What do Ted Hagard and the Republican members of the House of Representatives have in common? No, it is not what you think. What they have in common is that they cannot, evidently, stop old habits. Now, forget about Ted Haggard, because his old habit is trying to grab the spotlight while still not coming clean, and then having to apologize to his church, his family, and God him/herself for one more indiscretion. And, you thought his bad habit was that other thing. He just thought he heard God calling him to make this new documentary, probably to save the souls of many, even while it would put him back in the spotlight and, perhaps, prepare his way back into the pulpit where he could hide behind God again. Was it I who said forget about Ted Haggard. Yes. Forget about him. Because he is, like Elmer Gantry, a side show.
The real damaging addicts are the House Republicans. Their old habit, which the rest of the country managed to kick with this last election,was the habit of thinking that if we just made the rich richer, the rich would share a little of the wealth Trickle down I think they call it. This combined with their other bad habit - extremely partisan politics - made for a day in which, like Haggard, they once again wanted to put the spotlight on themselves while still not coming clean (as to how this same way of thinking has led us into the current black hole) so that soon they once again will have to apologize to the country for one more indiscretion. Thankfully, they are no longer in the majority because previously, this bad habit not only killed the economy, but also what little remained of respect for the nation around the world.
Now, we can all "give thanks to God", that Ted Haggart and the House Republicans share something else in common - the are both irrelevant to the task of salvation.... of souls or the nation. They are a side show, looking for someone to give them attention, put the spotlight on them. It will not happen until they both come clean and admit that they are enslaved to sin and cannot free themselves. Counting time for rehabilitation therapy, this should give souls and the nation a good long time without either Haggard or the Republicans trying to pull a fast one over on us. Unfortunately, it is more likely that they will continue another bad habit they share in common - the seeming inabilty to be quiet, even when no one is listening.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
I AM CONFUSED! WHEN DID 9/11 HAPPEN?
For about two weeks now, starting with the former President Bush himself, the nation has been treated to one of the most shameful attempts at spin that I can remember. The Bush legacy say, Bush, Rove, and a host of other Bush defenders on the news and talk shows includes the protecting the country from further terrorist attacks following 9/11. But, if my memory serves me right, 9/11 actually happened during the Bush administration. Am I not remembering correctly. So, Madoff would be hero of the nation for not stealing everyody else's money.
This is how President Bush will be remembered.
1. 9/11 - worst terrorist attack on US soil takes place on Bush "watch" - plot went totally undetected by Bush security aparatus
2. Bush continues reading a book for 15 minutes to children after hearing of 9/11 tragedy and then goes into hiding.
3. Bush attacks two countries who did not attach us and enters into never ending wars.
4. Largest increase in national debt by any President (Reagan comes in second - those Republicans really are great for the economy and balance budgets)
5. Worst economic failure since 1930s.
Actually, I think many of the statements made by Bush defenders are very unpatriotic because they say something like "protected Americans or America from terrorist attackes after 9/11, forgetting that all the terrorist attacks against US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan would be against "Americans", and by logical consequence, against "America."
The last time I heard a Bush defender state this nonsensical defense of the last President's legacy, it had an even more cynical twist to it. The platinum blond conservative pol, whose name I don't know, appearing on CNN's D.L. Hughley Show said that she wished President Obama well and that he would be able to say the same as Bush at the end of his administration as though Bush set the standard for terror protection. If that would be the case, we can only hope that the Obama Administration does not live up to the Bush legacy because this would mean terrorist attacks at home and abroad in unprcedented quantity.
Just to continue a moment on the Bush legacy. I heard Karl Rove quoted as saying that Bush was right on Iraq. I do not get it. Nobody can believe that this is true. Let's imagine that, for a moment, it would be true. So, imagine the US President going to the Congress to present a bill to spend $1 trillion dollars not in the budget, sacrifice 5-6000 American lives, 30,000 injured, maybe a 100,000 traumatized for life, tens of thousands of dead foreigners in their own land (maybe only 1/2 would be civilians and no more than 1/3 would be women or children), billions of destruction of infrastructure in that country with the purpose of removing a dictator in that country. Does anyone think that Congress would pass the bill or that it would even get one vote? I can see Karl Rove at the desk in front of the Appropriations committee arguing that Iraq is the argument for passing the bill. He is the only one at the desk, becuase no one else in the country would agree to try to argue the merits of the bill. Of course, that is not true in a real sense. There are, against logic and moral reasoning people who will defend the expenditure of money, the loss of life, the trauma to soldiers and civilians, the destruction of infrastructure as meritorious in the quest to remove a dictator in someone else's country. That, my friends is why "spin" is dangerous and why getting it right matters.
This is how President Bush will be remembered.
1. 9/11 - worst terrorist attack on US soil takes place on Bush "watch" - plot went totally undetected by Bush security aparatus
2. Bush continues reading a book for 15 minutes to children after hearing of 9/11 tragedy and then goes into hiding.
3. Bush attacks two countries who did not attach us and enters into never ending wars.
4. Largest increase in national debt by any President (Reagan comes in second - those Republicans really are great for the economy and balance budgets)
5. Worst economic failure since 1930s.
Actually, I think many of the statements made by Bush defenders are very unpatriotic because they say something like "protected Americans or America from terrorist attackes after 9/11, forgetting that all the terrorist attacks against US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan would be against "Americans", and by logical consequence, against "America."
The last time I heard a Bush defender state this nonsensical defense of the last President's legacy, it had an even more cynical twist to it. The platinum blond conservative pol, whose name I don't know, appearing on CNN's D.L. Hughley Show said that she wished President Obama well and that he would be able to say the same as Bush at the end of his administration as though Bush set the standard for terror protection. If that would be the case, we can only hope that the Obama Administration does not live up to the Bush legacy because this would mean terrorist attacks at home and abroad in unprcedented quantity.
Just to continue a moment on the Bush legacy. I heard Karl Rove quoted as saying that Bush was right on Iraq. I do not get it. Nobody can believe that this is true. Let's imagine that, for a moment, it would be true. So, imagine the US President going to the Congress to present a bill to spend $1 trillion dollars not in the budget, sacrifice 5-6000 American lives, 30,000 injured, maybe a 100,000 traumatized for life, tens of thousands of dead foreigners in their own land (maybe only 1/2 would be civilians and no more than 1/3 would be women or children), billions of destruction of infrastructure in that country with the purpose of removing a dictator in that country. Does anyone think that Congress would pass the bill or that it would even get one vote? I can see Karl Rove at the desk in front of the Appropriations committee arguing that Iraq is the argument for passing the bill. He is the only one at the desk, becuase no one else in the country would agree to try to argue the merits of the bill. Of course, that is not true in a real sense. There are, against logic and moral reasoning people who will defend the expenditure of money, the loss of life, the trauma to soldiers and civilians, the destruction of infrastructure as meritorious in the quest to remove a dictator in someone else's country. That, my friends is why "spin" is dangerous and why getting it right matters.
Interpreting History - Getting it Right
Unnoticed by most of the US citizenry was the January election victory of the former FMLN rebels in parliamentary and municipal elections in El Salvador. This could lead to the first FMLN victory in presidential elections in March as their candidate, former CNN reporter Mauricio Funes, holds as much as a 14% lead in some of the current polls.
