Notes From the Cave

Response to a Ridiculous Question

I participate in a political forum in which one of the conservatives posed the following question:

After reading all the negative posts, do you guys (meaning, liberals) wish Suddam was still in power ?

What follows is my response:

I don't think anyone who has any intelligence thought that Saddam was a good man and should be in power. However, it is one thing to say that he is a bad man and advocate his overthrow (or even support others to accomplish it); but it is totally another to take military action to topple a regime of a sovereign nation.

There are plenty of other nations with leaders who should be out of power. By your reasoning, does that mean that we have a moral obligation to topple every regime in the world we think is bad? Are you talking about the "C" word here? (Hint: it rhymes with "brigade")

If so, you better advocate reinstituting the draft; because you will need LOTS of soldiers for that kind of global pursuit.

First Nail In the Bush Coffin

The surprising victory of the Socialist candidate in Spain seems to be an "in your face" rebuke of the Bush world view. Check out the article in today's New York Times.

As I have said in the past, and as many are saying, there are consequences to the actions a president takes. Yes, President Bush made decisions, presumably in good faith, based upon his world view and best judgment on how to deal with the pending issues. However, there are consequences to these actions. And, when you defy public opinion, and defy the united view of foreign governments, you will inevitably pay a price if you are wrong.

It appears that the soon-to-be former ruler of Spain is the first to pay the consequences of following a flawed policy pushed by the Bush Administration.

Now, watch to see what happens to Tony Blair. If he goes down, you can all but write off Bush in November.

When Will Iraq Become a Nation Again?

Driving to work this morning, I heard a news report of another car bombing in Iraq that killed 50 people, a day after a separate bombing that also killed 50. As part of that news story on NPR, the reporter commented that several Iraqis were blaming the U.S., saying that since there were no U.S. casualties, then the U.S. was responsible for the attack, using Iraqis as "fodder" in the occupation.

This comment got me to thinking something that occurs to me regularly: Why is it that the Iraqis blame the U.S. rather than getting angry at the terrorists?

The reason seems to be that the people of Iraq still see themselves as living in an occupied territory. As such, the U.S. is and should be held accountable for security. So, anything negative that happens is the responsibility of the Americans.

Then, it occurred to me that Iraq will truly become a nation once again when the Iraqi citizens stop blaming the U.S. for everything that goes wrong, starts getting angry at the people truly responsible for the horrors that befall them, and work together to find a way to attack their true enemies.

Once I hear or see a news story reporting this turn of events, then Iraq will have been reborn as a nation.

Moral and Strategic Bankruptcy

Thomas Friedman has an Op-Ed piece in today's New York Times that sets forth an interesting premise: By promoting a mindset in which the American public can go about its business and not worry about the ongoing war in Iraq (including not accounting for it in budgetary matters), the Bush administration has demonstrated a moral and strategic bankruptcy.

I'm not so sure I would go as far as Friedman has in this article. However, as always, even if you don't agree with Friedman, he at least makes you think about and question your point of view.

I highly recommend the article to you.

Why Can't Bush Be More Like Blair?

To see the difference between the Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain and President Bush, all you need to do is look at how each has handled the "scandal" brewing over the faulty intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

When the British Parliament demanded an investigation, what did Blair do? He consented to the investigation, and fully cooperated with it, confident that he would be, if not vindicated, at least found to have acted in good faith on information he believed to be correct.

Now, look at how President Bush is handling the same uproar from the U.S. Congress. He is blocking every move to begin such an investigation, sending out his troops, including Condoleeza Rice, in an attempt to tap-dance his way out of the situation. See, for example, the article about Ms. Rice's dance with all of the networks earlier today.

It's time that President Bush accepts the reality of the situation: that he relied upon faulty intelligence. Once he gets over that, he needs to lead the charge to investigate what went wrong, so that we do not make the same mistakes again. As David Kay, the former chief weapons inspector in Iraq said in his recent testimony, it is important to acknowledge failure.

Everyone makes mistakes, even the President of the United States. Making mistakes is human; we can forgive mistakes. However, failure to admit mistakes when the facts are clear indicates a character flaw. Character flaws can not so easily be forgiven.

Observations on Humility

For an interesting perspective on the recent Davos World Economic Forum, check out Thomas L. Friedman's op-ed piece in today's New York Times.

(NOTE: An online registration may be required to view the referenced article.)

Friedman's "War of Ideas" Series

Thomas L. Friedman, a New York Times Op-Ed columnist, has written a six-part series which he calls War of Ideas. It is a discussion of what civilized society needs to do to win the war against terrorism.

In Friedman's view, the war on terrorism is different from any other war we have fought because, in this war, there is no sense of shame. In the past, a common belief in the sanctity of life constrained military action. To paraphrase Friedman's words, "... at the end of the day, our enemies loved life more than they hated us. Despite our differences, we agreed on certain bedrock rules of civilization."

The mindset of the terrorists is much different than that of our previous enemies. Read this excerpt from War of Ideas, Part 1:

Are National Legal Systems Becoming Obsolete?

I recently listened to a news report on National Public Radio about the spread of child pornography. The reporter talked about how difficult it is to get control of the issue, due to the fact that there are Internet sites throughout the world, accessible anywhere. At the end of the piece, almost as an aside, the reporter noted that there are "no international laws against child pornography."

