After being closed the last several months - more like a year - the Little Red Blog is returning shortly. Older archives will be available in a re-sorted manner. And other features will be added.
All archives listed prior to this entry are from the prior versions of the LRB.
Of our greater virtues one must recognize the end to our acceptance of “the soft bigotry of low expectations” as most significant in the world today. After decades of preferring the stability of the autocrats in the Arab world, the terrible attacks of 9/11 and the President’s unwillingness to count all Muslims among the enemies to the U.S., we are in the midst of a spring of possibilities. Fouad Ajami, writing in the Opinion Journal, describes his meeting with Arab men and women filled with hope, a press opening up for the first time to a critical review of Arab culture and politics, and clearly recognizing that the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq led the way to their new hope.
"As I made my way on this Arab journey, I picked up a meditation that Massimo d'Azeglio, a Piedmontese aristocrat who embraced that "springtime" in Europe, offered about his time, which speaks so directly to this Arab time: "The gift of liberty is like that of a horse, handsome, strong, and high-spirited. In some it arouses a wish to ride; in many others, on the contrary, it increases the desire to walk." It would be fair to say that there are many Arabs today keen to walk--frightened as they are by the prospect of the Islamists coming to power and curtailing personal liberties, snuffing out freedoms gained at such great effort and pain. But more Arabs, I hazard to guess, now have the wish to ride. It is a powerful temptation that George W. Bush has brought to their doorstep."
Ajami’s conclusion that while some will accept their new found hope with reserve and a willingness to progress slowly, more will seek the path of haste in their desire to bring the gift of liberty to their children sooner rather than later. Likewise, in our tossing aside the value of stability, we are called to forsake the inclination to judge all Arabs or Muslims as terrorists, enemies of the U.S. or villains waiting on their opportunity to rule with an iron hand.
In this effort, as exemplified by recent comments on this blog, many are thus far incapable of finding a proper balance. One of my personal interests in the War on Terror is in the effort to find metrics for measuring our progress toward victory. As Strategy Page notes in their efforts to do the same, it cannot be done in isolation as events around the world have a significant impact as well, whether in direct conflicts, wars or purely in the realm of diplomacy. As such, we should be prepared to recognize the implications of policy decisions around the world. When we compromise our beliefs to permit WTO membership for a non-democratic state, ignore human rights abuses to avoid potential economic hardship, or acknowledge and accept terrorists as politicians, the Arab people who are now so enthused by the possibility of liberty will recognize the inconsistency. Even if justified by pragmatism, we should recognize that for those with only a hint of liberty knocking at their door, such play is less likely to be understood.
Whether by our valuing liberty above tyranny or the expansion of our own economic interests, we must be willing to forsake stability, risk the turmoil of transition and embrace the potential of others to achieve. In doing so, we tell the Arab hopeful that we will stand by them, should things turn awry, and moreover, we tell the non-Arab that it isn’t by terror alone we are prompted to action… it is by our values.
[Originally posted at The Fourth Rail.]
Time flies when you ponder such things. Or at least for me it does. Here it is the hour of necessity, or at least when this would have to be delivered for consideration, and I’m only beginning to put keys to fingers. My first inclination is to harken back to the time when I more frequently commented on the absence of moral thought or awareness in our self-governance. Somehow that doesn’t seem right though, at least not for this occasion. Instead, I’ll offer this.
There is a terrible beauty in simplicity. Beauty in the very way the simple reaffirms the nature of our being and the universe. Terrible in the many ways we are blind to the simple. Whether it is our addiction to nuance, our expansive capacity to create conspiracy, or otherwise carnal yearnings of primacy it is evident that the wisdom of years past is seen as but a folly to today’s foolish. In a time when from afar hatred brews to a boil and scalds our very being in a wave of violence unknown before to us, there are those who find fault not in the foaming hatred of the murderous, rather they cry that the murdered were at fault. Fools will be about their folly and stray not from its grip.
Being a nation born of moral virtue and dependent on those very virtues to stand the test of time, we are today in battle to maintain our heritage while proclaiming it anew for friend and former foe. And here at home we know just as well that there are those in our homes, across the street and about town who would rather not hear tell of our sacred honor or the meaning of God’s providence. It is that they’d rather support peace, in all its nuance and variety, than stand firm for or against any act or indignity. It has not always been so, yet it has always been that far too few stand for the virtuous, the moral and the absolute.
For right or wrong, the ideas and values of our hearts are formed with the faith of our forbearers. A Judeo-Christian nation we were. And like we were we must remain a nation of values and morality. Else we fail.
Our political and cultural foes, whose courses are unknown even unto themselves, speak of fear of imposed faith, moral policing, and the establishment of a religious dominion. This while it is their ethos, their acceptance of all forms of behavior, their tolerance of only those who agree, their ridicule of the simple at heart, simple in words or of simple aspirations that tears at the fabric of our nation.
Morays are the bindings of common faith, understanding and purpose that we share aside from our legal bindings. And unfortunately they are less and less availed to those who seek them. On the other hand, the law reaches deeper into our daily lives. The impact is clear. Our character fails as the state takes the lead, our values are worthless when all values are equal, and sadly… the morass of nuance hides the beauty of simple truth.
[This post was prepared for the 2005 EO Symposium (2nd Quarter). The symposium theme is Judeo-Christian Morality in an Ethically Pluralistic Society. Other entries will be listed here as soon as the complete list is available.]
While sitting with a determination to write on subjects that have come, shifted, realigned and even come and gone over the past two weeks, when I’ve written little for this space, I have once again been unable to do so. Earlier today I heard that Pope John Paul II had passed away. Within minutes the story was retracted, yet the news that he was close to death has stayed with me. Keep writing I would say, so many significant events have passed and despite their importance I’ve not commented on them. Just keep writing… whether it is Kyrgyzstan, Zimbabwe, Lebanon, Ukraine, Sudan or any other part of the world facing the challenge of reform, the terrible weight of bigotry, the unyielding passion of fanaticism, or the struggle to find hope in an increasingly dangerous world, I had something to say. But again, I was unable.
The imminent death of a man of character and influence like few others in our recent history binds my mind and heart just as two weeks ago I was bound by concern for the unheard voice of one soul in Florida. Why is it that distant loss reaches so deep into my heart that breathing becomes a challenge? Just keep writing, even if it has nothing to do with the spread of democracy, I tell myself again. Just keep writing.
I don’t know any more about the passing Pope than you or many others. What I know is that he held firm to his beliefs at a time when the world needed a man willing, able and ready to do just that. Like Ronald Reagan he stood for something and by doing so played a significant part in the ending of the Soviet Union. But many stand for something, that can’t be it. It must be what he stood for. At a time when self supplants selflessness, Pope John Paul II was a selfless servant of his faith and the traditions of the Catholic Church. Had I been a Catholic, perhaps I’d been more able to express the cause of my admiration and respect for the man. I can’t.
All I know is that the sight of this frail man over the last few weeks has wrenched my heart. It is simply a great loss for the world to see him leaving us. A shepherd of men and women of all faiths, standing on a foundation of moral and ethical thought with a depth beyond my capacity is about to leave the flock. Did we learn the value of life, the significance of liberty, the necessity of responsibility or the promise of hope that this shepherd of men so ardently taught? It must be the fear that not enough has been learned and that another of the simple, yet profound, men who stood guard over a flock more concerned with fool and fancy will be lost. Our world is in need of more men with an eye toward good, a forgiving ear, an eloquent and sharp way with words and most of all a love for us all.
