Deal with the Devil?

This is an interesting story from Afghanistan. I will be very interested to see if this deal with Taliban works out. The fact that the area is peaceful now allows me some optimism, but I doubt that anything will keep the Taliban from sometime soon fighting for power again.

Kristof and Iraq: A Follow-Up

Nicholas Kristof wrote a really good follow-up post to his column about coverage of the Iraq War (yes, Kirstof has a blog). That column has forced me to do a lot of thinking about how I interpreted news from Iraq after the invasion.

My original position was that reporters tend to report more about violence than they do stability and that this gives an overly negative view of the war. Kristof does recognize this, but here is what he says:

But that said, the basic narrative from reporters in Iraq in the last few years has been that security and sectarian violence is worsening, while the basic narrative from the administration has been that things are getter steadily better and that the reporters are exaggerating. To me, it sure looks as if the reporters got it right.

At the time I didn't trust that reporters were being unbiased. What I realize now is that maybe I should have had a little more faith that those covering the situation in Iraq would have reported that there was stability had it existed. Good journalists want to report accurately about the overall situation they are reporting on, and if they are talking about increased violence, I should probably be quicker to believe it.


Note: I replied to a comment on Kristof's post. I couldn't resist.

Have I Ever Been too Pessimistic?

In case you couldn’t tell, I have been thinking about Iraq a lot lately. I am having a lot of trouble reconciling my feelings and how they fit in with any policies I would want to propose. What I think it boils down to is when should we finally give up.

I don’t want to give up on Iraq, but I am finding it harder and harder these days to maintain any hope that there can be a decent outcome. We have done such a bad job at managing the war that it almost feels like there is nothing we can really do now to make up for it. My problem though lies in the guilt I feel. Since we have messed up so badly, I can’t feel comfortable leaving if the country is in shambles. At the same time though, history can clearly show us what happens when we think we can change something we cannot.

I have long disagreed with the comparisons to Vietnam simply because I thought they were more different than they were the same (for an interesting comparison of Iraq and Vietnam, read this NY Times opinion piece). In Vietnam we were fighting against determined nationalist forces. In Iraq we are standing between warring factions – the majority Shiites that realize their strength, the Sunnis who used to be in power and now see a situation where they get left out of sharing oil revenues, and Kurds who are looking for as much autonomy as possible. The better comparison in my mind is to Lebanon. But that comparison doesn’t project a better outcome.

I feel paralyzed because I cannot predict with any certainty what will happen to Iraq if we stay versus if we leave. I have to believe that things will be at least a little better if we stay, but that isn’t always the case. Many analysts predicted Vietnam would fall apart if we left, and it didn’t (Cambodia was a different story). But again, I don’t see this taking shape like Vietnam did. Lebanon was a disaster until the early 1990s. After Reagan pulled the Marines out, we basically let the country sort it out on their own. The peace there is a little tenuous, but it is far better than it was during the civil war. We can’t as easily leave and allow Iraq to go through ten years or so of civil war. We cannot turn our back on them like we did Lebanon because we created this situation.

In the end, I come back to the same conclusion that we need to stay. But at the same time, I don’t see an end to it. My bet is that we will stay a while longer, but end up pulling out in a year or two. But I get depressed thinking about how bad the country might be then and how much worse it will be after we are gone.

What makes me feel even worse is that there is talk of looking to Iran and Syria to help us out. While I don’t think ignoring them is productive, both countries have a history of manipulating weak countries for their own benefit. In Lebanon they have a common goal. But in Iraq, they are working on different sides. Each of the countries in the region have, “a dog in the fight,” but each supports different dogs. I cannot imagine that any country will be willing to do anything but look out for their own interests, no matter what we offer in return.

Basically, when I look into the future regarding Iraq, all I see is uncontrollable bloodshed with almost no reasonable options to stop it. My hope is that I am wrong, but I have lost almost all reasons to be optimistic. I wonder if those who were actually responsible for decision-making feel as guilty as I do.

Enlightenment?

This opinion contribution has some really good commentary on the secularist / modern enlightenment zealots and their war against religion. I may not be a member of the religious right, but I have no patience for the books out there now that are desperately trying to show the world that people who have faith in something other than science are delusional.

It's Not Your Fault

I never expected that Democrats would be doing this, but I guess I should have. Although blaming Iraqis for the state of the country isn’t the right thing to do, it is the politically expedient thing to do. If it is the fault of the Iraqis that the country is falling into a civil war, then Democrats should feel no guilt in pulling American troops out of the country. After all, despite the fact that many Democrat Senators and Congressmen voted in favor of the war, most claim that they didn’t really support it.

