You are currently browsing S.C. Denney's articles.
Talks in the Middle East may indicate a shift in foreign policy doctrine:
- U.S.-Iran “talks:” The U.S. is considering establishing limited diplomatic ties with Iran.
- Israel Negotiates: A cease-fire with Hamas and a prisoner exchange with Hezbollah.
- Syria engaged: Europe opens up to Syria and Israel conducts indirect talks.
It seems that there is a paradigm shift occurring amongst many of the Western nations, especially the United States and Israel. These nations could be experiencing an “ah-ha” moment in foreign policy doctrine. The paradigm that has been the driving force behind most of American and Western foreign policy for the better half of the 20th and all of the 21st century may be evolving. We could be witnessing a change from containment to engagement, from isolation to openness.
A foreign policy doctrine based on engagement could do well to combat the global threat of terrorism and Islamic extremism. Perhaps the best way to undermine Islamic extremism is by undermining their base of support by engaging the regions that they operate and flourish in, instead of isolating them in hopes of internal collapse. I suppose the greatest question of our time is whether Islamic extremism is a real confronting idea, so much that it challenges the authority and supremacy of liberalism? I have a hard time believing that it is a real challenge; I see it more as a nuisance — but a very powerful one, nonetheless. Powerful enough to eradicate an entire city if given the proper resources. A prudent shift in foreign policy could prove an adequate preventative measure.
Is this the right move? I think so. The policy of containment is an anachronistic policy of the the Cold War, whose efficacy was questionable then, even though the Iron Curtain fell. Furthmore, the world in which we live operates much differently than it did in the 1970s. We don’t live in a bi-polar world anymore. We live in a world with one really strong power (the U.S.), a multitude of other strong powers, and the rest (who are rising). A policy which seeks to disrupt the internal structure of states by strategically cordoning them off and neglecting to participate in peaceful, engagmed talks to settle differences will not work in a world of many powers. Hopefully a foreign policy shift amongst the West will lead to more sound statecraft and better diplomacy in a uni-multipolar world (to use Hunington’s phrase).
A recent deal between Israel and the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah arranged for the swap of five Lebanese prisoners for the corpses of two Israeli soldiers captured in 2006 at the Lebanon-Israel border by Hezbollah. The two Israeli soldiers were capture, upon order by Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nassrallah, to be used as bargaining chips to free Lebanese from jail — the move apparently worked.
The Israelies, today, buried the remains of the two soldiers returned: Sfc. Ehud Goldwasser and Ssg. Eldad Regev. The exchange is important for Israel. The Jewish population in Israel places great significance on the “Jewish family.” The return of the soldiers, even if they are not alive, is of great religious and symbolic significance to Israel’s Jews.
One of the Lebanese prisoners released was Samir Kuntar. Samir was 16-years-old when he was arrested by Israeli authorities for the killing of an Israeli police officer, a woman, and a child. He is now 46-years-old, and a Lebanese national celebrity. The release of Samir, and the other four prisoners, is seen as a political triumph for Hezbollah in Lebanon; the Lebanese held a homecoming celebration for the five prisoners with a banner in the background that read “God’s Achievement through our Hands.”
The victories for Hezbollah continue. Less than a week following the deal, Hezbollah reached another milestone. They gained veto power over government decisions in the Lebanese government by increasing their representation in the cabinet. Moreover, the entire government of Lebanon — Parliament and Prime Minister — backed Hezbollah’s negotiation efforts with Israel.
Interestingly enough, in Lebanon, Hezbollah carries more political influence than the formal government in Beirut does. Samir, the prisoner described above, is a Druze — one of the most influential religious sects in Lebanon; his release only adds to the credibility of Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The primary reason given by Israel for negotiating with Hezbollah was that a prisoner exchange would remove some of the issues that Hezbollah uses to justify keeping weapons — namely, the retention of Lebanese prisoners. The Israeli government also acknowledges that fact that the ability to negotiate with Lebanon means dealing with Hezbollah — directly, if need be. Shortly after the release, Sheik Nassarah vowed his support for a negotiated settlement of disputed territory between Israel and Lebanon; a gesture seen by many as a sign of good faith.
At first glance, this deal seems extremely lopsided — five “live” prisoners for two dead ones, what kind of deal is that? I must admit, when I first read about the negotiation I frowned a bit; the trade seemed ridiculous. However, after I looked into the event a bit I began to understand the diplomatic motive.
Israel has recognized two things:
1. They cannot “defeat” or “destroy” Hezbollah or the broader grassroots intifada-style movement. The 1982 and 2006 invasions of Lebanon has forced Israel to reassess their foreign policy. Israel cannot base its relations with its Arab Muslim neighbors according to a right-wing-hawk, Likud policy. The only way to bring issues to settlement is by negotiation
2. Hezbollah is undergoing a social and political transformation — they are a recognized and powerful bloc in the Lebanese government. If Israel wants to pursue peace and reconciliation with its neighbors, it will require them to engage with groups like Hezbollah.
The deal, if nothing else, is symbolically important, in that it formally recognizes diplomatic ties between two contentious factions. It also indicates that Israel no longer views Hezbollah as a nonnegotiable and illegitimate non-state actor. These two factors will hopefully mend ill relations between the two groups, help to rein in hostilities, and set the platform for further political reconciliation and negotiation.
Furthermore, Israel has a unique opportunity to redefine the way in which nation-states deal with militant (state and non-state) actors. Hezbollah is considered by America as a terrorist organization, thus precluding any chance at real political negotiation. For once in a long while, I am agreeing with Israeli foreign policy. What’s next? Negotiation with Iran — ha, right.
Note: The following is an excerpt from my research proposal for my summer class: U.S. Foreign Policy in the 21st Century: Dynamics of Change. I wanted to post this to see if it could spark any beneficial discussion. I am currently researching and writing my first 10-page draft. Aside from the usual forum discussion, any comments could help me in my policy draft.
After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the United States found itself facing violence and chaos from two opposing religious factions – the Sunnis and the Shiites – and a northern region that is all but completely autonomous from the central government. Despite the recent de-escalation in violence and insurgent attacks, attributed by many to the 2007 military “surge,” the core issue of a stable, viable Iraq is far from being solved. The prospects of a multi-state solution have been marginalized in favor of a single-state Iraq. The single-state solution, despite its support, is an anachronistic policy and should be abrogated as official nation-building policy.
The most arbitrary and distorted borders in the world are in Africa and the Middle East. Borders drawn by early 20th century diplomats and politicians of Western nations have produced a convoluted geographical make-up, resulting in some of the most violent and tumultuous regions in the world. The United States has discovered this geopolitical fact first hand in Iraqi. Inter-ethnic conflict, a quasi-separatist northern region, and a central government lacking political authority, the U.S. is faced with an acute political dilemma that will require a change in course.