For many reasons I had not intended to discuss in this space the firing/resignation of Harry Stonecipher, the man brought in to rebuild Boeing’s luster just over a year ago. And then I read what was to be one too many attempts to connect his firing to the conservative or religious right. Steven Pearlstein, of the Washington Post, penned a column entitled - Ethics Pedestal Assures Some Hard Falls. And his title is correct, even an understatement. His thesis is, however, broken. Why, because like much of the legacy media, Mr. Pearlstein apparently couldn’t author this column without an unhealthy dose of politics. Politics that not only made his conclusion wrong, it also showed the thinness of his journalistic objectivity.
Pearlstein begins with a rather funny quip taken from the Wall Street Journal.
A question that will be played out in ethics classes at business schools for years to come is whether Boeing, one of the largest government contractors, struggling to get out from under an ethics cloud, should have fired its married 68-year-old chief executive for carrying on with one of the company's Washington area employees.Pearlstein then explains the two "truths" that the "profound" retort exposes.Perhaps the best line of the week goes to the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, which noted wryly that if something like this had happened at rival Airbus, the French would have put the fellow up for a bonus.
First, given the political and legal environment in which the company finds itself, and the prevailing business culture in the United States, the board probably made the "right" decision in demanding Harry Stonecipher's resignation.When I first read this paragraph, Pearlstein’s decision to place quotation marks around the word right caused a brief pause. Is Pearlstein implying that it was "right" as in the political right or "right" meaning the proper decision, one he would agree with at least. The second truth Mr. Pearlstein recognized cleared things up a bit.
And, second, it's a ridiculous outcome that leaves nobody better off and raises serious questions about that environment and that business culture.Indeed it does. Pearlstein’s "right" was not agreement or appropriateness. He is implying that it was the political "right." Of course, business executive has affair, gets fired by his employer for affair or through bizarre and convoluted logic gets fired to avoid embarrassing the company, it must be the moral majority reborn as the board of directors.
Ridiculous.
It wasn’t a moral decision to fire Stonecipher, nor was it done to appease the morally inclined government officials who might be offended if, or when, the story got out. The board was acting out of fear, self-loathing, and risk aversion supported by an army of litigious and morally bankrupt attorney’s (or at least morally blinded by their profession) who have all but squashed individual freedom for those employed, particularly high profile employees, by America’s once great businesses.
The problem is that Pearlstein knew this. His comments regarding zero-tolerance and the absence of making a decision on a case-by-case basis prove it. He just couldn’t connect the proverbial dots. Personal responsibility has been abdicated. In the boardroom or the management offices the standard is aligned toward the lawyers advice about potential lawsuits much more so than it is to the ideals of personal accountability or leadership.
Pearlstein continues:
What's most dangerous, however, is the implicit acknowledgment by the board that it is too risky for a company doing business with the government to be run by someone whose personal life might offend the ayatollahs of the religious right.The "ayatollahs of the religious right" he says. Aside from the clear attempt to paint the Bush administration as similar to the Mullahs in Iran (which is shameful but not my point), this is simply wrong. As is his closing.
You would have thought we might have learned a lesson from the disastrous campaign to impeach a president on morals charges, only to ensnare a speaker-designate of the House. Instead, this same puritan standard now seems to have been extended to the corporate sector.And there it is. We didn’t learn a lesson after failing to impeach a President, who should have been convicted of perjury, and now we’ve infected the business world with our mean spirited moral and ethical standards. WRONG.One of the mistakes of the '90s is that we all put too much stock in the magic power of chief executives. Along with giving them too much authority, attention and money, we also held them to unrealistically high expectations. Harry Stonecipher now joins the list of those who both benefited from that misplaced importance, and were brought down by it.
What was learned from the failed impeachment is that personal accountability can be abdicated and nothing will be done about it. The executives Pearlstein describes as having magic power have much less than he attributes to them. The lefts greatest assets, attorneys and judges, have effectively neutered much of the executive sphere, leaving them impotent and incapable of making decisions or holding each other accountable (save of course on matters of P&L). Stonecipher may have acted in a manner inconsistent with the Board's expectation. And accordingly, they have every right to request his resignation. But to pass it off as if it were a moralistic intrusion of the religious right into the boardroom of Boeing is flatly wrong. Had the board been acting morally, they would have determined that Mr. Stonecipher’s relationship was none of their concern, save the use of corporate email, and simply demanded an end to the use of corporate assets for such communication. Unfortunately, it wasn’t a moral issue; it was an issue of risk mitigation and avoidance. And rather than telling them that, Mr. Pearlstein lets his politics guide his response.
So many Arabs, and nearly all Arab governments, despise - no loath - no hate Israel. That hatred and only one other thing guide their every move. Power. They act on their hatred of Israel and thirst for power to such a degree as to make even the simplest gesture of cooperation seem significant. Hence we herald the reforming of the Palestinian cabinet as a breakthrough, or the election of Mahmoud Abbas as a step toward peace. Neither accurately, for the true pressure on Israel stems not from the Palestinian’s. It is the Arab neighbors that reflect the great threat, fuel the Palestinian’s arms with hatred, and, most certainly, possess the power to end the war against Israel.
The most meaningful and impressive aspect of the Iraqi election was the willingness of people to vote, despite threats against their lives, to form a democratic government. Their resolve has been met by continued violence and attacks on the Shi’a during a sacred time of remembrance. The enemy, fed and fueled by the powers in Syria, Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, has not diminished in their battle for a return of what never was. That idyllic state whereby Islam ruled the hearts of men and governed the government accordingly has never existed. Yet, their romanticized view of the days of the companions, whether Abu Bakr, Umar, ‘Uthman or Ali, serves their thirst for power, and under the banner of Islam gives them righteous authority to attack their brother, neighbor, and friend for choosing instead to believe in the rights of man, to choose his faith, his government, his life’s work, and to live on the merits of his deeds.
While undertaking a study of the Qur’an (as well as the Hadith) some years ago, I was never left with the belief that Islam afforded its believers with the rightful hatred of any man. Like the Torah, and the Bible, it instead called to our higher, and significantly more challenging, character. Perhaps I was mistaken. For the unrelenting hatred espoused in the Middle East leaves little room for doubt. And no room for interpretation. While the Qur’an may state that there is no compulsion in religion, its adherents clearly compel Palestinian violence, terrorism in Iraq and the most immoral governments on this most un-heavenly earth.
Is it possible that peace may someday come to the Middle East? I’m left doubting my optimism, for it has little basis in reason, little supporting historic evidence, and moreover, little support from those whose efforts it will be built upon. Even so, I do remain an optimist.
Ungrounded optimism is foolish. Despite the email or comments of those who assert that that is indeed what I am, I believe that there are grounds for optimism. None are wishful platitudes of humanities goodness. For humanity is not predisposed to goodness, indeed the opposite is true. It is the goodness that men will bring forth, even against their nature that guides my optimism. Having seen the unprecedented voting in Iraq, I believe that there are men of good will, men who identify themselves as Muslim, that are at this very moment bound by their government, hindered by their clergy, and restrained by years of suppression, readying their plans to support freedom in the Middle East.
