While it is impolitic to the dominant paradigm to speak of the United States as ever having lost a war, we can surely agree that there are three wars that the United States has not won. These three wars were fought in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq, and they all betrayed the same fundamental ignorance of the imperial American president.
In all three wars, the American president deluded himself into thinking that he could wage war in another power's neighborhood and realistically expect that other power to refrain from aiding its anti-American allies, even though this hostile power knew full well that the United States could not attack it directly.
In Korea and Vietnam, this power was China. In Iraq, this power is Iran and, indirectly, China. The United States escalated the wars in Korea and Vietnam until each reached the borders of China. China then inevitably intervened, whether with waves of infantry or with fleets of trucks. American presidents then continued to fight in Korea and Vietnam while acknowledging that they could not attack China directly.
After Americanization of the Korean and Vietnam Wars caused Chinese intervention, American presidents decided to continue these wars, even as they acknowledged that they would never strike at the base of their enemies' support. This is as clear-cut a recipe for an unwinnable war as one can fathom. I am not arguing that the United States should have gone to war with China over Korea or Vietnam; I am arguing that the wars there should never have been Americanized.
With the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has committed a similar error with regards to Iran. While not nearly as powerful as China was, Iran is the preeminent power in the region that America chose to invade. In choosing to invade this region, it seems never to have occured to the Bush Administration that the regional power, an American enemy, might seek to influence postwar Iraq. Thankfully, Iranian influence in Iraq has involved clerics and currency rather than human wave attacks. The hubristic error of Bush is familiar, though; Iran? They won't have the balls to intervene!
Not only did all three American wars completely fail to account for regional powers which had been established for thousands of years (China and Persia), but they insisted on seeing its wars as American wars, which were to be defined, conceived, and executed according to American interests and ideals, and for American interests.
Korea in 1950, Vietnam in 1965, and Iraq in 2003 were all societies in varying stages of profound revolutions. There were several wars raging within each of these countries far before American intervention. Americans consistently fail to understand that there was no more an American solution to these wars than there was a French solution to the American Civil War.
Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq were revolutions, civil wars, and proxy wars. They were revolutions because all three societies were emerging from various forms of tyranny, whether Japanese imperialism, French colonialism, or Ba'athist despotism. All three were civil wars because segments of the nations, all of whom had been either divided or grouped against their wills by western powers, disagreed amongst themselves as to what course to take following independence. And they were proxy wars, all between America and China, to varying degrees.
Iraq is now a civil war between those who want Iraq to exist and those who don't, between those who want to modernize Islam and those who want to Islamize modernity, between those who love their children and those who hate their neighbors. This situation knows no American solution, as we must acknowledge before we degrade our military further.
The real question in Iraq is not whether we can defeat the insurgency, which we can't, or stop the civil war, which we can't, or stop the money and weapons from flowing in to all sides, which we can't, or provide electricity, which we can't, or create an atmosphere where a white man can walk down a street in Baghdad, or make it safe for people who live in Baghdad to go shopping, which we can't. It's about whether we can contain Iran. Which we can't.
The specific cauldrons of Korea and Vietnam have faded somewhat back down to their proper dimensions; they are places a westerner may not necessarily want to live, but neither are they the existential threats to civilization that our leaders sternly assured us they were. Iraq, with time, will be no different. The real issue is China.
China is a global power. It will, in time, be the global power. Why? It is the oldest continuous and centralized state on Earth and it has more soldiers and workers than America has people. Chinese power is inevitable. What we, as Americans, need is a fundamental shift in how we feel about America's place in the world.
The National Security Strategy laid out by President Bush in 2002 and 2006 is really rather elegant in its simplicity, which is the rarest of attributes for federal documents. This document, which was renewed three years after invasion of Iraq, soberly informs the reader that the United States controls, and always will control....North America? No. Earth.
China will not be the power of East Asia, because that would threaten the United States. Iran will not be the power of the Middle East, because that would threaten the United States. What of the fact that China and Iran (Persia) have been regional powers for millenia? Isn't is likely that China will be the power in Asia since, as opposed to the United States, it is actually located in Asia? Since Persia has been in the Middle East for thousands of years and the Americans have been there for sixty years, isn't the safe bet on the Persians having more influence? Don't be a pussy; they are threats to the United States.
