fearlesshistory

After a person’s death, most people prefer to remember the good things about the dead; humorous sayings, delightful moments, brilliant observations and all that. They also tend to minimize the less-pleasant aspects; the drunken fights, the arguments, the fiery temper, and so on. Similarly, Presidents’ reputations are revised - for ill or for good - after they leave office. It happens all the time, actually: FDR tried to expand the Supreme Court in order to stock it with people who supported his programs because the Conservative justices kept ruling his social programs “unconstitutional” yet that aspect is rarely remembered. Similarly, poor Hoover is blamed for the collapse of the stock market in 1929, which is not totally his fault; he had barely been in office when it happened. But now that we have added another former President to the roster, the effort to rehabilitate George W. Bush’s image is well underway by conservatives; one wonders if Mr. Bush will be remembered as fondly by social and religious conservatives as Mr. Reagan is.

One of the most…irksome…assertions is that Mr. Bush was actually a visionary when it came to Middle East peace and stability. That the war in Iraq was (or is) just. My colleague over at “All that is necessary ” posted a rather interesting article by Dr. Fouad Ajami as well as some of his own personal feelings about President Obama’s “reaching out to the Muslim world.” I, of course, replied, but I feel it incumbent upon me to post a little here and expand in a way that a comment just can not.

President Obama said that he would like to return to the “Respect and partnership” the United States and the Muslim world enjoyed 20 or 30 years ago. To which many have taken umbrage; 20 years ago, Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland was destroyed by Libyan intelligence officers who worked for Qadaffi and 30 years ago Iranian students in a surge of patriotism and fervor, overtook the American Embassy and held the occupants hostage until the new Reagan administration came to power. To many conservatives, my colleague Kirk among them, Mr. Bush’s invasion of Iraq (and threat to do so to Libya) toppled one dictator and put another in his place, his firm stance against Syria and Hamas forced those regimes to retreat, his rhetorical desire to spread “democracy,” and the pre-emptive war of the so-called “Bush Doctrine” had rectified an American stance gone soft over the decades.

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush shall not get off so easy, particularly with historians. The acquiescence of Qadaffi had more to do with European promises to extend special trade relations with Libya (whose natural gas resources offer an alternative to Russia’s Gazprom) . In fact, if Libya were so worried that the United States was going to invade it after seeing the “shock and awe” campaign in March of 2003 in Iraq, why did it stall agreements to compensate victims of Lockerbie in September of 2003? Maybe they didn’t get the sattelite images of smart bombs andB-52s and Marines pulling statues down? Didn’t they know the “Mission Accomplished” banner had been hung? Evidently not because Libya did not agree to compensate American victims of Pan Am 103 until August, 2008. No, it is far, far more likely that the economic benefits of dealing nicely with the West far outweighed the “fear” of American aggression - therefore Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld’s “example” to the world did little to change Libya’s mind and so Mr. Bush can not rightfully claim credit here.

30 years ago, when the Iranians had taken hostages and held them despite all the efforts of the American military and State Department, we enjoyed the sympathy and cooperation of the Saudi, Iraqi, Jordanian, Qatari, UAE, Kuwaiti, and Syrian governments. In fact, Saddam Hussein would find himself the beneficiary of arms and intelligence that would have gone to the Shah of Iran had there been no revolution. With those arms (as well as vehicles from Great Britain, aircraft from France and chemicals from Germany to augment Soviet equipment), Iraq would invade Iran a few short months later and start a war that lasted for eight long years. Saddam, at first, used mustard gas and sarin nerve agents against Iranian troops, but eventually would use them against the Kurds in the north (who, he suspected, would ally with Iranians) and for which the United States would do…nothing. In fact, our beloved ally and defender of the Middle East, Saddam Hussein, was being played for a fool by the Reagan administration who gave him only enough intelligence to keep from being overrun by the much more motivated Iranians. To cap it all off, Reagan may have ordered Oliver North to sell weapons to Iran in order to pay for illegal arms shipments to the Contras in El Salvador - I say “may” because we all know how roguish Marine colonels are able to engineer the sale of millions of dollars in high-tech equipment in order to support a war in central America that the President was heavily in favor of without the knowledge or assistance of said President; I hear it happens all the time. But I digress.

Professor Ajami, a Lebanese scholar who taught at Princeton, also mentioned the evacuation of the Syrian military from their holdings in Lebanon and attributed it to the “irony” of the Bush doctrine. This is a most surprising revelation coming from a Lebanese patriot, if he is one. In deference to my esteemed colleague Dr. Ajami, I should like to remind him that the assassination of popular former Lebanese Premier Rafik Hariri by what everyone supposed was Syrian assassins which sparked huge anti-Syrian demonstrations and riots in Beirut and collapsed the pro-Syrian government. In fact, dear Dr. Ajami, Syria was being pressured not just by the United States, but by the Saudis, the UnitedNations, and (most importantly) the people of Lebanon. Still, if fear of George W. Bush’s anger was the motivating factor, why is Syria still interfering in Lebanese life and politics in 2008? Or, as Paul Selim of the Carnegie Center for Middle East affairs put it “Syria no longer manages Lebanon’s affairs but it does maintain a very important influence through its allies and perhaps through its intelligence services.”I’m certain that Syria’s recent closeness with “axis of evil” regime Iran is merely a happy coincidental alliance between two autocratic, anti-American regimes and not a direct result of Mr. Bush’s failed Wolfowitzian/Rumsfeldian militaristic adventurism.

My conservative friends will point (and, to a degree, rightfully so) to the Democratic votes in Iraq. But what a long road to get there. First, Mr. Bush and his advisors seriously underestimated the anger and resentment invasion would engender in the Iraqi people. Or, as former Marine General Anthony Zinni said in 2004, “They’ve screwed up.”Perhaps we all remember when General William Walalce said that the United States seriously underestimate the nature of the war and suggested that political compromises be made in order to ensure stability? We should, he was almost fired for it. In all actuality, while Mr. Bush kept repeating “stay the course” and conservatives called the idea of withdrawal from Iraq “surrender” the Bush administration was eventually forced to realize facts on the ground and begin a series of political compromises that did more to quell unrest in Iraq than the surge could have possibly hoped for: allowing the Kurds in the north to establish a de facto independent territory in the north of Iraq; enlisting the tribal leaders of the Sunni faction who were once insurgents themselves through bribes, honorifics, and political compromises (which has been nicknamed the “sunni awakening”); and let us not forget installing a pro-Shi’a government with ties to Iran (ever wonder why Muqtada al Sadr called for a cease fire a day after delivering his fiery anti-American rhetoric and a week before a “pull out” pledge had been reached witht he Iraqi government?).

Meanwhile, the casus beli for Islamic militants - by which I mean the plight of the Palestinians - has been largely ignored by the Bush administration. The free reign the Bush admin gave the Israelis over their affairs has led to an increase of 45% in the amount of illegal settlements in the West Bank. The modus operandi of the Israelis is to take over Arab Palestinian fields and use walls and a superior military to crush an already disposessed people, taking ever more arable land for themselves in true Revisionist Zionist/Lukhud party fashion.  Though purporting to support “Democracy,” the Bush administration has done everything in its power to alienate Hamas leadership after it won the democratic elections of 2006. Why this fixation on economic and political sanctions has ever taken root is beyond me. How well have sanctions worked against Cuba? Time did what nearly a score of American Presidents could not; take our Fidel Castro. North Korea developed nuclear weapons under embargoes and trade restrictions. Iran’s economy flourished and oil revenues soared since 2005, particularly in 2008 when oil prices were astronomical. And in the case of Hamas, the more deprivation the Palestinian people face, the more Hamas can blame on the United States and Israel; it is true that “people will judge you on what you build not what you destroy.” and as it stands now, the Palestinian people’s hope for a peaceful furite and for Democracy has been destroyed by Israeli aggression and American apathy while Hamas visibly struggles to rebuild schools, hospitals and infrastructure bombed into nothingness by an Israeli military out for one more hurrah before the new President takes office. The Palestinian people will surely judge the efforts of Hamas to defend the people of Palestine, to “lift them up” and to ensure no more of their children die in UN-run schools. And the result will be millions more “martyrs” to the Hamas cause and even more problems for Israel. And the Bush administration did next to nothing to stop it all.

