Einstein taught us that much of the world of physics can be explained through logic and mathematics. Understanding the relationship between mass, acceleration and energy has opened doors to novel applications and brought us tremendous power. That power can be, and has been, used for beneficial or evil purposes. A critical variable has been the intelligence and wisdom of those who control such power. What is needed, therefore, is a “theory of relativity” to help us explain the laws and principles of the human intelligence and human behavior, at least with respect to world leaders. It is by no means certain that such inescapable principles, or “laws,” do exist. But hope for survival of the planet and the human race suggests that we should attempt to find out if they do.
Most proven laws of science began with observation and recognition of apparent relationships. Exploration of those relationships led to hypotheses of durable and constant characteristics in those observed relationships. Theoretical proofs followed to explain the countless potential variables and permutations until we reached a consensus that theories about the observed relationships were valid. So let us begin likewise, by making observations about relationships between intelligence, wisdom and the use of power.
Some relationships seem evident, if only by their disproof. While education can provide enlightenment and insight to an intelligent person and we can suppose that they are “related,” it is apparent that education does not truly “cause” intelligence or wisdom. We have many examples of highly “educated” individuals who wield great power, but who have displayed a remarkable lack of intelligence and wisdom. President George W. Bush who graduated from Yale University is one such example, although in fairness to his alma mater he was not a very good student [i.e. highly but not well educated] Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld are other examples of individuals with strong educational backgrounds, but who have displayed a gigantic dearth of wisdom and intelligence in their use of power. If “intelligence” follows the scientific principle of stasis, the process of adaptation to external factors that threaten survival by adjusting systems and behavior to ensure greater chances for success, then we might observe that these “leaders” seem to lack the essential “property” of intelligence. Neither education at institutions of higher learning nor experience has imparted wisdom or enlightenment to these people. Individually, and as a group, these leaders have stubbornly resisted acknowledgement of gross errors in judgment and observation, despite mountains of information and evidence of failure, and clung to dysfunctional foreign policy strategies that are causing daily increases in hostility and bloodshed and undermining world peace and domestic security.
This leaves us with two salient hypotheses to explore. One theory was eloquently set forth by the philosopher “Forest Gump” when he stated that “stupid is as stupid does.” When a person has access to information, expert advice and almost unlimited resources, yet repeatedly chooses to ignore those assets and chooses ignorant and unwise courses of action, that person acts with stupidity and without regard to educational potential. Such evidence supports the “Gump” theory.
The second possible theory is that power corrupts, and that otherwise intelligent people become stupid when entrusted with great amounts of power. Former President Clinton seems to have succumbed to or supported this hypothesis. A man with near genius level intelligence and the highest level education chose to act stupidly in his personal affairs and permitted his critics to derogate most of the positive accomplishments of his administration by exposing his peccadillo with Monica Lewinski. But the latter transgression was neither pervasive nor characteristic of the Clinton administration. And Clinton’s folly or "stupidity" did not result on thousands of American soldier deaths and tens of thousands of innocent civilians being killed.
The administration of a “corrupted” intelligent President gave us a budget surplus, a stable economy, relatively balanced and effective foreign policy and a populace that generally had faith in the institutions of government, despite legitimate criticism of specific policies. The administration of a “stupid” President has brought us historical budget deficits, an intractable and unnecessary preemptive war, loss of credibility for the US in the international community and widespread distrust of US government institutions because of displayed incompetence, illegal domestic spying and other serious concerns. General observation and common sense tells us that we would be better off risking the potential corruption of an intelligent President, than electing a stupid President who seems incapable of making intelligent and wise decisions or acknowledging and correcting mistakes. But the laws of physics are not democratic principles that atoms and elements can choose to obey. The relativity laws expressed here are subject to choices by the electorate. Since the electorate has power, will they choose to exercise it intelligently and wisely? Or will they follow the “Gump” theory and make stupid choices in the coming national elections as they seem to have done in the recent past?
[Yes, I am aware that George W. Bush did not win the popular vote, and that there was substantial evidence of voting compilation fraud in Ohio.]
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Friday, August 25, 2006
Martin & Maya – What of Educational Equality?
Martin Luther King, Jr. advised the nation in his famous Washington, DC address that: “I have a dream.” Maya Angelou admonished us of the terrible price to be paid in social terms when that dream is frustrated in her eloquent poem, “A Dream Deferred.” More than 50 years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that segregated public school systems are “inherently unequal.” Subsequent decisions clarified that the inequality exists whether the segregation is de jure [deliberately imposed] or de facto [allowed to occur indirectly or as a result of other external factors].
The Bush Administration has now formally weighed in to battle the use of any form of racial classification in the assignment of children to public schools in cases pending from Louisville and Seattle. The Supreme Court’s ruling that upheld use of race as one factor[among many] in the achievement of a demographically balanced and diverse student body at the University of Michigan Law School is not being directly assailed, but the teeth of the saw blade can clearly be felt upon the tree limb. The Bush Administration argues that past discrimination has been fully remedied and that any racially based criteria are constitutionally forbidden. This same argument was asserted recently in opposition to extension of the Voting Rights Act, despite a recent Supreme Court ruling that a Texas redistricting plan was unconstitutional because it deliberately moved Latino voters out of a district where that group was approaching a majority.
