I am sharing thoughts about today's column by Vladimir Putin since I find it so unusual to find myself totally in agreement with someone I generally have disagreement. It is a special moment for me. I am actually very happy to find myself, at least for the moment, on the side of Putin.
The major points of agreement are: (1) rules for military intervention, and (2) no nation can claim being exceptional.
In a recent posting, I shared my attitude toward the military. I am not a pacifist but believe that the military is useful only in limited situations, e.g., defense of our homeland. I do agree with Putin that another justification for military is agreement by the UN that a situation is so threatening the well being of our world that there is a need for military might. Since neither of these were present in the case made by President Obama, I tended to disagree with his decision to intervene, even though I was admittedly confused about the proper response to the use of chemical warfare without UN support.
I have long been bothered by references to our nation as being exceptional, as I am with asking God to bless our nation as though God, however we were to understand God, would partial blessings to one nation rather than another, one person rather another. Viewing ourselves as exceptional is dangerous and unjustified.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Sunday, September 8, 2013
A Perspective of the Military
A recent posting focused on Syria. I want now to share my thoughts on the use of our military.
From a personal background, I recall being involved in the consequences of WWII. I remember in primary grades completing a knitting project of making a blanket for a veteran. I also recall having food rationed. All of this was done with a respect for the people who were defending our nation, trying to defeat the German army. I have less memory of our involvement in Korea which may reflect our nation's general dismissal of Korea as a real war. From time-to-time, there is some attempt to resurrect the reality of our involvement in a terribly cruel conflict in Korea, but it has generally been forgotten. During the Vietnam Era, I was ineligible for the draft because I was in the seminary and then, was serving as a priest. There were times when I thought that I should volunteer to become a chaplain, but then I quickly realized that this would be a disaster since I would be sharing my perception that this war was wrong in so many ways, including from a morality perspective. From then on, I have observed our many episodes of using our military with a sense of passivity until the decision by G. W. Bush to invade Iraq. I then become a bitter opponent of everything that was occurring in Iraq, reinforced by authors who focused on the negative and unintended consequences of the war.
In more recent times, my views have been tailored by Andrew Bacevich who I have often referenced. As a former West Point graduate with a 23 year military career that included tours in Vietnam and receiving a Ph.D. from Princeton and, more recently, a person who suffered the loss of a son who volunteered for involvement in Iraq, he is a most credible person.
In general, my current perspective is that I am not a pacifist, but realize that the military is designed for a very limited role in international affairs. It has become clear from the history of our last 50 years that our military has generally been ineffective in dealing with hostilities within a nation state. It is best designed to serve as a defense against any aggressor of our nation. To think that our military power will make a difference in a situation that is festered by internal conflict rather than external invasion, is a delusion. We may have the most powerful military ever developed, but we are ineffective in dealing with internal conflict or conflict between neighboring nations that historically were united demonstrated in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
From a personal background, I recall being involved in the consequences of WWII. I remember in primary grades completing a knitting project of making a blanket for a veteran. I also recall having food rationed. All of this was done with a respect for the people who were defending our nation, trying to defeat the German army. I have less memory of our involvement in Korea which may reflect our nation's general dismissal of Korea as a real war. From time-to-time, there is some attempt to resurrect the reality of our involvement in a terribly cruel conflict in Korea, but it has generally been forgotten. During the Vietnam Era, I was ineligible for the draft because I was in the seminary and then, was serving as a priest. There were times when I thought that I should volunteer to become a chaplain, but then I quickly realized that this would be a disaster since I would be sharing my perception that this war was wrong in so many ways, including from a morality perspective. From then on, I have observed our many episodes of using our military with a sense of passivity until the decision by G. W. Bush to invade Iraq. I then become a bitter opponent of everything that was occurring in Iraq, reinforced by authors who focused on the negative and unintended consequences of the war.
In more recent times, my views have been tailored by Andrew Bacevich who I have often referenced. As a former West Point graduate with a 23 year military career that included tours in Vietnam and receiving a Ph.D. from Princeton and, more recently, a person who suffered the loss of a son who volunteered for involvement in Iraq, he is a most credible person.