Bernard Aronson, President H.W. Bush's assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs from 1989 to 1993 stated that this victory is "the ultimate fruition of the peace accords we backed." A UN sponsored peace treaty was signed in 1992.
Robert Pastor, Latin America national security advisser for President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s sees a slightly different, if equally perverted, lesson in the victory: this should show Americans that revolutionary and guerilla groups that have a political agenda can evolve to be democratic."
For someone who knows the history of Central America and lived there during three of the civil wars - Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala - these "lessons" are not the ones that should be drawn from the FMLN victory which is part of a larger Latin America move from rule by Conservative elites to more democratically elected leftist governments (Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Brazil, Venezuela, Chile, Argentina, Ecuador in recent years).
In the 1960s and early 70s there was a move toward democratic reform of the Central American countries which eminated from the universities, labor unions and progressive political elements. This movement was repressed in aweful dimensions by death squads, national guards, national police and armies in the service of the economic elite and backed by military aid from the US government as part of the Cold War. What the reformist elements were asking for was democratic process, progressive labor laws, fair wages, land reform.
The result of the peace processes in El Salvador and Guatemala was exactly what these reformist elements had asked for: democratic process, land reform, access to edcuation, fair labor laws and economic opportunity. Between the late 1970s and the early 1990s when the Peace accords were signed, hundreds of thousands were killed (mostly civilians); tens of thousands made refugees; and billions of dollars spent on military weapons and training instead of invested in economic development.
The lesson should be that the cost of using violence on behalf of entrenched economic and political intereststo to resist reasonable, humane and democratic movements for change,is unacceptable to the human community. The lesson is that the US was wrong to support the military dictatorships and the economic elite in their immoral and destructive attempts to repress reform which, logically and reasonably will eventually have to be accepted because they are, in fact, logical and reasonable (and we could add, ethically superior to rule by a few). That the current political reality shows is that when democratic process is allowed to operate, people eventually choose governmente that are more concerned with human progress in health, education and protection of human rights over right-wing governments that want to create greater wealth for themselves. All that killing, destruction and lost opportunity for human development when, in the end, the result is exactly what the US and the Central American elite resisted.
Nevertheless, if Larry Birns, director the nonprofit Council on Hemispheric Affairs, is correct in his response to this democratic opening in Latin America and the possibility of an FMLN victory in El Salvador, the Washington elite have not learned any such lessson. "There's another possibility that yet another country will join the pink tide and go leftist," Birns said. "What Washington worries about is momentum building up behind one election after another for leftist candidates."
Well, we cannot be sure that the FMLN wins the presidential elections in El Salvador. The Right will unite behind the ARENA candidate and they have mighty tools at their disposal. Hopefully, this time the US Embassy in El Salvador will not give out notice that if FMLN wins, the US will cut off money coming from Salvadorans in the US back to their families in El Salvador as they did in the last presidential elections. These remittances continue to be the economic lifeline of many Salvadoran families. Hopefully, this time, the US will listen to people who get history right and welcome the opportunity to develop good relations and fair treatment of our neighbors to the south. It will be interesting to see who Obama/Clinton choose as their emissaries to the south.
Bernard Aronson, President H.W. Bush's assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs from 1989 to 1993 stated that this victory is "the ultimate fruition of the peace accords we backed." A UN sponsored peace treaty was signed in 1992.
Robert Pastor, Latin America national security advisser for President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s sees a slightly different, if equally perverted, lesson in the victory: this should show Americans that revolutionary and guerilla groups that have a political agenda can evolve to be democratic."
For someone who knows the history of Central America and lived there during three of the civil wars - Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala - these "lessons" are not the ones that should be drawn from the FMLN victory which is part of a larger Latin America move from rule by Conservative elites to more democratically elected leftist governments (Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Brazil, Venezuela, Chile, Argentina, Ecuador in recent years).
In the 1960s and early 70s there was a move toward democratic reform of the Central American countries which eminated from the universities, labor unions and progressive political elements. This movement was repressed in aweful dimensions by death squads, national guards, national police and armies in the service of the economic elite and backed by military aid from the US government as part of the Cold War. What the reformist elements were asking for was democratic process, progressive labor laws, fair wages, land reform.
The result of the peace processes in El Salvador and Guatemala was exactly what these reformist elements had asked for: democratic process, land reform, access to edcuation, fair labor laws and economic opportunity. Between the late 1970s and the early 1990s when the Peace accords were signed, hundreds of thousands were killed (mostly civilians); tens of thousands made refugees; and billions of dollars spent on military weapons and training instead of invested in economic development.
The lesson should be that the cost of using violence on behalf of entrenched economic and political intereststo to resist reasonable, humane and democratic movements for change,is unacceptable to the human community. The lesson is that the US was wrong to support the military dictatorships and the economic elite in their immoral and destructive attempts to repress reform which, logically and reasonably will eventually have to be accepted because they are, in fact, logical and reasonable (and we could add, ethically superior to rule by a few). That the current political reality shows is that when democratic process is allowed to operate, people eventually choose governmente that are more concerned with human progress in health, education and protection of human rights over right-wing governments that want to create greater wealth for themselves. All that killing, destruction and lost opportunity for human development when, in the end, the result is exactly what the US and the Central American elite resisted.
Nevertheless, if Larry Birns, director the nonprofit Council on Hemispheric Affairs, is correct in his response to this democratic opening in Latin America and the possibility of an FMLN victory in El Salvador, the Washington elite have not learned any such lessson. "There's another possibility that yet another country will join the pink tide and go leftist," Birns said. "What Washington worries about is momentum building up behind one election after another for leftist candidates."
Well, we cannot be sure that the FMLN wins the presidential elections in El Salvador. The Right will unite behind the ARENA candidate and they have mighty tools at their disposal. Hopefully, this time the US Embassy in El Salvador will not give out notice that if FMLN wins, the US will cut off money coming from Salvadorans in the US back to their families in El Salvador as they did in the last presidential elections. These remittances continue to be the economic lifeline of many Salvadoran families. Hopefully, this time, the US will listen to people who get history right and welcome the opportunity to develop good relations and fair treatment of our neighbors to the south. It will be interesting to see who Obama/Clinton choose as their emissaries to the south.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Purging the Purge
One way or another, what the Military commanders told President Obama today when they reportedly met to discuss matters related to withdrawal from Iraq, is that the reported success of the "Purge", like the war itself is built upon a lie. The message they gave the President is that if and when he withdraws, there will be civil war in the country. To any keen observer of world matters, this will not come as a surprise. AFter the Balkans it should be hard for any one to believe that it is possible by means of prolonged imposition by force to change historic realities on the ground. Iraq never was, is not and will not long survive as one country. It is three. The problem is that one of the countries - the one in the middle - has no oil.
