bear witness to non-material values frequently ignored in our high tech, consumer culture. These important values include time for introspection, an appreciation of human life as an integral element of nature (not something separate from it), and respect for all life. Everyone living off the grid is neither desirable nor practical. Yet reflecting on the experiences of those who have adopted that lifestyle can promote human flourishing.

General Stanley McChrystal

General Stanley McChrystal’s comments in the Rolling Stone article, along with the comments of several of his staff officers, surprised and offended me (Michael Hastings, “The Runaway General,” Rolling Stone, June 22, 2010)

General McChrystal’s remarks surprised me because I’ve never known a flag or general officer, let alone a four-star officer, who was unaware of the consequences of publicly disrespecting those in positions of higher authority. Few, if any, ascend to four-star rank without once having had to discipline, informally or formally, a subordinate for failing to respect the chain of command. The time for disagreement is before a decision is made, when a subordinate owes his/her senior the loyalty of a frank and fully expressed opinion in order to help the senior to make the best possible decision. Often the place for such comments is in private; the public media is never an appropriate setting for that opinion.

Once a decision is made, the subordinate owes his/her senior the duty of loyalty. Military leaders learn very early in their careers that taking responsibility for a senior’s decision, even a decision with which the leader strongly disagrees, is an essential element of good leadership. The more senior an officer becomes, the more critical support for the chain of command becomes, especially in war. Subordinates who perceive their leader’s lack of confidence in the chain of command may harbor doubts that diminish battle effectiveness and that cast aspersions on the value of sacrifices necessary to successfully implement policies and decisions. Officers unable or unwilling to support a senior’s decision should ask to be relieved or retired.

Negative public comments about political leaders, especially those leaders for whom or with whom a senior military officer works, conflict with the primary duty of a United States military officer to defend the Constitution. The military works for the civilian government. When an officer, especially a senior officer, can no longer perform his or her duties in good conscience, then that officer has a moral responsibility to resign or to retire. Officers who fail to fulfill their duty to the Constitution offend me because this is duty is foundational to preserving a civilian democracy.

Military operations in the last fifty years have increasingly become political in nature. That observation particularly holds in the case of counterterrorism and nation building, the precise types of operations with which General McChrystal was tasked in Afghanistan. Unable to get along with U.S. civilian authorities entrusted with oversight of some of those operations, such as the U.S. ambassador and special representative to the area, General McChrystal faced a choice that is simple to state but perhaps difficult to implement. On the one hand, he could have resigned. On the other hand, he could have “played nice,” i.e., cooperated. Without the ability to do the latter, he would never have risen to four-star rank in today’s highly politicized military. No other honorable choice existed.

Publicly expressing disdain and contempt for the civilian leaders as a four-star has a tremendous adverse effect on countless subordinates, suggesting to them that such attitudes are reasonable and such behavior thinkable. President Obama, in my estimation, truly had no alternative but to “accept the General’s resignation.” To General McChrystal’s credit, he apparently recognized the inappropriateness and unacceptability of his behavior and proffered his resignation.

McChrystal is not the first four-star to have challenged civilian authority and lost. Another recent, highly publicized case was that of Admiral William (Fox) Fallon, whom President George W. Bush relieved as Commander of Central Command for publicly expressing disagreement. (Thomas P.M. Barnett, “The Man Between War and Peace,” Esquire, June 23, 2010)

Fallon was also wrong. He should have fought the policy battle privately; if unsuccessful, he should have retired and then fought the battle publicly. To his credit, he did not publicly disrespect higher authority.

These incidents make me wonder whether the process for selecting officers to the most senior military ranks is inherently flawed. My observations are that the military promotion system encourages conformity and the avoidance of mistakes. The system does not encourage healthy internal conflict that includes honest, appropriate, and timely expression of dissent. Consequently, when officers achieve positions in which they find themselves unable to conform, they act inappropriately.

Furthermore, the dominant ethos in the military clashes significantly with the dominant ethos in the civilian community, whether that of the Republicans or the Democrats. The lack of experience in dealing with healthy internal conflict as one rises through the ranks leaves a flag or general officer ill prepared to cope with the complex, multivalent world of American politics.