What prevents them from being heard, from establishing their freedom, is the governments teetering on the thin margin of power that suppresses the free. This, even if in order to hold power over even worse potential tyrants, must change. The challenge being to make such changes in a manner that prevents ideological tyrants from becoming rulers, and ensures that their governments secure their freedom rather than contain it. Is there reason to believe that the governments of the Middle East support such change? Limited evidence at best. Yet even that, is new and inspiring, for if it has reached the level of the leader, the people are most surely readying for their day.
Our nation, without significant aid from Europe’s old allies, our northern neighbor, or multi-national governing bodies has taken the lead in guiding the Middle East toward freedom. In many ways, this is due to the high price we have paid and continue to pay to prevent terrorism. It also stems from the realization that in today’s world, the light of freedom, more than ever before, is both needed and missing. Why others fail to share in the effort can, and will, be argued until the mission is accomplished. It doesn’t matter. What matters is that someone stands against terror, stand for freedom, and acts accordingly. That is our role, and that we do so should breed optimism in us all.
Today, the eve of Ashoura, has seen a marked increase in the number and scale of attacks by terrorist on the people of Iraq, and particularly on Shi’a Muslims. This is Muslim on Muslim violence and yet, the worldwide Sunni population has not stepped forward to demand it stop, to stand between the terrorist and their intended victims or to support the brave American, Iraqi and allied troops who are doing so.
How long must we wait?
Before I go on, I am aware that there are small groups of Muslims, in the U.S. and abroad, who have spoken out against the terrorists and their tactics. Yet they’ve not taken to the streets, the governments (none democratically elected and representative of their citizenry) have remained silent and absent in Iraq, and no cry or call to admonish their behavior has been made. Is it because they fear being next? Perhaps some do, Faud and company for example, but clearly that isn’t the totality of the reason.
For far to many years the Muslim people have silently and not so silently supported the Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israel. Having made the arguments that the murder of Israeli people, attacks on the military, government and civilian targets are warranted and even called for by their faith and its demand for struggle against those who oppose the will of God. This jihad has now been turned against fellow Muslims and the voice of the majority is absent.
So I ask again: How long must we wait?
I believe that we’ll have to wait a very long time. Imams, mullahs and sheikhs around the world have abandoned reason, moral and ethical teachings within the Qur’an, and the real and terrible consequences of sitting in silent support of evil. And in response, that evil now strikes at their own. The streets of the world have been filled with men and women who believed they had been wronged, that injustice was being done, and that their voices must be heard. Whether in protest of war, electoral shenanigans, or political corruption the memories are clear. Yet the last time we recall the Muslims taking to the streets it was in celebration of the worst attack ever on this nation. How many Muslims will die at the hand of terrorist before they see the terrible error of their past and present and take to the streets to demand an end to such acts. How long will Muslim children have to wait before their parents and grandparents demand an end to terror in their names or in the name of their god?
I’m waiting, but not holding my breath.
A national journey is underway. And like any journey, a national journey requires the knowledge of not only where one wants to end up, but also, from what point one begins the journey. Who among us would question that the Iraqi people more than any foreign observer or policy maker knows both the starting point of their journey, and where they would like to be?
Our character at the outset of our nation was set and firm. It had been forged by years of economic repression, religious persecution, and various ignoble attacks on the very nature of those who made the colonies their home. No matter what course of action the crown had taken, the character that had developed within the hearts and minds of the colonial leaders was such that their course could be set not just against the crown, but rather toward their own objective. They knew were they wanted to be and where they were.
The setting of the course within, as seen in the founders of the United States, took place prior to the first efforts at creating a nation. Over the years that have come and gone, many within our borders have lost sight of the necessity for such an internal course setting. They represent a hodgepodge of special interest groups lost but for their singular vision for the issue de jour and as such are bound together wandering toward no particular destination. Thankfully, there are those whose course remains firmly set nearly the same as our founders. They defend the true principles held in the founding documents. And in a similar vane, the people of Iraq are soon to set their course and pass on to their progeny the values for which their course should use as guideposts.
We know little of what the course will hold for Iraq. Its guiding values will most certainly be the creation and extension of their various ethnic and religious heritages into a national heritage. Like our founding fathers, the Iraqi people have known repression in any and all areas of their lives. This too will have an impact on their choice of guiding principles and on their aspirations for untangling the biases that have previously caused dissension between them. And with newfound bearing, the Iraqi’s will set out to become that which they’ve never been.
Of course, there are those who are not yet adjusted to the new reality, or who hold no course settings for which to guide them toward something new, seeking rather to return to the old. They too will be heard. The point is that Iraq’s course is to be determined by the hearts and minds of Iraq’s people, putting their values into action, and setting sail on a course of their choice. And to guide them, the course within. We may not know, or ever understand the destination they chose, who around the world understands the American ideal so well as Americans, but our guiding principles should assure us that it is right and honorable that they are at the helm. Finally.
When looking through the technorati listing of references to Thomas Friedman’s Sunday NY Times column, No Mullah’s Left Behind, I was disappointed to see little refutation of Friedman’s column. And more disappointed to see Glenn Reynolds agreeing with this Friedman statement:
As a geo-green, I believe that combining environmentalism and geopolitics is the most moral and realistic strategy the U.S. could pursue today. Imagine if President Bush used his bully pulpit and political capital to focus the nation on sharply lowering energy consumption and embracing a gasoline tax.Thankfully, Glenn goes on to suggest that nuclear power plants as a solution. Still, however, he appeared to focus on energy for our cars, he describes the nuclear power plants as a means to producing hydrogen as a replacement fuel for autos. All fine by me, except that the majority of our energy needs aren’t our cars or transportation (35% to 40% of our energy consumption is for transportation, of which almost all is petroleum based). [For stats on U.S. Energy consumption see the Energy Information Administration. - ed.]
Is the objective to reduce our dependence on foreign (read Middle Eastern) oil, or to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels? Or both.
The primary issue I take with Friedman’s suggestion is the gasoline tax as a means to alter behavior. The idea of changing our behavior through taxing the consumption of gasoline is abhorrent to me. The proper means to accomplish the objective of reducing fossil fuel dependence, and the attached relationship to despotic leaders in the Middle East, is through altering our own production capabilities and sources.
We have untapped resources in petroleum and we’ve nearly completely abandoned the use of nuclear energy. If we moved toward greater use of nuclear energy for non-transportation sector supply, the cut in fossil fuel usage would be significant, although, clearly 35 percent or more would remain due to transportation requirements. That component could be reduced through means such as Reynolds’ suggestion of hydrogen-fueled vehicles, but the time, and cost, between that solution and now is significant. The first step has to be opening up ANWR and other domestic sources for petroleum based exploration and production.
Whether geo-green or not, the administration needs to act to cut off U.S. backing of repressive regimes in the Middle East, and further, to create a more independent and viable long term solution to our energy needs. Our fear of nuclear technology, the cost associated with alternative fuels, and the lefts environmentalist ideals all serve as constraints to change rather as proponents of change. Another constraint is the attachment to stability. For years our economic policy has been propped up by the idea that through our continued use of Middle Eastern oil we foster stability in the region. This has to go. Maintaining the stability of despots neither advances the liberty of people around the world, nor does it enhance our security.
Harking back to the pre-election scare mongering of the left, Southern Conservative asks in this week's Homespun Symposium, do we have the right to insist or expect that there will be no draft to fight the global war on terror? Noting the role the draft played in the first two World Wars, the author then asks, what gives our generation the right to expect to abstain from the same duty our grandfathers and forefathers were called to? These questions leave us to examine the very nature of our beliefs, the extent of them, and our willingness to defend that which we hold dear. For my part, this is an entirely worthwhile effort.