So, the Purge is built upon a political agreement between the US and the primary actors which prepared the way for the US departure and for the civil war that follows. The Kurds can hardly wait for us to leave. The Shiites are biting their nails until they are free to take revenge upon the Sunnis and the Sunnis are scared as hell of what will happen to them when the US leaves. The Shiites, after a period of following their hearts for revenge against the Sunnis and against the US for occupying their country, came to the conclusion that they could not take what they believe is rightfully their's - the oil in the south and the control of the nation - as long as the US was there and that the US would not leave until it appeared that the nation was at peace. The Sunnis realized that as much as they resisted the US, the more they incurred the wrath of the US and that they, not the Shiites would the target of the US military efforts. So, they made a deal: the US would arm them sufficiently to have a fighting chance in the civil war to come if they would participate in controling the radical elements of Al Quaeda and other foreigners who were wrecking havoc on the US mission.
All of a sudden, we have a less violent Iraq and elections coming up and political progress toward resolving some, but not many of the important, political questions that would prepare the country for unity in the future.
The surge did not work because it was the right military strategy, but because all the parties finally agreed that it was politically expedient to each of their interests to give the impression that there was progress toward peace and unity; using the relative peace as a time to build up internal strengths for the coming struggle while the US arms all three sides.
The problem for the Obama administration is that the lie of the success of the Purge leads to a lie about the reason for withdrawal We will say that we are withdrawing because we have been successful in establishing democratic rule of the country and training a national army and police force to maintain order and stability. The truth is that there will be civil war when we withdraw, if not right away then shortly. Then we will have to lie about why this civil war happens (the Republicans will blame the Democrats and the Democrats will blame the Iranians and no one will tell the truth). The truth is that it was wrong to go to war in Iraq, the war has only prolonged the simmering conflict in the region at the cost of thousands of lives and billions of damage to infrastructure and a trillion dollars of US taxpayer money at a time when the nationa debt was skyrocketing under the Bush administration and the economy failing.
It is a hugely complicated political problem that can be solved very easily: withdraw the US troops in 16 months as promised and as agreed to with the current Iraqui government.
Of course, this will reveal, to open minds, that it was a mistake to make war in Iraq which strengthened the most radical elements in the region and eakened the moderate elements. So, we will tell another lie: that Iran, Syria and Turkey are meddling in the internal affairs of democratic nation.
This will also be a lie as the conflict is essentially internal, although the surrounding powers will try to exploit it. But then, this war began with a lie, was based on a lie and it is well known that one lie leads to another.
Nevertheless, in 16 months the American taxpayer will not be paying for the lie and the real protagonists for the future of the Middle East will have their future in their own hands and that likely, will create a balance that will limit the damage to the regional stability. And, the majority of US citizens will not blame the Obama Administration for what follows the withdrawal, because, in fact, the majority never liked the war for an even more perverse reason - they do not care if that region prospers or not and they certainly do not believe that the region will support truly democratic governments. Only the super patriots who love war will make a lot of the coming disaster, saying that the Obama administration betrayed and abandoned a democratically elected government to the whims of neighboring dictators. That will also be a lie as the democracy in Iraq is a sham like all imposed democracies. We can hope the that this time the lie won't stick so we can back to something like telling the truth.
In that vain, the truth is that Obama is wrong to invest too much more in Afghanistan in supposed support of democracy there. For democracy, Afghanistan is even a worse case scenario than Iraq except for the possibility that they have a wider variety of counterbalancing forces that could come to an agreement to keep the formality of a country as a cover for each exploiting their control of their own homelands and enjoying the profits of the poppy season. The goal then would be to deter the Taliban which is the only group with a real national project and the will and power to impose it. The only goal in Afghanistan ought to be to leave enough UN or US presence in the region to deter the expansion of the Al Quaeda network, but then this is not an Afghani problem to take care of; this is a problem that only Pakistan can help address. Therein lies the real challenge.
So, the Purge is built upon a political agreement between the US and the primary actors which prepared the way for the US departure and for the civil war that follows. The Kurds can hardly wait for us to leave. The Shiites are biting their nails until they are free to take revenge upon the Sunnis and the Sunnis are scared as hell of what will happen to them when the US leaves. The Shiites, after a period of following their hearts for revenge against the Sunnis and against the US for occupying their country, came to the conclusion that they could not take what they believe is rightfully their's - the oil in the south and the control of the nation - as long as the US was there and that the US would not leave until it appeared that the nation was at peace. The Sunnis realized that as much as they resisted the US, the more they incurred the wrath of the US and that they, not the Shiites would the target of the US military efforts. So, they made a deal: the US would arm them sufficiently to have a fighting chance in the civil war to come if they would participate in controling the radical elements of Al Quaeda and other foreigners who were wrecking havoc on the US mission.
All of a sudden, we have a less violent Iraq and elections coming up and political progress toward resolving some, but not many of the important, political questions that would prepare the country for unity in the future.
The surge did not work because it was the right military strategy, but because all the parties finally agreed that it was politically expedient to each of their interests to give the impression that there was progress toward peace and unity; using the relative peace as a time to build up internal strengths for the coming struggle while the US arms all three sides.
The problem for the Obama administration is that the lie of the success of the Purge leads to a lie about the reason for withdrawal We will say that we are withdrawing because we have been successful in establishing democratic rule of the country and training a national army and police force to maintain order and stability. The truth is that there will be civil war when we withdraw, if not right away then shortly. Then we will have to lie about why this civil war happens (the Republicans will blame the Democrats and the Democrats will blame the Iranians and no one will tell the truth). The truth is that it was wrong to go to war in Iraq, the war has only prolonged the simmering conflict in the region at the cost of thousands of lives and billions of damage to infrastructure and a trillion dollars of US taxpayer money at a time when the nationa debt was skyrocketing under the Bush administration and the economy failing.
It is a hugely complicated political problem that can be solved very easily: withdraw the US troops in 16 months as promised and as agreed to with the current Iraqui government.
Of course, this will reveal, to open minds, that it was a mistake to make war in Iraq which strengthened the most radical elements in the region and eakened the moderate elements. So, we will tell another lie: that Iran, Syria and Turkey are meddling in the internal affairs of democratic nation.
This will also be a lie as the conflict is essentially internal, although the surrounding powers will try to exploit it. But then, this war began with a lie, was based on a lie and it is well known that one lie leads to another.
Nevertheless, in 16 months the American taxpayer will not be paying for the lie and the real protagonists for the future of the Middle East will have their future in their own hands and that likely, will create a balance that will limit the damage to the regional stability. And, the majority of US citizens will not blame the Obama Administration for what follows the withdrawal, because, in fact, the majority never liked the war for an even more perverse reason - they do not care if that region prospers or not and they certainly do not believe that the region will support truly democratic governments. Only the super patriots who love war will make a lot of the coming disaster, saying that the Obama administration betrayed and abandoned a democratically elected government to the whims of neighboring dictators. That will also be a lie as the democracy in Iraq is a sham like all imposed democracies. We can hope the that this time the lie won't stick so we can back to something like telling the truth.