When you state total control as your policy, two things are inevitable. First, you are threatened by everything. For example, Saddam Hussein in 2002 was threatening only to one whose goal is domination of the globe. Therefore, he was threatening to us, but not to the 191 other, weaker nations, who didn't define their lack of global domination as the end of the world. Second, failure is inevitable. The world is more stable now, in certain ways, than it ever has been, but we are all doom and gloom. Why? Because we are measuring ourselves against a childishly naive set of assumptions.
One thing that Americans aren't told by the liberal media is that the United Nations has been successful beyond expectation at its ultimate task: preventing war between member states. The world has moved on from the paradigm that saw physical force as an acceptable political tool. In fact, there is just one foreign war being waged by a member of the UN right now, and we are that member.
Americans are in for a world of hurt if they don't realize that it is more likely for gravity to fail than it is for the United States to militarily dominate the globe. We need to ease away from the self-importance that tells us that anything short of Global American Empire would be medieval savagery. For example, I've been to Europe. It's nice.
In the relatively near future, America will not be the most powerful country on Earth. Our terminal descent began with shock and awe. We will not, however, become just another nation. America is, say it with me, the most important nation of modernity. It is modernity. American ideals, if not practices, are accepted by an unbelievably broad cross section of humanity. America will always be powerful. Our task as patriots is to guarantee that, as our total military and economic dominace gradually erode, we do not allow our ideals to do the same.
American ideals are not different from Islamist or Communists ideals; they are better. Respect for individual dignity, contempt for authoritarian governments, legal equality for women and all minorities. These beliefs are superior to the alternatives offered by our rivals. We must have faith that, after our bases in the desert are abandoned, our ideals will remain to be self-evidently just by most the the world. That is power.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Friday, February 16, 2007
Mission Accomplished
"Democracy perishes by two excesses, the aristocracy of those who govern, or the contempt of the people for the authority it has itself established, a contempt in which each faction or individual reaches out for the public power, and reduces the people, through the resulting chaos, to nullity, or the power of a single man" --Robespierre
"Terrorism and tyranny lie in the eye of the beholder; and under democracy each beholder will not only perceive for themselves, but is explicitly entitled to do so" --John Dunn
Despite the gloom of the media and much of the public, one American success in Iraq has been studiously ignored: Iraq today is a democracy. This uncomfortable and perhaps counter intuitive truth is far more indicative of the dangers of democracy than it is of anything positive about Iraq. What we are seeing in Iraq is democracy. What we want in Iraq, and what we have in the United States, is not democracy.
For all the messianic talk about America's timeless and selfless mission to spread democracy, America would never dare impose actual democracy on itself, never mind other nations. Democracy in its purest form is better known as anarchy, and democracy clearly thrives in Baghdad.
Direct democracy is the cataclysm that is brutalizing Iraqi society. Far from something to be strived for, direct democracy holds that every person has an equal right to exercise his or her own power and prerogative. This system is very difficult to maintain in small groups. In groups of over 200 or so, it is essentially impossible. In groups of 25 million it is nihilistic insanity.
Representative democracy is what we have, to some degree, in the United States and what we implicitly envisioned for Iraq. Compared to direct democracy, this brand is less vulnerable to mob rule and populist suppression of minorities. Each member of the community does not have a say in every decision, but their representatives do.
The Iraqi government exists only on television because Iraqis have largely rejected representative democracy, hence their elected representatives have little or no actual power. Rather, many Iraqis have opted for direct democracy, manifested at personal levels by neighborhood militias and institutionalized vigilantism.
Many Americans, including myself, would like to see a greater degree of direct democracy in the United States. Look at the architects of the Iraq War, for example. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Rice. Among these power brokers, only Bush and Cheney were subject to an election, and even they were not held to the most fundamental criteria of a popular vote. We could stand to be a bit more democratic, at least when it comes to selecting our representatives.
Actual democracy is not something to be idealized, or even necessarily tolerated. It is a practice that does not exist in any nation state, and indeed never could. Even Luxembourg has far too many people to allow every citizen to weigh in on every issue. Iraq also has far too many people to attempt this, but too many Iraqis are insisting on exercising their new "rights", usually via acts of violence.