In general, my current perspective is that I am not a pacifist, but realize that the military is designed for a very limited role in international affairs. It has become clear from the history of our last 50 years that our military has generally been ineffective in dealing with hostilities within a nation state. It is best designed to serve as a defense against any aggressor of our nation. To think that our military power will make a difference in a situation that is festered by internal conflict rather than external invasion, is a delusion. We may have the most powerful military ever developed, but we are ineffective in dealing with internal conflict or conflict between neighboring nations that historically were united demonstrated in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Syria: Just a Part of a Nightmare
So much is being written about the horrendous devastation occurring by relentless violence that now focuses on chemical weapons. I was a supporter of the President's decision to get congressional approval for any intervention. In principle, I do not think that the President should be able unilaterally to decide to use force on other nations. At the same time, I can clearly understand the range of opinions regarding the President's decision to use military force to address the unlawful use of chemical warfare. I can virtually agree with all pundits: "won't do any good", "could make things worse", "how can be sure that intervention will be limited".
My problem that seems to have no answer is the history of the Muslim world that was controlled by caliphates, ending with the Ottoman Caliphate (1299–1923). The entire Arab world has historically been "ruled" by one caliphate or another since 632. There has been no history of what could be interpreted as an independent nation under some form of government chosen by the people. The Mideast, as we know it today, was drawn up after WWI to address the ambitions of the "winners" of the war. Protectorates were established in lieu of the disbanded caliphate. In short, from my perspective, the nation states of the Mideast are pure artifacts with no logic for its existence. Lines were drawn somewhat arbitrarily from a world view that no longer exists. Most historians bemoan the decisions made at the time.
In addition to questionable boundaries of the nation states, there has been a history of dictatorships that have been generally supported by the United States and Europe, if for no other reason than there seemed to be no alternative that would stabilize the populations.
Since there is no history of people within the Arab world being able to live together in peace WITHOUT a dictator, there is a question about any type of intervention being productive. As I see it, the hatred among the various Muslim sects against each other (with no consideration of their feelings toward non-Muslims!) is a source of disaster for any arrangement. Considering the problems in Iraq after our ten years of intervention makes me cringe to think that anyone would think that we could intervene in Syria with any hope of making matters better. While it is true that it can be considered "good" that Sadam Hussein was removed from power, it is hard to conclude that Iraq itself is better.
I have not read any author who has a vision of how any form of reasonable self-government could develop in this part of the world. When people hate each other, even though they worship Allah and adhere to the general practice of prayer, it is a mystery how one could envision a pathway to nation states that adhered to any practical levels of benign tolerance for differences. Without such a pathway, I do not see how anyone can support an action plan that will make a difference for the people themselves. One may think that the terrible actions of Hussein were worse than what is going on today in Iraq where bombs are killing others, only because they are of a Muslim sect, but I cannot understand how that is possible.
My only conclusion is that peace will not come until the Arab world is literally divided in such a way that sects are separated, e.g., Kurds live here, Sunnis there, and Shiites some place else. And yet, I know that this is unrealistic, for all sorts of reasons not the least of which is that natural resources are not spread equally. People will only fight to get the needed resources that someone else has.
So, I am left without a scenario of how these people can live together in peace. How can military intervention make a real difference? And if not, why do it? This sounds horrible, but it seems unconscionable that force would be used only to make the perpetrator feel good for doing "something"rather than "nothing".
P.S. After writing this blog, I watched the prior night's Jon Stewart's Daily Show. His first segment essentially made the same point as I am trying to do, but in such a more humorous way.
P.S. Two of my favorite writers are at opposite ends of the decision to intervene in Syria. Nicholas Burns cites five good reasons for intervening; Andrew Bacevich identifies several reasons for not intervening. If I was forced to decide, I would opt for Bacevich's view (admittedly, I am very biased in his behalf. His writing, in general, is just great, pointing out all the negative reasons for military intervention without losing sight of reasons why the military is important and necessary at very specific instances),
My problem that seems to have no answer is the history of the Muslim world that was controlled by caliphates, ending with the Ottoman Caliphate (1299–1923). The entire Arab world has historically been "ruled" by one caliphate or another since 632. There has been no history of what could be interpreted as an independent nation under some form of government chosen by the people. The Mideast, as we know it today, was drawn up after WWI to address the ambitions of the "winners" of the war. Protectorates were established in lieu of the disbanded caliphate. In short, from my perspective, the nation states of the Mideast are pure artifacts with no logic for its existence. Lines were drawn somewhat arbitrarily from a world view that no longer exists. Most historians bemoan the decisions made at the time.