Ethical Musings - readers and comments

Ethical Musing’s readership continues to grow slowly. Comments are always welcome, as long as the comment avoids the patently false and strives to maintain a reasonable degree of civil discourse.

Readers provide Ethical Musings with its best publicity by encouraging others to subscribe or to read a particular essay of interest. The more people who read Ethical Musings, the more interesting the conversation is likely to become. Suggestions of topics to emphasize or to avoid are also welcome.

Thank you for taking time to peruse and to contribute to Ethical Musings.

Incidentally, a friend of mine, Chuck Till, has just launched his own blog at http://chucktill.blogspot.com, to which you may want to subscribe. His first entry offers the promise of interesting and thought-provoking essays.

Iranian nuclear update

In spite of new sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council, Iran publicly asserts its intent to proceed with using nuclear power as it chooses. If the new sanctions take effect, Iran threatens to lower its level of cooperation with U.N. inspectors.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has apparently granted Israel permission to use Saudi airspace for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. (Hugh Tomlinson, “Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites,” Times Online, June 12, 2010)

Such an attack is fraught with danger. If Iran has nuclear weapons and Israel fails to destroy all of them, then any attack substantially raises the likelihood of Iran launching a nuclear strike against Israel. If Iran does not have nuclear weapons and the Israeli attack fails to destroy all of Iran’s nuclear facilities and material, then any attack substantially raises the likelihood of Iran launching a non-nuclear attack against Israel or expediting weapons development in order to launch a nuclear attack against Israel. In either case, an Israeli attack against Iran hands radical Muslim groups an immense propaganda victory in spite of Iran’s Shiite version of Islam. Muslim extremists will point to the Israeli attack as evidence that the United States and its Israeli puppet are determined to destroy Islam at all costs.

Even as fears of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons increase, unmistakable signs of progress toward democracy continue to surface. In spite of Iran’s repressive, authoritarian regime protests against government policies and corruption continue. Furthermore, Iranians increasingly and openly out against government policies. (Will Young and Michael Slackman, “Across Iran, Anger Lies Behind Face of Calm,” New York Times, June 11, 2010)

Technology and moral reflection

Technology may be having an ugly impact on people, making them more impatient and forgetful. At least that is the claim of some physicians and researchers (Tara Parker-Pope, “Technology’s Toll - Impatience and Forgetfulness,” New York Times, June 6, 2010).

Intuitively, I find the analysis cogent. My computerized calendar, to-do list, and databases are far superior to my memory. So I make less effort to remember things and realize that I am increasingly dependent upon technology. I wonder to what extent my reliance on technology and consequent de-emphasis on memory diminishes my ability to remember. I know that in other uses of memory (e.g., sermon memorization) frequent practice improves performance.

Similarly, my computer functions at speeds that I once would have considered unbelievable. The first computer I used (1968) was via a teletype and primitive phone modem (one physically inserted the telephone handset into the modem’s cradle). Obtaining a response from the machine could take minutes even for the simplest five or six step program. A year later, I wrote several programs for an IBM 1620 that required several hours of computation time. My present laptop, far from state of the start, has a high-speed internet connection and performs more calculations per minute than the 1620 could in hours. Yet, sometimes I find myself feeling frustrated because responses take a couple of seconds, especially when the computer is multi-tasking. I wonder if my expectations about computer accelerated speeds causes me to expect people to respond more quickly, leaving me feeling frustrated about their perceived lack of responsiveness.

Technology has prima facie improved my reliability and productivity. Further reflection, however, does not necessarily support that conclusion. For example, boredom fosters creativity. Faced with boredom, people daydream, invent products, devise new processes, author new materials, and articulate new ideas. I know that in the time I spent circa 1968 waiting for computers to respond I cultivated relationships and contemplated programming problems. Although I sometimes felt bored, the enforced idleness enriched my life in unplanned ways.

