Self-Defeating Hegemony

Francis Fukuyama may not always have been right, e.g., prior views of the end of history and support for a neoconservative agenda, but he is a bonafide intellectual with great knowledge and insights.

It was with great interest that I read his views of how the United States has created its own problems in the international arena. His basic point is that we have no counterweight to our power (as in the Cold War). Our power has distorted our perspective that resulted in a number of mind-boggling problems.

He cites four such problems:
(1) The doctrine of preemption is impossible to maintain when dealing with nation states, e.g., Iran, Iraq, North Korea. We could never have the resources to mount such wide range preemptive attacks. The doctrine at best is one that needs not be discussed but still used in extreme situations, especially when dealing with specific terrorists.
(2) The United States did not count on the negative reception of its use of power. Traditionally, when we used power with prior support of others, other nations eventually supported us since we succeeded in a mission that ultimately was seen as positive. In this case, we were not supported and have only made more enemies.
(3) We overestimated the strength of conventional armed forces. He cites the amazing status of Iraq where so few are only at bay the conventional forces of the United States (and a few others).
(4) The level of incompetency in the planning and execution of the intervention was a disaster that only compounded the perception of the United States as a problem in itself.

While none of these points is necessarily "new", it is striking that Fukuyama is now on board with many others who cannot wait until we get the present administration out of office!

Forfeiture of Our Moral Stranding

I just wrote the following e-mail to Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

Dear Speaker,
I am one of your supporters and only wish that you were able to be more effective. Unfortunately, you have limited power (as opposed to the President's understanding of his office!).

I write because you justified the committee's vote on a measure to state out position on the Armenian genocide. While I agree with the truth of the matter, I think that our past several years have resulted in our losing any authority to tell others anything about what is right or wrong. We should admit that we have done such horrible things and have forfeited any right to statements of principle for other nations.

The Public's Complicity!

How often have some of us said, "To think that the people elected Bush TWICE!!" It is almost impossible to believe that the people would have four years of him and then, freely, to elect him again!

And, there are complaints that the 2006 election that clearly supported a change in direction in Iraq resulted in zero difference! What does that say about our "democracy" where the elected officials represent the voters?

I read as much as I can because (1) I know that others are more intelligent than I, and (2) to get greater insight into what I already know.

Frank Rich zoned in on the issue of the citizen's complicity in the state of our national affairs. We have read so much about what happens in our government that seems such a disconnect with our Constitution, e.g., lies about our not using torture, or the use of warrentless surveillance, and yet, in general, the public media and public citizenry seem to accept the state of affairs.

The point being: silence that ultimately supports practices that are considered unacceptable, if not immoral, is equivalent to complicity (albeit, not in according to technical legal constructs).

It is hard to argue with the outcomes of our elections if there is such acceptance of the practices of our national representatives.

Arrogance, Once Again!

It was unbelievable (not really) that Secretary of State Rice lectured some human rights activists in Moscow about the negative consequences when there is too much power in the office of the president and a weak legislature.

She was referencing the state of affairs in Russia, but virtually everything she said could easily reference the state of affairs in the United States.

it is remarkable that someone could be serious giving such a lecture when it seems so obvious that it is so hypocritical. Obviously, she and Bush do not see reality the same as many others, but it is just amazing that we can see such a disconnect between what our leaders see and what the majority of Americans notice on a daily basis.

Bush: Unable to Admit Mistakes!

Since the leader of our nation is such a disaster and causes such personal pain and discomfort, I try to avoid thinking any more of him than necessary.

However, Andrew Greeley has the courage to look at Bush and confront some obvious questions. Recently, he wondered how Bush could go along for all these years without ever admitting a mistake! It is so incredulous that I cannot tolerate my internal fury! I have to push along to some other subject.

Being a fan of Andrew Greeley, I thought about the reason Greeley cited as the possible explanation for this phenomenon, viz., his achievement of sobriety apparently without any human intervention except for Billy Graham!

While his speculation is as good as anyone else's, my notion is that this inability to admit mistakes is attributed to massive insecurity. If he were to admit a mistake, his weak ego structure would disintegrate. While most of us are accustomed to face our mistakes, attributed to the observations of spouses and the realities of the workplace, viz., things often do not work as planned, e.g., smart people marketed the Edsel!, Bush has created a structure where errors are reshaped into signs of progress and no opposition is possible (except for the discredited Democrats and media (when the media is functioning as critical observers).