Despite its lauded success, the surge has not solved the essential issue in Iraq: a stable and legitimate central government. As political strategist Steven Simon identified in a recent article, the surge merely gives the illusion of political workability for the current Iraqi government; the prospect for long-term political stability in Iraq is nebulous, at best. In order to remedy the geopolitical mess that is Iraq, the United States must seek a new course of action.
While the U.S. still holds a relatively influential position in directing the course of Iraqi politics, it should consider the political option of initiating the partition of Iraq into separate Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni polities, according to their religious and ethnic make-up. The partitioned states should be loosely connected under a political federation with Baghdad serving as a shared city-state, federation capital. It is in the interest of the geopolitical future of the Middle East and the objective set by the United States to a rebuild a stable, democratic Middle East, that a serious consideration is given to the prospect of re-drawing the archaic and incorrigible borders of the current Iraqi state.
This question may turn out to be the proverbial wrench in the engine for the Obama campaign. From the NY Times:
Senator Barack Obama said Thursday that he might “refine” his policies for Iraq after meeting with military commanders there later this summer. But hours later he held a second news conference to emphasize his commitment to the withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.
The seemingly confusing and contradictory rhetoric may appropriately illustrate the complex question facing Obama and his campaign: what happens next in Iraq? The answer isn’t as simple as it has been portrayed. Complete withdrawal, aside from being a logistical nightmare, isn’t as politically or strategically savvy as it has been made out to be.
Contrary to popular belief and even statements made by Obama himself, the likelihood of a “withdrawal” from Iraq in 16 months (as has been the standard “stump” answer given by Obama) isn’t an accurate representation of the pending reality. The concept of “pulling out of Iraq” is nothing but a game of perception. The Obama campaign is going to make it seem as if America will leave Iraq; however, the truth of the matter is that although Obama may implement a new strategy (which could include a phased reduction in troops), a complete withdrawal of all combat troops within 16 months (set aside from its logistical barriers) is a political and strategic misrepresentation of what will actually happen.
What probably will happen is something similar to what I wrote about earlier this year. A transition to a “residual force” or an “over the horizon” force is one possibility. However, it is also very possible that Obama will make that claim that in order to maintain peace and security in a highly volatile region, the necessary amount of U.S. forces will be kept in Iraq — of course Obama, with his rhetorical skill, will make the comment more elegantly and in a way that will seem more accepting to those of the “pull out of Iraq” cohort in the American political society.
There is a possibility that the question of what is really going to happen in Iraq may turn into a sort of evolving standard for Obama. I’ve always sensed a certain divide between what Obama says about Iraq and what may actually happen. It isn’t as easy as saying “I will implement a plan that will withdrawal all American combat troops within 16 months of my inauguration.” It’s a great political one-liner and it resonates well with many people. However, I, personally, wouldn’t put much stock in the 16 month withdrawal time line.
I don’t doubt Obama’s ability to work his way around this tempestuous and complex question. And I am, by no means, stating that Obama is a two-faced, flip-flopper. The question of Iraq isn’t something you can answer for the American people in one 15 minute speech. What to do in Iraq is a complicated question with an answer equally, if not more, complicated.
I can speak for what I know:
1. I am in D.C., working an internship and taking a class.
2. David is working at internship at a local law firm in PA.
3. Karie is wandering the hinterland of eastern Tennessee.
4. Chris talked about working for the Social Security Administration (is this still true?).
Needless to say, we are all relatively busy and haven’t had the time nor the ambition to write.
I’ll be back, eventually.
Until then, I will spend my time in DuPont Circle enjoying the culture and conversation. It’s a bit more interesting than Searcy.
For those of you who haven’t turned your T.V. to CNN or browsed through the New York Times over the last several days, in a 4-3 decision the California State Supreme Court found that the ban on same-sex marriage violates the “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship.”
A family relationship is interpreted by the California State Supreme Court to include same-sex marriage. The court has effectively overturned (bar a constitutional amendment) the interpretation of a marriage to exist exclusively between a man and woman. According to the court, the definition of the family can be extended to mean between a man and man or a woman and a woman. This ruling done in spite of the 2000 voter referendum (Proposition 22) that banned same-sex marriages.
Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority:
We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.
This will no-doubt give a spark to the anti-gay marriage groups (particularly the religious right) throughout America and especially in California (where already a 1.1 million person petition has been signed in favor of a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage). This ruling will indeed challenge the notion that there is a popular change in sentiment amongst Americans towards the issue of same-sex marriages.
This ruling flips on its head the commonly employed logical fallacy by the anti-gay marriage groups that because marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman that it should remain forever that way forever (Argumentum ad antiquitatem – the argument to antiquity). The court has defined what the family is and between whom can a marriage be between, regardless of what has been done in the past. It’s nothing short of institutionalized discrimination to assert, via legal channels, that marriage be prohibited between same-sex couples. It’s also ignorant to think that the general movement will just wither away or disappear if the “loud minority” is ignored. As society advances and as morality evolves, the rights of human beings must be recognized and upheld. In this case, a right to equal protection under law, regardless of sexual preference. This may be a watershed in the LGBT community’s plight for equality amongst citizens, bar a California constitutional amendment.
Although statements made that court has overturned the will of millions of California voters by striking down the anti-gay marriage law are correct that doesn’t make them right. The role of the court in the American judiciary process is to act as a final arbiter to ensure that rules and laws enacted are done so in accordance with the legal scope of the ruling constitutions. That an anti-gay law, despite its popular support, is unwarranted by the state constitution is both judicious and within the powers assumed by the court.
Let me allay claims made by anti-gay marriage advocates, like Matt Barber, who said after the ruling was handed down, that “the California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and instead legislating from the bench,” by saying that the court has merely defined what constitutes a family per the language of the ruling state constitution. The court hasn’t overstepped its alleged powers by making law “from the bench.” Also worth noting is that the California State Supreme Court is made up of mainly Republican appointed justices — those not typically prone to judicial activism
If, by chance, there is a constitutional amendment passed in California, LGBT and supporters taking their case Federal is foreseeable under two Federally recognized harms:
- The acknowledgment of an individual’s fundamental right to marry. Their could be an expansion in the interpretation of what constitutes a family from the California state level to the national level.
- The classical, and particularly appropriate, claim that a ban on same-sex marriages is a violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The argument that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violates a persons equal protection and should be given special attention by the court could be made.
It seems, for the time being, that there will be a change in the definition of what a family is. The response from other states and the general population to the court’s decision will be an interesting social development to document. This ruling will also test the somewhat throwaway phrase that as goes California, so goes the rest of the Nation.
Today, from the floor of the Israeli Knesset, George Bush spoke out against the imprudence of the Democrats’ foreign policies and the follies of appeasement. It being the 60th anniversary of the state of Israel, Bush couldn’t resist a Nazi reference:
Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
Good God, man! At what point in a man’s presidential career does he become politically senile and oblivious to popular disapproval?