No, my dear conservative friends, Mr. Bush’s place in the pantheon of former Presidents will not be as you hope nor as you might wish; as another Eisenhower, Reagan, or Lincoln. But he will probably not be ranked as low as Nixon either if for no other reason than he wasn’t actually caught doing something illegal, so take heart. I suspect that after all is said and done, his administrational legacy will land him somewhere around Millard Filmore.

——————-Resources—————

BBC News “Italy Seals Libya colonial deal “

New Europe “ENI clinches USD 28 bln Libya oil and gas deal “

Afrol “Shell secures Libya deal during Blair visit “

The Telegraph “Nicolas Sarkozy defends Libyan arms deal “

Der Spiegel “Sarkozy’s Libyan Nuke Deal “

New York Times “Europe: France: Libya Compensation Deal Stalled “

BBC  “US-Libya Compensation Deal Signed “

Columbia Encyclopedia “Iran-Iraq War ” (as linked through Bartleby.com)

Global Security “Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) “

George Washington University “National Security Archives/Publications/ Iran-Contra Affair “

International Herald Tribune “After 29 years, Syria leaves Lebanon “

CBS “Saudis Warn Syria: Leave Lebanon “

Ya Libnan “Three Years After Leaving, Syria Still Occupies Lebanon “

CBS “Gen. Zinni: “They’ve screwed up “

New York Times “A Gulf Commander Sees a Longer Road “

ABC News “‘Sunni Awakening’: Insurgents now allies “

The Daily SHow, interview with David Gregory January 5th, 2009

Sandy Tolan The Lemon Tree: An Arab, A Jew And the Heart of the Middle East

Conservatives are, to put it mildly, duplicitous. And it can be proven in this way:

During the campaign of 2008, the conservative base equated “small town values” with goodness, right rule, and the American way. Fred Thompson praised Sarah Palin as a person “with small town values.” At the Republican Convention in St. Paul Minnesota, Palin herself spoke of small town values, to which the Republican (mostly conservative) audience lit up with rapturous cries of “Sarah!” This, of course, begs the question “What are small town values?”

Although there are no concrete answers to “small town values” in the same way that one could say “what constitutes a small town” or “what is the value of ‘x’ in this equation,” there is a pervasive myth of the wonder of small towns. A recent question about the nature of small town values posted to the non-scientific-but-popular-nonetheless YahooAnswers elicited these responses:

“Small town values mean people stick together through hard times and prosperity. When someone needs help, the whole town pitches in. We actually have doctors that donate healthcare to the uninsured, because they are human and care about each other. We look after each other, and stand up for what we believe in. We mow each others lawns and keep each other safe. You should try it just once. You would be amazed!”

and the same question at BeliefNet forums revealed users who had this to say:

“A small town used to be a place where everyone knew and helped their neighbors and cared about their community. Local business met local needs and no one locked their doors at night. IT was good place to grow up and to love…”

And

“As a small town person; Leaving your neighbors well enough alone and doing your own thing. Helping them when in need. Creating a positive atmosphere. “If you have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” Community supporting the future of our children (Education and School involvement).”

Distilled down to the very core we have:

1) Co-operative, community ownership of the troubles of the individual with an emphasis of “helping out” (helping children, neighbors, etc.) including “doctors donating health care.”

2) the non-interference of other people’s values onto the private life of the individual

3) corporate (or at least capitalist) reinvestment in the community they serve

The conservatives of the Republican party, however, have historically been against these priorities, in essence against “small town values.”Here is how:

1) Co-operative, community ownership of the troubles of the individual with an emphasis on “helping out”…

In 1995, the New York Times reported that former Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi opposed a child-care aid bill that would allow women who are on welfare to pay for childcare so that they can become productive citizens under the Welfare-to-work programs across the United States. Lott is quoted as saying “This is a big, big cost item. If we did everything the Democrats are talking about, we’d end up with welfare reform that costs money.” Additionally, in a story by Reuters on 14 February 2008 states that “About 70 percent of Republicans said socialized medicine would be worse than the current system, Republican candidates and policy strategists often accuse Democrats of advocating “socialized medicine“, depicting such plans as entangled in bureaucracy and synonymous with a so-called single-payer government health care system. “

2) the non-interference of other people’s values onto the private life of the individual

Mormons were instrumental in passing Proposition 8 in California, noted the New York Times, and conservative commentator Ann Coulter said this about gay marriage: “In a democratic process, liberals could never persuade Americans to vote for their insane ideas – abortion on demand, gay marriage and adoption, handgun confiscation, Out of respect for my gay male readers, I’ll resist the temptation to characterize this ruling as ’shoving gay marriage down our throats.’”

3) corporate (or at least capitalist) reinvestment in the community they serve

Take, for instance, Wal Mart. It is the nations’ largest retailer and employer, fielding thousands of workers in every state. They enjoy large corporate tax breaks and little oversight of their affairs per the conservative dogma that government oversight equals a debilitation of the efficiency and good practices of business. Yet, as reported in the New York Times on 29 Jan 2006, “Some state officials across the nation, warily eyeing enormous Medicaid costs, are accusing companies like Wal-Mart of using the program as a crutch to keep their costs low.” Wal-Mart, a private corporation, expected the state and federal government to bail it out of the cost of healthcare but fought a Maryland law that required it to contribute a portion (8% of payroll) of its operating costs to Medicaid plans. In solidarity with the corporation, Gov. of Maryland Robert L. Ehrlich, a Republican, vetoed the bill, on the premise that such a requirement of a corporation to reinvest in the community they serve might drive the corporation (and others like it) out of Maryland.

Therefore, given that conservative Republicans do not want welfare, will interfere in the private lives of homosexuals, and hold corporate profits in higher regard than community well-being, we must conclude, logically, that the conservatives are duplicitous in their advocacy of “small town values.”In short, they lie and invoke the spectre of the fictional town of “Mayberry” in order to dupe poorly-educated rural people into voting for a governmental and societal structure that is in all respects diametrically opposed to “small town values.”

QED

—————–Resources—————

Yahoo Answers “What are small town values? “

Beliefnet “What are small town values? “

ROBIN TONER. New York Times “Defeat for Child-Care Aid in Welfare Bill.” New York, N.Y.: Sep 12, 1995. p. A.20

JASON SZEP Reuters “U.S. Split on “socialized medicine” London, Feb 14, 2008

JESSE McKINLEY and KIRK JOHNSON. New York Times “Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage.” New York, N.Y.: Nov 15, 2008. p. A.1

Clifford J. Levy. New York Times “The New Corporate Outsourcing.” New York, N.Y.: Jan 29, 2006. p. 4.1

New York Times “Challenges to Law Aimed at Wal-Mart.” New York, N.Y.: Feb 8, 2006. p. C.3

RightWingNews “A Year of Ann Coulter Quotes, 2003-2004 “

What is it that makes America unique? What makes the idea of “American Exceptionalism” plausible?

