Today I want to discuss Monday morning quarterbacking and a couple of recent stories concerning the Bush administration's handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. First, in a report being released today, literally on a Monday morning, although news outlets reported the findings over the weekend, a Senate committee has determined that the U.S. could have and should have captured or killed Osama bin Laden in Tora Bora in December 2001. I'm no fan of the Bush administration, particularly with respect to its war machine brain trust, but I like this current exercise in coulda, woulda, shoulda even less. I am particularly troubled that the report was called for by Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and perhaps not coincidentally, Bush's presidential rival in 2004. In my very first blog entry I called for grown ups to step up and lead, but apparently that call has gone unheeded. To say the least, expending these resources just to formally say, "Nyah, nyah, I told you so!" is unbecoming of an elder statesman.
People will criticize Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al for Tora Bora just as countless Southerners are still upset over Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg. Occasionally, military leaders make strategic errors, football coaches make questionable calls and world class poker players badly misplay hands. So what? We study history to gain wisdom and insight from its lessons, not to use hindsight to second guess every decision. We should also keep in the forefront of our minds the peril that attends counterfactual history, once you change anything, you have, at least potentially, changed everything. There is no way to know all the consequences that accompany the road not taken.
The other recent story concerns the Iraq War. While there are no new revelations, the ongoing Chilcot inquiry, which is intended to be an exhaustive study of Great Britain's involvement in the Iraq War, has once again put the run-up to that war under the microscope. The news concerns statements being made by senior British officials such as Jeremy Greenstock, British ambassador to the U.N. at the time and envoy to Iraq after the invasion. Greenstock testified that the U.S was "hell bent on the use of force" regardless of what anyone else in the world community thought. While other nations and the U.N. itself wanted to give weapons inspectors more time to find evidence that war was justified, the Bush administration saw that as a waste of time and a distraction. The U.N. Security Council was not going to authorize this war based on existing evidence despite the considerable power the U.S. has in this body. President Bush was determined to invade anyway and he managed to convince Great Britain and others to join the U.S. effort.
Unlike the Tora Bora story, this is fair game for harsh criticism because the point of contention is not merely a strategic call but rather an overarching philosophy and a blatant disregard of an inviolable principle. The legitimacy of warfare is predicated on its necessity. War is a tool that must only be used when all other means at our disposal have been deemed ineffective in stopping prohibited activities that carry dire consequences. Justification for war can be likened to a criminal trial where we won't severely punish the accused unless we are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that such punishment is warranted. The Iraq War, on the other hand, can be likened to The Ox-Bow Incident, with George W. Bush playing the role of Major Tetley. If you didn't read The Ox-Bow Incident, read it; you'll thank me later.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Bishop Tobin's Fatwa Against Patrick Kennedy
Yesterday marked the 46th anniversary of the tragic assassination of John F. Kennedy, the first and so far only Roman Catholic president of the United States. Today President Kennedy's nephew, Congressman Patrick Kennedy (son of the late Senator Edward Kennedy) is embroiled in an ugly battle with the Bishop of Providence who has pronounced Rep. Kennedy ineligible to receive the sacrament of Holy Communion because of his politics. There are a number of ironic elements to this story that I'll discuss in no particular order. First, this is happening as we remember President Kennedy and how he made the American public abandon the fear that a Catholic president would be loyal to the Catholic hierarchy instead of the Constitution. Secondly, the controversy involves JFK's blood relative, and finally, this is happening in Rhode Island, which was founded by Roger Williams as a haven for religious tolerance. Roger Williams is, if you will, the patron saint of church state separation. He was a preacher who only settled what is now Rhode Island because he was forced to flee Massachusetts for daring to differ with the Puritans. He was among the first to call for a wall of separation between church and state.
