In his remarks about education, last week, Pres. Obama offered support for the idea of paying teachers more if their students had higher scores on standardized tests like MCAS. Educational reformers have recommended merit pay as a method for improving American education for a while now. It seems commonsensical. If you pay your cleaners minimum wage they will do a minimal cleaning job. Pay them a bit more and they will have some incentive for working harder. Get a cheap yard clean up service and they may cut your grass but not trim the edges carefully. Pay a little more and you may find that your yard looks better.
So why would that not work with teachers? Mowing lawns, cleaning offices or houses is not a job you do because you love mowing lawns or cleaning. You do it for the money. If that is what you do it for, you may well work harder to get more money. But we don't do everything we do for the money. Other things matter. Few people get married for money; we don't have kids for money. We don't have friends for money, or knit or sew or cook good meals for family and friends. Some people are fortunate to have work that they love. Yes, they get paid and often would like to get paid more but since they love the work, they do it as well as they can even if they do not get paid as much as they would like.
Money matters; money is important. Especially if you are always short, always balancing debts and bills, however hard you work, money is a major problem. But it is not the only thing that matters. Doing things well matters. If you are fortunate to have found a good doctor, she will take as good care of you as she can even if you do not pay her extra. If you are fortunate to have found a good mechanic he will not work harder on your car than one anyone else's if you offer him more money. He wants to be proud of his work. Yes, he wants to make a decent living but that is not all he cares about. He cares about doing good work. The same of the doctor. Yes, she wants to earn a decent living. But she wants to make sure that she takes as good care of her patients are she possibly can.
Many people in America think of going to school as a way to making more money. What you do in school is “ get a degree.” In order to do that, you need to get good grades in your classes. In order to do that you have to pass exams by remembering what the teacher said. Notice, that in this picture of school there is no mention of education. Education is different from getting a degree. Education involves learning. Learning involves acquiring information, but more importantly, it involves becoming interested in a subject, wanting to know whatever you find out about it. Getting an education is learning to be curious and finding out what you can do to satisfy that curiosity. It means learning to read, to research and to do so critically. It means to learn to ask questions, to formulate answers, to look at different answers to a question and figuring out which is more likely to be right.
Good teachers do not primarily raise the scores of their students. They try to educate them, to arouse their curiosity, to do whatever they can to make their students want to be educated, to be curious about the world, to be eager to learn more. But teachers who did not get educated themselves, who themselves do not care to know more, who themselves never learned to be curious and to ask a million questions cannot convey that to their students. That means that teachers who went to school to get a degree, by passing courses, so that they could earn more than their parents are not equipped to educate their students because they never received an education themselves.
Here is where Obama's proposal comes in. As long as we treat education as a means of making money and think the teacher who gets paid more is going to be a better teacher, we mix up two quite different values: making money and getting an education.
Yes, by all means lets pay teachers better. They deserve it. But if you want to improve education, you need—among many other things—teachers who are deeply interested in knowing their subjects who can communicate excitement about learning because they themselves are interested in learning. You need to raise a generation of teachers who like books, who like science, who like math, or art, or music, who will teach these areas with genuine interest because knowing these things made their life better, and who want to communicate their own interest and excitement to their students.
Teachers who believe that education is good only for making more money are not themselves educated and therefore cannot educate anyone else. We need teachers who regard education as important for its own sake who would—if they could afford to do so—teach for nothing because education and educating are, for them worth while ways of spending good chunks of their life. Of course they too need to eat and they make their living teaching but teaching, for the good teacher, is about a lot more than making a living.
So if we want to improve education, let's talk about education and leave money out of it. It would be good to pay teachers a decent wage. It is hard work even if you are not very good at it. But paying teachers a decent wage is not going to improve education. Improving education will require teachers who are educated, who are eager to learn and who want to communicate their excitement about learning.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
How to respond to terrorists and terror
The newspapers report a sharp increase in anti-Semitic events in England. A week earlier an opinion survey in all of Europe discovered high rates of very traditional anti-Semitic prejudice. Many people, when asked, agreed that the Jews were running the world economic system and, by implication, were responsible for the current worldwide economic crisis. This is very traditional anti-Semitism. The Jews are despised for their commercial successes and are blamed for whatever goes wrong in the world.
Without any doubt, the current surge of anti-Semitism is, in part, a response to a widespread perception that Israel's treatment of Palestinians is completely out of proportion to the provocation, that the recent attack on Gaza that killed 1400 Palestinians was in no way justified by the 14 Israelis who died. More generally, the Israeli response to Palestinian resistance has seemed too many people quite disproportionate to the provocation.
The leadership in Israel as well as of prominent Jewish organizations elsewhere bears some responsibility for this upsurge in anti-Semitic manifestations in response to the actions of the Israeli government. Israeli and Jewish leaders everywhere always respond to any criticism of Israel by crying “anti-semitism." They have, all along, tended to confuse criticisms of the policies of the State of Israel with blind prejudice against all Jews. The world believes them and reacts to Israeli excesses with traditional anti-Semitic outbreaks. But the two are, of course, quite distinct.
But it would be utterly callous to end here. We do not know what it is like to live in Sderot or Askelon, two Israeli towns that are regularly the targets of rockets fired by Hamas from the Gaza strip. We do not really understand what it is to live in a small country in the part of the world where it is acceptable for leaders and followers to proclaim that you and your state should be utterly destroyed.
We do not know what it is like to be a Jew in Israel, but we do have some experiences likes theirs. 9/11 taught us a lot about the experience of terrorism. Most us were deeply frightened even though that was quite out of proportion to the actual events. I live at the edge of Worcester, where the city fades into the forests that cover most of New England. Did I have reason to expect a terrorist attack on my street, or even on Worcester? Once I think about it, I can see that there was occasion to sorrow for the victims in New York, in Washington DC, and in a field in Pennsylvania. But there was no call for being afraid.
But that's what terrorism is intended to do and does. It frightens people—not only the actual victims but everyone else because you never know what will happen next. Fear extends in large waves from the actual event as waves spread out from the rock dropped into the water.
That fear is not only uncomfortable to those terrorized, it makes them act utterly irrationally. We had an overwhelming feeling that we had been attacked, that we “needed to do something” preferably something to show our power ( perhaps in order to assure ourselves that we had nothing to fear) to show the world that we would not be attacked without responding with massive violence—as Israel did in Gaza.