Some suggest it is our consumer-oriented lifestyle. I would have to disagree, since the English were far more adept at being commercial, and being consumers, for centuries before America was a country in and of itself. English consumerism fueled the African slave trade, afterall - more labor to feed England’s addiction to tobacco, cotton, and rum filled the Spanish Main and North America with literally millions of Africans. Therefore, American’s love of inexpensive goods or purchasing luxury is hardly a new thing under the sun.

Others may suggest it is the American military that makes it unique. Again, history does not support this line of reasoning. Not until World War Two did America even aspire to be more than a semi-regional power and, at the turn of the 20th century, Chile had a more powerful navy than the United States. In fact, were it not for the mutual devastation of World War Two, Germany and Great Britain would have far outstripped the United States - for instance, if Trenton, New Jersey or Detroit, Michigan had felt the devastation of firebombing as Dresden, Germany or the terror of “The Blitz” as London did, then the United States would have not had the manufacturing capacity that it did in 1945. A subset of these arguments is that American ingenuity prevailed in World War Two, but I hasten to remind those people that Germany, again, far outstripped the United States inventing the jet engine, self-guided rockets, the assault rifle, and the Japanese were equally crafty, turning scrap steel into battleships and air craft carriers that were newer and superior to those the United States had in its arsenal. In the Cold War it was the Soviet Union that was the first into space and the first to send a living being into space; ingenuity and creativity are not solely and American trait.

No, indeed, none of the physical or economic manifestations of the American Empire are unique in the history of the world; empires and hegemonies have risen and fallen on the strength of their arms and the power of their economies since the dawn of time. What, then, maked the United States unique among the nations of the world.

Character.

In the history of the world, there had never been a nation devoted tot he ideals of democracy, equality, the rule of law, and freedom before 1776 CE. Democracy, from the Greek words demos meaning “people” and cratia meaning “power” was “invented” in ancient Greece, but only citizens of Athens who owned large parcels of land were allowed to participate; huge segments of the population, even free Athenian artisans were excluded from voting. Republic, from the Latin res publica meaning “owned by the public (people)” was closer in that all Roman citizens were allowed to vote during the Roman Republic, but Roman citizenship was not something you were born into, usually, and could very easily overlook the poor, women, and other large segments of society. And in both cases, neither civilization had written down its commitment to humanistic ideals in a written constitution.

So, when former President George W Bush and the other political pundits referred to the “American way of life” at the outset of the War on Terror , they were referring to the ideals of modern Democracy in which all peoples - regardless of race, creed, color, economics, or crime - were protected under the law. During the War on Terror, however, the desire to lash out in pain and rage overcame our better nature and our better judgment. By sanctioning “extraordinary rendition,” opening Guantanamo Bay, participating in “enhanced interrogation techniques,” and encouraging “softening up” prisoners such as in Abu Ghraib, we as a people stepped upon a slippery slope where one wrong justified thousands and morality was put into a small box and locked away - a victim of the expediency of war. But, as we were reminded by President Obama on inauguration day, being moral and lawful is most necessary during our trials and tribulations - for how else can we truly say what we are as a people?

For further proof that it is our Constitutional ideals that separate us from the rest of the world, during the American Revolutionary War, Thomas Paine was engaged in a fierce debate with French intellectuals such as Guillaume Raynal, Michel  de Crèvecœur, and (later) Alexis de Tocqueville on what it meant to be “American” and why ideals were so important both through his pamphlet Common Sense and through personal correspondence. To Paine, it was the American ideals of liberty and equal protection under the law that made the “American Experience” unique and an important boon to the world. It was the American example that would later partially influence the French Revolution. American principles of morality were the basis of President Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points declaration and are what kept America from treating prisoners of war the way that the Japanese, Germans, and even Russians did during World War Two - no death marches, starvation, denial of medical care, or summary executions (with some notable exceptions).

But, during the War on Terror somehow those principles were ignored under the expediency of a “new kind of warfare” calling for a new kind of doing business. Such a proposition is reflected in many right-wing, conservative reactions to the rightful closing of “Gitmo,” some (illustrated) examples follow:

What these and other critics fail to realize is that America is not more “safe” with Guantanamo Bay open - in fact, it has actually made America less safe and here’s why:

Muslims in the Arab world have typically been subject to tyrannical, authoritarian rule; Egyptian dissenters (and even common criminals) are subject to routine beatings, torture, and deprivation of food and sleep. Saudi “criminals” are more likely to be people who have stopped believing in Islam (or been caught practicing Judaism or Christianity) as they are to be thieves or murderers. Syrian dissenters are often tortured or detained indefinitely. Iraqi citizens (under Saddam Hussein) were often beaten and tortured - remember the infamous “rape rooms” of Abu Ghraib and the early insurgency? In the popular belief of the “Arab street” (that is, the Arab public) is that the only reason that their leaders are in power is because the United States is keeping them in power. They tended to scoff at the idea that America would act morally for, if it did, how could they support authoritarian regimes? When the United States abrogated its duties under both treaty and ideals, it merely gave credence to those Arab conspiracy theorists who believed that American ideals were naught but a mask we wore to make ourselves feel superior. When the United States suspended Geneva conventions and the rule of law in order to “detain” prisoners, the leadership knew it was wrong and - in true lawyerly fashion - sought a semantic way around the rule of law (why else was Guantanamo Bay chosen? Why not the Mojave? Or Death Valley? Or re-opening Alcatraz?), it merely added ammunition and talking points to the al Qaeda recruitment rhetoric.

Additionally, in complete disagreement with Alan Dershowitz and the farcical series “24,”torture does not work. First of all, any torture the United States could inflict on a suspected criminal is nothing that a hard-bitten terrorist has not withstood before. Ayman Al Zawahiri, for example, was jailed for decades in an Egyptian prison where he was routinely treated to a “workout session” with guards. Typical “workout sessions” in Egypt consist of the prisoner handing by his wrists (usually handcuffs that cut into their flesh) and punched, kicked, or clubbed all about the body (and especially the genitals). If he was able to survive that, then what use is torture. Additionally, when we see Jack Bauer tied to a chair and menaced by a swarthy-looking guy with a funny accent, we admire his “iron resolve” and cheer when he bites their jugular to escape - if Jack won’t spill the beans, what makes us think that “Yusuf” would? Also, torture doesn’t work because there is no guarantee that a) you got the right guy or b) that even if he is the “right guy” that he would have any information to divulge or c) that the information he’d divulge would be “actionable.” What torture advocates don’t understand is that it is in the human nature to say anything in order to stop the pain - the Papacy banned the use of torture during the Spanish Inquisition for the same reasons, as did the French after the so-called “Battle of Algiers.” On top of that, by asking - or perhaps requiring - one human to torture another, the damage done to the torturer’s psyche is morally repugnant; either you’ve taken a normal, well-adjusted person and induced him to inflict great bodily pain or fear of death in another person, thus causing the person to become unbalanced by indulging in his base, animalistic, barbaric urges OR you are hiring sociopathic personalities who are not burdened by “morality” and who could, potentially, turn on their employers when given more money or other inducements. For example, the North Vietnamese - when fighting against the French in the 1950’s - were certain that the French had infiltrated their ranks (based on “captured” intelligence) and so systematically went through their ranks, torturing suspects; eventually even highly-regarded agents who had engaged in torture of their compatriots found themselves on the receiving end of the tender mercies of interrogators because no matter how hard they tried, the North Vietnamese could not find the “traitor.” As it turned out, the French had not infiltrated the North Vietnamese insurgency, but had merely planted the doubt that the system had been compromised and so all that torture had done nothing but distract the North Vietnamese.

In short, what makes America special - what makes us unapologetic for our way of life - is our ideals. Our ideals pave the way for American influence, power, and our “way of life.” Our Ideals set us apart from the rest of the world and provide a beacon of light for the rest of the world to follow.