The Iraqi embrace of direct democracy, in retrospect, was clear immediately after the fall of Baghdad. Why would people loot anything that wasn't tied down and a great many things that were? They were simply exercising what they perceived to be they newly-acquired "rights". The ubiquitous anecdote of the Iraqi in the street in 2o03 had him saying, "democracy means we are free to do whatever we want".
The American government, of course, was unable to understand the importance of this mentality. Donald Rumsfeld, an intelligent yet exceedingly stupid man, dismissed the looting as evidence that "freedom is messy". He was right. Freedom, total freedom, is very messy. In fact, society is impossible if people are truly free.
The looting and the dominance of locally-based militias are evidence of Iraqis' embrace of direct democracy. The utter impotence of Iraq's government is evidence of Iraqis' rejection of representative democracy. Keeping this in mind, it is not surprising that Iraq has only become less stable since the representative government took nominal control.
Iraqis' rejection of the representative democracy offered by the Green Zone government reflects their embrace of several manifestations of more direct democracy via neighborhood militias and provincial and sectarian loyalties and identities. Simply put, representative democracy fails when people decided that their representatives don't represent them.
It speaks to the naivete of our prewar mentality that we thought that real democracy was a good idea anywhere, never mind Iraq. How can we hope to impose alien ideologies onto alien cultures when those ideologies are alien even to ourselves?
"Terrorism and tyranny lie in the eye of the beholder; and under democracy each beholder will not only perceive for themselves, but is explicitly entitled to do so" --John Dunn
Despite the gloom of the media and much of the public, one American success in Iraq has been studiously ignored: Iraq today is a democracy. This uncomfortable and perhaps counter intuitive truth is far more indicative of the dangers of democracy than it is of anything positive about Iraq. What we are seeing in Iraq is democracy. What we want in Iraq, and what we have in the United States, is not democracy.
For all the messianic talk about America's timeless and selfless mission to spread democracy, America would never dare impose actual democracy on itself, never mind other nations. Democracy in its purest form is better known as anarchy, and democracy clearly thrives in Baghdad.
Direct democracy is the cataclysm that is brutalizing Iraqi society. Far from something to be strived for, direct democracy holds that every person has an equal right to exercise his or her own power and prerogative. This system is very difficult to maintain in small groups. In groups of over 200 or so, it is essentially impossible. In groups of 25 million it is nihilistic insanity.
Representative democracy is what we have, to some degree, in the United States and what we implicitly envisioned for Iraq. Compared to direct democracy, this brand is less vulnerable to mob rule and populist suppression of minorities. Each member of the community does not have a say in every decision, but their representatives do.
The Iraqi government exists only on television because Iraqis have largely rejected representative democracy, hence their elected representatives have little or no actual power. Rather, many Iraqis have opted for direct democracy, manifested at personal levels by neighborhood militias and institutionalized vigilantism.
Many Americans, including myself, would like to see a greater degree of direct democracy in the United States. Look at the architects of the Iraq War, for example. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Rice. Among these power brokers, only Bush and Cheney were subject to an election, and even they were not held to the most fundamental criteria of a popular vote. We could stand to be a bit more democratic, at least when it comes to selecting our representatives.
Actual democracy is not something to be idealized, or even necessarily tolerated. It is a practice that does not exist in any nation state, and indeed never could. Even Luxembourg has far too many people to allow every citizen to weigh in on every issue. Iraq also has far too many people to attempt this, but too many Iraqis are insisting on exercising their new "rights", usually via acts of violence.
The Iraqi embrace of direct democracy, in retrospect, was clear immediately after the fall of Baghdad. Why would people loot anything that wasn't tied down and a great many things that were? They were simply exercising what they perceived to be they newly-acquired "rights". The ubiquitous anecdote of the Iraqi in the street in 2o03 had him saying, "democracy means we are free to do whatever we want".
The American government, of course, was unable to understand the importance of this mentality. Donald Rumsfeld, an intelligent yet exceedingly stupid man, dismissed the looting as evidence that "freedom is messy". He was right. Freedom, total freedom, is very messy. In fact, society is impossible if people are truly free.