Nuclear power has helped and harmed humans. X-rays, for example, provide healthcare professionals with previously unobtainable data about a person. Radiation leaks at Three Mile Island and elsewhere have harmed the world. Depending upon the person asked, nuclear weapons may have helped, harmed, or both.

Perhaps all technology similarly has potential for helping and harming, sometimes in subtle ways not readily apparent, depending upon use and the perspective of the person making the value judgment. If so, the need for carefully nuanced and informed moral reflection seems more important than ever.

Korean update

North Korea and South Korea have commenced a potentially catastrophic cycle of tit for tat in the aftermath of the North Korean sinking of the South Korean Navy vessel Chenonan.

South Korea has re-installed loudspeakers along the DMZ that broadcast propaganda into North Korea and resumed radio propaganda broadcasts aimed at North Korea. North Korea has threatened to destroy both the loudspeakers and radio broadcast capabilities. (“North Korea Vows to Blow Up South’s Propaganda Facilities,” New York Times, June 12, 2010)

This posturing may represent a sixth way in which the Korean peninsula again descends into open warfare in addition to the five ways that a previous New York Times article identified and I summarized in this blog.

The Old Catholic Church ordains a female priest

The Old Catholic Church, an Italian church that broke with Rome over the issue of papal infallibility in the nineteenth century, has ordained its first woman priest, Maria Vittoria Longhitano (Ed Beavan, “Old Catholics ordain woman in Italy,” Church Times, May 28, 2010). The Old Catholic Church is in communion with the member churches of the Anglican Communion.

Longhitano’s ordination seems doubly significant to me. First, the ordination points to an ongoing increase in the number of ecclesiastical bodies that ordain women clergy. Although the Episcopal Church ordained its first women clergy with some trepidation, momentum for the full inclusion of women in the life of the Church continues to grow. Someday, both the Church of England (which does not consecrate women as bishops) and the Roman Catholic Church (which has no women clergy) will fully embrace this reality.

Second, convinced of the rightness of fully including people of all sexual orientations in the life of the Church, the Episcopal Church (TEC) should not falter in moving forward on this front. The Archbishop of Canterbury has announced sanctions against the Episcopal Church in the wake of Mary Glasspool’s consecration as a Bishop Suffragan in Los Angeles (“Renewal in the Spirit”). Those sanctions seem pointless. Barring TEC from participating in ecumenical dialogues with the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches means that TEC will not join in endless conversations destined to achieve nothing until our dialogue partners take critical steps such as ordaining women.

Thinking about relationships

Al and Tipper Gore’s apparently amicable separation after forty years of marriage has caused or coincided with a flurry of articles about human relationships. A number of these articles emphasize the difficulty of actually knowing the state of another marriage. One study showed clips of 10 couples interacting to 200 people that included pastors, marital therapists, and relationship scientists. The researcher knew that half of the couples had divorced. Yet the purported experts correctly identified the five couples that had split only half of the time.

Relationship research has discovered that some people sustain a high level of romance for decades, complementing the affection and companionship that typically characterize long-term relationships. (Tara Parker-Pope, “Researchers Study Brain Scans for Insight to Marriage,” New York Times, June 4, 2010)

Other researchers report that sometimes a pet offers more emotional support than a partner does. Some pets invariably greet their owner with affection and a warm welcome, something that some couples lose over time. (Tara Parker-Pope, “What Pets Can Teach Us About Marriage,” New York Times, June 2, 2010) This research coheres well with research that shows the best predictor of whether a marriage will fail is the frequency of negative interactions between the two people. The more bickering, fighting, sniping, etc., the more likely it is that the couple will separate.

So what does this mean for the average couple?

First, any relationship requires commitment. Speculation runs rife that the Gores are splitting because they have grown apart since he lost the presidential election to George W. Bush. His interests have centered on environmental concerns; her interests have focused on family and photography. These divergent interests represent a significant change from the common interests in politics and child raising that characterized their first three decades together.

Second, finding a partner with whom one enjoys both ongoing romance and companionship is important. Plan romantic interludes; make an effort every day to make your partner feel special and appreciated.