If we are willing to give up those ideals, even for a moment, then who are we? WHAT are we?

———————Resources——————

Alan M Dershowitz  Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge  (Yale University Press, 2003)

A. Vincent “A PIONEER WITH A DIFFERENCE: THOMAS PAINE AND EARLY AMERICAN STUDIES” in European Contributions to American Studies 43 (1999)

J. Romero “THE AMERICAN HALF-CENTURY IN EUROPE” in European Contributions to Americna Studies 57 (2004)

“The journey of a thousand miles begins beneath one’s feet.”

-Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

The day after the inauguration is usually the day that new Presidents unveil their bold agendas. Most Presidents in eras past have entered Washington as little more than placeholders - Millard Filmore, James Garfield, Rutherford B Hayes, etc. - but some have entered at a time of great trouble for the American people - Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon B Johnson, Ronald Reagan. I am sure nobody would argue that President Obama has entered as one of the latter.

Though many of my Republican colleagues might have derided his inexperience, his youth, or the mantra of “Hope,” they must surely recognize that the new President has definitely hit the ground running. They, of course, should have taken note of his potential when he began assembling his cabinet far, far earlier than any other President-elect/-designate ever has before. But even if they did not, they must certainly recognize that - no matter what their misgivings or rhetorical and philosophical differences they may have with President Obama - his first day in office is a good sign that experience is no bar to leadership. A short recap of his day:

1) He called the leadership of Israel, Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority in order to begin work on serious peace plans in the region. Normally, the Middle East is a last-ditch attempt at establishing a President’s “legacy” as Mr. Bush and Mr. Clinton did in the waning days of their Presidency. It should also be noted that the day of President Obama’s inauguration, Israel pulled out of Gaza unilaterally and without precondition, giving credence to my (and everyone else’s) belief that it was the Likhud party’s last great hurrah before serious Middle East talks begin.

2) He froze the pay of the top 100 White House staff. Mostly a symbolic gesture, since it could have gone further than the White House or the top 100, but a good move nonetheless. It is difficult to hear politicians discussing the “tightening of belts” or the “dire situation of the American working class” while they vote themselves raise after raise after raise. By setting the example, he draws the attention of the voters to the Senate and House of Representatives; Voters who may remember whether their Senator or Representative lined their own pockets while the Middle- and Working-Class people of America cut costs and hunted for every last dollar. An interesting move in a Democratic-controlled Congress when the President is also Demcoratic.

3) Set new rules regarding lobbying; staffers and aides who used to work for in certain field can not work, or contact an agency, dealing with that  field. This is in direct conflict with the prior administration’s policies; for example, the former Vice President used to work for Haliburton and was responsible for setting energy policy and was the major drum-beater for war in Iraq. In addition, aides and staffers must attend an ethics briefing so there is no chance of claiming ignorance of the new rules. By setting the bar for transparency and honesty, President Obama has set the tone (and provided an example) for what he plans on doing with other agencies.

4) New interpretations of the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA); in the spirit of transparency, the spirit of the law will reign instead of the letter. Basically, the government agency that receives a request for information must do all they can to provide that information, essentially stating that it is better to “err on the side of making information public” than on maintaining secrecy. This step may be of particular interest to my Republican friends as well as to conspiracy theorists out there; the government will be held accountable to you and you will have no reason to be denied real, concrete, documented proof (something we historians are rather keen on) so you will probably have to provide that proof from government sources rather than blogs.

President Obama’s campaign of leadership, responsability, and hope seems to be settling in quite nicely. I will be watching (as I hope everyone will be) in the coming years to see what form that leadership will take and to ensure that the promises of openness andtransparency are kept. I am glad that, in his inaugural speech, he made it clear that this journey he is leading us on will not be easy and that it will require sacrifice from everyone not just the American public, or future generations. His leadership is only a day old, but the road is surely well under his feet.

—————————resources——————

“Obama’s first day ” MSN

“Obama hits ground running on day one ” Fox News

“Obama sets agenda on day one ” Al Jazeera (English)

Lao Tzu Tao Te Ching 531 BCE (Barnes and Noble Classics, 2005)

“What enables the wise sovereign and the good general to strike and conquer and achieve things beyond the reach of ordinary men is foreknowledge.“

- Sun Tzu, Art of War

“There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, until philosophers become kings in this world, or until those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands.“

-Plato, The Republic

The president-elect, Barack Obama, has been engaged in a brilliant pre-inauguration campaign designed to rally the will of the people. Obama, having already exhibited hi foresight and political acumen in the appointment of his cabinet, is now moving on to the really important task of rallying the people. During his campaign which, arguably, was well run and resonated well with the majority of Americans, the excitement his speeches and presence generated - that Republican critics referred to as his “rock star” fame - swept his supporters up in an atmosphere of possibility and hope. But most Americans have a short attention span, particularly given the looming misery foisted upon the people by a small percentage of speculators who gambled away America’s future with glee. And so Obama, after being somewhat out of the spotlight for a few weeks, has elected to engage in a campaign that is an amalgam of tradition, psychology, historical thinking, and politically-savvy attention to detail.

Americans are short on tradition. It is not America’s fault, really, being one of the youngest nations in existence. Tradition is a nebulous thing that starts out as an innovation, becomes fashionable, becomes pass’e , is revived, dies again, and is transformed by re-adoption into tradition. America has had only a few short centuries that yield usable tradition, but some sticks more easily than others. But for the few that are, Obama is using them for all their worth. For instance, he is traveling by train; Lincoln’s address to his “people” in Illinois from the back of a train, Truman’s famous whistlestop campaign are aimed at recapturing the essence of the Presidency from years gone by. Travelling by train makes the candidate accessible, personable, and yet special; trains represented the pinnacle of American ingenuity or economic might (and may yet again). By traveling by train, Obama is placing himself squarely into the tradition of late 19th and early 20th century Presidents.

Psychologically, Obama’s speech borrows phrases from significant Americans which have paved the way to his success; Lincoln and King, for example, are re-purposed in his speeches, but not in the cynnical way that some previous Presidents have. These words are intended to re-ignite the American imagination of possibility and progressiveness; the era of the immediate post-Civil War/Reconstruction, the Marshall Plan, or the Civil Rights era. His speeches remind Americans of the greatness of their past, of their forebearers, andof the accomplishments of those past generations. But it also serves to remind the Americans of today who are used to, or at least expect, easy silver-bullet answers (Torture will yield answers, instant credit approval, and the thrill of day trading, etc.) that success - real success - comes only with struggle and sacrifice.

Obama has to be, in my mind at least, the most historically-minded President-elect since Woodrow Wilson (who, himself, was a PhD in Political Science) . This is because of his attempts to reach out across the aisle, which indicated that he is aware that Bush-era, Nixon-era, and Clinton-era partisan animosity will not work. This is the recognition that Lincoln surrounded himself with his former adversaries (Lincoln appointed his Republican nemesis to his cabinet in much the same way that Obama appointed his Democratic one) as well as tapping well-respected, well-educated academics to attack the problems of the country (in the same manner that FDR did). In addition, he recognizes the fact that while black Americans have always felt exploited, so have rural poor whites. He realizes, perhaps, that while the Black Power movement of the 1970’s may have empowered many African Americans, it angered and isolated poor whites and so overly liberal expressions of “white guilt” or heavy-handed racial equality politics would only serve to divide the country further.