The advent of the all-volunteer service began after the Vietnam War. There was even a time, though short lived, where no registration was required between 1975 and 1980. It abruptly ended with the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. The volunteers have finally brought peace and self-governance to Afghanistan, or at least the beginnings of such.
In 1985, when I decided to join the U.S. Marine Corps, like nearly everyone else I would meet in the service, it was for personal reasons. Not a single reason, and not without the realization that in doing so I, like those I would serve with, either could, or would, be called upon to serve in time of war. When in 1987, as a young Corporal with just over a year of service, General Alfred M. Gray became Commandant of the Marine Corps, replacing the venerable P.X. Kelley, I was reminded, as were all Marines, that we were warriors first, no matter our occupational specialty or MOS. It was a grand time to be a Marine as General Kelley had worked to rebuild the caliber of the Corps, and General Gray would lead the Corps to refocus on what we did best. Or as Paulie once reminded me, the Marines are trained to kill; it’s the Army that is taught to be all you can be.
Being a volunteer, in August of 1991, the following weekend after the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi forces, I walked into Master Gunnery Sergeant Montoya’s office and declared - if anyone has to go, I want to. The call came, and I did. My second son was born while I was at Ras al-Mishab in Saudi Arabia. And now, another generation of volunteers has removed Saddam from power.
Does this in any way serve as a means to support the idea that an all-volunteer force will forever meet the needs of the nation? No. It is simply a means to clarify prior to my response, that I speak not as someone who has not served nor as someone who’s children may not. I have the utmost respect and admiration for those who serve today. And in all earnestness, on many occasions, long for a way that I too could serve the great cause that they do.
Last November, and before, when political manipulators attempted to sway the vote by suggesting that a draft was in the works if President Bush was reelected, I like many on the right immediately challenged the assertions and noted that it was the left, Charlie Rangel for instance, who was calling for a draft. But that was politics, or so I’m told.
Should a draft be needed, a highly unlikely event during President Bush’s second term, then I, and other libertarian and conservative members of our society will step up to the plate and support its existence, if for no other reason that it is the responsible thing to do. As would liberals, or at least I would hope. We’ve made no argument except the defense of our nation, and when that defense requires more of us than our volunteer forces can provide, we would provide it. Our history has shown this to be among the greatest American traits.
Other Homespun Responses:
Karin Kydland
Southern Conservative
Major Dad 1984
American Warmonger
Being Thomas Luongo
Nixon's Memoirs
Eric's Random Musings
Ogre's Politics and Views
Bunker Mulligan
Carpe Bonum
The Commons at Paulie World
The vote in Iraq is nearly 3 hours from beginning. In 14 countries it has begun. There are few things I’d like to offer prior to the elections. To the coalition forces in Iraq, to the men and women who are working to build a free nation, to the citizens voting for a free and democratic nation, to the morally confused media, and finally, to the terrorist who are threatening those who vote, I have a short number of things to share with you.
No matter the nation that sent you, no matter your service, religion, race, or political ideology, I want to thank those who serve in the coalition of the willing. Your efforts are not forgotten. Your sacrifice, and the lives of those who’ve been injured or died beside you, will not be forgotten. What was once a despotic regime of terror is no more. And in its place, the people of Iraq will build a more free and hopeful nation. Thank you.
To the American military who serves in Iraq, or elsewhere, a special thanks, for you are leading the effort to do that which is right and just in defense of your nation, and for those who may not recognize your sacrifice. Thank you.
To the employees and aid workers of all sorts who have taken to the streets of Iraq, your hours of toil, your personal risk, and your desire to be a part of something greater than yourself will not be in vain. You too, have lost friends and coworkers to the hands of villains of the worst kind, and they too are not to be forgotten. I will not, nor will those who stand with me, forget your diligence and perseverance. Thank you.
To the Iraqi voters, I don’t know where to start. You, like the brave men who liberated your nation, are heroes. Vote! Hold your blue tipped index fingers in the sky in defiance and yell to the heavens that you’ve voted. While night envelopes my home and you will be in my prayers; morning on your streets will be a new beginning for you and your nation. And here at home, far from the danger you will face, I will be thankful to those of you who will brave the streets and take what is yours. Take Iraq and make her anew.
To the media… I will not read your headlines, no matter what violence may or may not occur; I will not fall for your condemnations or your dour predictions. I understand that you are supposed to be free and objective. I await evidence of your ability to be.
And finally, to the filth of man, the most abhorrent of all, the supposed holy warriors fighting against the occupiers or the new government, to you I offer but one thing. Be warned. You had the gall to threaten those who vote not out of vice or avarice, but out of duty to build, where there was nothing, something great. You have attacked and killed men, women and children who serve the same god that you claim to serve, but we know better. You serve yourself and none other. Be warned! Our brave Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines are looking for you. They’ll bring you to justice. And long after they’ve gone, the good people of Iraq will recall your warnings, your bombs and your murder, it is you who will perish. The eternal desert of hell will be your home. For Iraq will again rise to be an oasis, a blooming flower for all to see that hope is never to be lost. Not while we remember.
Yesterday the United Nations marked the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz with a special commemoration ceremony. Over the last 30 years the U.N. has been seen a progressively becoming more anti-Semitic and the commemoration was an effort to deflect some of that criticism. The same U.N. which still has not determined if genocide is taking place in the Sudan, or defined terrorism due to the unwillingness of Arab and Muslim nations to come to terms with Islamist and Palestinian terror. And then there is the news that a group of Russian lawmakers are attempting to outlaw Jewish religious and ethnic organizations as extremist.
The pogroms of years gone by are quickly forgotten in much of the world where men attribute their woes to those who, for no other reason than being Jewish, are seen as the cause of all ills. Putin, and the Duma, should act immediately to secure the religious freedom of Jews in Russia, or else, the sentiments of a minority, given the inaction of men of good will, will once again have a foothold in a nation known for its history of persecuting Jews. In just the last 130 years, the Russian’s under the Czar, guided by Constantine Pobedonostev, or the Soviet Union, and it’s state sponsored anti-Semitism, the Jews of Russia, and allied states, have been under nearly constant attack.
Pobedonostev advocated that one third of all Jews be converted to Christianity, one third be expelled from Russia, and one third be put to death. Being a Jew in Russia was to be illegal. In the Soviet Union, from its outset, being Jewish was a high risk, even among the non-practicing Jews, three of the five leaders of the Revolution where non-practicing Jews, the Jewish people and Judaism where seen as a threat to the state.
---
Today, we fight an islamofascist movement hell-bent on destroying Western civilization, both from within, and from afar. One of the primary characteristics of this movement is its anti-Semitism. And at a time when many of us are concerned that Vladimir Putin has taken steps that limit freedom and public participation in government in Russia, we witness a reminder of the fickle nature of man and his ability to forget the lessons of history. Our silence on the murders in Darfur, the moral ambiguity of the United Nations, and our inability to recognize the nature of islamofascism, whether in the Palestinian territories or Iraq, are not signs that bode well for our ability to recognize the warning signs of a renewal of anti-Semitic movements around the world. Our eyes and ears must remain attuned to the threats within us, just as we are watchful to the threats from abroad. Link via Sherry.