Maybe Godwin’s Law needs to be expanded to cover the probability of a lame duck president’s rhetorical comparison to Nazis or Hitler. We could call it the Bush exception.
Joe Biden’s response:
This is bullshit. This is malarkey.
Go get ‘em, Joe.
It wouldn’t be complete without the GOP’s favorite Democratic naysayer, Joe Lieberman:
President Bush got it exactly right today when he warned about the threat of Iran and its terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. It is imperative that we reject the flawed and naïve thinking that denies or dismisses the words of extremists and terrorists when they shout “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” and that holds that — if only we were to sit down and negotiate with these killers — they would cease to threaten us. It is critical to our national security that our commander-in-chief is able to distinguish between America’s friends and America’s enemies, and not confuse the two.
Joe “let’s bomb ‘em all” Lieberman on flawed thinking, ladies and gentlemen.
First and foremost, it is evident that this thing will go to the bitter end. Other than that, I have a few politically innocuous observations about the primary, post Indiana/N.C.:
- Obama cleaned up in North Carolina, as expected.
- Clinton did not win Indiana by enough to convince her skeptics that she’s still in the race; however, she did win, which justifies, in her eyes, staying in the race.
- In Indiana, Obama took the urbanites, the African Americans, and the moderates Independents — again.
- In Indiana, Clinton took the less-affluent, white, rural folk — again. The white voters with no college degree went for Clinton 65 percent to 34 percent.
- The Elitist label and the Rev. Wright vitriol didn’t have the effect the Clinton’s hoped for. Neither did the rural “bittergate.” When voters were asked which candidate did they “shared their values” with, Obama beat Clinton.
- Clinton will have further fundraising issues; especially now that the media has come full swing against her. Many of the political pundits have declared the race over and Obama the long awaited nominee. This will add to the treasure chest complex for the Clinton camp. Evidence that the Clinton campaign is running low on dough is the 6.4 million that Clinton lent herself last month.
- Obama furthers his popular vote lead. Obama has 16.3 million votes, compared to 15.5 million for Clinton. Ignoring the voters who chose “uncommitted” in Michigan, where he was not on the ballot, Mr. Obama has a 230,000 vote advantage.
- The race will come down to the super-delegates. With it requiring nothing short of a primary miracle, Clinton has no shot at raking in the required 2,025 required to secure the nomination. Obama with 1,836 delegates, needs just over 30% of the remaining delegates (including super) to reach the delegate brink; Conversely, Clinton, with 1,678, needs over 60%.
- The Clinton camp has been arguing that the full number of delegates needed to claim the nomination is 2,209, which includes Florida and Michigan, as opposed to 2,025. If those delegates are seated, Obama would need about 43 percent of the delegates that remain.
Clinton is going to get desperate, who wouldn’t? I’m not blaming her. She’s invested a lot of time, energy, and money (especially her own). I would do the same. However, this doesn’t make it right nor is it helpful to the Democratic cause. The pleads to up the required delegate count and include both Michigan and Florida in the count is prophetic of the political desperation to come from Clinton.
Personally, I think it’s time for Clinton to cut her losses and withdrawal so the DNC can coalesce around a nominee. Personal convictions and wishes aside, I know that’s not likely to occur. So, brace youselves, it’s going to be a derisive and divisive end to a tight race.
The definition of insanity is often defined as something lacking reason or good sense, which is true. However, the defining characteristic of insanity that is often omitted: trying something over, repeatedly, expecting a different outcome. Much has been the case throughout of American intervention for the cause of establishing democratic nations. The most current example is the conflict in Iraq, which is becoming a case-in-point on how not to intervene in foreign territories.
In the recently published book, A Faustian Foreign Policy, author Joan Hoff discusses the inanities of wars for democracy by citing a 2003 Carnegie Endowment survey in The Christian Science Monitor of regime changes forced by the United States in the 20th century. “[O]f the eighteen regime changes forced by the Unite States in the 20th century, only 5 resulted in democracy, and in the case of wars fought unilaterally, the number goes down to one — Panama” (hardly an applauded event). Yet, the argument continues to go that democracy can be imposed from above, especially by military intervention — which, in less developed regions, is often the case.
Further failures at American lead transformations aboard can be seen in hyper version of Globaization called the “Washington Consensus.” America’s idea that modern global capitalism, based on free trade, open markets, unregulated international investments, and dramatic improvements in communication technology will bring prosperity and personal freedom abound has “yet to produce anything like universal prosperity,” says Hoff. The neo-liberal ideas, namely capitalism, are products of Western values, some cultures are simply less culturally adaptable to its development. There is even evidence that suggest that neo-liberal policies run counter to the development of democracies, because neo-liberalism fosters “anarchical economic forces that undermine national cultural and political institutions that might otherwise foster democratic governments.” The neo-liberal bete noire is the reform period in Latin America during the 1970s and 1980s, resulting in what is known as the “lost decade,” General Pinochet, the Argentine Junta, and severe inflation that still plagues the the Latino nations today.
American interventionism is hardly the efficient machine is it often made out to be. It can be especially hard to shift through the patriotic fog that blinds sound perception. I’ve talked about American Exceptionalism — the driving force behind American interventionism — before, and had concluded long ago that it does much harm to America’s credibility at home and throughout the world. As is clearly obvious, America has once again embarked upon the great unilateral crusade, this time into the desert of death and turmoil. Very similar economic policies that have been tried and failed are being tried again in Iraq. The “Green Zone” and the selling off of occupational duties to Private Military Contractors and huge Multinational Corporations. America is sub-contracting the reconstruction of Iraq to billion dollar MNCs and other private organizations in an attempt to turn Iraq into a seabed of foreign investment in the hopes that it may one day be the quintessential capitalist, free trade center of the Middle East.
American unilateralism in Iraq is highly unlikely to produce anything closely resembling a viable democracy — if a democracy at all. As much as I want to see Iraq succeed as a democratic state, the notion crumbles under the mounting evidence that Iraq is not in the process of democratic “transition,” but destructive sectarian civil war. The incessant call for “stay the course” has become the sign post for ignorance and stubborn nationalism. The notion that we must stay in Iraq “until the job is done” is applying tried tactics that have proven failure. The insistence on what has become the proverbial protracted occupation is down right insane, if you ask me.
I decided to make a new custom image header for the blog. I choose a theme that corresponds to the current season: Spring. It’s about that time here at Christian University. The semester is over bar finals; the average temperature is steadily rising, and the grass is greener than it was last week.
Spring is a particular favorite of mine. The blossoming flowers, colors galore, and the maturation of trees’ leaves has always resonating a bit of solace in me. I couldn’t help but to read over a couple of passages from Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Nature, the chapter entitled “Nature.” I thought I’d give those of you who visit us here a quote to go with the new image header and to ring in the spring feeling.