While many American may be outraged at Obama’s choices, particularly of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, but it demonstrates why his “inexperience” should not be seen as equivalent to naivete. Just as it is possible for a person to exhibit a certain aptitude toward music, literature, sports, or science, so can a person have an intuitive grasp of politics and social situations. By appointing Hillary (and going above and beyond in a long, drawn out courtship), Obama has removed a potential obstacle in the Senate who would - perhaps out of spite more than out of real objection - to his plans for the country. This is a fact recognized by Clinton, no doubt, which would explain her coyness during the process. Additionally, given how he landed his Illinois Sentate seat, he shows the ability - and willingness - to undercut his opponents, which is important in dealing with intracable foreign and domestic adversaries.

Will Obama become the “wise sovereign” or “philosopher” that Sun Tzu or Plato spoke of thousands of years ago? The future is unknown, of course, but his current traits seem to indicate that there is a solid possibility of it. For all of us, I certainly hopeso.

Big businesses are bad for the American economy. And here’s why:

Countrywide, the California-based mortgage company, made loans to so-called “sub-prime” lenders who were in no way qualified to receive home loans. They made these loans for two reasons; first and foremost, it made them money - not because they ever expected to collect anything from the loan recipients (more and more evidence indicates that they fully expected these loan recipients to default on their loans within two or three years and five at the outside) but because they could “re-package” the loans by combining them with other bonds and an insurance policy that would pay out in the event that a loan recipient defaulted. These were called “synthetic” or “composite” securities and were sold on the open market as if they were not the “junk bonds” of the new millennium. In this manner, Countrywide, a “big business” defrauded its shareholders (who loved the number of loans being made and the short-term profits), and defrauded investors who foolishly bought up what seemed a “no-lose” security.

Then the market melted down. Countrywide received at least $12,000,000,000 in taxpayer money to “bailout” its struggling self. Its CEO and other high-ranking executives weaved a tale of doom and gloom for the American economy should it be allowed to “fail” and be eliminated from the market, knowing full well that Bank of America had already decided to purchase the failing loan giant for $4,000,000,000. In this way, Countrywide has defrauded taxpayers by deliberately mis-stating the importance of its services and the consequences of its demise.

Countrywide, in a bid to stave off what seemed like inevitable governmental interference in its loan dealings and foreclosure process made a promise on national television that it would work with loan recipients to end the cycle of foreclosure. However, in a recent court case in New Hampshire, Countrywide’s own attorneys which are defending it in a case where the lender is accused of “breach of good faith, fraud, negligence and misrepresentation” in not negotiating with a New Hampshire family have brazenly stated that the commercials were “mere commercial puffery.” For those of you unfamiliar with 18th century English, Puffery means lies. In essence, their defense against misrepresentation is “you can’t believe everything we say, because we lie.” and in this manner Countrywide has misrepresented itself to all sectors of the American populace, its investors, the taxpayers, and the loan recipients.

Historically, such a massive bailout is absolutely unheard of, but the behavior of the large mercantile entity is not; the entire corporate entity scheme was founded in England where the influence of a select few and the money made by the work and sweat of thousands, was used to keep the workers in line. In the founding of the United States, the Founding Fathers expressed a healthy fear of the potential of corporate power; Thomas Jefferson envisioned a nation of yeoman farmers who would embody the essence of republican virtues, writing to a friend “I hope we shall…crush n its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

What is Countrywide and other financial companies other than “the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations”? Countrywide’s history in the past 12 months is an excellent example of the power that corporations hold over the economy, the taxpayer, and the legal system. Additionally, corporations are able to play by different legal and financial rules from small businesses and individuals; in filing their yearly earnings taxes, a corporation can apply the losses of a previous year (up to seven, or in some cases more, years ago) and use it as “credit” against this year’s earning - corporations can even get a tax return in a profitable year. Corporations are treated as individual entities in the legal system (that is, a corporation has the right to own property, make contracts, etc. as if it were a living, breathing person) but when criminal cases are levied against corporations, in the rare cases that guilt is established, the corporation is often assessed fines because, it is argued, the individuals within the corporation committed the crime, and not the entity itself. Its as if you argued your kidneys stole money from old ladies without your knowledge and the courts only fined you and admonished you to get new kidneys.

Also, big corporations, such as Countrywide (and AIG, and Washington Mutual, and the rest of the “finance” crowd) produced their own downfall. Unlike the much-maligned automobile industry, the mortgage meltdown was entirely the finance companies’ own making. It would be unfair to say that American auto companies did not paint themselves into a corner with lower fuel efficiency and and unresponsive system of manufacture, but they did not control the price of oil over the summer of 2008; the main factor in Americans’ decisions to switch to more fuel efficient cars. Additionally, the Automobile industry isn’t causing an economic crisis by building Hummers and Escalades, and Expeditions. Finally, they aren’t causing people to lose their homes through the manufacture of F-150’s or Vipers. Yet Countrywide and others received a fairly painless bailout while the auto industry was forced to jump through hoops.

In closing, the way in which Countrywide and others make a profit, that is the interest received on money, was classically termed “usury” and was held in the lowest, meanest of contempt by Medieval and Renaissance thinkers. There are even proscriptions against usury within the Judeo-Christian bible (Exodus 22:25-27, Matthew 25:14-29, etc.) as well as in codified state laws (though each state adds exceptions for credit card, installment, and even farm loans which make companies like Countrywide immune to legal ramifications of loan sharking). Some may argue that banks are in the business of making money and ensuring the profits of their share holders, but I would argue that they are making short-term, profit-driven decisions that are unhealthy for the m and for the economy as whole. Islamic banks, particularly the Saudi national bank and banks in Dubai and Kuwait do not charge interest yet are still able to maintain profitability. Additionally, American banks have not always charged interest; The Bank of Italy, which was based in San Francisco, used to not charge interest to Italians but began to branch out in the early 20th century, becoming the Bank of Italy in America and later becoming The Bank Of America, or BofA; the same BofA that is now buying Countrywide.

__________________resources________________

“In court, Countrywide calls ads “Puffery “” MSNBC 15 Jan 2009

“Reuters reports COuntrywide receiving another $12B ” The Consumerist 20 Sep 2008

ReclaimDemocracy.org

Thomas Jefferson , Wikipedia

New King James Bible

Washington State Dept. of Financial Institutions; exemptions to usury laws

Legal definition of Usury

In politics and history, there are two terms which are used to describe the foreign policy actions of a country; “hard power” and “soft power. Hard power is the military and political power of a country. For example, the United States has, arguably, the most sophisticated and efficient military of any country on the planet, which gives it a great deal of “hard power” to use in certain situations. Hard power can be thought of as the proverbial “hammer” in foreign policy. Soft power, on the other hand, refers to the economic, cultural, linguistic, and other influences that a country exerts on other countries. For hundreds of years, France exerted “soft power” by exporting its food, wine, music, and language (which was used as the language of diplomacy from the 11th century well into the 19th century). Soft power can be directed by governmental forces, but in modern societies, it can also be a by-product of the country’s industrial, commercial, economic, and cultural output. For example, McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, and Universal Studios are not in any way owned or directed by the United States government (with, of course, the exception of certain periods of censorship in WWII and the Cold War, but that is different from actual control), yet the exert upon the world an almost intangible and pervasive influence. In Arab countries, for example, Coca-Cola is sold nearly everywhere; it is bottled, distributed, and sold locally, but the image and the drink are easily recognizable regardless of the language of the script, and it all originates from America. Other “soft powers” include music (Rap/Hip-Hop, Rock ‘n’ Roll, Jazz, The Blues, and other musical forms), clothing (especially blue jeans), and aesthetic norms of beauty (Egyptian women, for example, will dye their hair blonde in some cases, to match the “beauty” they see in films and television imported from the ‘States, especially Baywatch). This power is actually more useful in obtaining one’s objectives than “Hard power” for the simple reason that “soft power” is invited into the country and alarms raised against it are usually done so by hard-line conservatives who, more often than not, are dismissed as cranks, hold-backs, and neanderthals.