Hugh has offered yet another opportunity to contribute to the blogosphere’s combined voice through his Vox Blogoli. First, he offers a brief passage from Jonathan Rauch, written for the monthly journal, The Atlantic, and then asks for our commentary, what does it say about the author, The Atlantic, and the left’s understanding of the Christian culture in America. The passage in question follows:
"On balance it is probably healthier if religious conservatives are inside the political system than if they operate as insurgents and provocateurs on the outside. Better they should write anti-abortion planks into the Republican platform than bomb abortion clinics. The same is true of the left. The clashes over civil rights and Vietnam turned into street warfare partly because activists were locked out of their own party establishments and had to fight, literally, to be heard. When Michael Moore receives a hero’s welcome at the Democratic National Convention, we moderates grumble; but if the parties engage fierce activists while marginalizing tame centrists, that is probably better for the social peace than the other way around."I had to read it twice before beginning. Not because it is difficult to understand or a challenge to gain the perspective of the author, but rather because it is so completely and utterly insulting and off the mark.
The publishers of The Atlantic, its editors, its advertisers, all must have the utmost confidence in the continued support of their clearly disturbed readers in order to permit this piece to make it into print. Mr. Rauch has stepped in it. He doesn’t understand the Christian or religious center-right supporters of the Republican Party, and moreover he has taken to the most egregious of insults as an example of his ignorance.
It’s one thing to compare fringe elements of the Democratic Party to perhaps single issue voters within the Republican Party, in this case pro-life voters. Rauch wasn’t going to be satisfied with such a comparison. His choice was to imply that the pro-life conservatives are similar to "insurgents." Insurgents. You know the word, the media’s euphemism for the terrorist in Iraq. If Mr. Rauch’s view is correct, it would stand that the insurgents, or terrorist, in Iraq are merely responding to the failure of the political parties to include them in the platform, conventions and political system. Yes, I see it now, that’s why they’re insurgents.
We choose life. And are included in the party platform to keep us from doing what, supporting candidates that support life but are not part of the party. It isn’t that we are likely to take to the streets and its even less likely that we’ll harm anyone, yet it is that picture that Rauch chooses to paint. He ensures that we recognize his agenda, his malice and his complete disregard for the implications, to us, of his words. Rauch has no idea who or what the center-right or conservative American looks like. He doesn’t know what we believe, or how and why Christian culture is so vastly different from the religious extremes of the Islamist. By comparing pro-life conservative to the murderous thugs, if only in the choice of language, Mr. Rauch has shown his true disdain for the Christian, the Conservative (religious or otherwise) and for the civility of Christian culture in America. This perhaps more than anything shows him to be a part of the left rather than a moderate as he describes himself. He has joined the fringe he describes, such as the leftist protesters who clamor about calling the President a fascist or Nazi, and thusly removing themselves from any serious discussion. Rauch is not in the mainstream, and neither is the Atlantic.
It steams me to no end to read the words of someone so blinded by either ignorance or snobbery. Now how am I to get to sleep? Oh yeah, we won in November, and we win again when the elections take place at the end of the month. Too bad for the insurgents terrorists.
UPDATE: Hugh is interviewing the author, Mr. Rauch, right now. Based on his responses to Hugh, I don’t think he is as far off the range as I’d previously seen him. He is simply squishy and unwilling to accept his own leanings to the left, choosing instead to see himself as moderate where he is not.
After mentioning the LRB on the air, a first, Hugh is trying to show Rauch that, at least through this one paragraph, it appears that he is comparing religious conservatives to the terrorist, and further to the most radical left portions of the Democratic Party. It would be great to see the entire article, and if it isn't made available, a trip to the book store may be in order. I don't want to mis-understand Mr. Rauch, yet, I'm not convinced that he hasn't done exactly what he intended in his rather soft use the language.
UPDATE 2: The full story is now available on Hugh's site. I stand by my previous comments.
If nothing more, David Gelernter’s Commentary column is provocative and challenging. While its titled Americanism -- and Its Enemies, the column serves primarily as a means to present a theory of Americanism as the continuation of Puritanism. The questionable contention is that Americanism is a religion, as is anti-Americanism. It is powerful stuff, as Gelernter states, and no less than G. K. Chesterton said that America is "the nation with the soul of a church." Is this enough?
Clearly not, yet Gelernter moves on as if for no other reason that his stating it, it should be enough. While this may be that no other evidence exists, unlikely, it is more likely that Gelernter recognizes that those who share his view of America, and her place in the world, are likely to share his creedo for Americanism. We may share it, many will, yet we do not all achieve the same understanding from the same basis, as he notes in admitting that those from outside the Judeo-Christian religions are capable of sharing in the beliefs of Americanism, although he states it is harder than most recognize. The reason - Americanism, as he defines it can be found in a creed built upon "one fundamental fact [that] creates two premises that create three conclusions."
The fundamental fact: the Bible is God’s word. Two premises: first, every member of the American community has his own individual dignity, insofar as he deals individually with God; second, the community has a divine mission to all mankind. Three conclusions: every human being everywhere is entitled to freedom, equality, and democracy.Had Gelernter described Americanism as a value system, a moral belief system, or an ethos, anything short of a religion, much of the challenge would have been alleviated. We would consider how Puritans evolved into the mainstream of America just as did the many other peoples making up the melting pot, and more importantly, we could seek to find the influence of Puritan thought on the fundamental makeup of Americanism. Yet, as a religion, moreover, the religious continuation of Puritanism, Americanism is somehow defunct and unacceptable to many. Perhaps this is because many of those who are advocates of Americanism, even as defined above, are incapable of considering the notion as a religion. To share the conclusions of Gelernter’s Americanism creed, it is not a necessity that we share faith in God, only that we share the belief that in the conclusions and the moral value of Life and Liberty. This is quite different than religious teachings whereby the believer is expected to believe not only the conclusions, but to believe in, if not understand, the genesis of the faith or the source, God.
It was with that clarity, that the founders made the statement in the Declaration of Independence:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.As this statement shows our allegiance to the truths that preceded it, rather than to the government that we are both subject to and participants in.
It would have been grand had Gelernter chosen to examine Americanism and anti-Americanism based on the communicated and un-communicated values associated with both. In lieu of that discussion, we are discussing Americanism as an evolutionary extension of Puritanism. Of course, it is possible that had the column not focused on the religiosity of Americanism; little would have been made of it. As for this blogger, a discussion of our moral foundations, and that of our enemies, is always welcome; as is Americanism, by any definition.
It is arguable that we are hated for the values we hold. The ideals we accept, and in many ways seek to extend to others are foreign and dangerous to many, and in as much so are likely to generate hatred and rivalry on par with religious bigotry. While we did experience the now politically incorrect notion of Manifest Destiny, we are now, even more so, advocates of our ideals beyond our borders. It isn’t that men, Afghan or Zimbabwean, are more entitled to freedom today than in previous generations; it is that we recognize that our continued success as a nation requires that we foster a system of beliefs similar to our own throughout the world. The reason lies in the defense of our ability to live free. As nineteen islamo-fascist have shown us, our world is no longer made safe by distance or lack of armament; our enemies from so far away, and with so little in the form of weaponry are able to inflict immeasurable damage and for this reason, Americanism, religion or not, is spread by word and deed, to all people that they too may see life and liberty as virtues above all others.
Again I would recommend that you visit the Evangelical Outpost and the many fine entries.