Why are Chinese Buddhists, Koreans Taoists, Japanese Shintos, Arabs Muslims, Greeks Orthodox, Italians Catholic, and Americans Protestants? This is a question that crosses the mind of any person who has taken a general survey of the living world religions and the societies in which they exist. The sociology of religion is often a vexing concept, warranted of more time than it is given. One man did warrant this question more time. The early 20th century German Protestant Theologian Ernst Troelstch took the question of why we are who we are head on.
Ernst Troeltsch was a prominent figure in the field of the sociology of religion. Troeltsch argued that Christianity was nothing more than a contingent development within European culture, a malleable product of its time and place. Troeltsch was, by all accounts, a religious relativist. Someone who believed that the beliefs are unique to their time and space, and that as time progresses, beliefs will change accordingly.
Mark Lilla, in his book The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics, and the Modern West, portrays Troelstch’s theological beliefs according to a relativist view. As stated by Lilla, Troelstch believed that “modern society no longer represent[ed] a simple cosmological or theological order; it ha[d] become a complex mechanism with interlocking economic, political, communal, artistic, intellectual, scientific, and technological gears, turning and whirring, sometimes in harmony, sometimes at cross-purposes.” According to Lilla, Troelstch believed that the glue that holds all of these relative concepts together was “individualism, which was first discovered in Protestantism and now governs the whole of modern life.”
Although Troeltsch was himself a Protestant, he was no exclusivist; he believed he was a Protestant for different reasons than why most Protestants believed they are Protestant. Troeltcsh didn’t believe in fundamentalism or orthodoxy. “We are children of time, not its masters,” said Troeltsch. Beliefs, to Troeltsch, were relative to time and space, not a permanent system set-in-stone.
The crux of Troeltsch’s social-religious belief comes from his answer to the question of how we define ourselves. Troelstch said:
“[Christianity's] primary claim to validity is the fact that only through it have we become what we are, and that only in it can we preserve the religious forces that we need . . . We cannot live without a religion, yet the only religion that we can endure is Christianity, for Christianity has grown up with us and has become a part of our very being.” He then added, “This experience is undoubtedly the criterion of its validity, but, be it noted, only of its validity for [Christians].”
Imagine if Troeltsch had grown up in a rural Chinese society shaped by Confucius and Taoist doctrine. He would have grown up being taught different ethics, morals and norms of society. He would have likely been taught an entirely different set of theological and teleological beliefs. Instead of Jesus, Troelstch would have grown up listening to stories of Lao-zi and Confucius. These set of beliefs would have been valid for him in his social environment.
It seems that Troelstch believed firmly in the idea of religious relativism. The idea that the environment into which you are born will shape your belief structure. Everything from economics and politics to theology and the meaning of life is determined by the society into which you live. It is easy to imagine that your belief system as absolutely right, and that your religious beliefs are orthodox. However, what is often overlooked is the social influence and contribution to your certain set of beliefs. Are most of the things you believe in approved by social norms? Are they shaped by family and social traditions? What if you were born into a Buddhist household in the heartland of Tibet? Would you still be Christian?
I often hear stated that the only way the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be resolved is if some major international player — the U.S. or possibly the U.N. — expends enough political capital and exerts enough political pressure to broker a peace deal. I hold this assertion to be not only inadequate but a faulty analysis of the situation, proven by time and trial error, and dismissing of the immense internal struggles within both the Israeli and Palestinian camps. The movement towards some sort of peace deal must come from within. Most importantly, it must come from within the side with the most power and the most to lose — the Israeli camp. The general populous of Israel must make it their internal struggle to direct a new Israeli policy in the incessant struggle for land and power with Palestinians and the surrounding neighbors.
A recent article from The Atlantic, entitled Unforgiven, surfaces the often forgotten role of the novelist in defining Israeli public opinion. Specifically, the article defines the rift between a beleaguered prime minister, who is losing his country’s international legitimacy, and a grieving novelist, who has recently lost a son to Israeli-Hezbollah fighting in Lebanon. The dichotomy is perhaps best represented by the following quotes. The first is from the current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in response to the question “why is Israel less physically safe for Jews than America.” The second is from the novelist Justin Grossman, lamenting about the failure of Israel’s leaders, specifically Ehud Olmert, to speak directly to the Palestinian people.
Olmert:
“I’ll tell you something that you have to realize, and this is the most important thing and this is the most significant thing. First of all, no people are safe anywhere, okay? Let me tell you, Jews are not safer in Israel than they are in other parts of the world, but there is only one place that Jews can fight for their lives as Jews, and that is here. They can fight as Americans, they can fight as Australians — but as individuals.” He banged on his desk. “Jews were persecuted, Jews were attacked, Jews were suppressed, Jews were killed. But they could never defend themselves as Jews.”
Grossman:
“Go to them over the head of Hamas. Go to the moderates among them, the ones who, like me and you, oppose Hamas and its ways. Go to the Palestinian people. Speak to their deep grief and wounds, recognize their continued suffering. Your status will not be diminished, nor will that of Israel in any future negotiations. But people’s heats will begin to open a little to one another, and this opening has huge power.”
One reason that Grossman states as a chief flaw of the Oslo peace process of the 1990s (that was supposedly the beginning of the end of the Palestinian conflict) was that the negotiators never spoke about the shape of a final agreement, that the powers that be simply forgot about the Palestinian people and pursued their own, expansionist agendas. Grossman, along with many others, are fighting back against the belligerent agendas that have defined Israel’s border policy. What has been done in the name of security has resulted in withered support and legitimacy amongst Israel’s citizens. Grossman is leading the charge.
Ehud Olmert, whose ruling party supposedly represents the moderate Kadima Party has lost the faith of Israeli people to secure Israel’s security and bring about an end to the conflict. Olmert’s decision to invade southern Lebanon in 2006 after Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers resulted in every way but intended. The Israeli population, as a whole, disdained Olmert’s decision to make an all-out military incursion. Since then Olmert has become more unpopular in Israel than George W. Bush in the U.S. — that’s saying something. Moreover, it is indeed an interesting phenomenon to observe over the course of history when the oppressed become the oppressors and the persecuted become the persecutors — a interesting historical phenomenon that Olmert’s quote illuminates so well. Not only is international sympathy waning for Israel, domestic unrest is beginning to gain traction. Both of which undermine the expansionists policies of the past and of the current.
What exactly is it saying? It’s saying that the people of Israel are tired of living in a constant state of war. The human body and psyche can only take so much. Olmert’s ruling coalition is likely to lose it reign of power by means of special election (which can be called on by a Knesset majority or by the President — a typical phenomenon in Israel) or during the next general election. One can only hope that the people and the rulers that are will more conciliatory in approach to the Palestinian conflict. No power, no matter how great and powerful, can resolve the conflict but those that make up its parts. Nothing is better able to correct a bodily harm than the body itself.