Seven years later it is clear that that was a terrible mistake. Americans were scared; Congress gave the President the power to do anything he chose. The result are more than 4200 American soldiers and additional civilians dead in Iraq as well as hundreds of thousands Iraqis. We needed to punish the Taliban in Afghanistan for not handing over Osama bin Laden. Seven years later we do not have Osama bin Laden and the Taliban control most of Afghanistan. In the intervening years a lot of Afghan civilians died and some US and allied soldiers. We have spent huge sums of money we cannot afford. The world is a more dangerous place than it was in 2001.
When you allow fear to direct your thinking, you are bound to act irrationally and only do a great deal of harm to yourself and others. Leaders in the US as well as in Israel and Palestine are overmastered by fear. Politicians like to run on platforms encouraging popular fears because that is one way to get elected. Right, Left and Center in the recent Israeli elections agreed that they needed to be super-tough with the Palestinians. Hamas and Hezbollah get a lot of support because they are tough and will not compromise, even if that leads to the destruction of a $1billion worth of housing and many, many lives in Gaza in the recent war. Politicians on both sides played the fear card; they encouraged the population to be as irrational as humans get when they are afraid.
That's what George Bush did and the current administration is not doing much better with its plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan.
In Israel and in Palestine there are people who have overcome their fear and think clearly about the prevailing conflicts. Moreover, they act on their thinking; they have joint projects. They actively work for peace. If the new administration is serious about new departures for America's role in the Mid-East, Secretary Clinton and President Obama and Senator George Mitchell, President Obama's envoy to the Mid-East, must seek out the small groups of people who have overcome their fear, who are courageous enough to work with their supposed enemies—Israelis working with Palestinians, Palestinians working with Israelis. Talking to the leaders will be talking to more people who are committed to violence for political profit or because they too, drown in fear. They are unable to produce a solution because like all fearful people, they only know how to lash out in their panic and perpetuate fear and violence.
If we can do any good in the Mid-East we need to seek out those people who quietly and persistently, with great courage and reasonableness join those of the other side who are serious about peace, we need to support them and hold them up as models of what is possible.
That means that we too need to stop acting violently from fear and find the courageous peace makers and ally with and support them.
Without any doubt, the current surge of anti-Semitism is, in part, a response to a widespread perception that Israel's treatment of Palestinians is completely out of proportion to the provocation, that the recent attack on Gaza that killed 1400 Palestinians was in no way justified by the 14 Israelis who died. More generally, the Israeli response to Palestinian resistance has seemed too many people quite disproportionate to the provocation.
The leadership in Israel as well as of prominent Jewish organizations elsewhere bears some responsibility for this upsurge in anti-Semitic manifestations in response to the actions of the Israeli government. Israeli and Jewish leaders everywhere always respond to any criticism of Israel by crying “anti-semitism." They have, all along, tended to confuse criticisms of the policies of the State of Israel with blind prejudice against all Jews. The world believes them and reacts to Israeli excesses with traditional anti-Semitic outbreaks. But the two are, of course, quite distinct.
But it would be utterly callous to end here. We do not know what it is like to live in Sderot or Askelon, two Israeli towns that are regularly the targets of rockets fired by Hamas from the Gaza strip. We do not really understand what it is to live in a small country in the part of the world where it is acceptable for leaders and followers to proclaim that you and your state should be utterly destroyed.
We do not know what it is like to be a Jew in Israel, but we do have some experiences likes theirs. 9/11 taught us a lot about the experience of terrorism. Most us were deeply frightened even though that was quite out of proportion to the actual events. I live at the edge of Worcester, where the city fades into the forests that cover most of New England. Did I have reason to expect a terrorist attack on my street, or even on Worcester? Once I think about it, I can see that there was occasion to sorrow for the victims in New York, in Washington DC, and in a field in Pennsylvania. But there was no call for being afraid.
But that's what terrorism is intended to do and does. It frightens people—not only the actual victims but everyone else because you never know what will happen next. Fear extends in large waves from the actual event as waves spread out from the rock dropped into the water.
That fear is not only uncomfortable to those terrorized, it makes them act utterly irrationally. We had an overwhelming feeling that we had been attacked, that we “needed to do something” preferably something to show our power ( perhaps in order to assure ourselves that we had nothing to fear) to show the world that we would not be attacked without responding with massive violence—as Israel did in Gaza.
Seven years later it is clear that that was a terrible mistake. Americans were scared; Congress gave the President the power to do anything he chose. The result are more than 4200 American soldiers and additional civilians dead in Iraq as well as hundreds of thousands Iraqis. We needed to punish the Taliban in Afghanistan for not handing over Osama bin Laden. Seven years later we do not have Osama bin Laden and the Taliban control most of Afghanistan. In the intervening years a lot of Afghan civilians died and some US and allied soldiers. We have spent huge sums of money we cannot afford. The world is a more dangerous place than it was in 2001.
When you allow fear to direct your thinking, you are bound to act irrationally and only do a great deal of harm to yourself and others. Leaders in the US as well as in Israel and Palestine are overmastered by fear. Politicians like to run on platforms encouraging popular fears because that is one way to get elected. Right, Left and Center in the recent Israeli elections agreed that they needed to be super-tough with the Palestinians. Hamas and Hezbollah get a lot of support because they are tough and will not compromise, even if that leads to the destruction of a $1billion worth of housing and many, many lives in Gaza in the recent war. Politicians on both sides played the fear card; they encouraged the population to be as irrational as humans get when they are afraid.
That's what George Bush did and the current administration is not doing much better with its plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan.
In Israel and in Palestine there are people who have overcome their fear and think clearly about the prevailing conflicts. Moreover, they act on their thinking; they have joint projects. They actively work for peace. If the new administration is serious about new departures for America's role in the Mid-East, Secretary Clinton and President Obama and Senator George Mitchell, President Obama's envoy to the Mid-East, must seek out the small groups of people who have overcome their fear, who are courageous enough to work with their supposed enemies—Israelis working with Palestinians, Palestinians working with Israelis. Talking to the leaders will be talking to more people who are committed to violence for political profit or because they too, drown in fear. They are unable to produce a solution because like all fearful people, they only know how to lash out in their panic and perpetuate fear and violence.
If we can do any good in the Mid-East we need to seek out those people who quietly and persistently, with great courage and reasonableness join those of the other side who are serious about peace, we need to support them and hold them up as models of what is possible.
That means that we too need to stop acting violently from fear and find the courageous peace makers and ally with and support them.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Even pedophiles are human
One of the movies currently playing, “Doubt” takes on contemporary opinion and attitudes about homosexuality, especially about sexual relations between adults and children.
Most states have very stringent laws about sex offenders. In many states they have to register with the police and inform the police when they change their address. Many states have the pictures and addresses of sex offenders on websites open to the public. In some localities, the police will come around and inform the neighbors when a registered sex offender moves into a neighborhood. Many localities forbid sex offenders to live within a set distance of schools. There are proposals to compel registered sex-offenders to wear GPS bracelets so that the police can tell at any moment where this person is.