Before attempting to respond to this week’s symposium question, one that strikes a particularly strong cord with those on the right apparently more than those on the left, it is incumbent upon us to review what is at stake. The question this week:
What, in your mind, represents the single greatest long-term threat to the United States of America, and what should be done about it?
The author of the question, limits our discussion to the single greatest threat to the United States of America, and challenges us to offer a solution. Threats to the US come in many forms, from within and without, from direct attack, unintended consequences and subversive undermining, and from the governed and the government. When discussing the threats, current or long-term, our view of what is at stake is reflected by our assessment of the threats. Should we look at the threat from the view of ending our nations existence, there are relatively few threats. Should we instead look at the nature and character of our nation, there are many threats and more significantly, these threats weaken our ability and willingness to recognize and defend ourselves against threats to our very existence.
So the answer was apparent. The threat of single greatest significance must be a threat to the character of the nation and its ideals. If you are so patient, let me add that I’ve included the list of current and possible long-term threats here, should you be interested in it.
Islamo-fascism – the perversion of Islamic thought and doctrine in support of a bigoted, intolerant, arabesque world-view. Primary concerns are the current militant Islamo-fascist of al-Qaeda and associated terrorist organizations, secondary concern is the enormous support of and adherence to the Islamo-fascist view of Islam held throughout the world, and dominant in the Middle East (whether Sunni or Shi’a in inclination). Affiliated issues include the propagation of anti-Semitism or anti-Israeli thought and action, an enormous amount of propaganda and a willingness to accept lies and conspiracies as truth, an inability or unwillingness to permit cultural assimilation, and a birth rate far exceeding European and North American non-Hispanic growth rates.Of course, there are other risks and areas of concern.Nuclear Proliferation and Terrorism – the spread of nuclear weapons and technology to unstable, rogue and hostile nations possibly willing to aid terrorist in acquiring them or incapable of adequately securing them.
China – the increased economic and military reach of China and their attempt to construct a Chinese hegemony in Asia and beyond as a counter-American force in the world.
Indo-Pakistani belligerence – two nuclear capable nations with a breadth of immoral and unjust hatred and bigotry for the other. Socialist/Communist ties and the general inability of each state to extend liberty to their citizens creates the greater incentive for public dissatisfaction and instability.
Iran – essentially a theocratic oligarchy of Shi’a Islamo-fascist. The gravest threat here is the development of nuclear weapons and technology, the support for terrorist outside Iran and the open hostility towards Israel and the US.
Middle Eastern Kings and Emirs – the kingdoms and emirates of the Middle East have used islamo-fascist thought as a means to control their populations and are limited in their ability to reform out of fear of a true islamo-fascist take over as in Iran.
European Socialism – primarily in Western Europe, unlike the firm opposition to Communism, their Socialism has gained support over the years and influences all aspect their lifestyles, thought and culture.
Russia – Vladimir Putin and other remnants of the former Soviet Union continue to show a return to Soviet styled governance rather than encouraging Liberty and fighting the corruption that followed the fall of the USSR through rule of law and vigilant economic and intellectual openness.
The single greatest threat to the United States comes from within. Not just within the nation, but within each of its citizens. As noted in a previous post, the course within is the most significant and it is measured by our understanding, acceptance and acting on a moral basis. Some respondents to the question will make the issue a religious issue, a possible cause for the reactionary steps of those attacking the foundation of our nation today; others will find a particular symptom of our weakened moral state and attribute the danger to it. We might instead seek to prevent the disease itself from further spread to future generations and to cure it among the many (millions) currently afflicted.
In a post on the danger of moral ambivalence, and others, we’ve noted that one must recognize that while religion is often a precursor to our understanding of moral or ethical issues, as a nation we must resist the religious argument as a means for establishing rules of governance. We have the moral truths of our unalienable rights, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, and upon these we should be able to debate and determine the proper course of governance for a strong and moral people. The trouble, of course, is when we are no longer a moral people, capable of living up to the responsibilities associated with Liberty. The danger lies therein.
The larger the role our government, the federal government in particular, plays in our lives, the less we as a people are responsible to each other and to our progeny for our decisions and actions. Federal activism in education, health, social character and what should be state or local issues remains not only a symptom of our failing moral compass but a cause for its further decay. The solution is to aim for a return to the federalist approach of our founders and to re-establish the sovereignty of the state, the community and the family. The good news is that while we are falling toward complete moral irrelevance and the loss of the most basic of truths, we have far to fall before hitting ground, and the parachute, our Constitution, remains as a means to recover.
Other Homespun Symposium Responses
A Physicist's Perspective
Bunker Mulligan
Bill's Big Bloviating Blog
Ogre's Politics and Views
Mud and Phud
The Commons at Paulie World
The Terriorists
The Redhunter
Never Sway
Mad Poets Anonymous
Considerettes
In Search of Utopia
Mark Rauterkus & Running Mates
Addendum: We are, whether perilously or not may be debated, divided in our understanding of the nature of being American, of being a free people, and of the nature of our government’s responsibilities to us as citizens. We may, or rather will, debate, on many occasions, the extent and nature of the divide in our nation. Those who see a divide may lament its existence, while others likewise seeing it, will see it as a sign of our health and prosperity. Partisan we are, some by reason and principle, others for reasons neither they nor their counterparts can discern. In the end, the truth of the divide may be seen not by our debate or acknowledgement of its existence, but by our vocal and active support for altering the direction of the nation, whether our party, or the closest in similarity, is in power or not.
In their post-election anguish, many on the left and extreme left have shown both their disdain for the average American as well as their more troubling disdain for America. We must look no further than the editorials, essays and commentaries of the blogs, magazines and newspapers to see it. In exposing their scurrilous vitriol the left is determined, even if unknowingly, to slide further from the realm of influence and toward a seat alongside the openly socialist, communist, neo-nazi, or Aryan militiamen watching but not participating in the governance of the nation. Some will inevitable believe that it is their rightful position in obscurity. It isn’t so.
One of the greatest benefits of living in the new media, in as much as the internet and the blogosphere are concerned, is the ability of the everyday citizen to offer opinions, counsel and commentary on the issues before our leaders throughout the election cycle and beyond. In making derisive and inflammatory comments beyond the realm of reason, many Democrats have essential made their voice less likely to be heard. We should not celebrate this, as there are many issues before us that justly need the voice of both the center-left and center-right to be heard. The further loss of the left of center voices will not prevent the resolution of the issues by any means; it simply leaves many who had been spoken for by the left no longer with a reasoned voice in the chamber of counsel.
The proper course for those on the left, just as it is for those on the right and in the center, is to seek and advance the voices which best reflect their beliefs and values to the largest possible audience. There was a time when the religious right held men such as Reverends Falwell and Robertson up as their voices. Both men lost support and influence as they lost sight of the nation’s guiding principles and pressed for their personal and religious ideals to be those of the nation. Many on the religious right now will readily admit that while they may still hold their religious beliefs, they are unwilling to follow their political views. The black or African-American community has shown a similar response to Reverends Jackson and Sharpton. Perhaps to an even greater extent as both men have failed by taking positions naturally opposed to the values of the faith of those they once held sway.
We all have at our means now the ability to be self-appointed counsel to the political leaders of our nation. In addition, our counsel is shared among the many seeking to further understand their views or to find truth in a world filled with non-sense, whimsy and vice. It is striking that so many would take for granted the liberty of this nation, the technology behind our communications, and the willingness of so many to take the time to read their words only to repay them all by offering abuse of truth, revisionist histories and inciting outright disregard for the very foundation which permits their insolence.