I was raised and educated in the Catholic faith and I am well versed in its teachings and terminology. I know, for instance, that the Immaculate Conception does not refer to a virgin bearing a child, but rather to Mary being born without original sin. The former is a widely held erroneous belief that I call the immaculate misconception. I also know that Transubstantiation is the process through which bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Jesus. I would like to make my own contribution to the Catholic lexicon by coining "Translineation", which means to cross the line. This is the process by which bishops transform the already consecrated Body and Blood of our Lord into a weapon with which to bully Catholic politicians who choose not to impose their personal beliefs on a pluralistic society.
While I no longer practice Catholicism, I'm saddened to see this happening. I once heard the writer Anna Quindlen say that being Catholic is the reason she's liberal. Some may find that surprising or even contradictory, but I instantly knew exactly what she meant. My childhood coincided with things like urban rioting, the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War. I marched for peace and justice from the time I was in kindergarten at Our Lady of Mercy, and I participated in urban renewal from the time I was old enough to wield a paintbrush. In every instance, my participation began on a bus leaving the church parking lot, full of clergy and laity alike singing "We Shall Overcome" and believing that being Catholic meant to be like Jesus and make the world a better place through love and service to one another. The Church had its problems as any large institution will, but it emphasized the charity and compassion of Jesus rather than the sanctimonious self-righteousness of the Pharisees whose holier that thou ways Jesus despised. I wonder what Jesus would think of the Church now.
I was raised and educated in the Catholic faith and I am well versed in its teachings and terminology. I know, for instance, that the Immaculate Conception does not refer to a virgin bearing a child, but rather to Mary being born without original sin. The former is a widely held erroneous belief that I call the immaculate misconception. I also know that Transubstantiation is the process through which bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Jesus. I would like to make my own contribution to the Catholic lexicon by coining "Translineation", which means to cross the line. This is the process by which bishops transform the already consecrated Body and Blood of our Lord into a weapon with which to bully Catholic politicians who choose not to impose their personal beliefs on a pluralistic society.
While I no longer practice Catholicism, I'm saddened to see this happening. I once heard the writer Anna Quindlen say that being Catholic is the reason she's liberal. Some may find that surprising or even contradictory, but I instantly knew exactly what she meant. My childhood coincided with things like urban rioting, the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War. I marched for peace and justice from the time I was in kindergarten at Our Lady of Mercy, and I participated in urban renewal from the time I was old enough to wield a paintbrush. In every instance, my participation began on a bus leaving the church parking lot, full of clergy and laity alike singing "We Shall Overcome" and believing that being Catholic meant to be like Jesus and make the world a better place through love and service to one another. The Church had its problems as any large institution will, but it emphasized the charity and compassion of Jesus rather than the sanctimonious self-righteousness of the Pharisees whose holier that thou ways Jesus despised. I wonder what Jesus would think of the Church now.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
The War on Common Sense
Just as the cure for a catastrophic flood is not a devastating drought, the proper correction of an old misguided policy that tilts way too far to one side is not the creation of a new misguided policy that tilts way too far to the other side. While I expect no disagreement on this, I do expect to see it widely ignored as we fashion remedies that don't solve problems so much as replace them with equal and opposite problems. I'm reminded of the woman who wanted to be a dancer but her mother forced her to be a singer instead. She vowed to correct this injustice by forcing her own daughter to be a dancer. With Black Friday only days away, 'tis the season to once again hear about the "War on Christmas." I don't believe there is a war on Christmas; I believe there's a war on common sense and Christmas is merely one battleground in that conflict. I see the two impassioned sides in this debate as unwitting allies, each attacking common sense from an opposite flank.
First, Christmas is doing just fine, thanks for asking. The seasonal music broadcast by radio stations and countless public venues isn't dominated by Hanukkah carols, and children at the mall are not lining up for a picture on Kwanzaa Calvin's lap. If all shoppers were greeted with Happy Hanukkah instead of Merry Christmas I could better understand the outrage, but inclusive pleasantries such as Happy Holidays, Seasons Greetings and other long traditional tidings shouldn't be so upsetting. For those who are that concerned about honoring the birth of Jesus, reaching out to all who celebrate a holiday should not be seen as affront, but rather an opportunity to be good Christians and share your toys. Forgive those who trespass against you by using this season to spread peace on earth, good will toward men instead of another opportunity to reaffirm your dominance.