In a 6-to-3 ruling in one of the most eagerly awaited election-law cases in years, the court rejected arguments that Indiana’s law, probably the strictest in the country, imposes unjustified burdens on people who are old, poor or members of minority groups and less likely to have driver’s licenses or other acceptable forms of identification (iht).
According to the Court, the state has a “valid interest” in requiring voting citizens to produce a photograph identification card in order to improve election procedures and deter voter fraud. The main challenge to the law was that it inherently discriminated against the old, poor, or minorities, because they are less likely to have an acceptable photo ID. There were also partisan complaints made by those against the law claiming that the requirement of photo ID discriminates against the Democratic constituency — the old, poor, and minority demographics.
Justice Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion, found that the Democrats and civil rights groups who opposed the law, seeking the Court to declare it unconstitutional on its face, failed to meet meet the burden required for a “facial challenge” to win in open court. Furthermore, responding to the partisan claim, Stevens said that the justifications for the law “should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators.” Simply put, the plaintiff in this case was unable to show that his or her rights had been violated.
Although I would like every advantage possible for the Democrats come this November, I find the ruling by the Court just and reasonable. The requirement of a photo ID is not a undue burden, by any account. Identification on demand is not a new concept or restricted to just voting. Photo IDs are required for anyone who wants to buy tobacco, alcohol, or get into a Casino. I haven’t heard the people complaining en masse about their inability to buy some booze or gamble their money away; why, then, is it claimed to be an undue burden upon a citizen to produce a photo ID at the voting booth?
Voter fraud and election stumbles do nothing but frustrate the process; reasonable measures taken to keep the process as kink-free as possible should always be welcome, granted they are justifiable. Efficient voting procedures and the deterrence to voter fraud is indeed justifiable and passes the undue burden test. As Scalia, and two other justices said, “the law should be upheld because its overall burden is minimal and justified.” Photo IDs are cheap and easily obtained (granted your are an American citizen) and should be required of all voting citizens at the booth.
Clinton has won Pennsylvania and the Democratic Primary lingers on unresolved. The Democratic Party, so energized and optimistic about the election a few months ago, now finds itself in somewhat of a political predicament. At a time when the Democratic Party should be coalescing its forces to support the selected candidate against the GOP nominee, the Party is having to deal with an unresolved primary. It seems improbable, but not impossible, that Clinton will get the nomination. Even after the 10 points defeat, Obama is still by far the favored Democratic candidate. If that’s the case, then, as Senator Clinton said so bluntly on Tuesday, “why can’t [Obama] close the deal?”
The answer is, ashamedly, race. White, Blue Collar workers — such as those that dominate the states of Pennsylvania (and Ohio) — are not inclined to vote for Obama because of his race. These voters showed the Democratic Party yesterday that, regardless of the situation of the primary, or the ramifications against the Party, they will vote Clinton over Obama.
If Obama does indeed secure the nomination at some point, this could be a potential problem. In a post-Pennsylvania primary article in the International Herald Tribune, a recent exit poll conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for the Associated Press is cited to have found evidence that Obama’s race could be a problem in the general election. “Sixteen percent of white voters said race mattered in deciding who they voted for, and just 56 percent of those voters said they would support Obama in a general election; 27 percent of them said they would vote for McCain if Obama was the Democratic nominee, and 15 percent said they would not vote at all.”
The GOP particularly benefits from the extensiveness of the Democratic Primary. McCain and his campaign staff are surely taking note of what’s determining voting patterns within the Democratic demographics in search for those unwilling to vote for Obama in the general election. The demographics that show a willingness to vote for McCain over Obama, who otherwise would vote Democrat, will be exploited in the general election, mitigating Obama’s electability. If Obama is able to keep his lead and secure the nomination, this will be a crucial area of focus for both the DNC and the GOP.
Clinton’s Pennsylvania win shows a specific vulnerability of Obama as the Democratic candidate. Unfortunately, with Clinton still in the mix it will make it all that more difficult to address this important issue of race. Best case scenario is a solid victory for Obama in Indiana and North Carolina, resulting in Clinton dropping from the race. The fact that the Democratic Primary is dragging on isn’t helping the Democrats. The rift caused by Clinton’s pledge to stay in the race is causing a rip at the seams for the Democratic Party. The sooner a nominee can be announced, the sooner the DNC can coalesce its energy into repairing any tears.
This post, as implied in the title, is directed towards our readers and contributors from Harding University.
Tomorrow, Wednesday the 23rd, Harding University will have its Student Association (SA) elections. The SA is essentially the student government that represents the student body as a whole. I told a couple of people who are running for SA positions that I would “endorse” them on my blog. I want to name the two people who I have told this to and give a brief comment as to why they are good for the positions they are running for.
For SA President: Michael Crouch
All of us who write for the Political Cartel know Michael through various student organizations and as a personal friend. Michael is an intelligent, engaging, and open-minded student. Michael is a member of the Honors College, the President of the Roosevelt Institution (of which all of the P.C. authors are members), and is actively involved in other campus organizations and activities. Michael is no typical fellow, he knows how to talk to the powers of Harding that be and ways to get things done. Michael would represent the student body well and would make a good SA president. Vote for Michael Crouch on Wednesday.
For SA Vice-President: Jacob Hawk
I had the pleasure of getting to know Jacob over a trip to Dallas. He’s a well-spoken, energetic, and pragmatic person. He, like Michael, knows the ropes of the University well. He has worked as SA Secretary, so he has experience with the inner-workings of the SA process. He knows that students want change in many areas, and he has realistic goals that could bring some of the student’s desires to fruition. Jacob would make a good accomplice to Michael as V/P of the SA. Vote for Jacob Hawk on Wednesday.
“It’s almost like the Messiah, you know? People really, really want change, and you feel it. You don’t just hear it, you feel something coming from him.”
-Jan Young, 56 year old Obama supporter
“I’ve been following politics since I was about 5. I’ve never seen anything like this. This is bigger than Kennedy. [Obama] comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament.”
-Chris Matthew, MSNBC
By any standard, the rise of Barack Obama has been both an exciting and vexing political phenomenon to observe. Regardless of support or dissent, the impact of Barack Obama on American politics is something to be considered. As no doubt many people feel, there’s just something different about the campaigning, the rhetoric, and the overall message of Obama. Because of Obama’s message of a “New Hope,” he has been dubbed the religiously sentimental name “The Messiah of Politics.” How has this “New Hope” message been conferred, and what does this tell of the American voting psyche?