In that vain, the truth is that Obama is wrong to invest too much more in Afghanistan in supposed support of democracy there. For democracy, Afghanistan is even a worse case scenario than Iraq except for the possibility that they have a wider variety of counterbalancing forces that could come to an agreement to keep the formality of a country as a cover for each exploiting their control of their own homelands and enjoying the profits of the poppy season. The goal then would be to deter the Taliban which is the only group with a real national project and the will and power to impose it. The only goal in Afghanistan ought to be to leave enough UN or US presence in the region to deter the expansion of the Al Quaeda network, but then this is not an Afghani problem to take care of; this is a problem that only Pakistan can help address. Therein lies the real challenge.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
No Real Cease, No Real Peace
It should not be surprise that the invasion of Gaza ended as it did with Israel deciding to leave the Gaza just as quickly and aribitrarily as it decided to invade and send troops into the Gaza. Both sides declared a unilateral cease fire and both claimed victory. Nothing changed, except, as Israel claims: damage was done to Hamas. Actually the damage was about 17% of the building destroyed at a loss of something like $2 billion, over a 1000 Palestinians killed, more that half of them women and children. The reasons for Israel's withdrawal were about as clear as their reasons for invading. There are no guarantees by Hamas that they do not continue with the rockets into Israel, no guarantees by Israel that they would not reverse the withdrawal and re-invade.
No real cease fire, no real chance to turn the invasion into peace. That probably is the reason that there were unilateral actions leading to temporary resolution of the crisis without any promises or agreed upon framework for going forward. The idea of the cease fire was to agree to conditions for maintainintg the cease fire, conditions that might have the chance of establishing some foundation for going forward with negotiations for somekind of process that would lead to peace.
Neither Hamas nor Israel wanted such formalities, certainly not any commitments for fair and humane treatment of one another, nor to abide by international human right laws. Hamas was not removed from power, their ability to launch rockets only minimally reduced and the clandestine supply routes from Egypt still functioning.
It would take a reliable source within the Israeli's ruling party's government to reveal to us the real purposes of the invasion\ and, therefore, whether, in fact, that purpose was accomplished. "Damages were done" doesn't seen to be sufficient. What is clear from the way that the invasion ended is that neither side want's peace or any kind of agreement that might lead that way. For both, it was a victory that neither acquired any further commitments that woud limit its options for use of violence in the future.
it is speculated that the new Obama administration will soon, very soon, send a special envoy to the Middle East. The first order of business could well be to find some legitimate authority there who actually desires peace.
No real cease fire, no real chance to turn the invasion into peace. That probably is the reason that there were unilateral actions leading to temporary resolution of the crisis without any promises or agreed upon framework for going forward. The idea of the cease fire was to agree to conditions for maintainintg the cease fire, conditions that might have the chance of establishing some foundation for going forward with negotiations for somekind of process that would lead to peace.
Neither Hamas nor Israel wanted such formalities, certainly not any commitments for fair and humane treatment of one another, nor to abide by international human right laws. Hamas was not removed from power, their ability to launch rockets only minimally reduced and the clandestine supply routes from Egypt still functioning.
It would take a reliable source within the Israeli's ruling party's government to reveal to us the real purposes of the invasion\ and, therefore, whether, in fact, that purpose was accomplished. "Damages were done" doesn't seen to be sufficient. What is clear from the way that the invasion ended is that neither side want's peace or any kind of agreement that might lead that way. For both, it was a victory that neither acquired any further commitments that woud limit its options for use of violence in the future.
it is speculated that the new Obama administration will soon, very soon, send a special envoy to the Middle East. The first order of business could well be to find some legitimate authority there who actually desires peace.
In Case You Didn't Notice
Venzuela opened up its oil fields to US oil companies this last week, despite all of President Chavez's previous promises to take back the oil from US domination and his country out of the grips of US power. The reason is not Obama versus Bush. It is a simple matter of economy. Venezuela needs buyers since demand lessened and the price has sunk to decade lows.
Interestingly enough, the Bush administration did all it could to try to change the previous situation using the Republican's single edge diplomacy - the threat of force. Of course, we were not going to use force because we had all our forces tied up in two everlasting wars in the Middle East. But, force was threatened, nonetheless.
It might surprise many Americans that we can actually go out and buy oil from others and not have to invade a country or send the fleet to ensure that we get our triple portion of world output.
This is how it works. Countries that produce more oil than they need, want to sell the oil in order to have capital either to enrich the rulers or improve the lives of their citizens and win the next election; or, it could be both. As long as we have consumers who want to buy oil products, especially gasoline, we have the ability to be one of the buyers. There are other buyers, of course, and they can also purchase oil and that makes for a dynamic market where, in fact, under normal circumstances, all the nations who have consumers willing to pay for oil can buy it and all the nations with more oil than they need for national consumption can make considerable money to improve the life of their citizens, or enrich the ruling class, or a little bit of both. It is a world market, so when one buyer loses acces to one market, anothe buy takes up the slack and the space that buyer had in an alternative market opens up for us to buy the oil they used to buy in that alternative market.
Wars for oil are not necessary. We should not have to lose lives or take lives in order to secure oil for the nation. We can actually just go out and buy it.
So, why are we fighting in Iraq to protect the oil supply. Don't the Iraquis, or the Kurds or whoever ends up controlling the oil have to sell in order to have any benefit from the oil and can't we just buy from them, or if they sell to others, to go where those others were buying oil before and buy that oil? Of course, we can. When our leaders say that they are protecting the oil supply for our economy, it really means that they are taking control of oil resources in other countries so that our oil companies can make more money on selling the oil to us.
Someone will say that Iraq is not about oil, it is about democracy. Forgetting what is the obvious incongruity between democracy and imposing it by military force; the war in Iraq started over the Iraqui attempt to take control of oil fields controled by Kuwait. If Iraq took over those fields, which they believed were really their oil fields, the oil produced would have to be sold on the world market and we could have bought it. So, why are we willing to spend billions in dollars and destroy thousands of our young people by putting them in harms way. Not to be sure that we have cheap oil, but to ensure that our oil companies create great wealth for their executives and share holders.
What about when there are more buyers than sellers? Prices go up and, as a result, production goes up and then there is another cycle. Peaceful world that way, with the price of gas sometimes up and sometimes down...but peaceful.
It would be an even better world if we would invest in the clean and renewable energies, thus producing all the enegy we need from sources that no one controls - sun and wind. Who doesn't benefit from a world in which the majority of power we need to run our cars, our heaters, our industry comes from wind and sun. Who doesn't benefit are the companies trying to make a profit on producing, refining, buyind and selling oil.
In fact, it makes sense for this nation, or any nation that can afford to do it, to have the government build massive wind and sun farms even at break even bottom lines to produce this energy which would free us from any concerns about the control of world markets. It is a no brainer, don't you think. Then why not?
The most common answer is that it is "socialism" to have the state control energy and we are not "socialists." I can only say it is high price to pay - in billions for war and in thousands of lives destroyed - to avoid solving a problem because someone will say it is socialist. That could make it into the list of top ten stupidities along with the notion that it makes sense to threaten countries who decide to make their own money from the oil in their ground by nationalizing the oil fields.
Until we get there - energy sufficiency using clear, renewable sources - in case you didn't notice, Venezuela sells gas, even to us.
Interestingly enough, the Bush administration did all it could to try to change the previous situation using the Republican's single edge diplomacy - the threat of force. Of course, we were not going to use force because we had all our forces tied up in two everlasting wars in the Middle East. But, force was threatened, nonetheless.
It might surprise many Americans that we can actually go out and buy oil from others and not have to invade a country or send the fleet to ensure that we get our triple portion of world output.