According to the US Solicitor, the school districts whose attempts to achieve or maintain racial diversity are challenged did not advance past discrimination as the basis for their enrollment procedures. Therefore, the Bush Administration has intervened in support of white parents whose children were denied their first choice of school enrollment.
The public has been chastened by the Right Wing from supporting any "social compact" notion that a diverse school environment is more beneficial than a racially and socio-economically segregated school environment for purposes of preparing students to live in the society of today and of the future. Psycholinguistic demonization of terms like “quotas” and “affirmative action” tend to discourage open debate about the impact of ethnicity and class on the education of our children and the hopes of realizing the dreams of which Dr. King and Ms. Angelou passionately spoke.
The very premise of the school enrollment challenges suggests that the effects of past discrimination are not yet fully removed. The contention that their children are entitled to their first choice of schools is derived, at least in part, from a sense of perceived privilege that stems most often from socio economic status. However, there is no constitutional right to attend a “neighborhood” school. The states are required to provide a public education, and most are bound by their state constitutions to provide an "equal educational opportunity" to students. The assignment of students to particular schools is driven by logistics and economic pressures, but is not an equal protection issue. Better schools tended to be built and maintained in areas of the city with higher tax bases from property values. Proprety taxes frequently were the primary basis for schjool funding. Conversely, poorer schools tended to be found in poorer, or lower tax base, neighborhoods. Yet, at least in theory, the state has an equal responsibility to provide the same quality education in each school.
The de facto segregation that historically arose in public schools was driven by factors of perceived entitlement to attend “neighborhood” schools and reliance upon property taxes as the primary funding resource for schools. Neither factor is mandated by the US Constitution. While it would shock the white parents challenging the Louisville and Seattle school district programs, a logical and perfectly legal system could be imposed in which every student in the school district would be assigned to any school, totally randomly and without regard to race or ethnicity. Their children might wind up attending a school down the block or across town, depending upon the lottery results. The white parents living in the million dollar homes would doubtless be dismayed to find their children assigned to a poor inner city school surrounded by homes valued at a far lower value than their own. Yet if the school district is required to assign students entirely without regard to race or ethnicity, and prohibited from using some measures to accommodate neighborhood school concepts without violating the law regarding maintenance of segregated schools, a random process would seem the most logical. The costs of busing and transportation, as well as local political pressures, augur against use of a purely random enrollment process.
The legal issues are thorny, and the intelligence and eloquence of Thurgood Marshall available during the Brown v. Board of Education debate will likely be missing among the lawyers currently presenting arguments, as surely as it is missing from the Supreme Court Bench. Equal protection is a Constitutional protection that must be considered carefully. But the challenge lies in how to provide that protection. If school enrollment decisions are driven by facially neutral factors, such as residential address, which result in a de facto segregated schools, equal protection is denied. If racial classifications are used in a heavy handed manner to construct a racially balanced school population, then equal protection is denied as well. In an ideal world, where the effects of past discrimination would be truly eliminated, every school would provide comparable resources and equal educational opportunity. It would not matter to parents which school their child attended. But the real world is very far from that ideal. The current intervention by the Bush Administration in these cases seeks to further entrench the inequality that does exist and preserve the “privilege” of its constituents who are either in an elevated socio-economic status or are motivated by racism and fear of social integration.
Logic and the beauty of the dreams expressed by Dr. King and Ms. Angelou seem to be cast aside. Census numbers tell us that the Latino population is the fastest growing segment of the US population. Why would I not want my children to attend a school with a complement of Latino, Black, Asian and White students? Would there be a better way to prepare my child to function and compete in society and the business world of tomorrow. Should not all children in this country have the ability to interact and learn in such an environment? How could I believe that “sheltering” my child from exposure to children of other ethnic backgrounds would be better for my child in the long term? But then, as an African American and Native American, I was never brought up to believe that I was “entitled” to my first choice in every matter. And I was never brought up to believe that any child I encountered was “better” than me or “less” than me simply because of skin color. Perhaps if I had been, I would be more sympathetic to the cause of the white parents in Seattle and Louisville. It is even conceivable that I might side with the US Solicitor, but I doubt it.
The Bush Administration has now formally weighed in to battle the use of any form of racial classification in the assignment of children to public schools in cases pending from Louisville and Seattle. The Supreme Court’s ruling that upheld use of race as one factor[among many] in the achievement of a demographically balanced and diverse student body at the University of Michigan Law School is not being directly assailed, but the teeth of the saw blade can clearly be felt upon the tree limb. The Bush Administration argues that past discrimination has been fully remedied and that any racially based criteria are constitutionally forbidden. This same argument was asserted recently in opposition to extension of the Voting Rights Act, despite a recent Supreme Court ruling that a Texas redistricting plan was unconstitutional because it deliberately moved Latino voters out of a district where that group was approaching a majority.
According to the US Solicitor, the school districts whose attempts to achieve or maintain racial diversity are challenged did not advance past discrimination as the basis for their enrollment procedures. Therefore, the Bush Administration has intervened in support of white parents whose children were denied their first choice of school enrollment.
The public has been chastened by the Right Wing from supporting any "social compact" notion that a diverse school environment is more beneficial than a racially and socio-economically segregated school environment for purposes of preparing students to live in the society of today and of the future. Psycholinguistic demonization of terms like “quotas” and “affirmative action” tend to discourage open debate about the impact of ethnicity and class on the education of our children and the hopes of realizing the dreams of which Dr. King and Ms. Angelou passionately spoke.