The facts are simple though, if you care to look. The administration has made a number of fatal flaws following the invasion that made a successful outcome almost impossible. To name a few; they came in with too few troops, showed contempt for the countries that wouldn’t invade with us which prevented them from wanting to help later on, disbanded the Iraqi army, did nothing to stop the looting or early insurgency, and did not seal the border to prevent foreign fighters. From day one, we did not create a stable situation in Iraq. Sunni insurgents killed Americans and Iraqis alike, and Shiites finally stopped being patient and decided to fight back. I don’t support that decision, but I am not sure that I blame them for it.

The fact is that we are at fault for the crisis in the country. Although I understand that the parliament cannot agree on anything and is largely ineffective, that isn’t why there is a problem. The problem is that violence was never controlled and people got tired of waiting for that to happen.

Here is the bottom line – blaming the Iraqis requires the assumption that they have, or at one point had, the capacity to stop the violence. The problem is that this assumption is very obviously wrong. We were the only ones that could have stopped the violence and improved the lives of Iraqis. But we failed miserably at that and therefore we should feel guilty. Our incompetence has ruined that country. Therefore, we should feel compelled to stay as long as we can to keep the violence as low as we can. If we choose to leave, we need to do some serious self-reflection and take credit for what we have done. Unfortunately, this is something politicians are usually incapable of.

Personality Matters

Until very recently I thought it was ridiculous that so many conservatives hate Hillary Clinton. I thought that if they were rational, they would easily see that she is far more moderate and would be far less dangerous to conservatism than someone like John Kerry, Barak Obama or someone in the mold of Howard Dean. I don’t know why it took me this long, but it finally dawned on me that personality should be important when making political decisions. This is something I recognized when it is in the affirmative, for example when looking at someone like John McCain or Barak Obama. But I never gave it enough credit when it was in the negative. If I am willing to vote for either McCain or Obama, neither of whom are exactly where I am on the political spectrum, then it is perfectly understandable for someone to oppose Hillary.

This doesn’t mean that I oppose Hillary. I think she would make a good president and depending on who she is running against, I would probably vote for her. But I do understand now that some people just don’t think she is a good person.

United Nations: What is it Good For?

Someone told me this weekend that they thought the United Nations is worthless and ineffective. I don’t necessarily disagree, but it made me wonder if he, or even if I, know what we want the United Nations to do. Like any legislative body, it is extremely slow to act and its members often make decisions in their own interests and not necessarily based on morality. But if there was some consensus on what we do want it to do, we could move it in a better direction and help it to become more effective. I think the biggest thing hindering the UN right now is that we don’t know what we really want from it.

Based on what I know, the UN most often defers to a state’s sovereignty. The internal affairs of a state are its own business. This might have been a good policy immediately following World War II (although even that is debatable), but it doesn’t fit now. In my opinion, the biggest problem facing our world is the treatment of groups within states. Genocide continues to be a problem that is ignored despite the commitment of states to take reasonable measures to stop it. There are also far too many people displaced from wars or famine, with governments that are incapable or unwilling to support them. In those situations, we need an international body that is willing to act to protect and defend these people.

The reality is that this change will not happen overnight. It is too easy for member states to turn away from these terrible situations and pretend that they are incapable of doing anything about it. As I read A Problem From Hell, I get depressed at how the world continues to fail in its moral obligation to protect those who cannot protect themselves. We are great at showing regret long after the fact, but we never learn the lesson that true self-reflection leads to. The famous saying is, “Never again, again and again.”

We didn’t learn enough from the Holocaust to stop Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosivic, the Hutu’s in Rwanda or even the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed. We have never learned the lesson, and so our regret comes off as extremely hypocritical.

But I don’t want to focus entirely on genocide. Millions die or are displaced from civil wars every year. We should care about this. War torn regions in Africa or Southeast Asia should not be ignored because they are hard problems. President Kennedy once said, “We choose to do this and the other thing, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”

I have been told during my rants that my position will never get me elected. Let me make something clear. My goal is not to get elected, but to change people’s minds. I want to make people think about their beliefs and understand the moral consequences of their positions. When we ignore major international problems, hundreds of thousands of people die. This should be just as enraging when it is Africans as it would be if it were Americans.

I did start this blog hoping there would be dialogue and debate. I want to know what other people think the United Nation’s role should be. I am calling for an end to what is now complete respect for state sovereignty. To me, this seems like an obvious solution to what ails the UN. To the others who think the UN isn’t useful, feel free to tell me what it should be doing.

For Macie and LEM

Kristof has done it again ($). This time though, it isn’t about genocide. His column is about early reporting of the Iraq War that described the violence and the potential for Civil War. I must be honest that I was also one of the people that ignored the early reports of escalating violence. I was desperate for Iraq to succeed because I wanted to see a relatively stable democracy develop in the Middle East. I hated the argument that Iraq was incapable of being a democracy and thought success here would prove that it could exist anywhere.

I need to give some credit where it is due, mostly to my friends that had said for a long time that this war was a mistake and that this would happen (Macie and LEM to name two). As soon as reports came out that Iraq was wrapped in violence, they brought this to my attention. And when they did, I told them they were ignoring the good reports and I said that things would settle down.