That said, let's be clear about something. A majority celebrating its culture does not constitute a jackboot to the throat of a minority. While the mighty must not oppress and abuse the weak, that doesn't mean the more powerful must placate the less powerful by bowing to their every whim. In this country and elsewhere, Christmas has transcended its origin as a religious holiday, and I see no reason why it can't be celebrated as such without fear of offending anyone. Adorning a school or town square with a Christmas tree or image of Santa Claus is no more an imposition of religion than "God bless you" after a sneeze. This is a far cry from the days of forcing public schoolchildren to recite New Testament passages. While it was right to correct that injustice, we have now grossly overshot the mark.
We should be building bridges to resolve our differences, not erecting walls to create new ones. As we are facing trying and uncertain times, I can't fathom a reason to manufacture a new source of outrage over something so innocuous. Thus, the very existence of this conflict is a crippling assault on common sense. This problem will vanish if we can agree on two simple points. First, those who prefer to say Merry Christmas are not proselytizing or harming anyone of any background in any way. Secondly, the huge institution of Christmas is not facing an existential threat because some people are more comfortable saluting the various seasonal holidays as one, particularly when addressing strangers. The correct response to all well wishes, whether in the form of Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays or anything else is always "thank you" followed by well wishes of your own.
First, Christmas is doing just fine, thanks for asking. The seasonal music broadcast by radio stations and countless public venues isn't dominated by Hanukkah carols, and children at the mall are not lining up for a picture on Kwanzaa Calvin's lap. If all shoppers were greeted with Happy Hanukkah instead of Merry Christmas I could better understand the outrage, but inclusive pleasantries such as Happy Holidays, Seasons Greetings and other long traditional tidings shouldn't be so upsetting. For those who are that concerned about honoring the birth of Jesus, reaching out to all who celebrate a holiday should not be seen as affront, but rather an opportunity to be good Christians and share your toys. Forgive those who trespass against you by using this season to spread peace on earth, good will toward men instead of another opportunity to reaffirm your dominance.
That said, let's be clear about something. A majority celebrating its culture does not constitute a jackboot to the throat of a minority. While the mighty must not oppress and abuse the weak, that doesn't mean the more powerful must placate the less powerful by bowing to their every whim. In this country and elsewhere, Christmas has transcended its origin as a religious holiday, and I see no reason why it can't be celebrated as such without fear of offending anyone. Adorning a school or town square with a Christmas tree or image of Santa Claus is no more an imposition of religion than "God bless you" after a sneeze. This is a far cry from the days of forcing public schoolchildren to recite New Testament passages. While it was right to correct that injustice, we have now grossly overshot the mark.
We should be building bridges to resolve our differences, not erecting walls to create new ones. As we are facing trying and uncertain times, I can't fathom a reason to manufacture a new source of outrage over something so innocuous. Thus, the very existence of this conflict is a crippling assault on common sense. This problem will vanish if we can agree on two simple points. First, those who prefer to say Merry Christmas are not proselytizing or harming anyone of any background in any way. Secondly, the huge institution of Christmas is not facing an existential threat because some people are more comfortable saluting the various seasonal holidays as one, particularly when addressing strangers. The correct response to all well wishes, whether in the form of Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays or anything else is always "thank you" followed by well wishes of your own.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
All the World's a Nail
In the words of Abraham Maslow, "To the man who only has a hammer, everything he encounters begins to look like a nail." Likewise, to a country with an unnatural love for anything that goes bang, boom or zap and an addiction to conflict resolution through violent means, every problem we encounter looks like something to be resolved through bloodshed. Our insatiable appetite for violence manifests itself on the personal level in our disturbing rates of homicide and other violent crime, and on the institutional level in our complete inability to avoid warfare for more than a few years at a time if we're lucky. We seek to vanquish all opposition rather than working to settle our differences.