It remains to be seen who among the many self-appointed leaders of the left today are capable of maintaining civil discourse and advancing their ideas in government. What we do know is that many, who are now lashing out, may be gaining a name for themselves and a sense of fame, but fame without excellence, good works, and values often comes as infamy. Time alone will tell. What is certain is that while no one voice is particularly likely to be heard, the ramifications of spreading truth or untruth and freeing those willing to do likewise are always heard. So how will the left respond in the coming days? And how will you?
One of the most significant challenges of leadership, particularly in the political arena, is to advance an agenda beyond those who without invitation offer agreement and bring forth those who have professed disagreement or divergent views. This is the challenge before the newly re-elected President not, the commonly called for, reaching out to the opposition to close the divide. One of the greatest factors in the success of the U.S. over the last 100 years is our willingness to stand together against the odds and in the face of danger. We are not the lone super-power in the world because we slid toward the communist, socialist or fascist ideologies of our enemies. No, we defeated them in the arena of ideas, and we defeated them both politically through strategic and military efforts. Why then does the press clamor for the President to close the divide between in this nation by working on the agenda of the opposition party?
As is far too often the case, the call of the press for the President to appeal to the left, to work with the Democrats in Congress, is self-serving and not in the interest of the nation. We have seen, in this election, the vested interest of the media and their desire to see the left take power in this country. Their incessant adherence to the micro issues before our nation, rather than to the macro issues, shows not their desire for ratings but rather their affliction or affiliation with the same micro view the left subscribes to. The people of the nation have elected a man not beholden to those views and capable of eliminating the alligators by clearing the swamp.
President Bush is not the cause of the divide nor is he the cure. The media and the punditry may spend the next four years describing the divide and how he has failed to move toward the middle. And in this space, and many like it, we will applaud his convictions and his willingness to act thereupon. In addition, we will continue to seek those who today hold divergent views, whether by worldview, faith, political ideology or misguided compassion, and attempt to bring them back into the political mainstream. The alternative they face is to follow the left as it scampers further from the majority and toward political insignificance within their own country.
In the future, we should continue, as the President will, to stress the moral and uplifting significance of liberty for Americans and to share these ideals with our neighbors both in the U.S. and abroad. Whether it be tax policy, property rights, foreign affairs or war, the central themes remain the same. Our government is to provide for the defense of our liberties, not to constrain them, and we, Americans, should seek an understanding of the rightful place of government in our lives and the merit of personal virtue despite the liberty to live in excess and vice. With an understanding of these ideals, we are not only more capable of divergent ideologies, we are capable of shared ideologies.
It appears the entire world has an opinion, or a candidate, in the race for the White House. This is not by chance. A straightforward analysis of the world today reflects that the world is divided sharply, just as this nation is, hence the willingness of political leaders from around the world to state their beliefs about the proper man for the Oval Office. We are apt to pin the divide both at home and abroad on one issue. When we do so, we are wrong.
Foremost among the commonlly recognized divides is the Global War on Terror or the Iraqi campaign in particular. However, the greater divides have led to the GWOT divide, just as they’ve led to the divide of Israel and the Palestinians. The greater divides are more esoteric to some, and unmentionable to others. They include issues such as virtue or vice, excellence or mediocrity, man or mankind and individual liberty or societal equity. Do all people or nations who fall on one side or the other of any particular divide see things alike? Of course not, yet those who follow the general path of opposition to the war also tend to be of the opposition in each of the other areas.
The divided world arises from several issues. The most commonly discussed is, as noted above, the Global War on Terror or the removal of Saddam Hussein from Iraq and the ensuing effort to build a free and democratic Iraq. In addition we are divided by our very nature as a society from much of the world, this divide is between virtue and vice. Indeed, the U.S., a nation where most any vice can be found, stands as the beacon of virtue, while the defenders of the most terrible of vices stand against us. The world is also divided by its expectations for its people and their fulfillment. Here we see excellence against mediocrity. And of course, fueling each of these great divides, the churning battle between liberty and socialism.
While we might enjoy an exploration of how we came to this divide, our current attention must be the battle at hand. The fronts in the undeclared war of liberty and socialism are many, so many that we are each involved in not just one, the personal battle to elevate ourselves to the most noble of human characteristics, rather we are involved, knowingly or not, in a majority of them. Thankfully so, as our votes are a testament to our stand in this war.
In the United States, the most significant of the battles is taking place. It isn’t the most significant because the writer of this blog lives in the U.S., but rather because the U.S. is the spearhead of the defense of liberty, even while the war wages on within the U.S. President Bush, his supporters, and like-minded people around the world, are the leading proponents for the liberty of man over the limitations of societal whimsy. The President represents a belief that the individual determines his success or failure not the government or the collective view its citizens. He espouses entrepreneurial effort, a disciplined work ethic, self-reliance and a value system that honors rather than limits man’s capacity to succeed. The Senator from Massachusetts offers the more globally prevalent, socialist inspired view which has led to the decline of Western European influence, economic stagnation, moral ambivalence and stirred the more base nature of man to prominence and broad acceptance.
In Europe and the U.N., the war also has many fronts as the French, German and new Spanish governments represent the Islamophobic Socialist for Appeasement, while the recently liberated, and those holding any remnants of moral clarity remain staunchly supportive of the U.S. and of liberty. The much-maligned Coalition of the Willing is comprised not of traditional Allies of the U.S. rather it is comprised of the few who remain true to the cause of liberty, as many former allies were not so much advocates of liberty as they were self-serving tag-a-longs while the threat of the Soviet Union stood at their doorstep. What we’ve seen in recent months is that the much larger Coalition of the Coerced, Corrupt and Condemned will do or say anything to prevent the recognition of their money trial to terrorist, while at home they take measures to deny religious freedoms, constrain individual rights and maintain power within their governments. The French, builders of the Statue of Liberty, are expelling children who wear religious garments to school, and are unwilling to come to the defense of the people of Iraq fighting terrorist in their nation. The fear of Islamic terror has blinded them to their own hypocrisy, just as their greed blinded them to the moral injustices of their support for Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Syria, and the Sudan. They have become default leaders of the Axis of Ambiguity, soon to be the Axis of the Irrelevant.
When we re-elect President Bush, we are sending a signal to the world that the U.S. is not about to cede our rightful place as leaders of the free world. The task afterwards will be to continue to develop new allies in the lands once occupied by our enemies, to stand resolute, when the U.N. will not, and to work to defend liberty at home and in our enemy’s backyard. The U.S. has a noble calling, let us answer it well.
Just in case you don’t know I will let you in on a not so well kept secret, we are at war. Not a single day since September 11, 2001 have I doubted it or forgotten it. It sorrows me that I didn’t know prior to that horrible day. I had reason to know, but I did not permit myself to see it as such. In a way, I was much like Senator Pander; I convinced myself that terror and terrorists were a nuisance. With the knowledge that our political, intelligence, military and law enforcement communities were on the case, I slept well and believed the matter to be under control. As we know now, it wasn’t.
The single greatest factor to our winning the global war on terror will not be our destruction of their ability to commit acts of terror, but the removal of their desire, will and belief that terror is an alternative, or more properly said, that terror is necessary. There are voices on occasion in the Arab world that cry out against terrorist and terrorism. Our military forces in Iraq have met many who understand and appreciate our role in Iraq as that of liberator rather than occupier. Yet I believe that too many retain the inability to see it.