The very premise of the school enrollment challenges suggests that the effects of past discrimination are not yet fully removed. The contention that their children are entitled to their first choice of schools is derived, at least in part, from a sense of perceived privilege that stems most often from socio economic status. However, there is no constitutional right to attend a “neighborhood” school. The states are required to provide a public education, and most are bound by their state constitutions to provide an "equal educational opportunity" to students. The assignment of students to particular schools is driven by logistics and economic pressures, but is not an equal protection issue. Better schools tended to be built and maintained in areas of the city with higher tax bases from property values. Proprety taxes frequently were the primary basis for schjool funding. Conversely, poorer schools tended to be found in poorer, or lower tax base, neighborhoods. Yet, at least in theory, the state has an equal responsibility to provide the same quality education in each school.
The de facto segregation that historically arose in public schools was driven by factors of perceived entitlement to attend “neighborhood” schools and reliance upon property taxes as the primary funding resource for schools. Neither factor is mandated by the US Constitution. While it would shock the white parents challenging the Louisville and Seattle school district programs, a logical and perfectly legal system could be imposed in which every student in the school district would be assigned to any school, totally randomly and without regard to race or ethnicity. Their children might wind up attending a school down the block or across town, depending upon the lottery results. The white parents living in the million dollar homes would doubtless be dismayed to find their children assigned to a poor inner city school surrounded by homes valued at a far lower value than their own. Yet if the school district is required to assign students entirely without regard to race or ethnicity, and prohibited from using some measures to accommodate neighborhood school concepts without violating the law regarding maintenance of segregated schools, a random process would seem the most logical. The costs of busing and transportation, as well as local political pressures, augur against use of a purely random enrollment process.
The legal issues are thorny, and the intelligence and eloquence of Thurgood Marshall available during the Brown v. Board of Education debate will likely be missing among the lawyers currently presenting arguments, as surely as it is missing from the Supreme Court Bench. Equal protection is a Constitutional protection that must be considered carefully. But the challenge lies in how to provide that protection. If school enrollment decisions are driven by facially neutral factors, such as residential address, which result in a de facto segregated schools, equal protection is denied. If racial classifications are used in a heavy handed manner to construct a racially balanced school population, then equal protection is denied as well. In an ideal world, where the effects of past discrimination would be truly eliminated, every school would provide comparable resources and equal educational opportunity. It would not matter to parents which school their child attended. But the real world is very far from that ideal. The current intervention by the Bush Administration in these cases seeks to further entrench the inequality that does exist and preserve the “privilege” of its constituents who are either in an elevated socio-economic status or are motivated by racism and fear of social integration.
Logic and the beauty of the dreams expressed by Dr. King and Ms. Angelou seem to be cast aside. Census numbers tell us that the Latino population is the fastest growing segment of the US population. Why would I not want my children to attend a school with a complement of Latino, Black, Asian and White students? Would there be a better way to prepare my child to function and compete in society and the business world of tomorrow. Should not all children in this country have the ability to interact and learn in such an environment? How could I believe that “sheltering” my child from exposure to children of other ethnic backgrounds would be better for my child in the long term? But then, as an African American and Native American, I was never brought up to believe that I was “entitled” to my first choice in every matter. And I was never brought up to believe that any child I encountered was “better” than me or “less” than me simply because of skin color. Perhaps if I had been, I would be more sympathetic to the cause of the white parents in Seattle and Louisville. It is even conceivable that I might side with the US Solicitor, but I doubt it.
The True "War on Terror"
Only in the “Joe McCarthy” era and the WW II internment of Japanese Americans have we seen the type and level of hysteria and fear mongering currently wielded by the Bush Administration toward its detractors. Instead of the “communist sympathizer” label or presumed enemy status merely because of ethnicity, current targets are being labeled “terrorists.” Opponents of the President’s policies are labeled as sympathizers giving support to the enemies of freedom and democracy. They are accused of undermining national security and the “War on Terror.” The debate rages on whether this demonization process involves an extremely cynical manipulation of the public psyche, or an exhibition of gross incompetence and insensitivity borne of xenophobia and racist or religious intolerance. The result, in any event, is a serious derogation of the civil rights and freedoms upon which this country was allegedly founded. Further, the process and approach of the Bush Administration has undercut the credibility and moral authority that the United States used to hold in the international community. The risk of such recklessness is potential global war.
As noted by reputable historians, experienced military commanders and other expert observers, “terrorism” is a tactic and not an entity. Thus, a “war on terror[ism]” can neither be effectively fought nor won. The Bush Administration has succeeded in luring the country and the world into a military-backed “mission” to stamp out and “enemy” that cannot be clearly identified, contained or defeated. Yet thousands of lives and Billions of dollars have been expended in this fallacious venture. A “terrorist” is a criminal, like a murderer, bank robber, rapist or other malfeasant. As such, criminal justice organizations throughout the world have extensive experience in tracking and dealing with such criminals. The tragedy of the September 11 attack was not the emergence of Al Qaida as a “terrorist” organization, but rather the abject failure of the law enforcement authorities in the US to communicate with each other and the failure of the Bush Administration to place appropriate priority upon clear warnings that were provided. While no crime is completely preventable, subsequent reports indicate that the September 11 attack could have been diverted, deflected, prevented or reduced in scale if the law enforcement authorities and the White House had done their jobs more competently. Instead of owning up to these failures, the Bush Administration sought to deflect criticism by creating an illusory monster to which the public, in its vulnerable state of grief, could attach their anger and fears. Thus was born “the War on Terror.” But are we are own worst enemy?