The sex offenders subject to all these registration requirements embrace many different kinds of persons. There are adults accused and convicted of raping and murdering children, teens or adults. There are those who were convicted of forcing sex on children who were either very young or, if older, unwilling. There are persons convicted of other sexual crimes such as rape. There are people who were arrested for exposing themselves or persons arrested for urinating in public. Moreover, persons are classified as sex offenders even after they have served their time in prison and emerge many years after having committed a sexual crime.
It is interesting to note that we are protecting ourselves against sexual offenders who, we fear, might--as some certainly do—re-offend. But we do not have registries and web-sites for convicted murderers who have served their time, or persons who committed fraud, or were convicted of drunk driving, or of dealing drugs. A certain percentage of persons who commit these different kinds of crime, of course, also reoffend. But they do not have to register. When they move into a new neighborhood the police does not inform their new neighbors about their past. No one has proposed to put them under constant police surveillance.
Sexual crimes seem particularly upsetting and seem to many people to justify particularly harsh measures to prevent further offenses. One reason for that is, no doubt, that in recent years, we have discovered how frequently children are victimized by sexual crimes and that has horrified many persons. As a consequence, politicians, legislators are sure to be popular if they advocate harsh measures against sex offenders.
The movie “Doubt” courageously takes on popular ideas about pedophiles and shows that a lot of popular hysteria about sexual crimes is simple-minded and inhuman. The film portrays the conflict between a nun, an older woman, principal of a parochial school who appears rather harsh and punitive, and a priest whom she suspects of having sexual relations with teenage boys. By the end of the movie we are left with a strong suspicion that she is right about the priest but we have also learned that pedophiles too are human beings with all the complexities of everyone else. Father Flynn, the (probably) pedophile priest is a good priest. He cares a lot for many people, he is kind, he is an intelligent person who gives really good sermons. He is a good person in very many ways. He appears to struggle against his sexual desire for boys but he sometimes loses the struggle. In some cases his relations are with boys who are inclined toward homosexuality. Then the sexual attentions are not forced on them but rather give them some affirmation that their way of being is also acceptable.
Popular repulsion against pedophiles tends to paint them as “sick,” as “perverse.” The website pictures of sex offenders are ordinary police mug shots that make everyone look sub-human. The film “Doubt” puts a human face on pedophiles. It does not condone forcing children, or anyone else, into unwanted sexual relations. But it shows that sometimes people who act badly, in one respect, are quite admirable in others. They are not just pedophiles, period. They are also kind, intelligent, well-spoken and, as in this case, good priests.
We oversimplify the moral dilemmas raised by pedophilia, or by any other moral failure, if we pretend that their crime is the only interesting fact about this particular person. None of us would want to be exclusively identified by the things we did badly, the promises we broke, the children we disappointed, the work we did carelessly, the persons in need we failed to help. Each of us has our bad moments when we do what we later regret bitterly. But we comfort ourselves by saying that we are more than the person who failed at that moment. We have many good qualities; we have done many good deeds we are proud of.
Crimes, misdeeds--our own and those of others--confront us with difficult questions. No one, the movie “Doubt” seems to insist, is all one thing. No one is only a pedophile; no one is only on the side of what is good and honorable. It is important for a society to protect itself against bad actors. But it is also of the essence to remember that these bad actors are more than what they do or did in their worst moments. In the end they are human beings like the rest of us, complex, many sided, who deserve their humanity respected as much as anyone else. The measures we take to protect ourselves must take the humanity of pedophiles, in particular, and of sex offenders, in general, as seriously as our own. The measures we take against them, that seriously limit their life and life chances—who will give a job to a person whose mug shot can be found on a sex-offenders list?-- must be carefully scrutinized to see whether they actually are necessary to protect us or whether they flow from an emotional appeal to popular hysteria that does not protect anyone but is merely an exercise in vindictiveness. We must make sure that legal restrictions on pedophiles will really make our cities safer instead of being just a politician's cynical attempt to play on the fears of citizens in order to get reelected.
By all means, go and see “Doubt” and see for yourself.
Most states have very stringent laws about sex offenders. In many states they have to register with the police and inform the police when they change their address. Many states have the pictures and addresses of sex offenders on websites open to the public. In some localities, the police will come around and inform the neighbors when a registered sex offender moves into a neighborhood. Many localities forbid sex offenders to live within a set distance of schools. There are proposals to compel registered sex-offenders to wear GPS bracelets so that the police can tell at any moment where this person is.
The sex offenders subject to all these registration requirements embrace many different kinds of persons. There are adults accused and convicted of raping and murdering children, teens or adults. There are those who were convicted of forcing sex on children who were either very young or, if older, unwilling. There are persons convicted of other sexual crimes such as rape. There are people who were arrested for exposing themselves or persons arrested for urinating in public. Moreover, persons are classified as sex offenders even after they have served their time in prison and emerge many years after having committed a sexual crime.
It is interesting to note that we are protecting ourselves against sexual offenders who, we fear, might--as some certainly do—re-offend. But we do not have registries and web-sites for convicted murderers who have served their time, or persons who committed fraud, or were convicted of drunk driving, or of dealing drugs. A certain percentage of persons who commit these different kinds of crime, of course, also reoffend. But they do not have to register. When they move into a new neighborhood the police does not inform their new neighbors about their past. No one has proposed to put them under constant police surveillance.
Sexual crimes seem particularly upsetting and seem to many people to justify particularly harsh measures to prevent further offenses. One reason for that is, no doubt, that in recent years, we have discovered how frequently children are victimized by sexual crimes and that has horrified many persons. As a consequence, politicians, legislators are sure to be popular if they advocate harsh measures against sex offenders.
The movie “Doubt” courageously takes on popular ideas about pedophiles and shows that a lot of popular hysteria about sexual crimes is simple-minded and inhuman. The film portrays the conflict between a nun, an older woman, principal of a parochial school who appears rather harsh and punitive, and a priest whom she suspects of having sexual relations with teenage boys. By the end of the movie we are left with a strong suspicion that she is right about the priest but we have also learned that pedophiles too are human beings with all the complexities of everyone else. Father Flynn, the (probably) pedophile priest is a good priest. He cares a lot for many people, he is kind, he is an intelligent person who gives really good sermons. He is a good person in very many ways. He appears to struggle against his sexual desire for boys but he sometimes loses the struggle. In some cases his relations are with boys who are inclined toward homosexuality. Then the sexual attentions are not forced on them but rather give them some affirmation that their way of being is also acceptable.