The looting and the dominance of locally-based militias are evidence of Iraqis' embrace of direct democracy. The utter impotence of Iraq's government is evidence of Iraqis' rejection of representative democracy. Keeping this in mind, it is not surprising that Iraq has only become less stable since the representative government took nominal control.
Iraqis' rejection of the representative democracy offered by the Green Zone government reflects their embrace of several manifestations of more direct democracy via neighborhood militias and provincial and sectarian loyalties and identities. Simply put, representative democracy fails when people decided that their representatives don't represent them.
It speaks to the naivete of our prewar mentality that we thought that real democracy was a good idea anywhere, never mind Iraq. How can we hope to impose alien ideologies onto alien cultures when those ideologies are alien even to ourselves?
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
The Good Germans
Tragedy number 151 of the Iraq War: we're fighting the wrong people. The Sunni Arabs are our natural allies in Iraq, and one of the endless ironies of this cauldron is that these natural allies have been America's primary tactical enemy since the invasion four years ago.
The Sunni Arabs of Iraq, at least the more secular ones, must feel about the Americans much like elements of the German Army did in early 1945. Dissident generals and admirals from the Third Reich tried in vain to negotiate and come to a separate peace with the Americans based on a very simple and logical consideration: although currently engaged in hostility, Germany and America were the most natural of allies against the true and common enemy of Communism.
The United States refused to negotiate with the Third Reich, of course, and it was right to demand unconditional surrender. This calculation, however, came with the acknowledgment that the German officer corps was correct; Germany must be America's preeminent anti-Soviet ally in any viable postwar scenario. The Americans were able to insist on unconditional surrender nonetheless, however, because they correctly gagued the Germans' options. Western-leaning and technocratic Germans would side with the United States over the Soviet Union regardless of how the war was prosecuted; they had no other viable option. This allowed the United States to insist on unconditional surrender and still subsequently sway the Germans to their postwar sphere of influence.
The calculations in Iraq are remarkably similar, with some caveats. Iraq's Sunni Arabs know that the United States once regarded them as allies in the fight against another hostile ideology from the east. In this context, Persian Shi'ite theocracy has replaced Soviet Communism as the ideology to be contained. This orientation was made clear by the United States via its support of Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988.
Iraq's formerly dominant Sunni community is now in the disorienting position of fighting the very force that once sided with them against their fully acknowledged and readily identifiable common enemy. Iraq's Sunnis and the Americans are seeing their common enemy gain ascendance, and they are too busy killing each other to soberly counter this threat.
Nothing could be more beneficial to Iran and Iraq's Shi'ites, of course. The calculations of the Americans in prosecuting the war in Iraq suffered from many well-documented flaws, but the biggest flaw was the inability to recognize that any remotely "democratic" Iraq would be dominated by Shi'ites. By insisting on an unconditional surrender of Sunni insurgents, the United States will inevitably further empower Shi'ite groups at the expense of the more secular and technocratic Sunni community.
In World War II, a certain class of Germans, which it would be a stretch to call the "Good Germans", were natural allies of the United States. The inevitability of a postwar alliance withstood even the total Allied destruction of vast swathes of the Reich. No group in Iraq is nearly as natural an ally as Germans forced to choose between Americans and Russians. We must accept, however, that some degree of reconciliation with Sunni insurgents is the only viable way to contain Shi'ite theocracy after the inevitable American withdrawal. Sunni insurgents have killed thousands of American soldiers and scores more Iraqi soldiers and civilians. But we need them. That's how ugly war is.
The Sunni Arabs of Iraq, at least the more secular ones, must feel about the Americans much like elements of the German Army did in early 1945. Dissident generals and admirals from the Third Reich tried in vain to negotiate and come to a separate peace with the Americans based on a very simple and logical consideration: although currently engaged in hostility, Germany and America were the most natural of allies against the true and common enemy of Communism.
The United States refused to negotiate with the Third Reich, of course, and it was right to demand unconditional surrender. This calculation, however, came with the acknowledgment that the German officer corps was correct; Germany must be America's preeminent anti-Soviet ally in any viable postwar scenario. The Americans were able to insist on unconditional surrender nonetheless, however, because they correctly gagued the Germans' options. Western-leaning and technocratic Germans would side with the United States over the Soviet Union regardless of how the war was prosecuted; they had no other viable option. This allowed the United States to insist on unconditional surrender and still subsequently sway the Germans to their postwar sphere of influence.
