Turkish Politics

This article about Turkish politics shows that sometimes religious groups can support modernization and promote a middle class. It also shows that Muslim countries have to deal with the role of religion in government just like we do. In fact, it seems to play out in similar ways with similar arguments.

Update:
Much more has happened since I last wrote. The story so far: a political Muslim was elected president by the Parliament (note: Turkey is constitutionally a secular country and is very serious about it). This lead to threats of a coup from the military (which was chastised by the EU but not the US) and a judicial ruling that the religious president cannot serve.

I think this situation points out two major hypocrisies of American conservative foreign policy. First, we have a policy of tolerating democracy only when it elects governments that we favor. I hate this more than anything, and we have a long history of it (see Iran pre-Shah). Secondly, conservative Americans don't like separation of church and state when it is a Christian government, but think it is crucial when it is a Muslim government. This I think hints at a bias against Muslims even if it is a moderate and pro-middle class version of Islam.

We should be able to support the new president and speak out against the military threat and the court's political decision. This is especially true since as far as I know we have nothing to fear of this candidate or his non-sectarian political party.

Obama and Niebuhr

From a David Brooks column ($):

Out of the blue I asked, “Have you ever read Reinhold Niebuhr?”

Obama’s tone changed. “I love him. He’s one of my favorite philosophers.”

So I asked, What do you take away from him?

“I take away,” Obama answered in a rush of words, “the compelling idea that there’s serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn’t use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction. I take away ... the sense we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard, and not swinging from naïve idealism to bitter realism.”

I have never read anything by Niebuhr, nor did I know much about him before reading this column. Brooks says that Obama's answer is a pretty good summary of Niebuhr's "The Irony of American History" - which you can bet I'll be reading soon. The above quote is probably the best and most concise statement of my foreign policy belief right now.

Obama doesn't have the foreign policy experience or credentials of Joe Biden or Bill Richardson. In his book the Audacity of Hope, he is honest with his readers when he says he doesn't have a coherent foreign policy plan in his hip pocket. At the same time though, that doesn't matter to me as much when I see that his overall philosophy is one I completely agree with. So in the end, to feel good about Obama as president, I will have to be confident that he will make decisions that truly align with his ideals.

I HATE AGRIBUSINESS

This is the kind of bullshit that makes me hate the world:

Hoping to forestall such a dire outcome [mass starvation], the World Food Program made an urgent appeal in February for cash donations so it could buy corn from Zambia's own bountiful harvest, piled in towering stacks in the warehouses of the capital, Lusaka.

But the law in the United States requires that virtually all its donated food be grown in America and shipped at great expense across oceans, mostly on vessels that fly American flags and employ American crews -- a process that typically takes four to six months.

For a third year, the Bush administration, which has pushed to make foreign aid more efficient, is trying to change the law to allow the United States to use up to a quarter of the budget of its main food aid program to buy food in developing countries during emergencies. The proposal has run into stiff opposition from a potent alliance of agribusiness, shipping and charitable groups with deep financial stakes in the current food aid system.

The agriculture / agribusiness lobby defends their decision by saying that there isn't a constituency for food aid unless all of it is coming from US farmers.

I get so enraged and depressed when I read stories like this because it reminds me that some people are this selfish and are influencing policy. But it just goes to show you that Bush isn't evil and isn't always wrong.

Primaries

There is an incredible interactive graphic on the NY Times site. It shows how much money the presidential candidates raised and where their support came from. Hillary and Obama look even stronger when you play around with the map. I am still holding out hope though that Richardson's experience can make up for it. Anyway, enjoy the interactive!

Responsibility

Summary:
If we assume that Iraq cannot be stable anytime soon, are we still responsible for staying? Our government created this situation, therefore I believe that we should feel morally obligated to stay.

Let's assume for a moment that we cannot provide stability in Iraq (everyday it is harder and harder for me to deny this). Given this assumption, there are two possible choices. One is that since we cannot succeed, we should withdraw (a very popular sentiment). The other school of thought follows from Colin Powell's comment to President Bush before the invasion - "You break, you own it." Since it is very clear that we have broken it, what then is our moral responsibility? (Most people would dismiss this whole debate right now, since moral responsibility is rarely a factor when discussing international relations and foreign policy - but that is not the nature of this blog.)

The fact is that we decided as a nation to create regime change in Iraq. Therefore, I believe that we as a nation are responsible for the outcome. Just because Bush lead the charge, doesn't absolve the country of our collective burden. The war was tremendously popular at the time, and don't forget that these people voted for it. We can't use the excuse that the President lied to us, because there were enough people voicing doubt and not supporting the President that a well-informed person would know enough to not support the war.

I believe that in a democratic system, we all bear responsibility for the decisions and actions of the government and therefore collectively should have to redress any mistakes. The United States government (with limited support including Great Britain) created the unstable situation that now exists in Iraq. And despite increased troop levels, we are still unable to provide any security (this article shows that we are still facing the same problems we have had from the beginning - since we cannot control the Sunni insurgents, Shiite groups get tired of the bombings and decide to retaliate). Since we have caused this problem, aren't we in some way responsible for sticking it out?

I know that many in the Democratic party don't see it that way. I get the feeling that they are content to blame it on Bush - as if knowing that he caused the endless carnage makes it acceptable for us to bring our troops home. This is the easy and popular answer, I just don't think it is the moral answer.