Third, hanging tough during difficult times is probably worthwhile. Not only does happiness frequently increase with age (Nicholas Bakalar, “Happiness May Come With Age, Study Says,” New York Times, May 31, 2010), but subsequent partners tend to resemble their predecessors. In other words, the devil one knows may, in time, outshine the devil one does not know. However, hanging tough at the cost of abuse – physical or emotional – is foolish and wrong.

Artificial life?

Scientists at the Venter Institute have successfully implanted an artificial set of DNA into a host cell, creating a synthetic cell (“Synthetic biology: And man made life,” The Economist, May 20, 2010). This remarkable scientific advance implicitly raises questions about the nature of life.

In at least one scientist’s opinion, the biological concept of “life,” like the concept of “force” in physics, is an antiquated concept originally devised as an answer to gaps in human knowledge. (Philip Ball, “A synthetic creation story,” Nature, May 24, 2010)

Christians, familiar with the Bible, find “life” an attractive concept. God “breathed” life into humans, according to the Old Testament. Understanding those narratives metaphorically rather than literally certainly does not undercut the idea that life comes from God. How that happens is unimportant, even as is whether God created the world in accordance with a literal reading of one of the two Genesis creation myths or God created by establishing the “natural laws” that govern evolutionary processes.

Globalism and national security

President Obama recently sent his security strategy to Congress. This new strategy differs from President Bush’s in several important respects. First, the strategy de-emphasizes terrorism by recognizing that terrorism is not the only threat the United States faces. Second, the strategy acknowledges that other nations have important roles to play in world affairs – the world does not revolve around the United States. Third, the strategy highlights the need for cooperative action rather than unilateral action by the United States. (David E. Sanger and Peter Baker, “New Security Strategy Focuses on Managing Threats,” New York Times, May 27, 2010)

The first of those changes, de-emphasizing terrorism, actually improves the odds of defeating terror. Terror is essentially the ability to inspire fear. Dethroning anti-terrorism as the centerpiece of United States security strategy implicitly asserts that terrorists cannot and do not cow the United States into acquiescence. The United States abandoning its previous practice of setting national priorities and allocating scarce resources in response to terrorists’ agendas means that the United States has taken a constructive step toward defeating those terrorists.

The second and third changes both articulate positions more congruent with Christianity. Nations presently play a significant role in human affairs. However, no nation has God's particular favor, for God loves all peoples equally (Israel was chosen as God's instrument at a particular time for a particular purpose, not chosen as a sign of God's special favor). Eventually, I anticipate the emergence of a global human community.

Obviously, progress toward the appearance of a global human community remains uneven and frustratingly slow. For example, Hezbollah has developed a theme part to recruit fighters for its next campaign against Israel (Nicholas Blanford, “Hezbollah theme park woos fighters for next war with Israel,” Times Online, May 27, 2010). Violence retards rather than builds the genuine peace (flourishing for all) that enables development of a global community.

Global migration represents a mixed indicator of progress toward a global community. Throughout the current economic downturn, global migration has continued at a relatively constant pace. Heated headlines about illegal immigrants in the United States (e.g., Arizona’s new law requiring police to apprehend suspected illegal aliens) obscure the true magnitude of global population flows. The Philippines may have the greatest percentage of its population of any nation involved in these migrations, with approximately 25% of its 100 million people working abroad. (Jason DeParle, “Downturn Does Little to Slow Global Flow of Workers,” New York Times, May 27, 2010) Global migration, to the extent that it erodes barriers of ethnocentrism, bigotry, atavism, and nationalism, contributes to building global community. However, such migration sometimes has the opposite effect, hardening rather than eroding those barriers, thereby delaying emergence of a global community.

Japanese overseas military base

Japan is building its first overseas military base since WWII. This represents a major step given that its Constitutional prohibition against overseas military deployments intended as one safeguard for ensuring that Japan does not again threaten world peace.