We are repeatedly admonished that this is a “different and more dangerous world” we live in after the 9/11 attack. The Bush Administration even contends, on advice from its chief legal officer Gonzalez, that the Geneva Convention is “quaint” or “obsolete” and not binding upon the Bush Administration in its “War on Terror.” By any objective measure, the primary reason that the world may be more dangerous is the continued bellicose, threatening and arrogant rhetoric and actions of the Bush administration, and its proxies, that serve to inflame sensitive political situations and provide fertile recruiting opportunities for extremist groups. This goes directly to the debate of whether the Bush Administration is deliberately manipulating the situation for political purposes.
General Odom in addition to noting that terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy, pointed out that the Bush tactic of rounding up all military age males in Iraq immediately after the invasion not only failed to put an end to the insurgency, but resulted in a serious and durable hostility toward the US military presence. While 90% of those rounded up were ultimately released because they had neither intelligence value nor connection to the insurgency, after imprisonment in harsh and crowded conditions including some proven acts of torture, this brutal and unfair treatment bred in many of these men a motivation to join forces with those factions opposing US military presence. The Bush Administration, deliberately or ineptly, succeeded in fostering the violent “terrorist” movement that it claimed to be fighting. The numerous incidents involving US military misconduct and violation of internationally accepted rules of engagement and treatment of prisoners that have come to light publicly, including the Abu Ghraib prisoner torture, the Fallujah massacre and use of white phosphorous on civilians, the Hadditha rape torture and killing of civilians and other examples have fueled a recruitment of resistance fighters whose enmity toward the US cannot be dismissed merely as jihadi zealotry. In fairness, they have reason to hate and oppose the US military presence.
The term “terrorist” has now become both a talisman and a sham. The same is true of the distortion of the concept of “self defense.” Looking across the political landscape today, we see example of how the irresponsible bandying of “terrorist” and “national security” by the Bush Administration has enabled others to cloak their nefarious agendas in euphemistic rhetorical terms in a similar manner. Consider the public statements of commanders of the Mahdi Army who acknowledge the capture and summary execution of persons “suspected” of being “Saddamists” or Sunni Muslims who oppose the authority of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr:
Asked about the Mahdi Army's role in the surge of killings immediately after the Samarra mosque bombing, the Mahdi Army commander in short sleeves at the restaurant frowned, and answered carefully. "Terrorists" were at work then, he said, using a term employed by Shiites for Sunni insurgents. "There was an immediate need to move and contain these groups," he said.
"This is part of defending yourself," the commander said. "This is a ready-made verdict -- we don't need any verdict."
You can find in any religion the right of self-defense," said another commander, senior enough to be referred to as the Sheik, who was interviewed separately by telephone.
“The takfiris, the ones who kill, they should be killed," said the Sheik, using a term commonly employed by Shiites for violent Sunni extremists. "Also the Saddamists, whose hands are stained with blood, they are sentenced to death."
[excerpts from Washington Post article -8/25/06]
The nearly complete destruction of the infrastructure of southern Lebanon, the attacks on UN observation posts, the bombing of schools, hospitals and ambulances and the killing of thousands of innocent civilians in the latest Israeli Defense Forces assault purportedly upon Hezbollah in retaliation for the capture of two Israeli soldiers is another example of rhetoric used as political cover for a sub rosa agenda. The entire international community, save the Bush Administration, condemned the disproportionate response and the indiscriminate killings. They refused to accept the Israeli characterization of the response as “self defense” in response to a “terrorist” organizations attack on Israel. Logic tells us that Israeli commandos could have engaged Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon and attempted to free the Israeli soldiers, without the mass destruction and indiscriminate loss of life and displacement resulting from the massive assault. The Israeli action could be more appropriately viewed as an attempt to punish the people of southern Lebanon for sheltering Hezbollah than actually engaging Hezbollah fighters. But such action – “collective punishment” – would be prohibited by international law. So the “self defense” and “terrorist” talismans were trotted out as public spin to explain the IDF actions.
The Bush Administration cannot be held directly accountable for the actions of the Mahdi Army or the Israeli Defense Force, of course. [We set aside, for the moment, the US munitions sales and expedited delivery of the “smart” bombs used by Israel in its assault on Lebanon.] But the reckless and ill conceived policies of the Bush Administration have arguably provided political “cover” for such extremist actions that are actually grounded in vendetta and longstanding ethnic and religious feuds. And nothing said here seeks to condone Sunni attacks on Shiites or the Hezbollah rocket attacks on northern Israeli civilians. The US refuses to acknowledge that the situation in Iraq has devolved into a civil war. The mutual destruction feud between Israel and Hezbollah must be disengaged and resolved through peaceful and political means, because military “solutions” have failed despite decades of hostilities. The issue is the manner in which the reckless foreign policy of the Bush Administration, by example and by proxy, has given license to various factions to disregard internationally accepted standards of engagement and conduct. The current course of “Cowboy Diplomacy” does not lead to any apparent peaceful resolution, but rather to an ever downward spiral of violence and retaliation.