Curiously, or perhaps not, as a nation we are at once intensely religious, overwhelmingly Christian and extremely bellicose. Combining these attributes would tend to suggest that we desperately seek to honor and please the Prince of Peace with a mounting body count of God's precious children. While this seems absurd, if we look a bit deeper we may find a plausible explanation. Religion concerns itself with human decency, charity and compassion. It has been a powerful catalyst in getting people to give generously of themselves and help one another throughout the world. However, religious fundamentalism is all too often aligned with brutality and ruthlessness. As we are much more inclined toward fundamentalism than other post-industrial nations, this may shed some light on the paradox of claiming to be such a Christian nation while so often doing the opposite of what Jesus stood for and taught us.
Firing missiles, dropping bombs, and deploying combat troops is not the answer to every problem. When the Cold War ended, we were told that the days of excessive military spending would be gone and we would enjoy the new found prosperity of the "peace dividend." Needless to say, we squandered this windfall as the ne'er-do-well idiot son would blow through an inherited fortune because we simply can't resist armed conflict whenever something in the world displeases us. We are now debating whether or not to send more troops into Afghanistan and whether we should expand the war into Pakistan. Let me state clearly that the U.S. armed forces have been a tremendous source for good in the world, and when the job calls military intervention there is simply none better. The question at hand is whether or not military force is the right tool for the job. Yes, terrorists must be stopped by whatever means are at our disposal, but the war on terror simply can't be prosecuted in the same way as all prior wars. Our enemy wears no uniform and defends no flag. As the war of ideas is a central front in this campaign, hearts and minds are of paramount importance. Guns, bombs and so forth can kill flesh and blood beings and destroy brick and mortar structures, but they lack the ability to destroy or incapacitate ideas. There is a time to use a driver and a time to use a pitching wedge. Confusing the two will lead to a most unsatisfactory result.
Curiously, or perhaps not, as a nation we are at once intensely religious, overwhelmingly Christian and extremely bellicose. Combining these attributes would tend to suggest that we desperately seek to honor and please the Prince of Peace with a mounting body count of God's precious children. While this seems absurd, if we look a bit deeper we may find a plausible explanation. Religion concerns itself with human decency, charity and compassion. It has been a powerful catalyst in getting people to give generously of themselves and help one another throughout the world. However, religious fundamentalism is all too often aligned with brutality and ruthlessness. As we are much more inclined toward fundamentalism than other post-industrial nations, this may shed some light on the paradox of claiming to be such a Christian nation while so often doing the opposite of what Jesus stood for and taught us.
Firing missiles, dropping bombs, and deploying combat troops is not the answer to every problem. When the Cold War ended, we were told that the days of excessive military spending would be gone and we would enjoy the new found prosperity of the "peace dividend." Needless to say, we squandered this windfall as the ne'er-do-well idiot son would blow through an inherited fortune because we simply can't resist armed conflict whenever something in the world displeases us. We are now debating whether or not to send more troops into Afghanistan and whether we should expand the war into Pakistan. Let me state clearly that the U.S. armed forces have been a tremendous source for good in the world, and when the job calls military intervention there is simply none better. The question at hand is whether or not military force is the right tool for the job. Yes, terrorists must be stopped by whatever means are at our disposal, but the war on terror simply can't be prosecuted in the same way as all prior wars. Our enemy wears no uniform and defends no flag. As the war of ideas is a central front in this campaign, hearts and minds are of paramount importance. Guns, bombs and so forth can kill flesh and blood beings and destroy brick and mortar structures, but they lack the ability to destroy or incapacitate ideas. There is a time to use a driver and a time to use a pitching wedge. Confusing the two will lead to a most unsatisfactory result.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
A Culture of Violence Kills People
As Mama said in the great Steve Earle song, "The pistol is the devil's right hand." Of course, I'm not sure what that makes the fully automatic assault rifle with armor piercing bullets. A number of recent stories have once again brought gun violence to the fore, but we remain as always a nation divided when it comes to solving the problem. The two sides of the debate flew in their usual formation with gun control advocates relating guns to gun related crime, and gun rights supporters arguing that tough gun laws will only increase criminals' advantage by taking guns from honest citizens but not from criminals. The divide between these two camps will doubtlessly persist as far into the future as we can project, but I think the entire issue begs the larger question of why here? Why doesn't blood flow in the streets of other wealthy, democratic countries the way it does in ours?