The spread of the message comes primarily from Obama’s rhetoric. “We shall issue a new birth of freedom on this Earth,” proclaimed Obama, in his announcement to run for president last February. Since then, the rhetoric of hope is anything but faded. Obama’s message of hope and change has lead many to revere the well-spoken man of faith. Everywhere there is a rally or fundraiser, it can be almost certain to turn into a church-like mass of supporter hysteria chanting “yes we can,” and “we believe.” ABC News reporter David Wright described an Obama rally as such: “Politics doesn’t even begin to describe it. A visit to an Obama rally is a pilgrimage.” I’ll even admit it, when Obama speaks, it is inspiring and motivating; it evokes a sense of hope — an almost redemptive feeling — that is hard to suppress. Art Moore, in an article from WorldNetDaily describing “Obamanania” in the Seattle region, quotes one supporter describing his “Obama experience:” “‘When he was talking about hope, it actually almost made me cry. Like it really made sense, like, for the first, like, whoa …’”
Like “whoa.” Why is Obama’s message “like whoa?” 20th Century philosopher Ernst Bloch, in his writings, describes the human impulse for emancipation and the utopia longing for the prefect society. In this theory, Bloch was describing the Christian belief in the Messiah. Block wrote in his literary masterpiece The Principle of Hope, that hope itself is a kind of revelation to people, something built-up inside that opens up new, otherwise unknown possibilities. To Bloch, there is a connection between the tradition of Jewish messianism and the Utopian political aspirations of humankind. In his work, Bloch suggested, a “hidden messianic surplus” to human experience. This hidden force was something Bloch called “anticipatory consciousness.” The innate feeling in human beings that something better is to come represents a political journey to discover what might exist — what could be — that lies dormant in the human mind and society.
To equate the immense popularity of Barack Obama to a person’s “anticipatory consciousness” may come across as abstract or off-the-wall. However, it cannot be denied that there is something of a “political-religious connection” in Obama’s religiously charged rhetoric of hope and “change that we can believe in.”
Obama sets record after record in rally attendance; he breaks party lines; he inspires both young and old. Whether there’s like or disdain towards Obama, the acknowledgment of Obama’s ability to instill a sense of hope, belief, and redemption cannot be marginalized. Obama carries with him a sense of the “political ethereal” that emanates wherever he goes. People “anticipate” great things from the Messiah of politics, and if he’s elected, great things shall be expected.
“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” Obama said on Super Tuesday night. Has the time come for the new millennium of politics? Is Obama the Jesus of the political realm?
Yeah… right. That’s what I said.
But it’s true. In an op-ed for the New York Times, William Kristol compares a statement made by Obama at a San Francisco fund-raiser about the “bitter[ness]” of poor, rural, working-class people to that of Marxist rhetoric about the religion being the opiate of the masses. Obama was explaining the frustration of the economic blight of the rural class when he said:
“It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Apparently, after Kristol heard/read this statement he was hit with a bit of Marxist insight. Even though Kristol admits he hasn’t “read much Karl Marx since the early 1980s,” he claims an Obama-Marx nexus of political ideology. In his op-ed he quotes from Marx:
“Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of a soulless condition. It is the opium of the people.”
Oh, for the love of philosophical integrity, please stop.
First off, if you haven’t read Marx since the late 80s, and you’re a self-proclaimed neo-conservative, you ought to abstain, when at all possible, from the Marxist references. This, lets-scare-them-with-red-language, nonsense has already been politically wasted. McCarthy did this same type of thing, albeit with more vigor and with a broader, more noxious agenda, some 60 years ago. You’re not fooling anyone Mr. Kristol; only making yourself look like you’ve come down with red-fever and in need of immediate inoculation. Communism isn’t all that great of a political structure, thanks Mr. Kristol, I never knew. I better put down my Communist Manifesto.
Secondly, what is inaccurate about what Obama has said? The people he’s describing are those who haven’t much to call their “own,” other than their god, their gun, and their xenophobia. Who wouldn’t be “bitter?” Not to say that religion is unnecessarily bad; but I highly doubt that this is the “love-all” type of religion. Obama is looking at ways to alter this psychological conundrum induced by years of abject poverty and economic degradation by introducing economic reform. Does Mr. Kristol read it as such? No. Not at all, actually. According to Kristol, “[Obama's] disdainful of small-town America — one might say, of bourgeois America.”
In the last quote, I think Kristol meant the “Proletariat.” If he’s talking about small town, rural workers, they’re anything but bourgeois.
I’ll leave off with a quote from Joe Lieberman, responding to a question given to him about whether or not he thinks Obama is a “Marxist:”
“Well, you know, I must say that’s a good question. I know him now for a little more than three years since he came into the Senate and he’s obviously very smart and he’s a good guy. I will tell ya that during this campaign, I’ve learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn’t…I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America.”
Joe Lieberman on mainstream America, everybody.
Without the existence of certain individuals, the history of the world would certainly be different. The “Great People Theory” is a theory that aims to explain history by the impact of “great people,” either male or female. These people are known as highly influential individuals, from personal charisma, intellect, or great political impact. The “Great People” of history doesn’t necessary mean they were virtuous or “good” people; it simply means that the overall history of the world would be strikingly different had they not been a key part of it.
This is not to discount the prevalence and immense influence of broader social and political forces, which indeed have great influence upon the general direction of societies and political structures, but it is vital to note that the broader movement is not along sufficient to alter the overall direction of history. Broader social and political movements, such as reforms, restorations, and revolutions, are necessary conditions for change, but it is ultimately the “Great People” who serve as the hammer to the nail – the catalyst in the system.
The Renaissance and Reformation period was a time of social and political tumult and a time of intellectual expansion. It is hard to imagine the same renaissance and reformation without key figures such as Protestant reformationist Martin Luther, or the founder of the realist paradigm, Niccolo Machiavelli. Likewise, during the 1880s, it is nearly impossible to imagine a unified Germany without Otto Von Bismarck. The conditions for these movements were, no doubt, made possible by the larger social and political discourse of the respective times; however, without the contribution of these particular individuals, the ultimate direction and results of these movements would be drastically different. Look at it this way: the larger social and political movement fertilizes the soil and makes it fertile for growth. The individual person, or the Great Person, is the seed, which is planted. Different seeds yield different crop; much in the same way, different social and political leaders would yield different social and political histories.
Taken from an American perspective, how would American international discourse have looked if leaders such as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were absent from the scene? Teddy Roosevelt is seen as the first American president to exercise the nation’s foreign policy largely in the name of American national interest, with a keen eye for world power. Woodrow Wilson’s moralist movement, in the words of Henry Kissinger, “grasped the mainsprings of American motivation” and have remained, despite harsh criticism, “the bedrock of American foreign-policy thinking.” Without these two men, America’s history, and the history of the world, would have taken a different course.
How would the outcome of World War II have differed, minus the amazingly resilient and awe-inspiring Winston Churchill? Would America have remained isolationist too long, or ever so, without the deft political maneuvering of Franklin Roosevelt? Imagine a post-War international system without the insular, cold-hard calculator, Joseph Stalin. It would be politically and socially inaccurate to suggest that the “Soviet Bloc” would have behaved in a similar way with or without Stalin at the reigns.