The most popular story emailed from the al-Jazeera website is described as a look into the political roots of American insecurity. This is not by chance. It is a symptom of the plague of amoral at best or immoral ideological views held by Arab and Muslim men. While some attribute the problem to Arab identity, legitimacy and authority, or lack thereof, the majority continue to attribute the problem to the policies of the U.S. and primary among those our policies with regard to Israel.
The reporter points to Richard Neu’s words in a report from the RAND Corporation. Neu says "Understanding the root causes of Islamic anti-Americanism and crafting policies to discourage its violent manifestations will require consideration of at least seven fundamental questions".
As some may say is always the case, I have an opinion and here are my thoughts regarding each question (the questions are quoted for your easy reference).
"1. How extensive is anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world? Is a proclivity toward anti-American violence characteristic of only isolated rogue groups that might, at least in theory, be hunted down and destroyed? Or are such sentiments widespread in the Muslim world, requiring a broad campaign of action and public diplomacy to win over hearts and minds?"1. The extent of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world is greater than represented by terrorist and should not be seen as a direct indicator of the size or scope of terror organizations, just as in the U.S., or Europe, anti-American sentiment does not equate to terrorist. In addition, it should not be the determining factor in the tactics used to combat terror, nor in the strategy employed to defeat the ideology that spews forth terrorists.
"2. Too much modernity, or not enough? Some writers have focused attention on the disappointments and humiliations suffered by Muslims—and especially Arabs—in recent years. Many Muslims recognize that something has gone wrong with their once-proud and once-successful culture. And an increasingly strident debate has sprung up about the causes of recent impotence and dysfunction. Often, this debate pits Western-oriented modernizers against Islamic fundamentalists who seek closer adherence to traditional Muslim principles. How much of what is manifested as rage against America grows out of a desire to recapture past Arabic and Islamic glory? Can Americans help to reconcile Western modernity with Muslim tradition and achievement?"2. While we look to tomorrow, to a brighter future, to opportunity and the fulfillment of dreams, the Arab and Muslim world looks to the past and seeks a return of their romanticized glory days. We may play a significant role in the reversal by bringing liberty to the Arab world, while respecting the traditional social morays of the religion. The greater task will be for the Muslim cleric to alter the methods of both education with regard to their faith and the means by which men are valued in their society. Our churches and synagogues teach the moral lessons of Judeo-Christian heritage, while in the mosque, the Khutbah states without equivocation the expected behavior of a Muslim. If you have submitted to God, Allah in this case, are you seeking the moral lessons of Islam, or rather the direct law (as seen in Fiqh or Jurisprudence) and guidance of personal, business and state behavior.
"3. Are American values a threat? In many eyes—and not just in the Muslim world—America represents an aggressive manifestation of a particular set of political values: democracy, economic liberalism, individual rights and responsibilities, strict separation of religion and governance, and a willingness to question established beliefs and practices. More invasive may be American popular culture with its secularism, consumerism, promiscuity, freedom for women, and suspicion of authority. America's dominance in the modern world makes American values impossible to ignore. Can modernist American values and traditional Muslim values coexist? Or are Muslim fundamentalists correct that the dominance of American values poses an existential threat to Muslim societies? We cannot, of course, change our values. Can we convince Muslims that our values pose no threat?"3. American values and the traditional Muslim values can coexist, with one very significant caveat. The traditional Muslim must broaden their values to include liberty, remembering that their can be no compulsion in religion, seeing the broader value of individuals choosing to live righteously in a world of unrighteousness. Are we capable of convincing Muslims of the value of liberty? No. However, that will come from within as those who experience liberty, and the freedom to misbehave, chooses instead to live a life within the framework of traditional Islam.
"4. Does poverty breed terrorism? Not all those who wish to harm Americans come from the ranks of the poor, the unemployed, or the uneducated. Yet it is hard to dismiss the hypothesis that forced idleness, little or no hope for a materially better future, and the sense of impotence that comes from deprivation will breed at least sympathy for those who attack the richest and most powerful country in the world, a country whose wealth and power depend crucially on energy resources derived from the Muslim world. Can economic development and poverty reduction decrease support for terrorists?"4. I do not believe that poverty creates terrorism, however, I do believe that economic opportunity and a political voice will impact the ability to recruit and develop terrorist removing the barriers that create the current captive audience.
"5. Is it the company we keep? Some Muslims find themselves estranged from their own governments, which they see as corrupt, oppressing their own peoples, and selling out to false Western ideals. U.S. support for these regimes is sometimes seen as a cynical exchange for access to energy resources and military basing rights. To what extent does anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world reflect not a rejection of American values and policies but outrage at American support for regimes of dubious competence or legitimacy? Can we—should we—push these governments toward effective reform?"5. We not only should but we must push for reform in the governments of the Middle East. It would be hypocritical and immoral for us to state the failings of those governments and the impact they have on repressing liberty within the Muslim world, and do nothing to change the situation. In Saudi Arabia for instance, the Wahabi, and for that matter many who do not consider themselves Wahabi or Salafi, regularly ridicule the Royal family’s hypocrisy as they proclaim to be keeper of the two holies and practice the most repugnant of behaviors usually associated with American liberal excess. This is by no means a call for overthrow, but rather a statement that we should press for a greater liberalization across the society and an increase in both individual liberty and participation within the government. Some of which has begun.
"6. Can Americans be secure if Israelis and Palestinians are not? Certainly, the continuing conflict between Palestinians and Israelis complicates relations between America and the Muslim world. If the Israeli-Palestinian conflict persists, must America remain a target for terror? And if this conflict were somehow resolved, how much Muslim antipathy toward America would still remain?"6. The use of the Israeli and Palestinian conflict by Muslims, and yes it is use, abuse, and outright untruth, will remain a point of contention and inflame anti-American sentiment. The change necessary, toward truth, acceptance and liberty, among the Arab and Muslim states and their citizens will not occur overnight. The political forces of each Arab nation play a significant role in fanning the fires of resentment. Only when they accept Israel, will the citizens begin to erase the now state and religious sponsored bigotry prevalent in the Middle East.
"7. How can we fight terrorists and still win friends? Military action against terrorists, pressure on foreign governments to round up suspected terrorists and their sympathizers, and more aggressive efforts to defend Americans against terrorism will inevitably harden some hearts against America and create propaganda opportunities for those who portray America as unjust, biased, or evil. Indeed, suspicion of—if not hatred for—the United States in the Muslim world may well have increased in the past year. How can we pursue the necessary war against terrorists without losing the broader struggle against anti-American sentiment?"7. The question presumes that the cause of terrorism is our action. No matter the propaganda efforts, our pursuit of a just cause must not waiver. Only our strident pursuit of terror, while preserving the lives of the innocent and providing liberty where none had been will close the doors to those who recruit new terrorist. As to the anti-American sentiment, it is a self-imposed prison and one that each Arab or Muslim possesses the key to.
As always, it is possible that I am completely off the mark, and while I’d like to write much further on each of the seven questions, I’ll refrain for now. Instead, I offer a summary of the theme of my opinion on the issue in general. It is the Arab and Muslim world that has failed to fight terrorism, so now we are. It is the Arab and Muslim governments and clergy that must wash away the ideology behind the terrorist. It will happen through their efforts or after we’ve removed their authority through our efforts.