Popular repulsion against pedophiles tends to paint them as “sick,” as “perverse.” The website pictures of sex offenders are ordinary police mug shots that make everyone look sub-human. The film “Doubt” puts a human face on pedophiles. It does not condone forcing children, or anyone else, into unwanted sexual relations. But it shows that sometimes people who act badly, in one respect, are quite admirable in others. They are not just pedophiles, period. They are also kind, intelligent, well-spoken and, as in this case, good priests.
We oversimplify the moral dilemmas raised by pedophilia, or by any other moral failure, if we pretend that their crime is the only interesting fact about this particular person. None of us would want to be exclusively identified by the things we did badly, the promises we broke, the children we disappointed, the work we did carelessly, the persons in need we failed to help. Each of us has our bad moments when we do what we later regret bitterly. But we comfort ourselves by saying that we are more than the person who failed at that moment. We have many good qualities; we have done many good deeds we are proud of.
Crimes, misdeeds--our own and those of others--confront us with difficult questions. No one, the movie “Doubt” seems to insist, is all one thing. No one is only a pedophile; no one is only on the side of what is good and honorable. It is important for a society to protect itself against bad actors. But it is also of the essence to remember that these bad actors are more than what they do or did in their worst moments. In the end they are human beings like the rest of us, complex, many sided, who deserve their humanity respected as much as anyone else. The measures we take to protect ourselves must take the humanity of pedophiles, in particular, and of sex offenders, in general, as seriously as our own. The measures we take against them, that seriously limit their life and life chances—who will give a job to a person whose mug shot can be found on a sex-offenders list?-- must be carefully scrutinized to see whether they actually are necessary to protect us or whether they flow from an emotional appeal to popular hysteria that does not protect anyone but is merely an exercise in vindictiveness. We must make sure that legal restrictions on pedophiles will really make our cities safer instead of being just a politician's cynical attempt to play on the fears of citizens in order to get reelected.
By all means, go and see “Doubt” and see for yourself.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Can Violence bring Peace?
Israel and its US supporters defend Israel's recent attack on Gaza as self-defense. For a number of years, rockets have been regularly fired from Gaza into Southern Israel. There were not many casualties but the population of Israel was seriously frightened by the continued attacks.
During the Israeli incursion into the Gaza strip newspapers report less than fifteen Israeli and more than 1200 Palestinian casualties. Israeli bombing caused major property damage of more than $2 billion in the Gaza strip—already one of the most impoverished areas in the world.
Is all this violence, death and destruction justifiable as self-defense?
National self-defense is usually thought of as similar to that of individuals. Many people believe that if someone barges into your house and threatens the well-being of your family, you may, if necessary, kill him. But would you also be justified killing his entire family and burning down his house? Would it be an act of self-defense if you killed eighty people in response to one person invading your house? Surely that would be overreacting in a big way.
So it may well seem that the Israelis overreacted.
But that is not the end of the matter. Self-defense involves not only reactions to actual attacks but also looking toward the future and trying to prevent future threats. Individuals may build a fence around their house. They may move into a gated community where no one can enter without showing credentials to armed guards. They may even have an alarm installed in their house that summons the police of private security guards as soon as there is a sign of an unwanted intrusion. If even that does not seem to be sufficiently secure, they can hire armed security guards and surround themselves with burly men who would defend them when necessary.
Nations cannot look to an international police force—private or public—to keep them safe. They must make themselves secure for the future by making alliances with other nations or by neutralizing threats by their own military efforts. But even here, of course, nations may use excessive force. In 1983, for instance, President Reagan ordered an invasion of the Carribean island nation of Grenada—an island the size of Martha's Vineyard-- because of a coup by a hardline Communist group allied with the Soviet Union. One may doubt that any government of that tiny nation was a sufficient threat to the US to justify a military invasion. The seriousness of a threat determines what sorts of reactions are appropriate. A communist coup in Grenada could not justify a military invasion.
Nations that are strong and feel relatively secure in the world will be reluctant to use disproportionate violence against potential threats. Confident that they will be able to defend themselves they do not see every threat as potentially fatal to their nation's life. After centuries of cruel persecution of Jews culminating in the Holocaust, the Isrealis are inclined to see every threat as possibly fatal. A member of the Israeli peace movement put it as follows: “It is impossible to understand the viciousness of this war without taking into account the historical background: the feeling of victimhood after all that has been done to the Jews throughout the ages, and the conviction that after the Holocaust, we have the right to do anything, absolutely anything, to defend ourselves, without any inhibitions due to law or morality.” The victims of violence are likely to overreact to any new threat of violence. For centuries the Jews, not having had their own state, were unable to defend themselves. Now there is the Israeli state to offer protection and it will react viciously to any threat because Jews are victims of past violence.
That may explain the disproportionate response of Israel to the rockets from Gaza. But it also suggests that this excessive violence will be counterproductive. The Palestinians draw the same lesson from the violence wreaked on them that the State of Israel drew from the Holocaust: “we have the right to do anything, absolutely anything, to defend ourselves, without any inhibitions due to law or morality.”
Violence will only perpetuate itself. It is foolish to believe that wars will bring peace. The survivors of violence learn that anything is permitted in the cause of self-defense. Wherever possible they will use as much violence as they can. The Israelis do not use violence, moreover, against Germany that killed millions of Jews but against the Palestinians. Who will be their victim?
During the Israeli incursion into the Gaza strip newspapers report less than fifteen Israeli and more than 1200 Palestinian casualties. Israeli bombing caused major property damage of more than $2 billion in the Gaza strip—already one of the most impoverished areas in the world.
Is all this violence, death and destruction justifiable as self-defense?
National self-defense is usually thought of as similar to that of individuals. Many people believe that if someone barges into your house and threatens the well-being of your family, you may, if necessary, kill him. But would you also be justified killing his entire family and burning down his house? Would it be an act of self-defense if you killed eighty people in response to one person invading your house? Surely that would be overreacting in a big way.
So it may well seem that the Israelis overreacted.
But that is not the end of the matter. Self-defense involves not only reactions to actual attacks but also looking toward the future and trying to prevent future threats. Individuals may build a fence around their house. They may move into a gated community where no one can enter without showing credentials to armed guards. They may even have an alarm installed in their house that summons the police of private security guards as soon as there is a sign of an unwanted intrusion. If even that does not seem to be sufficiently secure, they can hire armed security guards and surround themselves with burly men who would defend them when necessary.