This is how it works. Countries that produce more oil than they need, want to sell the oil in order to have capital either to enrich the rulers or improve the lives of their citizens and win the next election; or, it could be both. As long as we have consumers who want to buy oil products, especially gasoline, we have the ability to be one of the buyers. There are other buyers, of course, and they can also purchase oil and that makes for a dynamic market where, in fact, under normal circumstances, all the nations who have consumers willing to pay for oil can buy it and all the nations with more oil than they need for national consumption can make considerable money to improve the life of their citizens, or enrich the ruling class, or a little bit of both. It is a world market, so when one buyer loses acces to one market, anothe buy takes up the slack and the space that buyer had in an alternative market opens up for us to buy the oil they used to buy in that alternative market.
Wars for oil are not necessary. We should not have to lose lives or take lives in order to secure oil for the nation. We can actually just go out and buy it.
So, why are we fighting in Iraq to protect the oil supply. Don't the Iraquis, or the Kurds or whoever ends up controlling the oil have to sell in order to have any benefit from the oil and can't we just buy from them, or if they sell to others, to go where those others were buying oil before and buy that oil? Of course, we can. When our leaders say that they are protecting the oil supply for our economy, it really means that they are taking control of oil resources in other countries so that our oil companies can make more money on selling the oil to us.
Someone will say that Iraq is not about oil, it is about democracy. Forgetting what is the obvious incongruity between democracy and imposing it by military force; the war in Iraq started over the Iraqui attempt to take control of oil fields controled by Kuwait. If Iraq took over those fields, which they believed were really their oil fields, the oil produced would have to be sold on the world market and we could have bought it. So, why are we willing to spend billions in dollars and destroy thousands of our young people by putting them in harms way. Not to be sure that we have cheap oil, but to ensure that our oil companies create great wealth for their executives and share holders.
What about when there are more buyers than sellers? Prices go up and, as a result, production goes up and then there is another cycle. Peaceful world that way, with the price of gas sometimes up and sometimes down...but peaceful.
It would be an even better world if we would invest in the clean and renewable energies, thus producing all the enegy we need from sources that no one controls - sun and wind. Who doesn't benefit from a world in which the majority of power we need to run our cars, our heaters, our industry comes from wind and sun. Who doesn't benefit are the companies trying to make a profit on producing, refining, buyind and selling oil.
In fact, it makes sense for this nation, or any nation that can afford to do it, to have the government build massive wind and sun farms even at break even bottom lines to produce this energy which would free us from any concerns about the control of world markets. It is a no brainer, don't you think. Then why not?
The most common answer is that it is "socialism" to have the state control energy and we are not "socialists." I can only say it is high price to pay - in billions for war and in thousands of lives destroyed - to avoid solving a problem because someone will say it is socialist. That could make it into the list of top ten stupidities along with the notion that it makes sense to threaten countries who decide to make their own money from the oil in their ground by nationalizing the oil fields.
Until we get there - energy sufficiency using clear, renewable sources - in case you didn't notice, Venezuela sells gas, even to us.
Rhetoric Not Needed
Jeffrey Toobin, political analyst for CNN. commented tonight that President Obama's speech fell short because it had no memorable rhetoric and no central theme. Toobin was looking for a "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" phrase that would mke the speech memorable.
It is typically American to think that rhetoric matters more than content. To be honest, the speech did not elicit from the millions on mall any strong, enthusiastic response as has been the case with many of President Obama's campaign speeches. If the crowd and the public was looking for a speech that would capitalize on the high emotions of the moment, they were disappointed.
Instead, what we got was a serious analysis of the country's current malaise, the clear commitment of the President to make signficant changes in the traditiona approach to governing, and a call for each of us to join in building a different kind of America. A really great speech for any one who pretends to lead is a speech that is followed by actions that match the promises. If President Obama can keep the program for and of government that he articulated today, he will be a great President.
Here is what I heard in the way of promised changes for America:
1. Markets matter, but a good economy is one that gives all the possibility of a living wage.
2. Security does not trump ideals.
3. Ideology for ideology's sake is a path into the dark. \Finding solutions that work to create justice, peace, prosperity is a path toward the light.
4. Making friends with the world is a better path than making war against enemies.
5. If you are waiting for the government to solve all the problems, your problems will never get solved. Get up off your rear end and start working with others to solve our problems.
6 Something is wrong in a world where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. We need to change this part of reality.
7. Science, facts, thinking, logic are the tools by which we can solve our problems.
There is no inherent "greatness" to America. America can be great when it acts with greatness, when it acts with maturity, when it acts in a way to upholds the highest ideals, when it accepts responsibility for what it does.
It will take a huge amount of strength, wisdome and courage by the President Obama and his administration to help America grow up, get smart and stay commitment to the better values. There is the weight of the status quo and powerful interests that do not want a solution to our current problems that issue in wider prosperity, greater empowerment of a wider public and peace in the world. There are a thousand traps and many pitfalls all of which have worked before to derail any attempt to help the nation grow up (for instance to realize that we are responsible for the earth and its warming and that we cannot consume more than our share of what the world produces).
President Obama struck exactly the right chords with his inauguration speech exactly because it did not rely on rhetoric, but on a serious statement of what is needed for our nation to grow up. Now, it only remains the hardest part of the job: to live up to the high marks set in this outstanding speech.
It is typically American to think that rhetoric matters more than content. To be honest, the speech did not elicit from the millions on mall any strong, enthusiastic response as has been the case with many of President Obama's campaign speeches. If the crowd and the public was looking for a speech that would capitalize on the high emotions of the moment, they were disappointed.
Instead, what we got was a serious analysis of the country's current malaise, the clear commitment of the President to make signficant changes in the traditiona approach to governing, and a call for each of us to join in building a different kind of America. A really great speech for any one who pretends to lead is a speech that is followed by actions that match the promises. If President Obama can keep the program for and of government that he articulated today, he will be a great President.
Here is what I heard in the way of promised changes for America:
1. Markets matter, but a good economy is one that gives all the possibility of a living wage.
2. Security does not trump ideals.
3. Ideology for ideology's sake is a path into the dark. \Finding solutions that work to create justice, peace, prosperity is a path toward the light.
4. Making friends with the world is a better path than making war against enemies.
5. If you are waiting for the government to solve all the problems, your problems will never get solved. Get up off your rear end and start working with others to solve our problems.
6 Something is wrong in a world where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. We need to change this part of reality.
7. Science, facts, thinking, logic are the tools by which we can solve our problems.
There is no inherent "greatness" to America. America can be great when it acts with greatness, when it acts with maturity, when it acts in a way to upholds the highest ideals, when it accepts responsibility for what it does.
It will take a huge amount of strength, wisdome and courage by the President Obama and his administration to help America grow up, get smart and stay commitment to the better values. There is the weight of the status quo and powerful interests that do not want a solution to our current problems that issue in wider prosperity, greater empowerment of a wider public and peace in the world. There are a thousand traps and many pitfalls all of which have worked before to derail any attempt to help the nation grow up (for instance to realize that we are responsible for the earth and its warming and that we cannot consume more than our share of what the world produces).