If truth penetrated the system, the ego would collapse!

Democracy at Stake!

On 18 May, I posted comments that were based on Andrew Bocevich's column reflecting on his son's recent death in Iraq. The major point was his distress that a clear election in 2006 signaling a change in strategy in Iraq did not achieve the expected results. There was no change. Dr. Bocevich wondered whether we were functioning as a democracy when the majority vote did not generate changes in government.

One cannot dispel the serious misgivings of our elected officials who seem unable to implement the will of the majority. There seems to be no end to the same, tired policies.

Harold Meyerson comes to the same concerns based on comments by the Democratic contenders for President. You would never know that they knew the results of the 2006 election or the consistent findings of public opinions polls that clearly reject continuation of our present role in Iraq.

It gets back to the same concern: are we functioning as a democracy when the majority is thwarted by public officials?

Idealism: an Unsure Road

So many people have dissected the deceit supporting the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent incompetent execution of a "plan" (assuming that must have been something beyond all those who would great the invaders with flowers!).

Kanan Makiya has been a key figure during the pre-invasion period. He clearly was a supporter of the initiative to rid the nation of Hussein. He now struggles with the unexpected state of affairs.

I was struck by his dealing with the following question:
Would you now support the invasion if you knew what occurred?

In short, he answers the question, "yes", because the removal of Hussein was critical. He never expected such sectarian violence; he thought that the post-invasion period would look similar to South Africa. Clearly, the outcome disturbs him greatly. He continues to try to understand how his idealistic outlook became such a shattered reality.

One personal experience comes to mind, albeit in a relatively minor way.

During the time when I functioned as a Catholic priest, I was a major supporter to the reform associated with the Vatican Council. I was part of a future that seemed so positive for not only Catholics, but for the future of a more unified Christianity. Everything made so much more sense if the vision of the Vatican Council was adopted. The sooner, the better.

I experienced havoc in the few years I served. Without escalating the level of conflict (compared to Iraq, everything pales in comparison), it was period of division and antagonism. I referenced the experience as part of a revolution. But, I shared an idealism that the outcome would be worth the "struggle".

Clearly, my expectations were wrong. The anticipated changes were minimized by the strength of the bureaucracy. The powers of traditional views held sway. In the process, there were some unexpected outcomes.

Many of supporters of change ultimately gave up the battle, in one way or another. Many just stopped active participation, i.e., they found some niche to satisfy their religious aspirations without extending themselves further; others just dropped out.

The expectation that the next generation would learn a whole different set of beliefs, molded more in the biblical understanding the Jesus rather the specific words of a doctrine that was difficult to comprehend. It seems that the outcome was a loss of any understanding of Christianity. Many of the younger generations seem to be missing both the vision and the doctrine.

And, the bureaucracy seems more entrenched than ever.

The current state of affairs surely was unexpected. It may have been naive to expect such great changes. But, somewhat like Kanan Makiya who still claims that the removal of Hussein was worth even the bad outcomes, the loss of a more "unified" Catholic Church based on memorized belief formulas and blind adherence to authority seems worth the price of conflict. What was lost was not worth keeping.

Kanan Makiya ultimately thinks that the "order" lost was not worth keeping either. Having the likes of Hussein in power, a person who killed an estimated million Iraqis, needed to go, even if one of the unexpected outcomes would be the need of the American forces to provide a protectorate for the nation, comparable to the Philippines.

Troubling Story: Department of Justice was an Arm of the White House

On 14 September, I discussed the noteworthy story of Jack Goldsmith who was the head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice. His story was remarkable because he demonstrated what is the stereotypical lawyer, viz., one whose conscience is aligned with the law rather than the politics of any given administration.

Now the New York Times has a full-blown account of the hassles involved in bolstering White House power even when it demanded a shift in allegiance from the law in order to support the Administration's objectives.

Reading the account documents that struggles of a few who fought hard, even if in vain. These attorneys deserve our support and gratitude. For those who apparently capitulated to the power of the White House, we can only hope that we can live to regain our moral integrity within the law.