The new Japanese base is located in Djibouti on the Gulf of Africa. The Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF – the Japanese navy) will utilize the base in support of operations against Sudanese pirates. JMSDF ships and personnel have previously operated from the U.S. Navy base in Djibouti. (World Military Forum, “Japan build first overseas military base,” The Faster Times, April 28, 2010)

United States support for this significant move by Japan points to a changed world since General Douglas MacArthur and his staff provided the Japanese Diet with the draft peace constitution prohibiting military operations that are not strictly defensive. The first erosion of that Constitution came very soon after its adoption when North Korea invaded South Korea shortly after the Communists seized power in China. The United States recognized the need for a strong ally and bastion against further communist expansion in the Western Pacific, a role that only Japan could fill.

I have no reservations about the Japanese actively joining the African anti-piracy operations or about their establishing a JMSDF base in Djibouti. Japan is an important democratic nation and supporter of human rights.

What intrigues me about the Japanese initiative is that U.S. motivation for supporting the move, like U.S. support for the Japanese rearming to become a bulwark against communist expansion in the Far East, is self-interest. Ian Johnson’s new book, A Mosque in Munich: Nazis, the CIA, and the Rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in the West, provides another striking example of short-term opportunistic foreign policy moves by the United States. Unlike U.S. support for Japan’s moves, the support for Muslims in Munich ended very poorly, with the U.S. moves backfiring, working against U.S. national interests.

One of the lessons that Jesus taught is that people must learn to treat everyone else – regardless of nationality – as a neighbor. For first century Palestinian Jews that included Samaritans. For twenty-first century Americans that includes everyone else on earth.

Targeting al Quaeda leaders

The United States appears consistently to target al Qaeda leaders, most recently killing Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, the presumptive number three in the al Qaeda hierarchy. (“Al Qaeda Number Three killed,” Times Online, June 1, 2010) If killing al Qaeda leaders is in fact a U.S. strategy intended to decapitate al Qaeda, that strategy seems destined to almost certain failure.

First, al Qaeda is a decentralized, network style organization. Cells operate with considerable independence. Even killing Osama bin Laden is unlikely to degrade al Qaeda’s operational capabilities for very long. Al Qaeda’s ability to mount successful operations in diverse geographic locations in spite of persistent U.S. efforts to neutralize both Osama bin Laden and his leadership team support this pessimistic assessment.

Second, assassinating leaders rarely defeats an enemy. High profile assassinations in the U.S. such as those of John Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., did not produce game changing results. Similarly, Israel killing the leaders of Palestinian terrorist groups has not defeated any of those groups.

Audrey Kurth Cronin in How Terrorism Ends identified six ways in which terrorism movements end. Killing the leadership, which she terms “decapitation,” was only one of six ways, an approach that based on her review of more than four hundred terror groups is seldom effective. According to Cronin, killing a key leader can temporarily disrupt a terror organization’s plans but is rarely a long-term game changer.

The good news from Cronin’s study is that all terror movements eventually end. If killing key leaders represents a tactic that is part of a larger strategy, then lets celebrate progress. But the hype that surrounds each kill suggests that the U.S. lacks a more comprehensive strategy. In a war of attrition, whether fought in the jungles of Vietnam, eighteenth century American colonies, or the mountains of Afghanistan over the last two millennia, invaders consistently lack the political will and resources to prevail. I do not like that conclusion, but find it unavoidable. (For a somewhat more optimistic assessment, cf. J. Boone Bartholomees, Jr., “The Issue of Attrition,” Parameters, Spring 2010, 5-19.)

Gaza blockade

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church sent this letter to the President of the United States:

June 2, 2010

The Honorable Barack Obama

President of the United States

The White House

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

On behalf of the Episcopal Church, I write to express deep concern for the circumstances surrounding Israeli forces’ interception of a flotilla of ships bound for the Gaza Strip earlier this week. The deaths of at least ten persons aboard one of the ships and the injury of many more, including four Israeli soldiers, represent a grave tragedy and underscore the urgency of renewed political leadership toward ending the blockade of Gaza. As we pray for those killed and wounded, and for their families, I urge your renewed attention to the status of Gaza as part of your Administration’s leadership toward a two-state solution.