In addition to questionable boundaries of the nation states, there has been a history of dictatorships that have been generally supported by the United States and Europe, if for no other reason than there seemed to be no alternative that would stabilize the populations.
Since there is no history of people within the Arab world being able to live together in peace WITHOUT a dictator, there is a question about any type of intervention being productive. As I see it, the hatred among the various Muslim sects against each other (with no consideration of their feelings toward non-Muslims!) is a source of disaster for any arrangement. Considering the problems in Iraq after our ten years of intervention makes me cringe to think that anyone would think that we could intervene in Syria with any hope of making matters better. While it is true that it can be considered "good" that Sadam Hussein was removed from power, it is hard to conclude that Iraq itself is better.
I have not read any author who has a vision of how any form of reasonable self-government could develop in this part of the world. When people hate each other, even though they worship Allah and adhere to the general practice of prayer, it is a mystery how one could envision a pathway to nation states that adhered to any practical levels of benign tolerance for differences. Without such a pathway, I do not see how anyone can support an action plan that will make a difference for the people themselves. One may think that the terrible actions of Hussein were worse than what is going on today in Iraq where bombs are killing others, only because they are of a Muslim sect, but I cannot understand how that is possible.
My only conclusion is that peace will not come until the Arab world is literally divided in such a way that sects are separated, e.g., Kurds live here, Sunnis there, and Shiites some place else. And yet, I know that this is unrealistic, for all sorts of reasons not the least of which is that natural resources are not spread equally. People will only fight to get the needed resources that someone else has.
So, I am left without a scenario of how these people can live together in peace. How can military intervention make a real difference? And if not, why do it? This sounds horrible, but it seems unconscionable that force would be used only to make the perpetrator feel good for doing "something"rather than "nothing".
P.S. After writing this blog, I watched the prior night's Jon Stewart's Daily Show. His first segment essentially made the same point as I am trying to do, but in such a more humorous way.
P.S. Two of my favorite writers are at opposite ends of the decision to intervene in Syria. Nicholas Burns cites five good reasons for intervening; Andrew Bacevich identifies several reasons for not intervening. If I was forced to decide, I would opt for Bacevich's view (admittedly, I am very biased in his behalf. His writing, in general, is just great, pointing out all the negative reasons for military intervention without losing sight of reasons why the military is important and necessary at very specific instances),
Chagrined!
Over the past several years or, more accurately, most of my adult life, I have focused on injustice wherever I noticed it. My earliest experience was the struggle over racial equality that consumed so many during the 60's. Then, there was the Vietnam fiasco. To me, and others, it seemed so wrong for one nation to impose itself over another nation which was not directly at war with us. There seemed to be a period of "peace" after we left Vietnam. There were still many problems, including poverty throughout the world, often referenced as the Third World. With poverty, there were other stigmata: infant mortality, reduced life span, hunger, and various health problems, e.g., polio, malaria. However, since there were many organizations addressing these problems, I felt that I could satisfy my need by donating money to support their agendas.
During the past several years, there have been a number of problems that have caught my attention to the point of being angry. In the case of the Catholic Church and its stubborn refusal to be honest with the truth, I simply left it. Now, my concern is focused on the negative impact of any religion on the broader society. Adherence to religion generates myopic distortions amplified by bigotry and prejudice. While it is possible for progressive reworking of religious beliefs, I am convinced that religious beliefs inherently generate bigotry and prejudice. The intolerant right-wing Christian and the zealot Muslim share a common fidelity to a very literal understanding of their beliefs. They demonstrate the impact of such beliefs by advocating actions that are basically hateful to others. Christians and Muslims share a history of anti-Semitism, even though both religions share a view that Jesus was special, as though his Jewishness was irrelevant. Gays and women are often the object of their bigotry, but at other times, the entire world that does not share their beliefs is hated, as the Sunni's hatred of other Muslims that adhere to other branches of Islam. I observe this phenomenon and do nothing.
I am concerned about the implications of global warming. I am one that agrees with the number of scientific findings indicating that our world is warming at a rate that virtually guarantees disaster for future generations. Like others, I share confusion about what to do. Even if our nation could come to a consensus of a plan of action, it would be insufficient to offset the damage caused by the emerging nations, e.g., China and India. Developing a plan of action that will be adopted by all nations seems so futile that it becomes paralyzing. Why do anything if our efforts will be meaningless? I know that doing nothing is ridiculous. Those currently living may well be dead when disaster strikes, but what does it say about the living who care so little about their descendants? What does it say about me?