The calculations in Iraq are remarkably similar, with some caveats. Iraq's Sunni Arabs know that the United States once regarded them as allies in the fight against another hostile ideology from the east. In this context, Persian Shi'ite theocracy has replaced Soviet Communism as the ideology to be contained. This orientation was made clear by the United States via its support of Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988.
Iraq's formerly dominant Sunni community is now in the disorienting position of fighting the very force that once sided with them against their fully acknowledged and readily identifiable common enemy. Iraq's Sunnis and the Americans are seeing their common enemy gain ascendance, and they are too busy killing each other to soberly counter this threat.
Nothing could be more beneficial to Iran and Iraq's Shi'ites, of course. The calculations of the Americans in prosecuting the war in Iraq suffered from many well-documented flaws, but the biggest flaw was the inability to recognize that any remotely "democratic" Iraq would be dominated by Shi'ites. By insisting on an unconditional surrender of Sunni insurgents, the United States will inevitably further empower Shi'ite groups at the expense of the more secular and technocratic Sunni community.
In World War II, a certain class of Germans, which it would be a stretch to call the "Good Germans", were natural allies of the United States. The inevitability of a postwar alliance withstood even the total Allied destruction of vast swathes of the Reich. No group in Iraq is nearly as natural an ally as Germans forced to choose between Americans and Russians. We must accept, however, that some degree of reconciliation with Sunni insurgents is the only viable way to contain Shi'ite theocracy after the inevitable American withdrawal. Sunni insurgents have killed thousands of American soldiers and scores more Iraqi soldiers and civilians. But we need them. That's how ugly war is.
Why Collective Rights are Wrong
What makes one black? I have always labored under the apparent delusion that it was black skin, which is to say that blackness makes one black. This, however, was before I was informed by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Harry Belafonte that Condoleeza Rice is not black. This led to me realize that it is not just blackness that makes one black, but blackness combined with an unflinching and unquestioning support of the dominant liberal paradigms of the late 20th century.
Since Condoleeza Rice is not a Democrat or a liberal, she is not sufficiently black. Condoleeza Rice, who grew up in the segregated south and had friends murdered in terrorist attacks because of their blackness, is not sufficiently black. One wonders what the verdict on Condoleeza's blackness might have been if she had been murdered in the basement of that church. Or did the bombers only target liberal 10 year old black girls? Has Condoleeza been spared racial slurs and slights throughout her life due to her conservative leanings?
The unmitigated bigotry of today's "civil rights" movement is evident in the treatment of black conservatives. Colin Powell is not really black. Condoleeza Rice is not really black. George Bush is a racist, even though he appointed Powell and Rice as the first black secretaries of state and has the most racially diverse cabinet in American history.
In some ways, the liberal black consensus treats its dissidents much as Muslim extremists treat theirs; they arrogate to themselves the authority to define who is "truly" one of them, as well as the authority to castigate and exile all perceived apostates.
Can one imagine a more fundamental betrayal of Martin Luther King and John Lewis and the other civil rights leaders of the recent American past, including, it must be said, Jesse Jackson? These are the moral heroes of American history, the men and women who orchestrated the most peaceful and successful reckoning with and reordering of the American system in its history. These men and women were giants, their accomplishments earth-shattering, and their strength and courage inconceivable. They accomplished great things. And their successors ignore their victories.
For the past 6 years, the secretary of state has been black. The most dominant nation in human history has been represented in the global community by a black man and a black woman. A black woman speaks for the world's superpower. A black woman is America's face and voice in international affairs. How do Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton treat this woman? As a sniveling and submissive cracker lover.
The leaders of the civil rights movement orchestrated a revolution that, within their lifetimes, has seen black American men and women ascend to the very pinnacle of global power. But, since these "leaders" disagree with the political leanings of these specific black people, they deny their very blackness. In this, they deny the very fact that blacks have arrived as an enfranchised element of American power. And, in this, they deny the very victories that Dr. King and so many others realized.