The incessant fear mongering and divisive rhetoric employed by the Bush Administration gives alarming new life and vitality to the phrase: “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Only when we discard the deception, smoke and obfuscation of these rhetorical gimmicks will the world be able to effectively face the true underlying problems and address the deeper and very real concerns of the people in these trouble spots of the world. Continued deceit and delusion, in lieu of rational foreign policy, is likely to lead to widespread global conflict, which is the only true “terror” that we should be concerned about.
As noted by reputable historians, experienced military commanders and other expert observers, “terrorism” is a tactic and not an entity. Thus, a “war on terror[ism]” can neither be effectively fought nor won. The Bush Administration has succeeded in luring the country and the world into a military-backed “mission” to stamp out and “enemy” that cannot be clearly identified, contained or defeated. Yet thousands of lives and Billions of dollars have been expended in this fallacious venture. A “terrorist” is a criminal, like a murderer, bank robber, rapist or other malfeasant. As such, criminal justice organizations throughout the world have extensive experience in tracking and dealing with such criminals. The tragedy of the September 11 attack was not the emergence of Al Qaida as a “terrorist” organization, but rather the abject failure of the law enforcement authorities in the US to communicate with each other and the failure of the Bush Administration to place appropriate priority upon clear warnings that were provided. While no crime is completely preventable, subsequent reports indicate that the September 11 attack could have been diverted, deflected, prevented or reduced in scale if the law enforcement authorities and the White House had done their jobs more competently. Instead of owning up to these failures, the Bush Administration sought to deflect criticism by creating an illusory monster to which the public, in its vulnerable state of grief, could attach their anger and fears. Thus was born “the War on Terror.” But are we are own worst enemy?
We are repeatedly admonished that this is a “different and more dangerous world” we live in after the 9/11 attack. The Bush Administration even contends, on advice from its chief legal officer Gonzalez, that the Geneva Convention is “quaint” or “obsolete” and not binding upon the Bush Administration in its “War on Terror.” By any objective measure, the primary reason that the world may be more dangerous is the continued bellicose, threatening and arrogant rhetoric and actions of the Bush administration, and its proxies, that serve to inflame sensitive political situations and provide fertile recruiting opportunities for extremist groups. This goes directly to the debate of whether the Bush Administration is deliberately manipulating the situation for political purposes.
General Odom in addition to noting that terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy, pointed out that the Bush tactic of rounding up all military age males in Iraq immediately after the invasion not only failed to put an end to the insurgency, but resulted in a serious and durable hostility toward the US military presence. While 90% of those rounded up were ultimately released because they had neither intelligence value nor connection to the insurgency, after imprisonment in harsh and crowded conditions including some proven acts of torture, this brutal and unfair treatment bred in many of these men a motivation to join forces with those factions opposing US military presence. The Bush Administration, deliberately or ineptly, succeeded in fostering the violent “terrorist” movement that it claimed to be fighting. The numerous incidents involving US military misconduct and violation of internationally accepted rules of engagement and treatment of prisoners that have come to light publicly, including the Abu Ghraib prisoner torture, the Fallujah massacre and use of white phosphorous on civilians, the Hadditha rape torture and killing of civilians and other examples have fueled a recruitment of resistance fighters whose enmity toward the US cannot be dismissed merely as jihadi zealotry. In fairness, they have reason to hate and oppose the US military presence.
The term “terrorist” has now become both a talisman and a sham. The same is true of the distortion of the concept of “self defense.” Looking across the political landscape today, we see example of how the irresponsible bandying of “terrorist” and “national security” by the Bush Administration has enabled others to cloak their nefarious agendas in euphemistic rhetorical terms in a similar manner. Consider the public statements of commanders of the Mahdi Army who acknowledge the capture and summary execution of persons “suspected” of being “Saddamists” or Sunni Muslims who oppose the authority of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr:
Asked about the Mahdi Army's role in the surge of killings immediately after the Samarra mosque bombing, the Mahdi Army commander in short sleeves at the restaurant frowned, and answered carefully. "Terrorists" were at work then, he said, using a term employed by Shiites for Sunni insurgents. "There was an immediate need to move and contain these groups," he said.
"This is part of defending yourself," the commander said. "This is a ready-made verdict -- we don't need any verdict."
You can find in any religion the right of self-defense," said another commander, senior enough to be referred to as the Sheik, who was interviewed separately by telephone.
“The takfiris, the ones who kill, they should be killed," said the Sheik, using a term commonly employed by Shiites for violent Sunni extremists. "Also the Saddamists, whose hands are stained with blood, they are sentenced to death."
[excerpts from Washington Post article -8/25/06]
The nearly complete destruction of the infrastructure of southern Lebanon, the attacks on UN observation posts, the bombing of schools, hospitals and ambulances and the killing of thousands of innocent civilians in the latest Israeli Defense Forces assault purportedly upon Hezbollah in retaliation for the capture of two Israeli soldiers is another example of rhetoric used as political cover for a sub rosa agenda. The entire international community, save the Bush Administration, condemned the disproportionate response and the indiscriminate killings. They refused to accept the Israeli characterization of the response as “self defense” in response to a “terrorist” organizations attack on Israel. Logic tells us that Israeli commandos could have engaged Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon and attempted to free the Israeli soldiers, without the mass destruction and indiscriminate loss of life and displacement resulting from the massive assault. The Israeli action could be more appropriately viewed as an attempt to punish the people of southern Lebanon for sheltering Hezbollah than actually engaging Hezbollah fighters. But such action – “collective punishment” – would be prohibited by international law. So the “self defense” and “terrorist” talismans were trotted out as public spin to explain the IDF actions.
