Irony in “US Aid” or Another Kind of “String Theory”

Irony – Thy name is “US Aid” or Another “Kind of “String Theory”

Here is a riddle: Why does it make sense to support sending unrestricted billions of dollars in money and equipment each month to Iraq to cause destruction and loss of military and civilian lives without any clear plan to improve the long term situation for the local populace, yet at the same time block spending $35 million dollars to support a clearly established foreign aid plan for construction of a local irrigation system in a drought stricken region in Africa and temporary food shipments to prevent starvation while the irrigation project is built?

Unfortunately, the answer to this riddle is something that can come only from a terribly misguided and confused Congress so caught up in special interest hypnosis that it cannot even think through the policies that it publicly claims to support. The Kenyan government approved the local irrigation project that would enable people in the drought region to turn 1000 acres of arid land into farmland capable of supporting the local populace. It objected, however, to importation of American corn to feed the local population when there was a surplus of corn on the Kenyan market. The American aid laws, however, prohibited purchasing the corn in Africa [at a lower prices, mind you] to supply the locals with sufficient nourishment while the irrigation project was built. The apparent reason for the restriction was that the US farm belt state legislators demanded that all aid money be used only to buy American products for export, even though the stated purpose of the aid bill was to help distressed foreign projects, not as a domestic subsidy for US farmers [provided by a separate farm Aid Bill]. Beyond this irrational policy implementation, the squabbling to begrudge starving people trying to survive by building a self sustaining source of food of a mere $35 million while shipping billions of dollars in bombs and military equipment to sustain an occupation force that has no demonstrable purpose seems a misguided priority, if not totally absurd.

UN World Food Program revealed in a recent report the ability to provide 75% more actual food aid to distressed and starving people in Africa by purchasing the food in Africa and redistributing it where the hunger and famine existed. The major obstacles contributing to loss of life in famine and drought stricken regions seem to be lack of infrastructure, ineffective distribution of existing resources and political instability. This suggests that prudent money management would require the US Administration to maximize the effectiveness of aid dollars by purchasing the necessary food products where the lowest available price coincides with the lowest transportation and importation costs. The Kenyan government could be faulted for not redistributing the food within its own country to address the starvation problems. However, even that effort requires money.

If the US government were to give the same aid dollars to the Kenyan government for the purpose of buying food locally for the aid project there would still be greater effectiveness than trying to import American corn. Acknowledging that potential of corruption could divert funds from the intended purpose, the Kenyan government would permit the internationally respected World Vision charity to achieve its humanitarian mission by purchasing corn on the Kenyan markets to support the irrigation project. But then the statutory restriction on US aid dollars prevented those local purchases. The result is that promises were broken and women and children died of starvation while the irrigation project was being built. It now supports farming that allows local farmers to distribute excess produce to the needy in the area. This is progress. But the cost of unnecessary loss of life from cruel and agonizing starvation could have been avoided had special interest blinded legislators released the choke hold on the aid and allowed the money to be used most effectively to achieve the intended purpose.

"Support Our Troops" – Let’s Start With Being Honest

In the vitriolic public debate about the quagmire resulting from the US invasion and occupation in Iraq, the phrase “support our troops” is frequently tossed about. Quite frequently it is used as a talisman to fend off any careful and rational discussion of an appropriate strategy. Supporters of the Administration argue that any criticism of the US involvement in Iraq fails to support or even undermines the US troops fighting there. Their reasoning is that once troops are deployed, any critique or criticism of their mission is disloyal and may be disheartening to the troops. They argue that such discussion is advocacy for "surrender" and that the US must stay and "win" the conflict. This argument is both facile and dishonest. It is possible to support the men and women serving their country admirably in the field of battle and still question the basis for their deployment and the reasons for their being placed in harm’s way. Moreover, if there is not discernible strategy or prospect for success, then talk of "winning" is a deception or a delusion.

One fact that seems to be missing in the use of the “support the troops” argument is that the job of soldiers is to execute orders, not to make policy. The fundamental basis for the “chain of command” structure that underlies military discipline is that soldiers are required to follow orders and not to question the policy decisions that resulted in those orders. In addition, refusal to follow orders or dissention on the field of battle could cause dangerous situations with potentially lethal consequences. After all, the battlefield is an inherently dangerous place. During the Viet Nam conflict, the public made a serious tactical and philosophical error by blaming the foot soldiers for the results of the orders that they carried out. The American public does not appear to be buying into that same mistake with regard to the Iraq situation.