What would Martin Luther King say about Condoleeza Rice? I can't pretend to know, of course, but here's what I believe a real leader, of whom Dr. King was an ultimate example, would say. "While I strongly disagree with Dr. Rice's and General Powell's policy positions, as well as that of the president, I can not help but feel immense pride in the fact that African-Americans are not only legally and politically enfranchised, but they are at the very helm of the ship of state. So, while I would not vote for Dr. Rice or General Powell, I respect them immeasurably for serving as examples to every black child that they are empowered and that they can achieve things that would have been utterly inconceivable to our grandparents".
What would be so hard about black liberals taking this approach? Do they say to their constituents, "thanks to our predecessors we are finally in a position to realize the American dream"? No, they say, "this is a racist society and you will be left behind and held down unless you vote for us." If you say to them "how racist could this country be if the secretary of state, its face to the world, is black"?, they will counter, "she's not really black".
Jesse Jackson, the man who was literally bathed in the martyr's blood in 1968, refuses to acknowledge the shocking success of the revolution he was a part of. Condoleeza Rice is the most accessible and unambiguous symbol of that success. But she's not liberal. So, to Jesse, there has been no real success, because we still live in a racist country where only fake black people are elevated to positions of awesome power and influence.
Not to patronize the reader, but I must make clear that I readily acknowledge that racism exists. This is one of the most obvious truths imaginable. But racism is a manifestation of the hearts of men, not of law. African-Americans achieved total political and civil equality by 1965. This is where the path split, and that oft-ignored split has defined the "civil rights movement" ever since.
I put quotes around the term civil rights movement not to disparage or condescend, but to imply that it is a very unfitting term. The civil rights movement ended in the 1960's as a total and comprehensive victory. African-Americans received, with guarantee of federal enforcement, total equality under the law; they won their civil rights.
However, a significant part of the civil rights movement did not fully acknowledge their victory; they demanded to continue the push for "civil rights" by inventing new civil rights out of thin air. Affirmative action is just one example of this misguided strategy. The urge to guarantee a "level playing field" is very understandable; it is indicative of human charity and empathy. It is also, however, utterly impossible.
Here emerges the divergence between civil rights, which have been achieved, and collective rights, which are a horrible idea for any nation, and especially for the United States. Civil rights are granted to citizens, not to individual subsets of the citizenry. As soon as a society starts defining citizens differently, this is inherently racist and destabilizing. This is exactly why slavery and later segregation were so morally and legally unjustifiable; the institutions of legalized racism were all structured on the premise that blacks did not have the same rights as whites.
The corrective to this injustice is to demand that all people have fully and blindly equal civil rights. This is what Dr. King demanded and won. To then assert that African-Americans or anyone else have other, separate rights due solely to their blackness is inherently wrong. No matter how benevolent the intentions, the underlying premise is the same as slavery; all people are not legally equal.
The temptation for collective rights is the force that has destabilized Lebanon. In Lebanon, people do not see themselves as Lebanese, but as Maronite, Shi'a, Sunni, or Druze. When the French created this farce of a "nation", the constitution called for representation in the government to reflect the demographics of Lebanon. In other words, if Sunni were 30% of the population, they would have 30% of the seats.
What mentality does this incentivize and reinforce? The mentality of exclusionary groups. People living in Lebanon were not granted individual civil rights; they were granteded collective rights for their communities. When the demographics changed, as they always must, the flaw became evident. Shi'a Muslims had increased exponentially as a percentage of the population, but the power was still divided on the basis of a decades-old census. With this mentality in ascendance, civil war was inevitable.
The results of the misguided push for collective rights have obviously been more drastic in Lebanon than in the United States, but the fundamental flaw is self-evident. We all realize that the ideal government is one which guarantees the utter and disinterested legal equality of all of its citizens on the basis of the inalienable rights and inherent dignity of each individual. The civil rights movement succeeded because it insisted on an end to collective rights (for whites) and the guarantee of civil rights. The civil rights movement then failed because, as it vainly sought to compensate for historic crimes, it adopted the very framework, although in a more appealing manner, that it had just smashed.
Since Condoleeza Rice is not a Democrat or a liberal, she is not sufficiently black. Condoleeza Rice, who grew up in the segregated south and had friends murdered in terrorist attacks because of their blackness, is not sufficiently black. One wonders what the verdict on Condoleeza's blackness might have been if she had been murdered in the basement of that church. Or did the bombers only target liberal 10 year old black girls? Has Condoleeza been spared racial slurs and slights throughout her life due to her conservative leanings?