Nations cannot look to an international police force—private or public—to keep them safe. They must make themselves secure for the future by making alliances with other nations or by neutralizing threats by their own military efforts. But even here, of course, nations may use excessive force. In 1983, for instance, President Reagan ordered an invasion of the Carribean island nation of Grenada—an island the size of Martha's Vineyard-- because of a coup by a hardline Communist group allied with the Soviet Union. One may doubt that any government of that tiny nation was a sufficient threat to the US to justify a military invasion. The seriousness of a threat determines what sorts of reactions are appropriate. A communist coup in Grenada could not justify a military invasion.
Nations that are strong and feel relatively secure in the world will be reluctant to use disproportionate violence against potential threats. Confident that they will be able to defend themselves they do not see every threat as potentially fatal to their nation's life. After centuries of cruel persecution of Jews culminating in the Holocaust, the Isrealis are inclined to see every threat as possibly fatal. A member of the Israeli peace movement put it as follows: “It is impossible to understand the viciousness of this war without taking into account the historical background: the feeling of victimhood after all that has been done to the Jews throughout the ages, and the conviction that after the Holocaust, we have the right to do anything, absolutely anything, to defend ourselves, without any inhibitions due to law or morality.” The victims of violence are likely to overreact to any new threat of violence. For centuries the Jews, not having had their own state, were unable to defend themselves. Now there is the Israeli state to offer protection and it will react viciously to any threat because Jews are victims of past violence.
That may explain the disproportionate response of Israel to the rockets from Gaza. But it also suggests that this excessive violence will be counterproductive. The Palestinians draw the same lesson from the violence wreaked on them that the State of Israel drew from the Holocaust: “we have the right to do anything, absolutely anything, to defend ourselves, without any inhibitions due to law or morality.”
Violence will only perpetuate itself. It is foolish to believe that wars will bring peace. The survivors of violence learn that anything is permitted in the cause of self-defense. Wherever possible they will use as much violence as they can. The Israelis do not use violence, moreover, against Germany that killed millions of Jews but against the Palestinians. Who will be their victim?
Monday, January 19, 2009
MLK's advice to President Obama
Since President Obama's inauguration follows closely on Martin Luther King Day, it is appropriate to listen to Dr. King set some goals for America and for our new President.
Here are excerpts from a speech Dr. King gave 41 years ago to the Southern Christian Leadership conference in 1967:
"I want to say to you as I move to my conclusion, as we talk about "Where do we go from here," that we honestly face the fact that the movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society. There are forty million poor people here. And one day we must ask the question, "Why are there forty million poor people in America?" And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I'm simply saying that more and more, we've got to begin to ask questions about the whole society. We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life's marketplace. But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. It means that questions must be raised. You see, my friends, when you deal with this, you begin to ask the question, "Who owns the oil?" You begin to ask the question, "Who owns the iron ore?" You begin to ask the question, "Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that is two-thirds water?" These are questions that must be asked. . . . .
"[O]ur whole structure must be changed. A nation that will keep people in slavery for 244 years, will "thingify" them-make them things. Therefore they will exploit them, and poor people generally, economically. And a nation that will exploit economically will have to have foreign investments and everything else, and will have to use its military might to protect them. All of these problems are tied together. What I am saying today is that we must go from this convention and say, "America, you must be born again!"
"So, I conclude by saying again today that we have a task and let us go out with a "divine dissatisfaction." Let us be dissatisfied until America will no longer have a high blood pressure of creeds and an anemia of deeds. Let us be dissatisfied until the tragic walls that separate the outer city of wealth and comfort and the inner city of poverty and despair shall be crushed by the battering rams of the forces of justice. Let us be dissatisfied until those that live on the outskirts of hope are brought into the metropolis of daily security. Let us be dissatisfied until slums are cast into the junk heaps of history, and every family is living in a decent sanitary home. Let us be dissatisfied until the dark yesterdays of segregated schools will be transformed into bright tomorrows of quality, integrated education. Let us be dissatisfied until integration is not seen as a problem but as an opportunity to participate in the beauty of diversity. Let us be dissatisfied until men and women, however black they may be, will be judged on the basis of the content of their character and not on the basis of the color of their skin. Let us be dissatisfied. Let us be dissatisfied until every state capitol houses a governor who will do justly, who will love mercy and who will walk humbly with his God. Let us be dissatisfied until from every city hall, justice will roll, down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream. Let us be dissatisfied until that day when the lion and the lamb shall lie down together, and every man will sit under his own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid. Let us be dissatisfied. And men will recognize that out of one blood God made all men to dwell upon the face of the earth. Let us be dissatisfied until that day when nobody will shout "White Power!"-when nobody will shout "Black Power!"-but everybody will talk about God's power and human power."
Here are excerpts from a speech Dr. King gave 41 years ago to the Southern Christian Leadership conference in 1967:
"I want to say to you as I move to my conclusion, as we talk about "Where do we go from here," that we honestly face the fact that the movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society. There are forty million poor people here. And one day we must ask the question, "Why are there forty million poor people in America?" And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I'm simply saying that more and more, we've got to begin to ask questions about the whole society. We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life's marketplace. But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. It means that questions must be raised. You see, my friends, when you deal with this, you begin to ask the question, "Who owns the oil?" You begin to ask the question, "Who owns the iron ore?" You begin to ask the question, "Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that is two-thirds water?" These are questions that must be asked. . . . .
"[O]ur whole structure must be changed. A nation that will keep people in slavery for 244 years, will "thingify" them-make them things. Therefore they will exploit them, and poor people generally, economically. And a nation that will exploit economically will have to have foreign investments and everything else, and will have to use its military might to protect them. All of these problems are tied together. What I am saying today is that we must go from this convention and say, "America, you must be born again!"
"So, I conclude by saying again today that we have a task and let us go out with a "divine dissatisfaction." Let us be dissatisfied until America will no longer have a high blood pressure of creeds and an anemia of deeds. Let us be dissatisfied until the tragic walls that separate the outer city of wealth and comfort and the inner city of poverty and despair shall be crushed by the battering rams of the forces of justice. Let us be dissatisfied until those that live on the outskirts of hope are brought into the metropolis of daily security. Let us be dissatisfied until slums are cast into the junk heaps of history, and every family is living in a decent sanitary home. Let us be dissatisfied until the dark yesterdays of segregated schools will be transformed into bright tomorrows of quality, integrated education. Let us be dissatisfied until integration is not seen as a problem but as an opportunity to participate in the beauty of diversity. Let us be dissatisfied until men and women, however black they may be, will be judged on the basis of the content of their character and not on the basis of the color of their skin. Let us be dissatisfied. Let us be dissatisfied until every state capitol houses a governor who will do justly, who will love mercy and who will walk humbly with his God. Let us be dissatisfied until from every city hall, justice will roll, down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream. Let us be dissatisfied until that day when the lion and the lamb shall lie down together, and every man will sit under his own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid. Let us be dissatisfied. And men will recognize that out of one blood God made all men to dwell upon the face of the earth. Let us be dissatisfied until that day when nobody will shout "White Power!"-when nobody will shout "Black Power!"-but everybody will talk about God's power and human power."