President Obama struck exactly the right chords with his inauguration speech exactly because it did not rely on rhetoric, but on a serious statement of what is needed for our nation to grow up. Now, it only remains the hardest part of the job: to live up to the high marks set in this outstanding speech.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Economic Recovery Taken Hostage
There should be a penalty applied to Republicans for all the damage they have done during the last eight years of their management of the national affairs, foreign policy and the economy. Bush’s track record for bankrupting businesses he owned has become our problem as he and his fellow travelers have bankrupted the country with economic policy and foreign adventures that have gutted not only the economy but also the physical and social infrastructure of the country.
Instead of paying a penalty, the Republicans along with the Military-Industrial Complex that President Eisenhower warned us about, continue to keep real economic recovery as a hostage to their ideological commitments and the failed policies of the last eight years. The latest example is the $300 billion dollar tax cut that President-elect Obama sees as necessary in order to secure the Republican backing for an economic stimulus program which, otherwise, contains real economic renewal by creating jobs, investing in the production of and improvement of alternative energy capacity and rebuilding the infrastructure of the country. The first Bush Tax cuts and then the tax rebate of two years ago did not lead to economic recovery. To the contrary, these tax cuts and rebates along with deregulation of the financial institutions, unchecked free market practices and unrestrained military spending in support of nonproductive military adventures abroad led to bankruptcy for the economy. From a budget surplus at the end of Clinton years, Bush and cohorts have produces a $1.2 trillion deficit in their last year. It’s worse than Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. To top it off, military spending is exempted from any efforts to keep the budget deficit low and to encourage economic recovery.
We are hostages, all of us, until we wake up and hold the Republicans and the war mongers responsible for driving the nation into the ground and then taking the attempt to dig out of the hole we are in hostage to their political ideologies and manipulations. $500 - $1500 for the average family in tax savings during this next year will not restore the economy. It might well reduce personal debt that has accumulated during this last year, but it will not create greater demand as the previous tax cuts and rebates also failed to do and it will not create jobs and new tax payers that would help the budget balance. Instead, it will, like military spending, disappear into the black hole of increased profits for financial institutions and the industrial elite who make their millions on weapons.
P.S. Possible penalties for Republicans include court orders for absolute silence for next two years and all Republicans who voted for Bush because "Republicans are better for the economy" have to spend two hours a day for this same period writing “I will never again trust the Republicans with the Economy on the blackboard” until their arms are so tired they cannot google Yahoo Financial to see how their stocks are gaining under the new administration’s management.
It might make good sense, politically, for the new administration to put together a quick economic package with strong bipartisan support, but in our heart of hearts, many of us who are victims of the previous eight years of leadership know that at least $300 billion of the package is nothing more than paying ransom to those who have and continue to hold our futures as hostage.
Instead of paying a penalty, the Republicans along with the Military-Industrial Complex that President Eisenhower warned us about, continue to keep real economic recovery as a hostage to their ideological commitments and the failed policies of the last eight years. The latest example is the $300 billion dollar tax cut that President-elect Obama sees as necessary in order to secure the Republican backing for an economic stimulus program which, otherwise, contains real economic renewal by creating jobs, investing in the production of and improvement of alternative energy capacity and rebuilding the infrastructure of the country. The first Bush Tax cuts and then the tax rebate of two years ago did not lead to economic recovery. To the contrary, these tax cuts and rebates along with deregulation of the financial institutions, unchecked free market practices and unrestrained military spending in support of nonproductive military adventures abroad led to bankruptcy for the economy. From a budget surplus at the end of Clinton years, Bush and cohorts have produces a $1.2 trillion deficit in their last year. It’s worse than Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. To top it off, military spending is exempted from any efforts to keep the budget deficit low and to encourage economic recovery.
We are hostages, all of us, until we wake up and hold the Republicans and the war mongers responsible for driving the nation into the ground and then taking the attempt to dig out of the hole we are in hostage to their political ideologies and manipulations. $500 - $1500 for the average family in tax savings during this next year will not restore the economy. It might well reduce personal debt that has accumulated during this last year, but it will not create greater demand as the previous tax cuts and rebates also failed to do and it will not create jobs and new tax payers that would help the budget balance. Instead, it will, like military spending, disappear into the black hole of increased profits for financial institutions and the industrial elite who make their millions on weapons.
P.S. Possible penalties for Republicans include court orders for absolute silence for next two years and all Republicans who voted for Bush because "Republicans are better for the economy" have to spend two hours a day for this same period writing “I will never again trust the Republicans with the Economy on the blackboard” until their arms are so tired they cannot google Yahoo Financial to see how their stocks are gaining under the new administration’s management.
It might make good sense, politically, for the new administration to put together a quick economic package with strong bipartisan support, but in our heart of hearts, many of us who are victims of the previous eight years of leadership know that at least $300 billion of the package is nothing more than paying ransom to those who have and continue to hold our futures as hostage.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
PANETTA AND THE INTELLIGENCE GAP
The problem with “intelligence” did not begin with the current Bush administration. The problem with intelligence is not the systems in place to gain information or make analysis. The problem is the intelligence of the people who manage the information and analysis.
I would recommend the reading of James Carroll’s book, The House of War, the Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power, in which this son of the first and only director of the Defense Intelligence Agency describes how Presidents from Truman through Bush basically have gotten it wrong with disastrous results not because of lack of information and analysis (intelligence) but due to lack of “intelligence” by those who managed the system.
When he describes President Reagan’s visit, after the fall of the wall in Berlin, with Russian President Gorbachov in Moscow, which he once called the capital of the Evil Empire and lauded the Russian people and their culture, Carroll writes: “Reagan did not seem to know, even then that he and all the others like him had been simply wrong. Wrong from the Long Telegram and “X” artcle forward. Wrong on the Truman Doctrine, NSC-68, and the Gaither Report. Wrong when Stalin died. Wrong on Vietnam. Wrong on Nicaragua. Wrong on almost every assessment of Soviet intentions and capabilities across fifty years. Wrong, most fundamentally about those human beings of the far side of the iron divide.”
Carroll explains the lack of “intelligence” leading to the US getting it wrong, time after time after time, by the paranoia of James Forrestal, the first SEcretary of Defense, that eventually morphed into the arrogance of the neo-cons, all with the same basic view of the world and the same commitment to US dominance by military prowess. All of the Bush team – Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Nitze, Cheney,Perle, Colin Powell, and Rice come from this school of thought and action. This is the “intelligence” that has led the nation into a war (cold or hot)mentality for the last sixty years.
So, to say, as some critics do, that Leon Panetta, President-elect Obama’s choice to be CIA Director has no “intelligence” experience is to hold out hope that this administration might get it right. It is at least encouraging to know that Panetta disagrees with torture, fought for civil rights as part of the Nixon administration (having to resign from the Civil Rights office as a result) and has history of legislation related to hunger issues, the need for Americans to know foreign language and to be involved in international studies. It means that we might really have, finally, what has been touted as our real weakness in the war on terror – human intelligence – which in this case is not to have spies on the ground, but to have intelligence informed by concern for the human community and its integrity.