The full details of this week’s incident are not clear. As Secretary Clinton has noted, we do not yet know the specific sequence of events that led to the outbreak of violence, and therefore our responses must be measured and thoughtful. It is clear, however, that the deaths of civilians working to deliver humanitarian aid could not have happened absent the counterproductive Israeli blockade of Gaza. The Episcopal Church strongly supports American leadership toward ending the blockade. There are far better ways to protect Israel’s security and promote moderate political leadership in Gaza than a blockade that intensifies human suffering and perpetuates regional insecurity.

Israel’s stated aim in imposing restrictions on trade and movement of persons in and out of Gaza was to end rocket attacks from Gaza, undermine the political leadership of Hamas, and secure the release of an Israeli soldier who has been held hostage in Gaza by Hamas since 2006. None of these goals has been well served by the blockade. Rocket attacks, while diminished in frequency, still continue and, in fact, appear on the rise again. Hamas retains political leadership in Gaza; indeed its power has increased as a result of its control and taxation of illegal, underground trafficking of goods in contravention of the blockade. Corporal Gilad Shalit remains a hostage in Gaza.

Instead of enhancing Israel’s security, the blockade has harmed its international standing and imposed an inexcusable humanitarian toll on the people of Gaza. While Israel has allowed a very limited amount of humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, the restriction on basic goods for agriculture, fishing, and infrastructure construction has caused poverty and joblessness to soar.

Today, seventy percent of Gazans live on less than $1 per day. Forty percent of workers are unemployed, and more than ten percent of children are malnourished. Prior to the blockade, an average of 850 trucks per day entered Gaza from Israel, carrying food, goods and fuel; today, there are an average of 128. Likewise, before 2007, 70 trucks per day carried Gazan exports valued at $330 million, or 10.8 percent of Gaza’s GDP, to Israel, the West Bank and foreign markets. Today, that traffic is non-existent.

Rather than tacitly backing an ill-advised blockade, the U.S. should work with its ally, Israel, to promote constructive new policies toward Gaza that serve the aims of peace and security. These should include continued efforts to halt violence, and credible long-term strategies to support Palestinian leaders who are actively working for peace. Nevertheless, any long-term successful Palestinian government with the capacity to safeguard peace and security must draw support and legitimacy from across Palestinian society. I would encourage your administration to actively support the process of Palestinian political reconciliation so that a future Palestinian government can draw strength both from its internal support and from its external actions on behalf of peace.

Mr. President, I have been encouraged by your leadership toward a two-state solution, which The Episcopal Church has repeatedly supported. Its contours are as clear as ever: a secure Israel with defined borders, whose right to exist is universally recognized; a sovereign, independent and secure state for the Palestinian people; and shared custody and protection of the holy sites in Jerusalem held sacred by the three great Abrahamic faiths.

This week’s sad events make clear that sustained U.S. attention to Gaza is a vital piece of the work of peace-making. It is time to shift our nation’s posture toward the Gaza blockade and make clear to Israel that its own interests, as well as our nation’s and those of the Palestinian people, would be well served by lifting the blockade. Most importantly, the search for long-term peace in the region could be robustly encouraged. Along with many other people of faith across this country, I will stand with you in a decision to move American policy in this direction.

Meanwhile, the proximity talks your Administration currently is brokering must continue even as the world seeks to discern the facts behind this week’s tragedies. They must rapidly lead to direct negotiation between the parties. As you have said, we have the opportunity, at long last, to make the Holy Land “the place of peace God intended it to be.”

Please be assured that this comes with my prayers for you and for all who engage the costly work of public service on behalf of our nation and our world. May your work of peace-making be a blessing to many. I remain

Your servant in faith,

The Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori

Presiding Bishop and Primate

The Episcopal Church

Human aggression

Human aggression, according to Nicholas Wade in The Faith Instinct, dates to the emergence of the first humans, the result of traits inherited from pre-human ancestors. If correct, that dating of human aggression has at least two important theological implications.