The broad and firm consensus of the American people is that US military troops stationed in Iraq, or anywhere for that matter, should be provided with the tools that they need to accomplish their assigned mission. No proponent of any legislation offered in Congress has suggested that US military troops be deprived of equipment and resources to carry out their orders. There have been measures introduced in Congress and discussed in the media that fault the Bush Administration for failing to adequately equip troops that the administration deployed in Iraq. The true question is not about providing equipment and funding support for the troops. The issue is whether the equipment and funding should be expended on a mission in Iraq that seems to have no clear strategy, has shown very little if any progress and has shown no reason for optimism that such progress will be forthcoming in the foreseeable future.

The shifting dialogue is turning toward the question whether huge sums of public funds and, more importantly, mounting numbers of US military casualties should be expended in Iraq. Thus, the properly stated question is “how” to support the troops. Are the US troops best supported by a strategy and continuing orders from the Commander in Chief to remain in Iraq and struggle to bring stability to a civil war among competing Iraqi factions, all of whom want the US to leave Iraq? Or, alternatively, are the US troops best supported by a different strategy and orders to redeploy outside Iraq in a manner that enables any necessary response to support allies and legitimate regional interests should the Iraqi internal conflict spill out beyond the current internal civil strife. The sincerity of the Bush Administration's call for support for the troops is belied by the Administration's failure to provide adequate medical care and treatment for the military personel returning from deployment in Iraq. Some would argue that spending a fraction of the iraq budget on universal healthcare would do more to support our military personel [and all Americans] than continuing to pour money into a failed mission that has no military solution.

Using US military personnel as pawns in the political debate is both unfair and disingenuous. While deployed, any public comment by soldiers that challenges the Iraq “mission” could be viewed as a basis for military discipline. Regardless of what an individual soldier may think about the Iraq mission and orders, he or she is duty bound to carry out orders to the best of that soldier’s ability. In fact, many soldiers who have served in Iraq and their families have spoken out publicly [once removed from the battlefield] that they do not believe that the US presence in Iraq is based upon any clear or winnable strategy. They say that without a clear mission and the support of the Iraqi people, the US should withdraw its troops.

In simple terms, if we do not know what we are doing or why we are doing it, we should step back and re examine the mission. If we continue to lose soldiers in a poorly directed and ineffectual venture, there is no reason for staying. This is a justifiable analysis that is based primarily upon function and common sense. As was the case in Viet Nam, the Administration that ordered the troops into battle had no clear idea what the specific mission was or specific objectives to be achieved. "Halting the spread of communism" is a convenient political slogan, but an extremely flawed and useless military strategy. Fighting terrorism is a similarly useless military strategy or justification for deployment of soldiers. That the Bush Administration continues to assert a demonstrably false link between Saddam Hussein or Iraq and the Al Qaeda sponsored attack on the US World Trade Center to support its call for loyalty to its Iraq venture demonstrates the absence of any realistic and cogent strategy.

If one looks beyond the sloganeering to the concrete actions, a plausible conclusion would be that the purpose of deploying US troops in Iraq is to establish some measure of permanent control over Iraqi oil reserves. Despite the fact that the current military effort seems to be failing in that effort as well, the rationale and strategy would explain many of the Bush Administration actions relating to Iraq and a stubborn refusal to reconsider or debate its professed "mission." Such a strategy would explain the move to build permanent military bases in Iraq. It would also explain US demand for Iraqi approval, as a “benchmark” of progress, of an “Oil Sharing”agreement drafted by US representatives with far less favorable terms to Iraqis than any agreement currently in place with any other Middle East oil producing nation. The “Support” that the Bush seeks is not really support for the troops, but rather support for his agenda for establishing a permanent presence in Iraq.

However, as long as the Bush mantra continues to be “support our troops,” more and more Americans will continue to question why the best way to support our military personnel is not to remove them from harm's way in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. This group of Americans from all political walks is growing at such a rate that its presence and momentum has created a political crisis that the Bush Administration is having a very difficult time contending with.

Dear Uncle (Clarence) Thomas

I am writing this letter with all due respect because your ramblings of late seem to indicate that the weight of your responsibilities or the ravages of advancing age seem to have caused your mind to slip more than we, your kin, have noted in the past. We also realize that the rigors of actually trying to construct an opinion for the Supreme Court is more of a burden than you have typically been able to carry for some time. Nevertheless, your opinions in the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding education have caused more than a little embarrassment not only for us, but for you as well.