My concern about the inequities in wealth and opportunity for upward mobility has been an ongoing concern for years, as noted in many of my blogs. From a justice perspective, I am outraged; from a self-interest view, I am very concerned. I share the insight of John Rawls that whatever good fortune any of us achieved, it is basically generated by "luck", i.e., our personal outcomes are more related to our genes, our parents' values and socio-economic conditions than our personal initiative. The chances of a person born in a urban project without an intact family achieving success measured by median income and wealth are relatively minimal, especially compared with chances of my children being successful. From a social justice perspective, I promote all efforts to create a more realistic chance for others to share in plusses of living in our world. In the short term, I see no other option than some form of redistribution of wealth. From a more selfish view, I am concerned about the potential for social unrest on either a national and international level. When the disparity between those who have and those who have not reaches a critical mass, social unrest has historically been the outcome. That should be a concern for anyone, especially when one considers the more potent, and somewhat cheap, weapons available, e.g., IEDs. Apart from writing to the President and some politicians, I have done nothing to protest this problem that festers our sense of justice.
I could not be more angry than I am about our national politics. I am now reading "My Town" which was featured in the latest edition of Bill Moyers and Company. It is such a sad commentary about the inbred, somewhat incestuous, structure of relationships built on power and money. As Mark Liebovich portrays the situation, no one leaves Washington. From Day 1, everyone's major agenda is focused on how to stay in Washington, first by staying in office, and then by building alliances so that if you leave office, you can get a great position in some lobbying firm. Money is a key component of the effort to remain in office and money is the reward when you leave. More disconcerting, if possible, if the negative effect of money on our democracy itself. As I wrote in reference to Lawrence Lessig's "Republic Lost", the need to continually raise money, taking on average fours hours each day while in office, is inherently detrimental to the sense of a democratic government. Rather than focusing on the needs of the "people", legislative activity is focused on how to serve the special interests which provide the majority of the funding. The situation is essentially outrageous and demands political action. And yet, I have not been involved in a protest movement, apart from my writing and donations to organizations promoting goals that I hold dear.
Since I am not visibly protesting against that which angers me, how can I expect anyone else to do so? And without grassroots' action, those in power will never change. There are organizations that are designed to promote the change I want. I "join" them by reading their web sites because I share their goals. In spite of their advocacy and their physical closeness to the seat of government, it does not seem that they are very effective, measured by change. If anything, our government is becoming more polarized daily. The advocacy groups promote specific legislation that would be helpful to address the issues of global warming, income inequality, and more bipartisan behavior in the halls of Congress. Their effort seems useless in the face of the avalanche of special interest monies pouring into the pockets of our political designees. If they cannot make a difference, what could one person in Scituate do? And yet, I know that this type of thinking only generates more inaction, resulting in no hope for change.
I am somewhat at a loss to develop a conclusion that makes sense. One could attribute inaction to age. Protesting belongs to to the young. Yet, I know many who have continued to protest for peace and against nuclear armaments into very advanced ages. Logistics would be a problem. There is a "science" to organizing protests. Marshall Ganz has spent a life time in the protest movement and acquired theoretical and practical knowledge about the steps required to be a successful organizer. I am no Ganz. In short, I can come up with excuses for my inaction but not any good reasons. I am left with "angst", the feelings of dread discussed so eloquently by Kierkegaard. I realize that I am caught between the awareness of what I should do and the realization that I have done nothing. It is the price of inaction in the face of the demand to address the injustice that confronts us each day
During the past several years, there have been a number of problems that have caught my attention to the point of being angry. In the case of the Catholic Church and its stubborn refusal to be honest with the truth, I simply left it. Now, my concern is focused on the negative impact of any religion on the broader society. Adherence to religion generates myopic distortions amplified by bigotry and prejudice. While it is possible for progressive reworking of religious beliefs, I am convinced that religious beliefs inherently generate bigotry and prejudice. The intolerant right-wing Christian and the zealot Muslim share a common fidelity to a very literal understanding of their beliefs. They demonstrate the impact of such beliefs by advocating actions that are basically hateful to others. Christians and Muslims share a history of anti-Semitism, even though both religions share a view that Jesus was special, as though his Jewishness was irrelevant. Gays and women are often the object of their bigotry, but at other times, the entire world that does not share their beliefs is hated, as the Sunni's hatred of other Muslims that adhere to other branches of Islam. I observe this phenomenon and do nothing.