The Bush Administration cannot be held directly accountable for the actions of the Mahdi Army or the Israeli Defense Force, of course. [We set aside, for the moment, the US munitions sales and expedited delivery of the “smart” bombs used by Israel in its assault on Lebanon.] But the reckless and ill conceived policies of the Bush Administration have arguably provided political “cover” for such extremist actions that are actually grounded in vendetta and longstanding ethnic and religious feuds. And nothing said here seeks to condone Sunni attacks on Shiites or the Hezbollah rocket attacks on northern Israeli civilians. The US refuses to acknowledge that the situation in Iraq has devolved into a civil war. The mutual destruction feud between Israel and Hezbollah must be disengaged and resolved through peaceful and political means, because military “solutions” have failed despite decades of hostilities. The issue is the manner in which the reckless foreign policy of the Bush Administration, by example and by proxy, has given license to various factions to disregard internationally accepted standards of engagement and conduct. The current course of “Cowboy Diplomacy” does not lead to any apparent peaceful resolution, but rather to an ever downward spiral of violence and retaliation.
The incessant fear mongering and divisive rhetoric employed by the Bush Administration gives alarming new life and vitality to the phrase: “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Only when we discard the deception, smoke and obfuscation of these rhetorical gimmicks will the world be able to effectively face the true underlying problems and address the deeper and very real concerns of the people in these trouble spots of the world. Continued deceit and delusion, in lieu of rational foreign policy, is likely to lead to widespread global conflict, which is the only true “terror” that we should be concerned about.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Exchange - Mideast
From friend and fellow Blogger:
Paul,
You know I love you and in addition no human with a heart and a brain sits around applauding the sacrifice of innocent life, however, I disagree categorically that the inhumane treatment that takes place in the Middle East lies in any way at the feat of the Government of Israel. If the current crisis proves anything it is that there is nobody for Israel to make peace with. I contend that should Hezbollah & Hamas get their way (there constitution call not only for the destruction of Israel but for death to Jews wherever they live on the face of the earth) and the people of Israel were pushed into the sea it would not change the situation on the ground in the Middle East by a scoot. Abu Musab al Zarqawi called Shiites apostates and Dogs deserving of death... Peaceful?
I would further suggest that what current situation proves is any group of evangelic murdering terrorists with Katyusha rockets can hold sovereign nations (and their populations) hostage regardless of the existence of a peace treaty. Do you really believe that Hezbollah's opinion would be any different if Israel and Palestine had reached an agreement when they came so close back during the Clinton Administration? No a culture that thinks it can restore Arab Glory through repression, intolerance, sexual apartheid and terrorism will remain mired in the same mud they have lived in for a millennium. In fact even the most moderate Arab regimes need Israel so that there people don't notice that over the last 50 years India, Ireland, South Korea, Japan, Poland, China etc... have pulled them selves out of the muck previous regimes had cosigned there populations too.
Does this mean I excuse our current Texas Cracker in the White House... No! We are asking Israel to negotiate with Hezbollah while missiles rain down on their cities while George Bush won't even speak with Syria or Iran because they are... I don't know mean? Bush, Cheaney, Rumsfield and Rice are an abomination and there complete lack of engagement (not to mention the cruel stupidity and lies by which the USA has meandered into Iraq) accounts for much of the complete melt down now roaring through the Middle East.
My Reply:
Dear _________________:
I fully agree that there is no honor or rectitude whatsoever in The Hezbollah use of the Lebanese [and remember that many of the southern Lebanese victims are revictimized refugees] people as "human shields." I also agree that there is validity to the "live by the sword, die by the sword" truism. Any government or group [and the distinction seems to get conveniently blurred] that believes that making war is a road to peace is, simply put, insane. Labeling Hezbollah a "terrorist" organization and Israel a "nation state" is of no real consequence. Nazi Germany was a nation state, but that fact does not excuse their behavior. You mistake my criticism of Israel's current actions as support for their enemy.
I see no justification or excuse in the extreme "disproportionate response," as it is called, currently going on in Southern Lebanon. Israel and its apologists seem to excuse their indiscriminate bloodshed and deliberate attacks on hospitals, ambulances and schools, killing civilians, women and children, by claiming that they are not really people, but simply agents or supporters of Hezbollah [and a recent addition has been "people who know people who support Hezbollah."] To this I must object. It has gone far beyond any reasonable or human response to the capture of an Israeli soldier. That act was an improper and inexcusable one and a deliberate provocation. Hezbollah shelling in northern Israel is reprehensible. But neither wrong excuses the actual conduct of the other in this case. The Israeli attacks are inhumane and totally unjustifiable in absolute terms, as is blindly firing Katyushas into Israeli cities and villages.
What we really have are factions within the Israeli military and government who have felt frustrated and pent up since Ariel Sharon decided to pursue a more diplomatic and pragmatic approach to peace through "unilateral disengagement." Without the open sanction to go out and play with their deadly weapons, they got frustrated and angry. Any excuse to let loose the dogs of war was all that was needed. Hezbollah KNEW and cynically planned that Israeli militarists would not respond in a rational or measured way. And without Sharon to contain them, we see the response.