The chance of a new international order towards the end of the 1980s was becoming a more likely and seriously considered phenonmenon. However, without the unique characters of Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, the fusion of glasnost and perestroika with American optimism is likely to have either occurred at a different — perhaps more belligerent — rate, or maybe never at all.
If the connection is still somewhat unclear or doubtful, consider it this way: imagine an Israelite history without Abraham or Moses; or try to fathom Christianity without Christ. The latter example provides an excellent example of the Great People Theory, because, to be frank, without Jesus there is no Christianity; without the rise and reign of certain individuals, some things simply would not have happened, or would have happened in an entirely different way.
History, as a whole, is prodded along by intangible, omniscient social and political forces; that much is granted. However, history, as we understand it, is defined and directed by “Great People.” What will the historical footprint of President George W. Bush reveal about the direction of the U.S. and the world? Although it’s hard to say definitely what the contribution of Bush’s 8 years in office will have overall. It is fair to say that at some point in the future social scientists will look back at Bush and say one of two things: either, Bush, contrary to many contemporary critics, pioneered a new, more peaceful world order or that Bush was an irresponsible and frivolous ideologue who destabilized world order and endangered many peoples.
Regardless of praise or folly, “Great People” throughout history make our history what it is.
From The Atlantic:
A critical moment during the Petraeus/Crocker [Congressional] hearings yesterday came when the general refused to play along. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), referring to the Democratic presidential candidates, urged, cajoled, and all but begged Petraeus to state that a rapid, one-brigade-a-month troop withdrawal would be a disaster. But Petraeus was cautious: “It clearly will depend on the conditions at the time.
This could be potentially undermining to any war hawks out there that assert a potential reduction in troops will precipitate immediate instability, the massacring of women and children, and the resurgence of al-Queda. Petraeus, someone I’ve regarded with relative esteem, seems to be understanding the game at hand. He knows that although the “surge” may have quelled some of the violence, it isn’t a permanent fix. The general understands that permanent American presence at the current rate is a political non-starter. He also understands that, more than likely, he’ll be working for a Democratic president come next year.
It will indeed be amusing to watch the GOP dance around the general who’s “surge” strategy they all but worshiped. As Petraeus and other policy makers begin to acknowledge the tactical and political realities of the situation, it seems that the forthcoming policy decisions will have support of both the Democrats, who want a reduction in forces, and the leadership, who have come to grips with the fact that massive troop occupation hasn’t accomplished the set goals. As Petraeus so sullenly put it during his testimony before Congress, “We havne’t turned any corners. We haven’t seen any lights at the end of the tunnel.”
Contrary to the McCain strategy of “stay in Iraq, as long as it takes,” the Democrats will have the opportunity to provide an alternative strategy, like a “residual” or “over-the-horizon” ready force. Instead of “stay the course,” perhaps what we can do is replace the current strategy for one that won’t keep us in Iraq for “100 years.”
NEWS UPDATE as of 4/8:
After a Senate Armed Services Committee in Washington“Obama said a diplomatic initiative is needed to resolve the issues of Iran’s role in Iraq. He asked whether the status quo in Iraq would be sustainable with just 30,000 American troops.” — Bloomberg
One of the primary issues for the upcoming election will be the strategy for Iraq. McCain and the GOP have already started lambasting and pass condemning judgment on the two Democratic potentials as irresponsible leaders, because they advocate a withdrawal from Iraq. In a recent speech, McCain reprimands the Democratic candidates’ calls for withdrawal as “reckless and irresponsible . . . just at the moment when [the troops] are succeeding.” From a GOP perspective, a withdrawal will lead to certain calamity for the Iraqi people and a complete destabilization of the Middle East — as if that hasn’t already happened.
Although it is true that both Obama and Clinton have talked about troop withdrawal from Iraq, the one thing that McCain cannot acknowledge without weakening his argument is that neither Obama nor Clinton advocates complete withdrawal from Iraq. The proposed plans by both candidates don’t come anywhere close, actually. Obama and Clinton have both advocated, for some years now, leaving potentially tens of thousands of American troops for the purposes of training Iraqi security forces, eradicate any lingering terrorist cells, provide logistical support to Iraqi security forces, and provide any needed border security.
According to the Center for American Progress and the Center for a New American Security, the estimated number of troops needed for residual operations is somewhere between 40,000 to 60,000. Although neither candidate has formerly endorsed either study, there is strong reason to believe that both candidates endorse the whole or parts of the report.
The official line from Obama’s website reads as follows:
[Obama] will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
The exact wording from Obama official website is somewhat ambiguous, since he doesn’t cite a specific number of troops needed — obviously a political strategy, since Obama’s emphasis has been extrication from Iraq. However, what he doesn’t say — which is key — is complete withdrawal. The prospect for residual forces is evident.
Chris Bowers, a writer for Open Left, did an excellent job at compiling months of research, strategizing and placing questions to campaigns, after which he concluded that both Obama and Clinton support residual force plans that leave somewhere between 40,000 - 60,000 troops in Iraq.
As of April 4, Bowers wrote:
A key adviser to Senator Obama’s campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.
This isn’t something that the Clinton campaign should crow about, because the 60,000-troop plan is also exactly the same as their residual force plan. If anything, unless their proposals have changed, the Clinton campaign’s plan is worse, since their residual force missions are listed as definite rather than as possible, and also listed as happening in Iraq, instead of some possibly happening in a neighboring country.
Regardless of the general GOP assumption that the Democratic nominees favor complete withdrawal from Iraq, proposals for residual forces have been public for some time. Perhaps the reason it isn’t well-known is the fact that neither Obama nor Clinton want to focus on residual forces in Iraq, because that means Americans are still in Iraq. Instead the focus has been on altering the discourse of American foreign policy and shifting away from Bush’s’ strategy of escalation.
As McCain and the GOP rally behind the war message and slander the Democrats for calling for troop withdrawal as “reckless and irresponsible,” the subtler truth is that neither Obama nor Clinton will probably propose a complete withdrawal from Iraq, if elected. Both candidates know that the issue is far too complex and the stakes too high; simply withdrawing all American military and foreign personnel is neither tactically nor politically advisable.
I suspect the Democratic nominee stays rather ambiguous and irresolute, since the de facto position of the Democratic Party is to oppose occupation, seemingly of any type. However, this isn’t the true reality of the situation, and I hope that perhaps one of the two, whomever is nominated, will give America a clear plan for a new direction in Iraq. It will indeed be interesting to see how this issue plays out come election time.
“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; ‘and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.’”
Today marks the 40th anniversary of the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a champion of civil rights and racial equality. Dr. King’s push to bridge the racial divide marked a watershed in American Political and Social History and will be forever known as the Era for Civil Rights.
Although remembering the life of Dr. King is important, what is far more essential is the principle in which he and the Civil Rights movement, as a whole, symbolizes — not so much that racial equality should be given to just African Americans, but to all Americans, regardless of sex, race, color, or creed. Dr. King made a profound stand for humanity against the ill will of an ignorant and malicious force — racism. As successful Dr. King’s fight for social justice was, the battle is not over. To this day, the battle for social justice and equality rages on. The principle set forth some 40 years must not be set aside; we must continue to hold certain truths self-evident.