While I do admit that I was hesitant to hear the bad news even as it got worse, I still maintain that there were points when good management of the war could have made this more successful. I think if there had been more troops and we were able to maintain stability early on, we might have avoided the civil war that appears imminent. I must also recognize that part of the reason I cling to that belief is that I am an optimist, and I don’t want to admit that democracies cannot be helped along by foreign involvement. I believe that everyone wants some level of freedom and no one really wants (or needs) an oppressive regime like Saddam’s.

With that said, we do need to learn something from this example. Creating a new democracy is obviously a difficult mission and can end up with us leaving the country worse that when we found it. We must be prepared to use significant troop presence over long periods of time if we are to be successful. Since we are probably not prepared to do this, we should avoid nation-building scenerios like this one in the future.

What I am afraid of though is that this (similar to Mogadishu) becomes proof of why we should not ever get involved in other country’s affairs. Iraq was clearly a mistake, but there are other situations that could use international intervention and will not require long term troop commitment (Darfur, Somalia, Lebanon / Palestine). The Middle East (and Africa) has a violent past and present, but there is good we can do to protect defenseless victims and help the region move forward.

Genocide - Always so Controversial

There have been some interesting, although heated, debates recently about America’s role in stopping genocide. In a column from last week ($), Nicholas Kristof took a reader to task for suggesting that we should deal with domestic problems before fixing problems around the world. Since then, I have had similar arguments with family. The view expressed by the reader is not uncommon.

If someone says that they don’t get involved in that debate because they choose other issues that are more important to them, I can’t really find fault with that. There are so many problems in this world that choosing to fight any of them is worthwhile and noble. We all have to follow our passion.

What I do find fault with though is a similar argument that says we shouldn’t do anything about genocide because we haven’t fixed our own problems. Those two arguments may sound similar, but to me the difference is that the one I just mentioned dismisses any effort to stop genocide, whereas the first one only says that the particular person is more invested in other issues while not disinvested in genocide.

The reason I find the latter argument problematic is because its foundation rests on putting certain human lives above others simply based on nationality – an somewhat arbitrary division. I realize that we cannot intervene right now to prevent every loss of life or stop every repressive government. We have to draw lines somewhere. I happen to think that one of the first places to draw a line is when someone tries to eliminate, “either in whole or in part, a group based on their race, religion, or nationality.” I find the Holocaust appalling for the same reason that I find Pol Pot’s genocide appalling. It has nothing to do with the race of the victim, but that the victims were attacked en masse because of their race (or ethnicity or nationality).

One of the first things people attack when you talk about genocide is the fact that the UN resolution doesn’t include political groups. This part is debatable, but I can see why it exists. It isn’t because anyone tolerates persecution of political dissidents, but is instead based on a belief that there is something inherently destructive to the fabric of humanity when a culture is eliminated. Since some people might not agree that political mass murders should be excluded, I would accept as a compromise that groups should be forced to intervene when there is mass murder of political groups as well.

What usually happens with this argument though is that they think genocide is a bogus term if it doesn’t include political mass murder. Therefore, somehow it becomes acceptable to ignore mass murder based on race, simply because the genocide convention does not include politics.

The bottom line here is that I don’t see any moral difference between killing Rwandan Tutsis, European Jews, non-Muslim Sudanese, or Americans. The difference to me exists in the numbers that are murdered, the motivation behind the murder, and our ability to stop the murders. I am happy, but not satisfied with, condemnation of genocide. Looking back at our history, even that was too much to expect. I look forward to the day when everyone can feel anguished when they become aware of mass murder, and not be able to dismiss it because the victims are not American.

The Year Has Arrived

The funny thing about Ken Rosenthal’s column is that I don’t disagree with his position. I am so angry with McGwire, my boyhood hero, that I don’t know that I want him to get into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot. My problem though is with all of the sanctimonious sports writers. They write like they had no idea that they were part of the steroids era, and now pretend like it is over because of some weak testing.

The fact is that I don’t think any of the baseball writers are objective. They beat up Barry Bonds (who deserves it) but as far as I can tell have given Sheffield and others a free ride. Writers bow down to Pujols, refusing to speculate on whether he uses performance enhancing drugs. Far from the investigative journalists that have infested politics, baseball writers only attack people where there is overwhelming evidence, and turn a blind eye to everyone else.

If I want to be fair though, I have to include myself in with my diatribe against sports writers. I was one of the many people who roared with indignation anytime people suggested McGwire was on steroids. I should have known the truth, and so my disgust is somewhat hypocritical. Ken Rosenthal and others have a hard choice to make, but I would find their columns much less ridiculous if they both took responsibility for their role and ignorance, while changing their behavior as we continue to exist in the steroids era.