For example, the Ottoman Empire was one of the most feared powers in Europe and the Mediterranean for centuries. Though it existed well before the fall of Constantinople in 1453, since then the rule of the Ottoman Sultan extended from the gates of Vienna, to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, across North Africa, and well into Mesopotamia. It wasn’t until the 18th century that European powers could even hope to compete with the Ottoman Empire and not until the 19th century that they were capable of standing up to the Ottoman Empire. About that time, Ottoman culture was experiencing something relatively foreign to it; the importation of culture. Lacey parasols and the latest fashion from France filled Ottoman womens’ magazines and the learning of French or, to a much lesser extent, English, was a mark of distinction and cosmopolitanism. Demand for European goods was so high that the Sultanate began a propaganda war to admonish women to dress more modestly, in the style of their mothers and grandmothers, or (barring that) to at least patronize Ottoman-owned shops and not ones run by Frenchmen, Englishmen, Dutch, or Germans. It was a losing proposition because European methods of dress and learning had been demanded and acquired by Ottoman subjects; they had invited the “soft power” of Europe into their midst, thus eroding the internal prestige that the Ottoman culture had within its own society. Europeans were seen as becoming more cosmopolitan, more international, and more tolerant than Ottomans and thus were accepted as equals or, in some cases, admired as exceeding the levels of the Ottoman people. Soft power accomplished much of what could not be accomplished by military force alone; Ottoman women would never have accepted French soldiers in their rooms or submitted to forced education, Ottoman men would have taken up arms and fought invaders, not had them over for a discussion of politics over coffee or tea (or brandy). Essentially, a foreign country accede to the demands of the country wielding the “soft power.”

This brings us to the Ukraine and its problems with Gaz-prom; according to Gaz-prom, which is owned at least in part by the Russian government, the Ukrainian energy companies owe Gaz-prom several billions of dollars in back pay for natural gas delivered. The Ukrainians say they’ve paid their debts on time and in regular order. Still, Gaz-prom has cut off supply of natural gas to the Ukraine over the whole dispute. In the middle of winter. When almost all the homes in the Ukraine use natural gas to heat their homes. Though the government of Vladmir Putin (for who could argue that he does not really run the government a’ la Dick Cheney-esque political maneuvering no matter that Medvedev is the titular head of Russia) denies that there is little to gain from shutting off the natural gas, one must wonder at the timing of it all.

The Ukraine had been in talks all throughout the summer of 2008 about closer relations with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and, indeed, the NATO chairman has released a statement at the beginning of December on the close relationship between the Ukraine and NATO. This, of course, is yet another in a long line of former Warsaw Pact members who have joined what is fast becoming the dominant exertion of American and European”semi-soft” power (though based on “hard power” of military superiority, NATO is more of an economic, political, and cultural organization in its present configuration and thus falls somewhat into the “soft power” arena), a development that must frustrate and alarm Russian officials,generals, and politicians like Mr. Putin. Given, also, that another former Warsaw Pact ally, Poland, is geared toward accepting a US-built, NATO-sponsored missile defense shield, any development of NATO-Ukrainian political accommodation is certainly an unwelcome development to say the least.

Have no doubts, soft power is very effective. But it can also backfire if managed poorly or for rather selfish ends. The United States uses International Monetary Fund and World Bank loans to poorer countries to prevent competition for the “big three” agricultural products grown in the United States; corn, wheat, and soy beans. Developing nations, such as in Latin America, are dictated terms of repayment which emphasize profitable agrarian exports rather than value-added products which may take more time, more investment, and ultimately would leave the developing country in a better place, financially for the long run. By emphasizing agrarian products, the United States is able to purchase relatively-cheap produce while selling relatively expensive products (everything from toasters to microwaves to automobiles)to the developing country which has little chance of producing similar items that could compete with American products. Unfortunately, Asian companies are piggy-backing upon this American strategic economic battleplan and are selling much cheaper, much better products which force out the less competitive American products. The result is a resentment of the manipulation of American politicians (who discourage development) and an embrace of Asian manufacturers as the anti-Americans; Japan’s, Korea’s, India’s, and China’s “soft power” thus extends further at the expense of America’s soft power.

Currently, European resentment, particularly in the Ukraine, is building and the attempt at exerting “soft power” to influence the Ukraine to remain at least luke-warm toward NATO advances may result in the Ukraine joining the alliance earlier than expected. I can not help but wonder what the result would have been if Gaz-prom had “forgiven,” or even put a moratorium on the halting of natural gas shipments until Spring. I am certain that, had Gaz-prom really wanted to, it could have waited a bit longer to resolve this dispute which, according to its own estimates had begun in the beginning of October, so as not to leave millions of Ukrainians fighting for survival in the brutal winters of Eastern Europe.

As far as the exercise fo soft power goes, Russia has severely mis-managed this one. It may result in more former Soviet-bloc nations joining NATO or the European Union, or other coalitions, which may result in the Russian government acting more belligerently - as it did in South Ossetia.

—————Resources————–

Nato Press Release , 3 Dec 2008.

“Accusations reignite Europe’s gas row ” CNN 13 Jan 2009

“Russia to restore gas flow ” CNN 12 Jan 2008

“EU: Russia gas supply should restart immediately ” CNN 12 Jan 2009

“Gas row sends shivers through freezing Europe ” CNN 7 Jan 2009

Philip Marshal Brown “Malevolent Neutrality” in The American Journal of International Law 30(1) (1936)

Michael Hinckley “Power, Debt, and the Environment” presented at Politics and Power conference, University of Cincinnati, 2004.

As I predicted on my last post, and as supported by The Nation, Israel has exactly as Hamas wanted to: Bogged itself down in a no-win situation in Gaza and now the ENTIRE WORLD is against them. In a strange twist, the Bush administration - who not long ago was a hawk’s nest that allowed Israel to increase settlements in the West Bank by 48% (according to David Gregory of Meet the Press ) - has withdrawn its unthinking, uncritical support of Israel’s actions and at least stood by as a UN resolution condemning Israel’s actions and calling for a unilateral cease-fire WITHOUT assurances that Hamas rocket fire will not resume. Way to go Israel!

How are the Israelis and AIPAC taking it? In an op-ed in The Washington Post, AIPAC and Steny Hoyer insinuate that not backing Israel in it’s”time of crisis” is a moral failing. THe reality is that the incursion into Gaza was a moral failing; by treating Hamas as a military organization, Israel has granted them the privilege of being a patriotic insurgency and treated them as warriors. If, rather, Israel had continued to treat Hamas as an outlaw regime, and as criminals, the position of Hamas would have continued to disintegrate.

But what I’m most curious about, and what Robert Dreyfus brings up so forcefully, is why are the Democrats so silent on the actions of - or worse, so supportive of  - Israel? THere are many layers of reasons, ranging from the superfluous to the profound, most fo which we should discard; Some may argue that Dems are looking to solidify their jewish vote for 2010 when they can hope to increase their hold on the Congress - the problem with that is the Jewish vote a) isn’t as overwhelmingly Democratic as it used to be and b) a majority of Jews in America do not adhere to AIPAC’s vision of Israeli-American relationships. Others may argue that it is weak leadership in the Congress, but I would only give that partial credit; it is well known that Pelosi is not a “weak” leader, nor is Reid - the problem there is that two or three seats (which could potentially go Democratic) as well as other “transition” issues are taking up the majority of the Dems’ time. That, however, is a weakexcuse and one rightfully ripe for censure. The most prevalent reason seems to be that the Dems are the party in power and parties in power like to seem in command of the situation and are reluctant to “flip flop” on issues.