First, the early dating of human aggression contradicts any hypothesized “golden era” in a mythical garden of Eden and the associated idea that humans fell from grace. Human aggression, then like now, entailed fights to the death over mates and territory. This view coheres better with an evolutionary understanding of life and does not disturb me (cf. the Ethical Musings post, “Rethinking the fall”).

Second, overcoming human aggressiveness represents an important measure of human development. A self-centered individual is more likely to thrive than is an altruistic individual. However, societies than practice cooperation (i.e., group altruism) thrive better than societies that cooperate less. In essence, one on one, the dominant individual (strongest, smartest, etc.) will generally prevail but when the dominant individual faces a united group of inferiors, the group most frequently prevails.

As the world’s population grows unrelentingly closer to 9 billion (probably reaching that mark by 2050), the competition between tribal and national groups for scarce resources (water, food, energy sources) will invariably increase. One disturbing and potentially world changing venue for such competition currently is the Korean peninsula. North Korea has only one ally, China. North Korea claims to have nuclear weapons, and possesses a large conventional military force in addition to having a desperately poor populace and a paranoid government.

A recent New York Times column identified five different ways in which the uneasy truce on the Korean peninsula could easily lead to war: an incident at sea, shelling of the DMZ, a power struggle or coup, an internal collapse, and nuclear provocation. (David Sanger, “In the Koreas, Five Possible Ways to War,” New York Times, May 28, 2010)

For at least fifteen years, the United States and other nations have dealt with North Korean provocations by threatening sanctions, temporizing as North Korea made vacillating or conciliatory sounding noises, and then mostly settling for appeasing actions, mild sanctions, and saber rattling with respect to future incidents. President Obama has vowed to break that cycle. (Thom Shanker and David E. Sanger, “U.S. to Aid South Korea With Naval Defense Plan,” New York Times, May 30, 2010) Even as a similar approach to parenting inevitably fails, so that approach to international relations fails to move the world closer to peace.

Unfortunately, devising an alternative course of action has eluded world leaders since Harry Truman. Fighting a third war (in addition to the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan) is unattractive – especially if North Korea possesses nuclear weapons, as seems likely. Building cultural, economic, and other ties to North Korea that would make war a losing proposition for both sides becomes more difficult and unlikely each year. Past sanctions have included suspending or cutting such ties, a counterproductive strategy that by further isolating North Korea diminishes its “costs” associated with open warfare.

Perhaps the most viable strategic option depends upon the United States fully partnering with China to resolve tensions on the Korean peninsula, a politically perilous move in the U.S. and China given each nation’s atavism.

The United States taking the initiative to ship massive amounts of food and other aid to North Korea with no strings attached is also intriguing, thought probably not politically viable in the U.S. However, what might happen if the U.S. actually took such an unprecedented step toward a nation that is nominally an enemy (no peace treaty has officially ended the Korean War)? North Korea’s government by taking full credit for the aid could improve internal political and social stability while perhaps diminishing the regime’s paranoia. The cost to the United States would be trivial compared to the cost of another war. Continuing the aid even if further provocations occurred would emphasize the lack of strings attached to the aid. China might react to the move in unexpected, positive ways. Indeed, Chinese assistance in delivering the aid might prove essential. In other words, what would happen if the U.S. began acting towards others in a manner consistent with the golden rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you), an ethical precept basic to the world’s major religions?

Conversely, the weight of world opinion continues to shift against Israel for acting toward the Palestinians in ways that violate the golden rule. (Helene Cooper and Ethan Bronner, “Israeli Raid Complicates U.S. Ties and Push for Peace ,” New York Times, May 31, 2010)

The recent attempt by a group of international activists to deliver humanitarian aid to the Gaza strip failed when Israeli naval commandos boarded the flotilla of ten plus vessels, killed at least ten people, and ended the flotilla’s immediate effort to reach Gaza. (Isabel Kershner, “At Least 10 Are Killed as Israel Halts Flotilla With Gaza Aid,” New York Times, May 31, 2010)

The more interconnected the world becomes, the more imperative that people and nations begin to act ethically in order to control human aggressiveness.