Over 900 PEOPLE have been killed in Southern Lebanon in the last three weeks, and the estimates from both sides indicate that only about 100 were Hezbollah fighters. That does not suggest to me a measured tactical response. Quite frankly, the Israeli defense force is much more competent than that. The deliberate attacks on ambulances, hospitals and the refusal to allow International Red Cross relief and rescue teams safe passage to reach the dead and wounded, and bring in humanitarian aid speaks volumes. The Israeli attacks have resulted in a massacre of far far too many innocent people.
A mother in Israel should not be hit by a rocket just because she lives in the north of Israel, particularly when she has never done anything in her life to deliberately harm a palestinian or Lebanese person across the border. Likewise, an arab or muslim mother should not be slaughtered just because her home is in southern Lebanon or in Beirut, when she has never even met or tried to harm an Israeli. The current political rhetoric and vitriol invite the excuse to dehumanize the tragedy that is happening.
So I blame and hold the government of Israel accountable for its own actions and the indiscriminate and inhumane slaughter of innocent civilians, women and children. I do not fault the Israeli desire to dismantle and defang Hezbollah, and I support the need to neutralize Hezbollah on a more permanent basis. However, acting like a savage mad dog and destroying everything in sight is no logical, practical or humane way to achieve that objective. I do not support Hezbollah when I say this. The fact that approximately 1000 Hezbollah fighters have been able to carry on a fight with over 10,000 Israeli soldiers dispatched to Lebanon should inform someone that the strategy needs to be rethought. Israel ought to look to the example of its prime ally, the US, and its quagmire in Iraq. Cluster bombs, white phosphorous on civilians and total destruction of Fallujah did nothing to bring peace or stability. In fact, the incompetent strategy of the Bush Adminnistration ahs pushed Iraq into civil war. Those same weapons are being used in Southern Lebanon, and will prove equally ineffective unless the only goal is to wipe out as many Lebanese people as possible. But let us not pretend that Israel's actions are to "defend" Israel, or are a measured response to the capture of an Israeli soldier. [It is more likely that the bombing by Israel killed that soldier, rather than his captors doing him harm.] I simply look at the behavior of the Israeli government in objective and in human terms and find it unacceptable.
Our debate underscores the problem with the US - Israel relationship. There is absolutely nothing wrong with supporting and aiding an ally. Support of Israel is vital. However, to openly back an ally that you know is engaged in reprehensible conduct says volumes about any pretention to a moral compass that the US might claim. If Germany were our ally in 1941, would we stand to the side and applaud Hitler during the Holocaust? I know that is tough language, but what Israel is now involved in, in simple objective terms, is attempting to annihilate the Lebanese people in Southern Lebanon. That is not "defense" nor is it reasonably calculated to establish a foundation for anything other than 4 more decades of blood feud and violence.
All that you say may be valid criticism of Hezbollah leadership. But the people getting killed in Southern Lebanon are not Hezbollah leaders. Nothing that you have said will protect the life of the innocent children who will die today or tomorrow when their home, school or place of worship is bombed by Israeli F-16 jockeys eager to try out their new and shiny weapons. If their death could be avoided, which clearly is the case here, then I cannot quietly condone the actions of the IDF. Moreover, I have to condemn the US government who is rushing to sell and deliver even more bombs for the IDF to drop on those children. The same holds true of condemnation of Iran and Syria who are delivering the rockets to Hezbollah to rain down on the Israeli children.
I hold my citizenship of the World and my humanity above any flag or patriotic allegiance. The situation will, in my view, be resolved only when the situation is viewed in human terms rather than in political one upsmanship.
I am not sure we are in disagreement, but if we are, we will have to agree to disagree.
Paul
Paul,
You know I love you and in addition no human with a heart and a brain sits around applauding the sacrifice of innocent life, however, I disagree categorically that the inhumane treatment that takes place in the Middle East lies in any way at the feat of the Government of Israel. If the current crisis proves anything it is that there is nobody for Israel to make peace with. I contend that should Hezbollah & Hamas get their way (there constitution call not only for the destruction of Israel but for death to Jews wherever they live on the face of the earth) and the people of Israel were pushed into the sea it would not change the situation on the ground in the Middle East by a scoot. Abu Musab al Zarqawi called Shiites apostates and Dogs deserving of death... Peaceful?
I would further suggest that what current situation proves is any group of evangelic murdering terrorists with Katyusha rockets can hold sovereign nations (and their populations) hostage regardless of the existence of a peace treaty. Do you really believe that Hezbollah's opinion would be any different if Israel and Palestine had reached an agreement when they came so close back during the Clinton Administration? No a culture that thinks it can restore Arab Glory through repression, intolerance, sexual apartheid and terrorism will remain mired in the same mud they have lived in for a millennium. In fact even the most moderate Arab regimes need Israel so that there people don't notice that over the last 50 years India, Ireland, South Korea, Japan, Poland, China etc... have pulled them selves out of the muck previous regimes had cosigned there populations too.
Does this mean I excuse our current Texas Cracker in the White House... No! We are asking Israel to negotiate with Hezbollah while missiles rain down on their cities while George Bush won't even speak with Syria or Iran because they are... I don't know mean? Bush, Cheaney, Rumsfield and Rice are an abomination and there complete lack of engagement (not to mention the cruel stupidity and lies by which the USA has meandered into Iraq) accounts for much of the complete melt down now roaring through the Middle East.