I would like to add my own censure of the Dems; by NOT speaking out on the tragedy of the Palestinian plight - if not the barbarity of Israel’s incursion - they are complicit in the Bush-style cowboy foreign policy agreements they so vociferously opposed in the elections - shame on all of you, even Mr. obama.

As to the absurd assertion that Israel’s mission into Gaza is either justified or holds any chance of accomplishing its goals, there is very little evidence that a strictly military approach will prevail in any meaningful way. In addition, the chances of actually finding a non-uniformed, asymmetrical insurgent amongst a civilian population while riding in a tank, or an Apache helicopter, or even on foot is nearly impossible. The French had a problem with that in Algeria, the Russians has a problem with that in Afghanistan, the British had a problem with that when facing off against Irgun or the Stern Gang, and the Americans had a problem with that in Iraq AND Vietnam; why would the Israeli’s feel that they’d have better luck? I believe that many conservative hawks vis-a-vis the Israeli position are under the mistaken notion that finding enemies in such a situation is  as easy as fingind a “waypoint”in a video game; the Gaza military debacle is nothing like “Call of Duty 4″ or “Medal of Honor” - indeed, what is more likelyis that civilians will be hit, your military and politicians will lose credibility, and the situation will go from bad to worse.

Finally, unrestrained military action, as evidenced in Gaza or Iraq, or anywhere else, has dire consequences. In the case of Gaza, the israeli military has consistently fired upon UN and other relief agency convoys , UN-run schools, andUN overseen refuges under the flimsy pretense that the UN (of all people) were harboring Hamas insurgents. Let us put it this way; If Iran were toattack a UN convoy, or China were to bomb a UN school, or Cuba were to shell a UN refugee shelter, what would theWorld’s reaction be? Why should it be different for Israel? In addition, unrestrained military action, with collateral damage and innocent civilians caught by “accident,”against an opponent who is militarily pathetic only fuels “la resistance.”Hamas will be able to recruit thousands where before it may have been able to recruit dozens, or maybe hundreds, to its cause. In addition to Palestinians, Hamas will attract Syrians, Iraqis, Jordanians, and Egyptians called to defend their cousins, uncles, grandparents, or other relatives. On top of that, Saudi and Kuwaiti money will begin to filter toward Hamas and other anti-Israeli militant groups - not just Iranian money. Of course, this money will not be official money, but will be raised by charities which are either “shell companies” of Hamas or who donate to “shell companies” run by Hamas and, in the end, Hamas will have MORE money, MORE fighters, and MORE prestige than it did before which will allow it to execute MORE attacks against Israel.

I am not amazed, nor even surprised, that Israel had launched a raid into Gaza. Nor am I stunned that such a raid has turned into a week (an more) of bombings and death (all of which are Palestinian). What I am curious about is the timing and objectives of Israel.

In an Egyptian-brokered cease fire established in June of 2008, HAMAS and Israel agreed to cease hostilities for a six month period to allow aid into Gaza. That agreement lapsed in December, around the 16th, during which time, HAMAS has fired what are essentially symbolic missiles into the south of “Israel” (since HAMAS was technically firing into what was, prior to the 1967 war and 1948 war, Palestinian territory now held by Israel in violation of armistices and UN resolutions, but I digress). So for nearly a month, Israel has been dealing with the headache (or slightly less dangerous than a headache) of HAMAS missiles launched into its territories but chose last week to do something about it. Why did they wait so long? Why did they not wait longer? A plausible answer might be the Israeli fears that Obama, with his already high rating among Arabs, might be a little less lenient than the Bush administration on Israeli aggression and military actions. In fact, many Israeli opinion editors (and, I think, politicians in the Likud party) see Obama’s inexperience not as a “fresh start” but more along the lines of having to reinvent the wheel to bring him into the pro-Zionist fold.

Another puzzler for me was the objective of Israel’s offensive into Gaza. According to official statements, it was to “kill the leadership of HAMAS” and render it ineffective, but Israel has already been doing just that; assassinating HAMAS leaders, such as the killing of quadriplegic HAMAS leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in 2004 by firing a laser-guided missile at his car. Since around 2000, Israeli commandos have hunted down and assassinated Hamas leaders, but Hamas - which is a very ideologically-driven organization - seems to have become only stronger, particularly as Iranian money supports many of their actions and efforts. Additionally, by attacking with F-16s, M-1 Abrams tanks, artillery and now ground troops, the Israelis have upped the resistance of the Palestinians to Israeli objectives, as happened in the Intifada of the 1980’s and in Lebanon in 2006. To the Palestinians, who lack such armament despite the “rockets” they have (which are woefully ineffective and inaccurate), it is yet another example of Israel’s overbearing demeanor; Gaza is a mere 124 square miles yet thousands of Israeli armed troops, hundreds of armored vehicles and airships, and literally thousands of tons of ordinance have been dropped on a people who lack basic infrastructure such as running water, electricity or sewers. The result - I predict - will be a cease fire, several dead HAMAS leaders, dozens of dead Israeli soldiers, and hundreds (if not thousands) of dead Palestinians who are too poor to evacuate (and even if they could, where could they go? The border with Egypt is tightly controlled and the border with Israel has troops on it - shall they swim to Crete?). After the cease fire, HAMAS will return, fairly quickly I believe, and become even MORE anti-Israel than before only this time fuelled by increased Gazan hatred and frustration. Rocket attacks will begin again and suicide bombers targeting civilians will increase within a year.

Some might argue that this is actually HAMAS’ fault, and I would be disinclined to disagree with them; this is most definitely HAMAS’ fault. But it is also Israel’s fault; their superior position militarily and their belligerent politics toward the Palestinians have made them choose hostility and land over peace and security. To Israeli hawks, the only good Palestinian is a dead Palestinian. Likewise, HAMAS has actively fought against normalization of relationships, productive talks between the Palestinian authority (let alone Israel) and itself, and become increasingly belligerent. To HAMAS, and organizations like it such as hezb Allah (Hezbullah), a dead Palestinian is a useful Palestinian - as a recruiting and propaganda tool.

So what should Israel do? Well, in the short term, cease fire and withdraw from Gaza; it’s a no-win situation anyway, HAMAS will live on and will claim victory no matter what, so what use is national pride? Immediately after the withdrawal, Israel should begin dismantling the barricade walls surrounding Palestinian cities and villages and remove settlements in the Jordan valley and the “occupied terrirories” (as Israelis call them) of Palestine.  By treating the West Bank portion of Palestine as a separate entity worthy of respect, the more amenable Palestinian Authority will accrue prestige and validity, which may serve it well in future elections against HAMAS - bloodshed and loss of land vs. peace and increased autonomy. Additionally, allowing only medical and food aid into Gaza (to avoid a humanitarian crisis) while actively investing in the infrastructure and businesses of the West Bank will further reward the “good” Palestinian government and punish the “bad” Palestinian government. Finally, Israel needs to give up the illusion that it will ever have East Jerusalem; Muslims all over the world are adamant about that and Israeli resistance not only fuels terrorists like HAMAS and hezb Allah, but also put the back of the PA up, since East Jerusalem and an autonomous Palestinian state’s capital are stated goals of the Palestinian Authority. Since Mahmoud Abbas has already stated that the PA recognizes Israel’s right to exist and the PA holds no love for HAMAS “thugs” (as they call them), there is little risk that such generosity will signal to West Bank Palestinians that Israel is weak or soft. Eventually, HAMAS will become discredited IF and only if Israel works to make the PA more legitimate by actually abiding by treaties and agreements instead of unilaterally revoking them or failing to live up to their end of the bargain. Only a peaceful course of “soft power” will destroy HAMAS; arms and violence will only increase resistance.