The unmitigated bigotry of today's "civil rights" movement is evident in the treatment of black conservatives. Colin Powell is not really black. Condoleeza Rice is not really black. George Bush is a racist, even though he appointed Powell and Rice as the first black secretaries of state and has the most racially diverse cabinet in American history.
In some ways, the liberal black consensus treats its dissidents much as Muslim extremists treat theirs; they arrogate to themselves the authority to define who is "truly" one of them, as well as the authority to castigate and exile all perceived apostates.
Can one imagine a more fundamental betrayal of Martin Luther King and John Lewis and the other civil rights leaders of the recent American past, including, it must be said, Jesse Jackson? These are the moral heroes of American history, the men and women who orchestrated the most peaceful and successful reckoning with and reordering of the American system in its history. These men and women were giants, their accomplishments earth-shattering, and their strength and courage inconceivable. They accomplished great things. And their successors ignore their victories.
For the past 6 years, the secretary of state has been black. The most dominant nation in human history has been represented in the global community by a black man and a black woman. A black woman speaks for the world's superpower. A black woman is America's face and voice in international affairs. How do Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton treat this woman? As a sniveling and submissive cracker lover.
The leaders of the civil rights movement orchestrated a revolution that, within their lifetimes, has seen black American men and women ascend to the very pinnacle of global power. But, since these "leaders" disagree with the political leanings of these specific black people, they deny their very blackness. In this, they deny the very fact that blacks have arrived as an enfranchised element of American power. And, in this, they deny the very victories that Dr. King and so many others realized.
What would Martin Luther King say about Condoleeza Rice? I can't pretend to know, of course, but here's what I believe a real leader, of whom Dr. King was an ultimate example, would say. "While I strongly disagree with Dr. Rice's and General Powell's policy positions, as well as that of the president, I can not help but feel immense pride in the fact that African-Americans are not only legally and politically enfranchised, but they are at the very helm of the ship of state. So, while I would not vote for Dr. Rice or General Powell, I respect them immeasurably for serving as examples to every black child that they are empowered and that they can achieve things that would have been utterly inconceivable to our grandparents".
What would be so hard about black liberals taking this approach? Do they say to their constituents, "thanks to our predecessors we are finally in a position to realize the American dream"? No, they say, "this is a racist society and you will be left behind and held down unless you vote for us." If you say to them "how racist could this country be if the secretary of state, its face to the world, is black"?, they will counter, "she's not really black".
Jesse Jackson, the man who was literally bathed in the martyr's blood in 1968, refuses to acknowledge the shocking success of the revolution he was a part of. Condoleeza Rice is the most accessible and unambiguous symbol of that success. But she's not liberal. So, to Jesse, there has been no real success, because we still live in a racist country where only fake black people are elevated to positions of awesome power and influence.
Not to patronize the reader, but I must make clear that I readily acknowledge that racism exists. This is one of the most obvious truths imaginable. But racism is a manifestation of the hearts of men, not of law. African-Americans achieved total political and civil equality by 1965. This is where the path split, and that oft-ignored split has defined the "civil rights movement" ever since.
I put quotes around the term civil rights movement not to disparage or condescend, but to imply that it is a very unfitting term. The civil rights movement ended in the 1960's as a total and comprehensive victory. African-Americans received, with guarantee of federal enforcement, total equality under the law; they won their civil rights.
However, a significant part of the civil rights movement did not fully acknowledge their victory; they demanded to continue the push for "civil rights" by inventing new civil rights out of thin air. Affirmative action is just one example of this misguided strategy. The urge to guarantee a "level playing field" is very understandable; it is indicative of human charity and empathy. It is also, however, utterly impossible.
Here emerges the divergence between civil rights, which have been achieved, and collective rights, which are a horrible idea for any nation, and especially for the United States. Civil rights are granted to citizens, not to individual subsets of the citizenry. As soon as a society starts defining citizens differently, this is inherently racist and destabilizing. This is exactly why slavery and later segregation were so morally and legally unjustifiable; the institutions of legalized racism were all structured on the premise that blacks did not have the same rights as whites.