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Gaza
The most common reaction to the warfare in Gaza is to blame one side or the other for the tremendous suffering imposed on the people of Gaza. The US government blames Hamas and thereby encourages Israel to continue bombing and killing. Others blame Israel and thereby encourage Hamas to continue sending rockets into Israel. Blaming one side or another makes no sense for those who want an end to this bloodshed.
All we can do is to urge the White House to stop fanning the flames of this conflict by blaming all the violence on Hamas as well as by giving $3 billion a year to Israel to refurbish its armed forces.
But for peacemakers, or those who want to reduce the casualties of war, this conflict teaches an important lesson.
Zionism sprang from the experience of Jews who were persecuted for hundreds of years. They were persecuted in different countries, by different governments, by the followers of different religions. No one was there to protect them. The thought that if only there existed a Jewish state, with its own government and, more importantly, its own armed forces, Jews would not be as helpless in the face of persecution. Hence the idea to return to Palestine where Jews had lived for thousands of years until being driven out by the Romans in the first century of the Christian era. If Jews could establish their own state in the biblical land of Israel they would be better protected. They could finally be safe. It would finally be safe to be a Jew.
That was a plausible thought. The plight of the Palestinians today illustrates its plausibility. No one protects the Palestinians. They do not have their own well armed state. They must protect themselves by throwing rocks or launching homemade rockets. In the meantime many of them, particularly the people in Gaza, live in appalling poverty that cannot help but be destructive to their culture and their traditions.
At the same time, Jews have paid a very high price for this military security. Being Jewish-- like any other identity -- is complex. There are many different kinds of Jews: some are religious, some are not. If they are religious, some are very orthodox, some are very lax in their observances. Some Jews are fanatical and aggressive against anyone who is different. Others quote the famous Rabbi Hillel as saying that the essence of Judaism was “that which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and learn." If you do not want to be oppressed, do not oppress others. If you do not want others to wage war against you, do not wage war against them.
With the foundation of the state of Israel, being Jewish became closely connected with the Jewish state and a Jewish state is very much a military state. Military Jewishness rejects the Judaism of Rabbi Hillel; it is devoted to superior power, not to the Golden rule. Having gained a state to protect them, Jews have become different kinds of people and many of their most valued traditions, like the teachings of Rabbi Hillel, have become the views of dissident minorities.
Nor is that true only in Israel. Being an American today is closely associated with a state that owns enough atomic warheads to wipe out human civilization on earth. For many Americans, the military has become the centerpiece of being American. The actions, the workings and planning of the military are notoriously secret. Thus large parts of the American state is now concealed from its citizens. The centrality of military power has put serious limits on American democracy simply because a large part of our budget is spent on matters that citizens are not supposed to know about. A militarized state is, almost by definition, not governed by its citizens. Democracy in a militarized state is very limited.
Being an American, in the 19th century, meant active participation in the affairs of one's community. For many, being an American today means being patriotic. That means worshiping the flag. It means revering the military power of our country and being passive for the rest of the time. It means encouraging young men and women to die far from home in wars they do not understand and did not choose to enter.
Identities are complex. There are Americans who are deeply religious; there are Americans who are atheists. Those that are religious but allow them to very many different religions. Some Americans are gay or lesbian; some are heterosexual. We speak many different languages. We live in very different geographies and are affected by that. People in New England are not like people in the Southwest or in Texas. We do very different kinds of work; we spend our leisure in very different ways. Some live in the country; many of us live in large cities. Some of us glory in American military power; others regard that as a perversion of American traditions at their best. They remember that our founders were opposed to permanent military establishments.
Both Israel and the Palestinians subscribe to the mythology that links ethnic identities to militarized states. The Palestinians, and to a lesser extent the Israelis, pay for this identification with continued losses in life and continued injuries and destruction of valuable property. In addition, the Israelis, and the Palestinians, and we Americans pay for this militarization of our identities with a narrowing of what it means to be a Jew, a Palestinian or an American.
The belief that all humans deserve to live decently has now become unpatriotic. Rabbi Hillel, were he to live in America today, might well have an FBI file as a potential subversive. He would probably not be wildly popular in today's Israel either. The protection of Jewish identity by a Jewish state has narrowed what a Jew can be. The militarization of America has made peaceful persons suspect and open to surveillance by the government.
The creation of the state of Israel has not been an unmixed blessing for Jews and being Jewish; the ascendancy of the military -- industrial complex has done serious damage to the American identity. The Palestinians are paying an excessive price for the belief that armed states bolster identities. Instead we see, that armed states destroy identities and persons.
All we can do is to urge the White House to stop fanning the flames of this conflict by blaming all the violence on Hamas as well as by giving $3 billion a year to Israel to refurbish its armed forces.
But for peacemakers, or those who want to reduce the casualties of war, this conflict teaches an important lesson.
Zionism sprang from the experience of Jews who were persecuted for hundreds of years. They were persecuted in different countries, by different governments, by the followers of different religions. No one was there to protect them. The thought that if only there existed a Jewish state, with its own government and, more importantly, its own armed forces, Jews would not be as helpless in the face of persecution. Hence the idea to return to Palestine where Jews had lived for thousands of years until being driven out by the Romans in the first century of the Christian era. If Jews could establish their own state in the biblical land of Israel they would be better protected. They could finally be safe. It would finally be safe to be a Jew.
That was a plausible thought. The plight of the Palestinians today illustrates its plausibility. No one protects the Palestinians. They do not have their own well armed state. They must protect themselves by throwing rocks or launching homemade rockets. In the meantime many of them, particularly the people in Gaza, live in appalling poverty that cannot help but be destructive to their culture and their traditions.
At the same time, Jews have paid a very high price for this military security. Being Jewish-- like any other identity -- is complex. There are many different kinds of Jews: some are religious, some are not. If they are religious, some are very orthodox, some are very lax in their observances. Some Jews are fanatical and aggressive against anyone who is different. Others quote the famous Rabbi Hillel as saying that the essence of Judaism was “that which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and learn." If you do not want to be oppressed, do not oppress others. If you do not want others to wage war against you, do not wage war against them.