“I choose to run for president at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together, unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction: toward a better future for our children and our grandchildren.”
Racism and discrimination directed towards minority social groups in the U.S. is still a prevalent issue. However, I genuinely believe in the potential for change and the prospect of a better, more socially equal America. Senator Barack Obama gives me this hope; he inspires me with unconventional rhetoric that rings of the very principle that Mr. King stood for — equality amongst all Americans.
If America is to elect this Black man to the seat of President of the United States, what an achievement we will have accomplished. In the 1960s, to even imagine that a ethnic minority would be running our country would be nothing short of madness. We have made great strides in the fields of social equality, but the battle is not yet over. I honestly believe in Mr. Obama when he talks of tearing down the wall that internally divides America between the majority and the minorities. Mr. Obama inspires hope and the prospect for real change. Let us move forward towards a better America and honor the principle of equality, set forth by people like Dr. King, lest we forget.
Obama campaign co-chairman Merrill A. McPeak, a retired Air Force General, has been accused of harboring anti-Israel views for his outspoken criticism of the on the influence of the Israel Lobby in the U.S. and the Christian Zionist movement on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. This faulty deduction of logic is based primarily on a 1976 article he wrote for Foreign Affairs, where he critiqued the occupied territory policies of Israel, following the 1967 Six-Day War.
In the article, McPeak affirms that Israel is entitled to “indefensible borders” for matters of territorial security. However, Israel neglected to recognize the border-lines drawn by UN Resolution 242, which visualized that “secure and recognized boundaries might be placed along the lines obtaining before the outbreak of the hostilities.” In response, McPeak called for serious attention to the possibility that Israel might demilitarize the “occupied territories” in order to foster better negotiations with Palestine and the other Arab states.
Nowhere in the article does McPeak question the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign state. He simply states that the strategy of territorial aggrandizement and militarization of the occupied territories may be detrimental to the security of Israel, its relationship with the other Arab nations, and the overall political stability of the region.
Whatever pernicious logic was used to deduce that McPeak is somehow anti-Israel is so blatantly off the mark it’s maddening. This is exactly the type of Ad Populum argumentation that aims at the pro-Israel emotions of the masses, which provoke unfounded outcries of anti-Semitism or anti-Israel claims.
Mr. McPeak, in his written response to the anti-Israel criticism, affirms that he is a “long-time admirer (and think myself [McPeak] a friend) of Israel.” He qualifies this statement by stating his past commitments to Israel in the fields of defense and security. McPeaks defends his 1979 article by reaffirming its thesis:
No set of realistically achievable geographic borders produces safety for Israel. Rather, the security requirement is that any of the territory taken in the Six-Day War and given back as part of a peace settlement should be effectively demilitarized.
There is indeed something wrong when the free-market place of ideas is tainted by paranoia and a resistance to intelligible discussion and structured criticism. When a Colonel in the Air Force (McPeak was a Col. when he wrote the article) cannot make critical suggestions about military policies of an ally without being lambasted as anti-Israel, there’s nothing but harm done to the faith and security of both Israel and the United States.
The accusation that McPeak hates Israel is slanderous and undeserving of attention. Moves like these, whatever their motivation or intention, should be thoroughly disapproved and their propagators properly discredited.
With the nomination for John McCain secure, the Republicans are focusing on coalescing around a common message. That message goes something like this: Iran is a threat to the stability of the occupied region of Iraq and is responsible for the deaths of Americans. In an effort to elicit an emotional response from the hawkish crowd here at home, the GOP is emphasizing the increasing involvement of Iran in Iraq.
The recent fighting in and around Basra between the Iraqi national army and Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, and the subsequent Iraqi defeat, shows, in demonstrable fashion, the frivolity of the central governing body under Maliki. There is a general consensus amongst U.S. military advisers and analyst that southern Iran has been thoroughly infiltrated by Iranian Special Forces operatives– Iran’s Iranian Revolutionary Guard being the most commonly cited culprit. This leads to the fearful speculation that the unprotected southern border of Iraq allows Iran, and Iranian surrogates, to provide military training and vital supplies to Iraqi splinter groups and militant dissidents, specifically Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army, to fight the Iraqi central government and the American occupation.
So, while the Democratic nomination process toils on, the GOP is able to concentrate their focus on what they consider to be a key foreign policy issue – the War and Iran. Martin Kady, from Politico, ran a short article on this new Republican war message. In it he cites some of the new war rhetoric the GOP is eliciting.
“Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of Sen. John McCain’s top supporters in his presidential bid, repeatedly mentioned Iran’s role in the new fighting, going so far as to say ‘Iranians are killing Americans’ on ‘Fox News Sunday.’ Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, speaking on “This Week,” mentioned Iranian Revolutionary Guards training militias to “kill Americans.” And Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, one of the loudest voices in favor of the war, also ran with the “Iranian-backed militias” talking point on ‘Fox News Sunday.’”
When Republicans make statements like “Iran is killing Americas!” It can mean nothing short of “we must fight back!” Statements like these are tactless and serve no real practical purpose. Even if Iran is somehow indirectly responsible for the death of American soldiers, are we willing to go to war over that? Instead of blaming Iran for causing death and instability — statements solely intended to evoke an emotional and utterly irrational response — we should look at the situation through a balance of power lens. Iran is simply playing the game of power politics, a balance of power cost-benefit — win some, lose some — simply known as realist politics. Iran has no interest in seeing a unified, stable Iraq.
The response to the GOP’s new consensus is rather simple. The Iranian infiltration is due in large to the political instability of a splintered country. The political forces inside Iraq need to dictate the future discourse of the country. If that means that Iraq, as we know it, dissolves and is partitioned into multiple, ethnically homogeneous states, then so be it. It is better for a group of people to determine, themselves, whether or not they should be a part of a particular territory. We must quit pretending that Iraq is anywhere near viability or ever will be. The moment the U.S. forces leave Iraq, the ethnic violence that is prevalent now will become exponential worse. Much like in Yugoslavia, after the death of Tito, ethnic groups will carve out for themselves what they feel ought to be rightfully theirs. We ought to preempt this disaster by looking, with some foresight, to what is the best scenario for stability and peace. What we must not do is divert our attention to an issue with little solvency — much like the GOP is doing now.
Hope assured, the Democratic superdelegates will rally behind one or the other candidates and finalize the nomination. The DNC can then begin to counter the obviously simplistic and rationale-defying statements like “Iran is killing Americans!” with more policy practical statements, like a responsible withdrawal plan from Iraq and to allow the political forces inside the country take control of Iraq.
First person to name the location of the photo of new image header (that’s the blog logo atop of the page) gets 50 karma merits.