I would not be surprised to see the West Bank and Gaza become two distinct and separate states, similar to Bangladesh and Pakistan, in the following years if Israel really is serious about peace and security. It may take some serious negotiating, and some severe concessions on the part of both parties, but it is do-able if Israel wants it to be.

—————–Resources————-

Justin Eliott “Obama’s Israel Shuffle ” in Mother Jones 1 Feb 2008

Ed Lasky “Barack Obama’s Middle East Expert ” on American Thinker 23 Jan 2008

Al Ahram (Egypt) “Obituary: Sheikh Ahmed Yassin: 1938-2004 ” 31 Mar2004

Aron Heller “Israel Eyes 2002 Saudi Proposal for Peace ” in The San Diego Union-Tribune 20 Oct 2008

“Text of the Saudi Peace Proposal, 2002 ” from al Bab

Historically, there is a phenomenon that is called “Nationalism” which has been part and parcel of modern nation-states since they were formed in the early modern period (around the 18th century). Nationalism is different from the tribal, feudal, or regional loyalties in previous epochs and, in fact, nationalism and the nation-state go hand-in-hand. Take for instance France; prior to the industrial revolution (some would argue prior to the French Revolution of the late 18th century), French identity was very malleable; Spaniards, Basques, Italians and Swiss infused French life and language in the south making an almost completely separate language which is referred to as “Langue d’oc” while Germans, Lowlanders, Celtic Gauls, and others infused the North making an almost completely separate language called “Langue d’oil.” During the Hundred Years’ War, the Northern Burgundians, who spoke Langue d’oil, allied themselves with the invading English (until they saw the fortunes of the English wane and switched sides). During the medieval, Renaissance, and early modern periods, it was not unusual for a so-called “Frenchman” to go off to fight in a Spanish army, become a sailor in the Dutch navy, or act as a translator for a German prince and perhaps return home years and years later (for a fascinating account of this liquid nature of identity, read “The Return of Martin Guerre”).

With a consolidating monarchy (at the time, most countries were monarchies) and the elimination of the feudal system, France 9and other European countries) began a self-conscious attempt to forge a unified, homogenized identity for their people; The Ottoman Empire famously weathered the “Young Ottoman” and “Young Turk” movements in the latter century of its existence. Part of this collective identity was the creation of unified public space and entertainment; parks, statues, museums, opera houses, ballet theaters, music, literature, and poetry was all geared toward reinforcing the idea of a single identity that could, in theory, be used toward a common goal.

The United States was a little late in coming to this “nationalism” game; most identities revolved more around individual states (particularly in the early post-Revolutionary war period, before the Constitution was hammered out). Indeed, what we call “states” now are really semi-autonomous provinces rather than the original intent; that each state would act as a sovereign nation with very faint, nominal ties to each other as held together by a relatively weak federal government. Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist party, however, wanted a financially responsible, strong federal government in charge of the United States, mostly because the smaller states would be easy pickings for European powers (which might either exacerbate, aggravate, or instigate internecine fighting amongst the nascent Republic). In the end, the United States did become a sort-of “nationalist” state, but remained relatively fractious until well after the Civil War.

During the Civil War, the idea of the preservation of the Union led to some very nationalist-style propaganda and policies; the Emancipation Proclamation, for example, was to punish non-Union states more than it was to free the slaves, per se. Nationalism did exist prior to the Civil War, particularly during the Mexican-American war of the 1840’s, but really hit its stride in the 20th century. During World War One, hundreds of conscientious objectors were arrested for their failure to support the American effort in The Great War. In World War Two, more conscientious objectors (and African Americans) were subjected to experimentation that is now deemed barbaric, cruel, and unnecessary; forced starvation to study the effects of hunger, for example. These experiments were deemed suitable for a person who had failed to take up arms in defense of the Father/Motherland. Similarly, in the wake of the Bolshevik revolution, and again at the start of the Cold War, Communists and Socialists were deemed a threat to the American way of life. These periods were called “Red Scares” and turned neighbor against neighbor, friend against friend, and sundered families all because of the mistaken belief that non-homogeneous thought was placing the Republic in jeopardy (never mind the fact that freedom of association, freedom of assembly, and freedom of speech were built into the Constitution in order to promote non-conformist thought and discourse). The 20th century, despite the counter-culture ethos of the mid and late 1960’s, has been increasingly pro-Nationalistic in American thought, deed, and act.

But compared to the culture that prevailed after 9/11, the McCarthy era looked sedate and constrained. The height of ridiculous over-zealousness must arguably be the “freedom fries” incident where Congress - in full session - changed the name of deep-fried potato sticks from “french fries” because the French disagreed with the invasion of Iraq and the nascent War on Terror.More alarming, however, was the response of people IN America to Americans who were skeptical of the War on Terror and the War in Iraq’s premise. Such over-zealousness led to persecution of people who did little else but opine on the war and object to engaging in conflict or to American foreign policy in general; Valerie Plame is but the most famous figure. Even everyday soldiers and Marines who speak out against the war are still charged with a crime despite the theoretical protection of the Constitution. But persecution came not just at the hands of officialdom - opposition-editorials, blog comments, and other forums of public opinion were rife with pro-Nationalistic fervor for years (and, to a degree, still are) with outright accusations of treason for non-conformity. For proof of this, a critical observer need not look further than the mini-furor over Barack Obama’s failure to wear a flag lapel pin; as if empty gestures were a guarantee of nationalistic fidelity. What it does guarantee is a visceral reaction bereft of fact, thought, or substance. And, indeed, such is the point of Nationalism - the make an “other” of an insider who does not conform; the heretic of the religion that worships the nation.

Nationalism is a religion, by the way, in so far as it has its own mythology, its own dogma, and its own righteousness philosophy. For example, for many Americans, the United States can commit no evil - Guantanamo bay is just, Abu Ghraib is deserved, and a war of aggression against an opponent who [although no angel] was clearly blameless is necessary to promote “freedom” or “democracy.” Most overzealous American nationalists, like many overzealous religious fanatics, see no contradiction in espousing the greatness of their system while it is systematically dismantled or rendered impotent by executive orders and extraordinary rendition; usually observers who point out the inherent dangers of nationalism are treated to a pat response of “if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about” and are often branded whiners, traitors, or anti-American.

There is, unfortunately, no method or means to reason with a zealot; it is the very nature of the beast. What can be done, however, is to recapture the essence of the Founding Fathers’ original premise of the United States, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights; an open and free society with tolerance for all points of view and persuasions for free, open, and critical minds are inoculated against the virus of Nationalism - a virus which has led the United States to the brink of devastation and collapse.

QED

——————–Resources———————-

Natalie Zemon Davis The Return of Martin Guerre Harvard University Press, 1983

Ann Yoder “Conscientious Objectors in World War I ” Accessed 3 Jan 2009

Adrian Wilson Two Against the Tide: A Conscientious Objector in World War II, Selected Letters, 1941-1948 Oak Knoll Press, 1990

BBC News “US Congress Opts for ‘Freedom Fries ‘” 12 Mar 2003 (accessed 3 Jan 2009)

Just One Minute “The Valerie Plame Wilson Timeline ” accessed 3 Jan 2009

Newsvine “US Marine Faces Charges for Speaking out Against the War in Iraq ” 2 Jun 2007 (accessed 3 Jan 2009)

New York TImes Blog “Obama’s Lapels ” 4 Oct 2007 (accessed 3 Jan 2009)

Fox News “Barack Obama Stops Wearing Lapel Flag Pin ” 4 Oct 2007 (accessed 3 jan 2009)