The problem, of course, is that the lack of “intelligence” that has marked our past mistakes is deeply imbedded, not only in many of the existing political leaders on both sides of the aisle as well as in the CIA and the other intelligence agencies, but also, after sixty years of being educated by leaders who almost always got it wrong, the American public. Godspeed to Leon Panetta. May his tenure at Intelligence not rob him of his human intelligence.
I would recommend the reading of James Carroll’s book, The House of War, the Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power, in which this son of the first and only director of the Defense Intelligence Agency describes how Presidents from Truman through Bush basically have gotten it wrong with disastrous results not because of lack of information and analysis (intelligence) but due to lack of “intelligence” by those who managed the system.
When he describes President Reagan’s visit, after the fall of the wall in Berlin, with Russian President Gorbachov in Moscow, which he once called the capital of the Evil Empire and lauded the Russian people and their culture, Carroll writes: “Reagan did not seem to know, even then that he and all the others like him had been simply wrong. Wrong from the Long Telegram and “X” artcle forward. Wrong on the Truman Doctrine, NSC-68, and the Gaither Report. Wrong when Stalin died. Wrong on Vietnam. Wrong on Nicaragua. Wrong on almost every assessment of Soviet intentions and capabilities across fifty years. Wrong, most fundamentally about those human beings of the far side of the iron divide.”
Carroll explains the lack of “intelligence” leading to the US getting it wrong, time after time after time, by the paranoia of James Forrestal, the first SEcretary of Defense, that eventually morphed into the arrogance of the neo-cons, all with the same basic view of the world and the same commitment to US dominance by military prowess. All of the Bush team – Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Nitze, Cheney,Perle, Colin Powell, and Rice come from this school of thought and action. This is the “intelligence” that has led the nation into a war (cold or hot)mentality for the last sixty years.
So, to say, as some critics do, that Leon Panetta, President-elect Obama’s choice to be CIA Director has no “intelligence” experience is to hold out hope that this administration might get it right. It is at least encouraging to know that Panetta disagrees with torture, fought for civil rights as part of the Nixon administration (having to resign from the Civil Rights office as a result) and has history of legislation related to hunger issues, the need for Americans to know foreign language and to be involved in international studies. It means that we might really have, finally, what has been touted as our real weakness in the war on terror – human intelligence – which in this case is not to have spies on the ground, but to have intelligence informed by concern for the human community and its integrity.
The problem, of course, is that the lack of “intelligence” that has marked our past mistakes is deeply imbedded, not only in many of the existing political leaders on both sides of the aisle as well as in the CIA and the other intelligence agencies, but also, after sixty years of being educated by leaders who almost always got it wrong, the American public. Godspeed to Leon Panetta. May his tenure at Intelligence not rob him of his human intelligence.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Epiphanies Lost and Found
The purpose of the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures is not to save souls but to save us all from the darnkenss that surrounds and sometimes engulfs our shared reality. (Isaiah 60:1-6) The texts appointed for this Sunday of Epipany in the Common Ecumenical Lectionary provide us with a light that could lead us out of the current darkness of economic recession and expanding military conflicts in our world. It is an old Epiphany lost but in need of being found.
Unfortunately, the text from Matthew (spater 2:1-2) tells us that the political rulers and the religious elite know where to find the light but seek only to snuff it out so that those who are seeking someking of magic to deliver us from the darkness must take a different way home in order not to be complicit with the plot to lose the Epiphany of Bethlehem under the crush of oppression.
Psalm 72 give a clear indication of the epiphany needed for the rulers to deliver their people from the darkness: justice leads to peace and prosperity {"Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to the king's son; that he may rule your people righteously and the poor with justice; that the mountains may bring prosperity to the people,and the little hills bring righteousness. He shall defend the needy among the people; he shall rescue the poor and crush the oppressor...In his time shall the righteous flourish; there shall be abundance of peace till the moon shall be no more.") We need some true believers in high places so that it becomes clear that the way out our darkness is through investing in quality education and health care for all the people, jobs that pay a living wage and respect for the dignity and human rights for all of God's children. In both the darkness of economic recession and the suffering of war, this is the way toward the light. This is the Epiphany that our world needs but that is not known, or purposefully forgotten by the rulers and authorities that govern our nations.
Odds are that this epiphany will remain in the category of lost as the one institution called specifically to make in known will individualize and spiritualize the message in the hope that the paying cusomers in the pews will not get the impression that the pulpit is a place for preaching Epiphanies that could change public policy. This despite the clear statement of mission from the text of St. Paul's letter to the Ephesians: "Although I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given to me to bring to the Gentiles the news of the boundless riches of Christ, and to make everyone see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; so that through the church the wisdom of God in its rich variety might now be made known to the rulers and authorities..."
The wisdom of God that needs to be known by rulers and authorities is that peace and prosperity flourish when the focus of society is to make sure that the poor, the needy and the lowly have access to all that makes life possible in the real world - education, health care, dignity, jobs.
May this be the faith that guides President Obama toward policies that invest in education, health care and jobs at home and economic justice and social reform around the world. And, may the church find the magic that will return it to the mission for which it was called - to love the world the way that God so loved the world.
Unfortunately, the text from Matthew (spater 2:1-2) tells us that the political rulers and the religious elite know where to find the light but seek only to snuff it out so that those who are seeking someking of magic to deliver us from the darkness must take a different way home in order not to be complicit with the plot to lose the Epiphany of Bethlehem under the crush of oppression.
Psalm 72 give a clear indication of the epiphany needed for the rulers to deliver their people from the darkness: justice leads to peace and prosperity {"Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to the king's son; that he may rule your people righteously and the poor with justice; that the mountains may bring prosperity to the people,and the little hills bring righteousness. He shall defend the needy among the people; he shall rescue the poor and crush the oppressor...In his time shall the righteous flourish; there shall be abundance of peace till the moon shall be no more.") We need some true believers in high places so that it becomes clear that the way out our darkness is through investing in quality education and health care for all the people, jobs that pay a living wage and respect for the dignity and human rights for all of God's children. In both the darkness of economic recession and the suffering of war, this is the way toward the light. This is the Epiphany that our world needs but that is not known, or purposefully forgotten by the rulers and authorities that govern our nations.
Odds are that this epiphany will remain in the category of lost as the one institution called specifically to make in known will individualize and spiritualize the message in the hope that the paying cusomers in the pews will not get the impression that the pulpit is a place for preaching Epiphanies that could change public policy. This despite the clear statement of mission from the text of St. Paul's letter to the Ephesians: "Although I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given to me to bring to the Gentiles the news of the boundless riches of Christ, and to make everyone see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; so that through the church the wisdom of God in its rich variety might now be made known to the rulers and authorities..."
The wisdom of God that needs to be known by rulers and authorities is that peace and prosperity flourish when the focus of society is to make sure that the poor, the needy and the lowly have access to all that makes life possible in the real world - education, health care, dignity, jobs.
May this be the faith that guides President Obama toward policies that invest in education, health care and jobs at home and economic justice and social reform around the world. And, may the church find the magic that will return it to the mission for which it was called - to love the world the way that God so loved the world.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
A Conspiracy of Idiots
There is no good end to the current Israeli offensive against Hamas in Gaza. This is true regardless of the actual on the ground result of the current bombing and invasion sponsored by Israel and the United States. This is true first because violence does not produce good results, something neither the current Israeli government nor the Bush administration has learned despite the clear lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also true in the realpolitic world that exists in the Middle East.