You have declared in your recent integration related opinion that you do not believe that either children of color or the institutions that serve them benefit from the diversity that derives from integration. In your view, American is the land of freedom and equal opportunity and there is absolutely no reason to consider race in the administration of publicly supported education. To suggest that race may be an appropriate factor in creating balance and diversity, you say, is to demean the Black children by suggesting that they would not be equally successful in segregated schools. This reasoning was previously known as the “separate but equal “doctrine that was struck down by the Supreme Court a half century ago. You also decry the admission of poor Black students to professional schools through any type of affirmative action [like the program at Yale Law School to which you were admitted under a minority set aside]. You complain that such opportunities deceive these Black scholars into thinking that they might be able to compete with their White counterparts. The result, should they fail, would be a devastating emotional blow from which your approach would shield and benevolently protect them.

While I am sure that in your mind [failing though it may be at this point] is convinced and your heart is well meaning, there are a few discrepancies in your reasoning and view of the facts that we feel compelled to point out briefly here. The most obvious would be your own appointment to the Supreme Court, which was clearly driven by race based considerations. No other justice currently on the bench was appointed in the face of compelling evidence of illegal sexual harassment and discrimination against a female subordinate. Your prior career of performance at the EEOC and your prior judicial decisions were less than stellar. Thus, it would be fair to say that you may not have been the most qualified and untarnished candidate for the High Court. Yet the need to fill the seat vacated by the only justice of color apparently carried the day despite your moral and intellectual shortcomings. Your attendance in higher education was a result of a discriminatory family decision to deny your sisters educational opportunity so that you, the male child, could advance your education. Your educational financing was supported by government programs designed to enhance educational opportunity for young poor students of color. But of course, these events are in the past and to be overlooked or forgotten.

So let’s turn to the logic of your current opinions. The programs utilized by the school district in Louisville were not designed nor did they operate to apply admission decisions that single out an individual upon the basis of race. The problem that the system was attempting to address is an historical and complex one that involves demographics of school attendance and residential demographics. Louisville is a metropolitan school district. As a result, the older and less maintained school buildings in the inner city were gradually abandoned for newer buildings in more economically stable or affluent areas. This transition required some measures to balance the assignment of students to different schools in order to avoid creating segregated schools. Their solution involved creating thresholds above which they would apply race as a factor in balancing the demographics of schools, rather than allowing a school to become segregated. In other words, students were not denied admission to the Louisville School System, but were not allowed complete freedom to choose which school they could attend in those limited situations where the school system policy of balance and diversity would be undermined.

With all due respect, your reasoning harkens back to the “separate but equal” doctrine and the prevalence of de facto segregation that perpetuated the deficiencies of deliberate racial discrimination in educational opportunities. The Chief Justice was being intellectually dishonest in suggesting that devices such as geographic school boundaries would solve the problem in a Constitutionally acceptable manner. Recent Supreme Court cases involving gerrymandering of voting districts in the fashion suggested by the majority for school attendance have been viewed as dubious at best. In a world that has become more globally interconnected and in which the ability to comprehend and interact with people of different backgrounds and cultures is imperative, the idea that returning to segregated educational systems is better for Black children is unrealistic if not downright knuckleheaded [respectfully, of course].

Your paternalistic argument that would protect poor Black scholars from the risk of disappointment should they gain admittance to higher education through affirmative action is also flawed. These students’ failure to obtain admittance through “traditional” admissions processes may not be because they are less capable, but rather because the criteria traditionally used have been constructed and applied in a manner that was biased in favor of more affluent white students. In addition, every student of any ethnic background who fails to make the grade in law school is disappointed, many are devastated. But the opportunity to succeed must also be accompanied by the opportunity to fail. Your logic would deny Black students the opportunity to succeed because of the risk that they might fail. Which philosophy is truly more presumptuous and demeaning?

In a perfect world, without the vestiges and the current operation of racial prejudice and exclusionary policies, the opportunity for quality education would be open to all on an equal basis. However, you would need to emerge from the darkened cloak room with your good buddy Scalia in order to notice that the rest of us do not live in such an Eden. The public school system, with all of its flaws and imperfections, is one of the cornerstones for the establishment of the primacy of this country. In the real world, the public educational system has to confront and interface with political system changes and ideological opportunism, with taxation and funding issues, with real estate market realities and with constantly changing and increasing demands for elevated services to provide competitive general education. None of these issues were adequately contemplated by the original drafters of the Constitution, and no amount of “strict constructionist” sophistry can yield a useful and meaningful response to current problems without recognizing the real world facts. Honor the basic and fundamental principles, but you must not do so in a manner that is deliberately ignorant of the real world to which the decisions must be applied.

While your intent may be well meaning, albeit weak minded, the agenda and intent of your colleagues Scalia, Alito and the Chief Justice are far less benign. If you cannot see the weaknesses in your logic and the disconnect with the real world, then perhaps you should honor your own philosophy and consider stepping aside to allow a more competent jurist to take your place, regardless of his or her race.