The NRA argument that guns don't kill people; people kill people is partly true and partly misleading. Yes, if you're determined to kill Hamlet's father and ascend the Danish throne, you may very well opt for ear poison rather than a gun to commit your murder most foul. Luckily, there is no NEPA to lobby politicians, so we're spared endless claims of, "When ear poison is outlawed only outlaws will have ear poison." Knives, blunt objects and other implements are certainly used by both premeditated and spontaneous murderers, but the prevalence of guns and our proclivity to use them in anger account for a great many homicides that wouldn't occur without our lust for firepower. Even if we accept the NRA argument, this still doesn't address the issue of why our murder rate dwarfs that of all similarly situated countries. Are Americans such savage, bloodthirsty barbarians that our rampages can't be deterred by the legitimate rule of law? I find it difficult to accept the premise that we are a country incapable of civilization and we need more vigilantes to stop the irredeemably lawless horde that is our society.
The biggest problem is our cultural mindset. We celebrate violent solutions to our problems and we tend to see ourselves as ten feet tall and bulletproof. We labor under the delusion of grandeur that we can shoot our way out of any jam like the star of a B western movie. When some of the recent shooting rampages were discussed, I heard numerous people suggest that if only the victims or some bystanders were carrying guns, the problem would have been averted because the good people would have shot and killed the bad people. That's our culture in a nutshell, clearly defined good guys and bad guys and the answer to violence is always more violence. Here's the problem, a lot of killings are committed by those we presumed to be good guys because we were unaware of their impending refusal to live one more day as a discarded worker or scorned lover without exacting their bloody vengeance. I also have to question the wisdom of arming everyone so that if, God forbid, someone does start shooting, we'll solve the problem by hastily assembling a circular firing squad of untrained, adrenaline-riddled reactionaries. Hey, what could possibly go wrong?
The NRA argument that guns don't kill people; people kill people is partly true and partly misleading. Yes, if you're determined to kill Hamlet's father and ascend the Danish throne, you may very well opt for ear poison rather than a gun to commit your murder most foul. Luckily, there is no NEPA to lobby politicians, so we're spared endless claims of, "When ear poison is outlawed only outlaws will have ear poison." Knives, blunt objects and other implements are certainly used by both premeditated and spontaneous murderers, but the prevalence of guns and our proclivity to use them in anger account for a great many homicides that wouldn't occur without our lust for firepower. Even if we accept the NRA argument, this still doesn't address the issue of why our murder rate dwarfs that of all similarly situated countries. Are Americans such savage, bloodthirsty barbarians that our rampages can't be deterred by the legitimate rule of law? I find it difficult to accept the premise that we are a country incapable of civilization and we need more vigilantes to stop the irredeemably lawless horde that is our society.
The biggest problem is our cultural mindset. We celebrate violent solutions to our problems and we tend to see ourselves as ten feet tall and bulletproof. We labor under the delusion of grandeur that we can shoot our way out of any jam like the star of a B western movie. When some of the recent shooting rampages were discussed, I heard numerous people suggest that if only the victims or some bystanders were carrying guns, the problem would have been averted because the good people would have shot and killed the bad people. That's our culture in a nutshell, clearly defined good guys and bad guys and the answer to violence is always more violence. Here's the problem, a lot of killings are committed by those we presumed to be good guys because we were unaware of their impending refusal to live one more day as a discarded worker or scorned lover without exacting their bloody vengeance. I also have to question the wisdom of arming everyone so that if, God forbid, someone does start shooting, we'll solve the problem by hastily assembling a circular firing squad of untrained, adrenaline-riddled reactionaries. Hey, what could possibly go wrong?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)