Israel cannot do what it is doing without the United States as a partner. The Bush administration has put the nation, once again, in danger by its lack of action to stop what is an action that has only one result for all us - a more dangerous world and a legacy of suffering that continues for both the Palestinians and the Israelis. It is a conspiracy of idiots who either do not want to learn from history, are just not bright enough to do so, or, more cynically, do what they do with eyes wide open in order to manipulate the public and retain power.
It would be too much to expect of the current political leadership of Israel and the United States to recognize and accept the ontological and moral judgement on this action - that violence serves no good purpose. Contrary to their avowed respect for the majority religious traditions of the societies they serve, these leaders do not believe the basic tenets of faith represented in the Scriptural utterances of the prophets and of Jesus.
That said, one is hard put to understand what logic compels them to repeat the errors that have led to the current situation of instability and loss of military/political and moral power that both these nations have experienced in the last eight years of ongoing conspiracy between the Bush Administrtion and a series of Israeli governments. Evidently, neither set of leaders has yet to read the terrorist's basic manuel for victory in which it is clearly stated on the first page that the primary purpose of throwing stones at the enemy (rockets from Lebanon or Gaza or planes toppling towers) is not to inflict damage or to win victory, but to draw out the enemy's strength onto the ground controled by the terrorist so that a strategy of gradual attack of the enemy's power is possible. There is nothing more that Al Quaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas would have wanted than that the US invade Iraq, the Israelis bomb and, even better, send troops to Gaza. Once accomplished, it does not matter what the outcome on the ground is, the terrorists win.
In this case, HAMAS cannot be defeated either because, in Gaza as in Lebanon, the Israelis cannot achieve any tactcal or strategic goal, i.e. taking out the HAMAS capacitlity to launch rockets or to actually remove HAMAS from power or because if either of these goals are achieved, HAMAS has greater credibility as the defender of the people and more possibilities for recruitment from the population that suffered from the invasion. And, no matter what the specific outcome, Iran is strengthened in the region and the allies of moderate Palestinians, Egypt and Jordan, are weakened. The moderate Palestinians represented by Fatah also are weakened. Everything that HAMAS has wanted, they gain.
Of course, there is a logic to this idiocy. It is a logic that serves the leaders but not their people; a logic that is shared by HAMAS and Hezbollah. It is the logic that the current power structure is served by continued conflict and the worst that could happen would be that peace breaks out. For HAMAS it does not matter that Israel would reoccupy the Gaza: they are, after all, better at insurgency than they are at governing. The worst that could happen to HAMAS is if Israel would desist, open the borders and encourage economic and humanitarian aid to come to Gaza.
What this logic means for Israelis, for Palestinians (and, to a lesser degree for US citizens) is more suffering, more violence, more conflict and less chance for peace and prosperity, peace and prosperity being anathema to the current power classes in all of these societies.
What is idiocy for some is salvation for others. Unfortunately, this salvation for the Bush Adminsitration, the Isreali government and HAMAS (which is idiocy) is suffering for the rest of us. That is why the media interest in who is right and who is wrong in this current situation and the efforts of supporters of either of the sides to the conflict to try to justify the actions of the side they support do not result in any change in the situation. Instead, they feed the conspiracy by covering up the underlying logic that links all them together - the logic that war is better than peace, at least for some.
It can be hoped that the new Obama administration will find a way to break open this conspiracy of idiots and provide some opening for those who truly desire peace to step forward and replace the conspiracy with a movement that will lead to greater justice and possibilities for peace for Palestinians, for Israelis and even for Americans.
Israel cannot do what it is doing without the United States as a partner. The Bush administration has put the nation, once again, in danger by its lack of action to stop what is an action that has only one result for all us - a more dangerous world and a legacy of suffering that continues for both the Palestinians and the Israelis. It is a conspiracy of idiots who either do not want to learn from history, are just not bright enough to do so, or, more cynically, do what they do with eyes wide open in order to manipulate the public and retain power.
It would be too much to expect of the current political leadership of Israel and the United States to recognize and accept the ontological and moral judgement on this action - that violence serves no good purpose. Contrary to their avowed respect for the majority religious traditions of the societies they serve, these leaders do not believe the basic tenets of faith represented in the Scriptural utterances of the prophets and of Jesus.
That said, one is hard put to understand what logic compels them to repeat the errors that have led to the current situation of instability and loss of military/political and moral power that both these nations have experienced in the last eight years of ongoing conspiracy between the Bush Administrtion and a series of Israeli governments. Evidently, neither set of leaders has yet to read the terrorist's basic manuel for victory in which it is clearly stated on the first page that the primary purpose of throwing stones at the enemy (rockets from Lebanon or Gaza or planes toppling towers) is not to inflict damage or to win victory, but to draw out the enemy's strength onto the ground controled by the terrorist so that a strategy of gradual attack of the enemy's power is possible. There is nothing more that Al Quaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas would have wanted than that the US invade Iraq, the Israelis bomb and, even better, send troops to Gaza. Once accomplished, it does not matter what the outcome on the ground is, the terrorists win.
In this case, HAMAS cannot be defeated either because, in Gaza as in Lebanon, the Israelis cannot achieve any tactcal or strategic goal, i.e. taking out the HAMAS capacitlity to launch rockets or to actually remove HAMAS from power or because if either of these goals are achieved, HAMAS has greater credibility as the defender of the people and more possibilities for recruitment from the population that suffered from the invasion. And, no matter what the specific outcome, Iran is strengthened in the region and the allies of moderate Palestinians, Egypt and Jordan, are weakened. The moderate Palestinians represented by Fatah also are weakened. Everything that HAMAS has wanted, they gain.
Of course, there is a logic to this idiocy. It is a logic that serves the leaders but not their people; a logic that is shared by HAMAS and Hezbollah. It is the logic that the current power structure is served by continued conflict and the worst that could happen would be that peace breaks out. For HAMAS it does not matter that Israel would reoccupy the Gaza: they are, after all, better at insurgency than they are at governing. The worst that could happen to HAMAS is if Israel would desist, open the borders and encourage economic and humanitarian aid to come to Gaza.
What this logic means for Israelis, for Palestinians (and, to a lesser degree for US citizens) is more suffering, more violence, more conflict and less chance for peace and prosperity, peace and prosperity being anathema to the current power classes in all of these societies.
What is idiocy for some is salvation for others. Unfortunately, this salvation for the Bush Adminsitration, the Isreali government and HAMAS (which is idiocy) is suffering for the rest of us. That is why the media interest in who is right and who is wrong in this current situation and the efforts of supporters of either of the sides to the conflict to try to justify the actions of the side they support do not result in any change in the situation. Instead, they feed the conspiracy by covering up the underlying logic that links all them together - the logic that war is better than peace, at least for some.
It can be hoped that the new Obama administration will find a way to break open this conspiracy of idiots and provide some opening for those who truly desire peace to step forward and replace the conspiracy with a movement that will lead to greater justice and possibilities for peace for Palestinians, for Israelis and even for Americans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)