My Reply:
Dear _________________:
I fully agree that there is no honor or rectitude whatsoever in The Hezbollah use of the Lebanese [and remember that many of the southern Lebanese victims are revictimized refugees] people as "human shields." I also agree that there is validity to the "live by the sword, die by the sword" truism. Any government or group [and the distinction seems to get conveniently blurred] that believes that making war is a road to peace is, simply put, insane. Labeling Hezbollah a "terrorist" organization and Israel a "nation state" is of no real consequence. Nazi Germany was a nation state, but that fact does not excuse their behavior. You mistake my criticism of Israel's current actions as support for their enemy.
I see no justification or excuse in the extreme "disproportionate response," as it is called, currently going on in Southern Lebanon. Israel and its apologists seem to excuse their indiscriminate bloodshed and deliberate attacks on hospitals, ambulances and schools, killing civilians, women and children, by claiming that they are not really people, but simply agents or supporters of Hezbollah [and a recent addition has been "people who know people who support Hezbollah."] To this I must object. It has gone far beyond any reasonable or human response to the capture of an Israeli soldier. That act was an improper and inexcusable one and a deliberate provocation. Hezbollah shelling in northern Israel is reprehensible. But neither wrong excuses the actual conduct of the other in this case. The Israeli attacks are inhumane and totally unjustifiable in absolute terms, as is blindly firing Katyushas into Israeli cities and villages.
What we really have are factions within the Israeli military and government who have felt frustrated and pent up since Ariel Sharon decided to pursue a more diplomatic and pragmatic approach to peace through "unilateral disengagement." Without the open sanction to go out and play with their deadly weapons, they got frustrated and angry. Any excuse to let loose the dogs of war was all that was needed. Hezbollah KNEW and cynically planned that Israeli militarists would not respond in a rational or measured way. And without Sharon to contain them, we see the response.
Over 900 PEOPLE have been killed in Southern Lebanon in the last three weeks, and the estimates from both sides indicate that only about 100 were Hezbollah fighters. That does not suggest to me a measured tactical response. Quite frankly, the Israeli defense force is much more competent than that. The deliberate attacks on ambulances, hospitals and the refusal to allow International Red Cross relief and rescue teams safe passage to reach the dead and wounded, and bring in humanitarian aid speaks volumes. The Israeli attacks have resulted in a massacre of far far too many innocent people.
A mother in Israel should not be hit by a rocket just because she lives in the north of Israel, particularly when she has never done anything in her life to deliberately harm a palestinian or Lebanese person across the border. Likewise, an arab or muslim mother should not be slaughtered just because her home is in southern Lebanon or in Beirut, when she has never even met or tried to harm an Israeli. The current political rhetoric and vitriol invite the excuse to dehumanize the tragedy that is happening.
So I blame and hold the government of Israel accountable for its own actions and the indiscriminate and inhumane slaughter of innocent civilians, women and children. I do not fault the Israeli desire to dismantle and defang Hezbollah, and I support the need to neutralize Hezbollah on a more permanent basis. However, acting like a savage mad dog and destroying everything in sight is no logical, practical or humane way to achieve that objective. I do not support Hezbollah when I say this. The fact that approximately 1000 Hezbollah fighters have been able to carry on a fight with over 10,000 Israeli soldiers dispatched to Lebanon should inform someone that the strategy needs to be rethought. Israel ought to look to the example of its prime ally, the US, and its quagmire in Iraq. Cluster bombs, white phosphorous on civilians and total destruction of Fallujah did nothing to bring peace or stability. In fact, the incompetent strategy of the Bush Adminnistration ahs pushed Iraq into civil war. Those same weapons are being used in Southern Lebanon, and will prove equally ineffective unless the only goal is to wipe out as many Lebanese people as possible. But let us not pretend that Israel's actions are to "defend" Israel, or are a measured response to the capture of an Israeli soldier. [It is more likely that the bombing by Israel killed that soldier, rather than his captors doing him harm.] I simply look at the behavior of the Israeli government in objective and in human terms and find it unacceptable.
Our debate underscores the problem with the US - Israel relationship. There is absolutely nothing wrong with supporting and aiding an ally. Support of Israel is vital. However, to openly back an ally that you know is engaged in reprehensible conduct says volumes about any pretention to a moral compass that the US might claim. If Germany were our ally in 1941, would we stand to the side and applaud Hitler during the Holocaust? I know that is tough language, but what Israel is now involved in, in simple objective terms, is attempting to annihilate the Lebanese people in Southern Lebanon. That is not "defense" nor is it reasonably calculated to establish a foundation for anything other than 4 more decades of blood feud and violence.
All that you say may be valid criticism of Hezbollah leadership. But the people getting killed in Southern Lebanon are not Hezbollah leaders. Nothing that you have said will protect the life of the innocent children who will die today or tomorrow when their home, school or place of worship is bombed by Israeli F-16 jockeys eager to try out their new and shiny weapons. If their death could be avoided, which clearly is the case here, then I cannot quietly condone the actions of the IDF. Moreover, I have to condemn the US government who is rushing to sell and deliver even more bombs for the IDF to drop on those children. The same holds true of condemnation of Iran and Syria who are delivering the rockets to Hezbollah to rain down on the Israeli children.
I hold my citizenship of the World and my humanity above any flag or patriotic allegiance. The situation will, in my view, be resolved only when the situation is viewed in human terms rather than in political one upsmanship.
I am not sure we are in disagreement, but if we are, we will have to agree to disagree.
Paul
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)