I am concerned about the implications of global warming. I am one that agrees with the number of scientific findings indicating that our world is warming at a rate that virtually guarantees disaster for future generations. Like others, I share confusion about what to do. Even if our nation could come to a consensus of a plan of action, it would be insufficient to offset the damage caused by the emerging nations, e.g., China and India. Developing a plan of action that will be adopted by all nations seems so futile that it becomes paralyzing. Why do anything if our efforts will be meaningless? I know that doing nothing is ridiculous. Those currently living may well be dead when disaster strikes, but what does it say about the living who care so little about their descendants? What does it say about me?
My concern about the inequities in wealth and opportunity for upward mobility has been an ongoing concern for years, as noted in many of my blogs. From a justice perspective, I am outraged; from a self-interest view, I am very concerned. I share the insight of John Rawls that whatever good fortune any of us achieved, it is basically generated by "luck", i.e., our personal outcomes are more related to our genes, our parents' values and socio-economic conditions than our personal initiative. The chances of a person born in a urban project without an intact family achieving success measured by median income and wealth are relatively minimal, especially compared with chances of my children being successful. From a social justice perspective, I promote all efforts to create a more realistic chance for others to share in plusses of living in our world. In the short term, I see no other option than some form of redistribution of wealth. From a more selfish view, I am concerned about the potential for social unrest on either a national and international level. When the disparity between those who have and those who have not reaches a critical mass, social unrest has historically been the outcome. That should be a concern for anyone, especially when one considers the more potent, and somewhat cheap, weapons available, e.g., IEDs. Apart from writing to the President and some politicians, I have done nothing to protest this problem that festers our sense of justice.
I could not be more angry than I am about our national politics. I am now reading "My Town" which was featured in the latest edition of Bill Moyers and Company. It is such a sad commentary about the inbred, somewhat incestuous, structure of relationships built on power and money. As Mark Liebovich portrays the situation, no one leaves Washington. From Day 1, everyone's major agenda is focused on how to stay in Washington, first by staying in office, and then by building alliances so that if you leave office, you can get a great position in some lobbying firm. Money is a key component of the effort to remain in office and money is the reward when you leave. More disconcerting, if possible, if the negative effect of money on our democracy itself. As I wrote in reference to Lawrence Lessig's "Republic Lost", the need to continually raise money, taking on average fours hours each day while in office, is inherently detrimental to the sense of a democratic government. Rather than focusing on the needs of the "people", legislative activity is focused on how to serve the special interests which provide the majority of the funding. The situation is essentially outrageous and demands political action. And yet, I have not been involved in a protest movement, apart from my writing and donations to organizations promoting goals that I hold dear.
Since I am not visibly protesting against that which angers me, how can I expect anyone else to do so? And without grassroots' action, those in power will never change. There are organizations that are designed to promote the change I want. I "join" them by reading their web sites because I share their goals. In spite of their advocacy and their physical closeness to the seat of government, it does not seem that they are very effective, measured by change. If anything, our government is becoming more polarized daily. The advocacy groups promote specific legislation that would be helpful to address the issues of global warming, income inequality, and more bipartisan behavior in the halls of Congress. Their effort seems useless in the face of the avalanche of special interest monies pouring into the pockets of our political designees. If they cannot make a difference, what could one person in Scituate do? And yet, I know that this type of thinking only generates more inaction, resulting in no hope for change.
I am somewhat at a loss to develop a conclusion that makes sense. One could attribute inaction to age. Protesting belongs to to the young. Yet, I know many who have continued to protest for peace and against nuclear armaments into very advanced ages. Logistics would be a problem. There is a "science" to organizing protests. Marshall Ganz has spent a life time in the protest movement and acquired theoretical and practical knowledge about the steps required to be a successful organizer. I am no Ganz. In short, I can come up with excuses for my inaction but not any good reasons. I am left with "angst", the feelings of dread discussed so eloquently by Kierkegaard. I realize that I am caught between the awareness of what I should do and the realization that I have done nothing. It is the price of inaction in the face of the demand to address the injustice that confronts us each day
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)