With the foundation of the state of Israel, being Jewish became closely connected with the Jewish state and a Jewish state is very much a military state. Military Jewishness rejects the Judaism of Rabbi Hillel; it is devoted to superior power, not to the Golden rule. Having gained a state to protect them, Jews have become different kinds of people and many of their most valued traditions, like the teachings of Rabbi Hillel, have become the views of dissident minorities.
Nor is that true only in Israel. Being an American today is closely associated with a state that owns enough atomic warheads to wipe out human civilization on earth. For many Americans, the military has become the centerpiece of being American. The actions, the workings and planning of the military are notoriously secret. Thus large parts of the American state is now concealed from its citizens. The centrality of military power has put serious limits on American democracy simply because a large part of our budget is spent on matters that citizens are not supposed to know about. A militarized state is, almost by definition, not governed by its citizens. Democracy in a militarized state is very limited.
Being an American, in the 19th century, meant active participation in the affairs of one's community. For many, being an American today means being patriotic. That means worshiping the flag. It means revering the military power of our country and being passive for the rest of the time. It means encouraging young men and women to die far from home in wars they do not understand and did not choose to enter.
Identities are complex. There are Americans who are deeply religious; there are Americans who are atheists. Those that are religious but allow them to very many different religions. Some Americans are gay or lesbian; some are heterosexual. We speak many different languages. We live in very different geographies and are affected by that. People in New England are not like people in the Southwest or in Texas. We do very different kinds of work; we spend our leisure in very different ways. Some live in the country; many of us live in large cities. Some of us glory in American military power; others regard that as a perversion of American traditions at their best. They remember that our founders were opposed to permanent military establishments.
Both Israel and the Palestinians subscribe to the mythology that links ethnic identities to militarized states. The Palestinians, and to a lesser extent the Israelis, pay for this identification with continued losses in life and continued injuries and destruction of valuable property. In addition, the Israelis, and the Palestinians, and we Americans pay for this militarization of our identities with a narrowing of what it means to be a Jew, a Palestinian or an American.
The belief that all humans deserve to live decently has now become unpatriotic. Rabbi Hillel, were he to live in America today, might well have an FBI file as a potential subversive. He would probably not be wildly popular in today's Israel either. The protection of Jewish identity by a Jewish state has narrowed what a Jew can be. The militarization of America has made peaceful persons suspect and open to surveillance by the government.
The creation of the state of Israel has not been an unmixed blessing for Jews and being Jewish; the ascendancy of the military -- industrial complex has done serious damage to the American identity. The Palestinians are paying an excessive price for the belief that armed states bolster identities. Instead we see, that armed states destroy identities and persons.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Escalation in Afghanistan
Barack Obama won the Presidency with the promise of change. What kind of change?
It now appears that one change will consist of sending another 20 to 30 thousand US troops to Afghanistan, more or less doubling the number of Americans fighting in that country.
What should we think about that?
Afghanistan is a country the size of Texas with a population of 32 million. Literacy is at 28 %, average life expectancy 42 years. It is very different from any country we know. Infrastructure--roads, electric power supply, drinkable water, reliable communications and transport hardly exist. The different parts of the country are not well knit together. Afghanistan is one country in name only. Different parts of the country are inhabited by different peoples who each speak their own languages. Each have strong loyalties to their own and deep distrust of the members of the other peoples.
There is a central government in the capital, Kabul, that controls the capital itself, more or less. But it does not control the rest of the country. There police and military power is in the hands of warlords--strongmen with their own armies that control a bit of territory and are frequently battling other strongmen. In addition there is the Taliban, a fundamentalist Islamic force. The Taliban were organized originally by the ISI ( The Pakistani Internal Security Services) with the support of the US who groomed the Taliban the fight the Russians when they occupied Afghanistan in the 1970s and 80s.
Once the Russians left, the US lost interest in Afghanistan and left the Taliban to take over the country.
Why are we fighting in Afghanistan?
The official story is that after 9/11 the US government demanded that the Afghan government--then in the hands of the Taliban--hand over Osama Bin Laden. When they refused we invaded to catch Osama and punish the Taliban. We seemed to have succeeded in the second goal because the Taliban collapsed after a brief war fought by US planes and Afghan warlord ground troops. But today the Taliban are daily growing in strength. They are said to be active in 72% of the country.
The truth is more complex. The US government was pretty ready to attack Afghanistan even before 9/11, hoping to weaken Al Quaeda by expelling them from their sanctuary there. Nor is it true that the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. They did refuse to hand him to the US, but were willing to hand him over for trial to a third country. But our government rejected that offer.
We did not catch Osama. He is, people say, in Pakistan . So why fight in Afghanistan? That question is difficult to answer. Maybe it does not have an answer except that, having once started the war, we need to fight to victory. But we know where that kind of thinking leads. It added several years to the war in Vietnam and we lost it anyway. It is clear that the insistence on victory has needlessly cost a lot of lives--American as well as many more Iraqi ones--without bringing us any closer to victory in Iraq.
What are we fighting for?
There are different answers to this question:
1. We are trying to support the democratic government of Hamid Karzai. But the government consists largely of different warlords whose dedication to democracy may be doubted. The people of Afghanistan do not believe that their government is democratic. More importantly, American-style electoral democracy is not a part of Afghan culture. It is doubtful that it can be imposed by a foreign army.
2. Stability in the region. Afghanistan was reasonably stable under the Taliban ( as Iraq was under Saddam Hussein). Our efforts have been effective in destabilizing the region. A prime example: Today Afghanistan supplies 90% of the world’s opium supply. The opium trade had been suppressed pretty effectively by the Taliban. Opium is Afghanistan’s only export. It has corrupted everyone including many government leaders.
3. Suppress Al Quaeda and the Taliban. The Afghan war does not seem to have succeeded in do that. For all anyone knows Al Quaeda has moved on to Pakistan and our efforts should be directed towards strengthening the fragile democracy there.
Is there a military solution?
Our military efforts routed the Taliban in 2002--only temporarily, it seems now--and installed our government under Hamid Karzai. But our military efforts were unable to establish a government that is able to govern. These military efforts were unable to unify the country, or even to make the country secure enough for rebuilding what decades of invasion and civil war have destroyed and to bring the country’s infrastructure, let alone its educational system, into modern times.
The critics of the US military effort--and there are many of those--point out that the goal of unifying the country, or establishing a government that actually governs, is not a task that any military establishment can accomplish. Heavily armed soldiers, helicopter gunships and bombers do not serve to establish governments that their citizens respect and, more importantly, obey. Soldiers and planes to not serve to unify a country in practice divided into many separate fiefdoms, each with their own military leader and private army.