This got me thinking about the nature of laws and legal systems and the need for a total overhaul in light of the growth of commerce and publication on the Internet. It seems to me that national boundaries and national laws are not sufficient to deal with these kinds of issues. There appear to be only three alternatives: 1) let things continue the way they are; 2) find a way for all countries to create identical legislation on certain agreed-upon issues, like child pornography; or 3) create a system for international laws, enforceable in international courts.

Alternative 1 is totally unacceptable to any civilized person. And alternative 2 seems rather impossible to implement. That leaves alternative 3, which becomes the growth of an international legal system that supercedes the legal systems of individual countries.

This is a REAL problem, since it requires individual nations to compromise what may in their best interests for the best interests of all mankind. And, based upon the philosophy of the present administration in Washington, this does not seem likely any time soon.

This is an issue that will not go away. And, despite whatever short-term gains are made by those who espouse nationalism, in the long term, we will all have to accept the fact that we are in this together... and that we must work together to reach common goals.

Unlike the attitude that prevails in Washington today, "what's good for the U.S. is good for the world" is not a viable long-term strategy. That will work only as long as the U.S. is the only superpower in the world. As soon as another military power emerges, all bets are off.

More on this point of view to come in future postings.

Friedman's "War of Ideas" Series

Thomas L. Friedman, a New York Times Op-Ed columnist, is writing a five-part series which he calls War of Ideas. It is a discussion of what civilized society needs to do to win the war against terrorism.

In Friedman's view, the war on terrorism is different from any other war we have fought because, in this war, there is no sense of shame. In the past, a common belief in the sanctity of life constrained military action. To paraphrase Friedman's words, "... at the end of the day, our enemies loved life more than they hated us. Despite our differences, we agreed on certain bedrock rules of civilization."

The mindset of the terrorists is much different than that of our previous enemies. Read this excerpt from War of Ideas, Part 1:

With the Islamist militant groups, we face people who hate us more than they love life. When you have large numbers of people ready to commit suicide, and ready to do it by making themselves into human bombs, using the most normal instruments of daily life — an airplane, a car, a garage door opener, a cellphone, fertilizer, a tennis shoe — you create a weapon that is undeterrable, undetectable and inexhaustible. This poses a much more serious threat than the Soviet Red Army because these human bombs attack the most essential element of an open society: trust.

Trust is built into every aspect, every building and every interaction in our increasingly hyperconnected world. We trust that when we board a plane, the person next to us isn't going to blow up his shoes. Without trust, there's no open society because there aren't enough police to guard every opening in an open society.

Which is why suicidal Islamist militants have the potential to erode our lifestyle. Because the only way to deter a suicidal enemy ready to use the instruments of daily life to kill us is by gradually taking away trust.

Friedman is asserting that the only way to win this "war of ideas" is to work together to change the mindset of those who have no sense of shame - to help them understand that hating us more than loving life is the wrong premise upon which to advance their cause.

Since I have such respect for Friedman - his sincerity, his intellect and his willingness to set out the cold realities - I am creating this link to his articles. I will update this post as the five-part series progresses, so that you can have links to all five parts. In my opinion, Friedman is the "model" commentator. I wish there were more people like him commenting on various aspects of politics, society and culture.

Please take time to read these articles. Whether you agree with his political position or not, and whether you agree with his conclusions or not, Friedman's series make for good reading and is very thought-provoking.

(Please note that these articles require an online registration)

War of Ideas, Part One

War of Ideas, Part Two

Armed Marshall Emergency Order: It's Not What He Does, It's How He Does It

Tom Ridge, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, announced today that the Bush administration issued an emergency order on Monday demanding that foreign airlines place armed air marshals on flights that travel into, out of or over the United States if American officials determine there is a threat. Check out the article in the New York Times.

It's not that I have a problem with the decision itself. It only makes sense to keep international flights coming into the U.S. as safe as possible. And naturally, if flights from foreign countries refuse to comply with U.S. requirements, the U.S. has an absolute right to deny flyover rights or landing rights.

My problem is with how these decisions are made and announced. Once again, there does not seem to be any conversation or dialogue with foreign governments to prepare them for such actions. As has become the norm in the Bush administration, decisions are made and the rest of the world simply must comply... period. No discussion, no negotiation, no modification. Take it or leave it.

Although in the short term, this may be good policy for "homeland security" (if there can really be any such thing), in the long run, we may be creating a multitude of problems in international relations. Treating other countries as second-class citizens who must comply with any and all arbitrary rules and demands put upon them by the U.S. may very well backfire against us.

The European Union is in its infancy. It is still working on a constitution and working out the problems of economic, political and cultural unification. However, in my opinion, it is inevitable that one day there will be a "United States of Europe" ("USE"), very similar to the USA. When that happens, the USE will have a lot more political and economic power. If the U.S. continues on its present course, the USE will remember. And as the saying goes, "paybacks are hell."

Yes, we must secure our homeland and protect our citizens. However, given that absolute security is an illusion, there needs to be more consideration of the impact of the decisions of our government on others around the world.

The attitude of "you're either with us or against us" only works so long and so far. In my opinion, it has already been pushed too far.