As a part of the military solution, the US command is now arming private warlords to fight the Taliban. We have done this before, for instance, when we armed Osama bin Laden in his struggle against the Russian occupation. That experiment ended very badly. But the lesson that arming private militias in Afghanistan often has disastrous effects, seems lost on our military leaders.
The aims of US actions in Afghanistan, say these critics, are political--unifying the country, establishing an effective government. Military means cannot reach those goals.
What should Obama do?
A larger view of the region points to the involvement of Pakistan in the Afghan troubles and reminds us that, on the one hand, the conflict with India is a central aspect of all Pakistani actions and that, on the other hand, Afghanistan’s neighbor on the opposite side, Iran, must also not be forgotten. The resolution of the problems of Afghanistan, some experts believe, requires an effort at regional diplomacy to try to help lower the India-Pakistan tensions, and to address Iranian interests, on the one hand, and to give generous but carefully supervised economic ( not military) aid to Pakistan and Afghanistan. The role of the US military as well as of NATO is of lesser importance than the diplomatic efforts. Those would consist centrally of negotiations between the Afghan government of Hamid Karzai and the Taliban, on one side, and between India and Pakistan on the other. They might also involve negotiations between the US and Iran
The only reasonable policy is to develop a plan for leaving Afghanistan as soon as possible in order to replace the current, failed military strategies with attempts at many-sided negotiations.
It now appears that one change will consist of sending another 20 to 30 thousand US troops to Afghanistan, more or less doubling the number of Americans fighting in that country.
What should we think about that?
Afghanistan is a country the size of Texas with a population of 32 million. Literacy is at 28 %, average life expectancy 42 years. It is very different from any country we know. Infrastructure--roads, electric power supply, drinkable water, reliable communications and transport hardly exist. The different parts of the country are not well knit together. Afghanistan is one country in name only. Different parts of the country are inhabited by different peoples who each speak their own languages. Each have strong loyalties to their own and deep distrust of the members of the other peoples.
There is a central government in the capital, Kabul, that controls the capital itself, more or less. But it does not control the rest of the country. There police and military power is in the hands of warlords--strongmen with their own armies that control a bit of territory and are frequently battling other strongmen. In addition there is the Taliban, a fundamentalist Islamic force. The Taliban were organized originally by the ISI ( The Pakistani Internal Security Services) with the support of the US who groomed the Taliban the fight the Russians when they occupied Afghanistan in the 1970s and 80s.
Once the Russians left, the US lost interest in Afghanistan and left the Taliban to take over the country.
Why are we fighting in Afghanistan?
The official story is that after 9/11 the US government demanded that the Afghan government--then in the hands of the Taliban--hand over Osama Bin Laden. When they refused we invaded to catch Osama and punish the Taliban. We seemed to have succeeded in the second goal because the Taliban collapsed after a brief war fought by US planes and Afghan warlord ground troops. But today the Taliban are daily growing in strength. They are said to be active in 72% of the country.
The truth is more complex. The US government was pretty ready to attack Afghanistan even before 9/11, hoping to weaken Al Quaeda by expelling them from their sanctuary there. Nor is it true that the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. They did refuse to hand him to the US, but were willing to hand him over for trial to a third country. But our government rejected that offer.
We did not catch Osama. He is, people say, in Pakistan . So why fight in Afghanistan? That question is difficult to answer. Maybe it does not have an answer except that, having once started the war, we need to fight to victory. But we know where that kind of thinking leads. It added several years to the war in Vietnam and we lost it anyway. It is clear that the insistence on victory has needlessly cost a lot of lives--American as well as many more Iraqi ones--without bringing us any closer to victory in Iraq.
What are we fighting for?
There are different answers to this question:
1. We are trying to support the democratic government of Hamid Karzai. But the government consists largely of different warlords whose dedication to democracy may be doubted. The people of Afghanistan do not believe that their government is democratic. More importantly, American-style electoral democracy is not a part of Afghan culture. It is doubtful that it can be imposed by a foreign army.
2. Stability in the region. Afghanistan was reasonably stable under the Taliban ( as Iraq was under Saddam Hussein). Our efforts have been effective in destabilizing the region. A prime example: Today Afghanistan supplies 90% of the world’s opium supply. The opium trade had been suppressed pretty effectively by the Taliban. Opium is Afghanistan’s only export. It has corrupted everyone including many government leaders.
3. Suppress Al Quaeda and the Taliban. The Afghan war does not seem to have succeeded in do that. For all anyone knows Al Quaeda has moved on to Pakistan and our efforts should be directed towards strengthening the fragile democracy there.
Is there a military solution?
Our military efforts routed the Taliban in 2002--only temporarily, it seems now--and installed our government under Hamid Karzai. But our military efforts were unable to establish a government that is able to govern. These military efforts were unable to unify the country, or even to make the country secure enough for rebuilding what decades of invasion and civil war have destroyed and to bring the country’s infrastructure, let alone its educational system, into modern times.
The critics of the US military effort--and there are many of those--point out that the goal of unifying the country, or establishing a government that actually governs, is not a task that any military establishment can accomplish. Heavily armed soldiers, helicopter gunships and bombers do not serve to establish governments that their citizens respect and, more importantly, obey. Soldiers and planes to not serve to unify a country in practice divided into many separate fiefdoms, each with their own military leader and private army.
As a part of the military solution, the US command is now arming private warlords to fight the Taliban. We have done this before, for instance, when we armed Osama bin Laden in his struggle against the Russian occupation. That experiment ended very badly. But the lesson that arming private militias in Afghanistan often has disastrous effects, seems lost on our military leaders.
The aims of US actions in Afghanistan, say these critics, are political--unifying the country, establishing an effective government. Military means cannot reach those goals.
What should Obama do?
A larger view of the region points to the involvement of Pakistan in the Afghan troubles and reminds us that, on the one hand, the conflict with India is a central aspect of all Pakistani actions and that, on the other hand, Afghanistan’s neighbor on the opposite side, Iran, must also not be forgotten. The resolution of the problems of Afghanistan, some experts believe, requires an effort at regional diplomacy to try to help lower the India-Pakistan tensions, and to address Iranian interests, on the one hand, and to give generous but carefully supervised economic ( not military) aid to Pakistan and Afghanistan. The role of the US military as well as of NATO is of lesser importance than the diplomatic efforts. Those would consist centrally of negotiations between the Afghan government of Hamid Karzai and the Taliban, on one side, and between India and Pakistan on the other. They might also involve negotiations between the US and Iran
The only reasonable policy is to develop a plan for leaving Afghanistan as soon as possible in order to replace the current, failed military strategies with attempts at many-sided negotiations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)