The corrective to this injustice is to demand that all people have fully and blindly equal civil rights. This is what Dr. King demanded and won. To then assert that African-Americans or anyone else have other, separate rights due solely to their blackness is inherently wrong. No matter how benevolent the intentions, the underlying premise is the same as slavery; all people are not legally equal.
The temptation for collective rights is the force that has destabilized Lebanon. In Lebanon, people do not see themselves as Lebanese, but as Maronite, Shi'a, Sunni, or Druze. When the French created this farce of a "nation", the constitution called for representation in the government to reflect the demographics of Lebanon. In other words, if Sunni were 30% of the population, they would have 30% of the seats.
What mentality does this incentivize and reinforce? The mentality of exclusionary groups. People living in Lebanon were not granted individual civil rights; they were granteded collective rights for their communities. When the demographics changed, as they always must, the flaw became evident. Shi'a Muslims had increased exponentially as a percentage of the population, but the power was still divided on the basis of a decades-old census. With this mentality in ascendance, civil war was inevitable.
The results of the misguided push for collective rights have obviously been more drastic in Lebanon than in the United States, but the fundamental flaw is self-evident. We all realize that the ideal government is one which guarantees the utter and disinterested legal equality of all of its citizens on the basis of the inalienable rights and inherent dignity of each individual. The civil rights movement succeeded because it insisted on an end to collective rights (for whites) and the guarantee of civil rights. The civil rights movement then failed because, as it vainly sought to compensate for historic crimes, it adopted the very framework, although in a more appealing manner, that it had just smashed.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Blood on the Tracks
It would be hard to imagine a more venal form of “statesmanship” than that being practiced by the United States Senate with regard to Iraq. In the four-year war, the President’s performance has ranged from childish (flight suit, bring ‘em on) to comprehensively ignorant (de-Ba’athification, Sunni/Shi’a divide) to criminal (instigating war of aggression, use of depleted uranium). But the Congress has not fared much better. It has progressed from utter dereliction to catastrophic meddling.
In 2002, a Congress both prone and supine decided that it must look tough. In particular, those members up for re-election had to look tough. So, in accordance with this divine insight, Congress proceeded to vote its constitutional duty out of existence. Congress and Congress alone holds the authority to declare war, but in 2002 Congress voted to arrogate this most solemn of authorities to the President. To be fair, it made them look really tough.
So, after a co-equal branch of government voted to castrate itself in the interest of avoiding the fulfillment of its constitutionally mandated responsibilities, Premier Bush had his war. He had his “mission accomplished” speech. The congress had the solemn pride of “supporting the troops”. But the war forgot to end.
So, four years later, Congress has decided that it wants to play its role. This would have been a masterstroke, say, four years ago. Now it will simply get more people killed. For how has Congress decided to assert its authority? By publicly voting no confidence in an already-initiated military operation and characterizing it as a “last chance”. Brilliant.
The Congress has two roles to play in war. The first responsibility is to decide whether there will be a war at all. Congress voted away this power in 2002. The second role is to fund and provide for armies in the field, or to deny doing so. Congress is not proposing to do this, because that would be….brave. So, Congress refused to make a decision, as required by the constitution, at the beginning of the war and now it has decided that it has no confidence in the war but that it will not use its funding authority to end it, because that would take…balls.
Instead of taking a firm stand on principle, Congress has opted for a masterfully conceived third option. Shortly after thousands of American soldiers are sent into Baghdad for a sustained and decisive confrontation against insurgents and militias, Congress told the world that they had no confidence in this operation and that, as far as they were concerned, this was the “last chance”.
Why? Why on earth would any secular, moderate Iraqi invest any time or effort or trust in the United States and the American-backed government when the American Congress is telling him that it has one foot out the door? If we are telling Iraqis that we have no confidence in our mission, why the fuck would they risk their lives by joining us? And is not the mission itself completely dependent on Iraqis joining us?
I hate this war. It was wrong from day one, and it is bound to end wrong. It was illegal and strategically catastrophic. It is now tactically absurd, militarily unwinable, and politically indecipherable. The way to end the war is to cut off the money. If the Congress, or anyone else, has no confidence in the President’s plan, they should propose cutting off the money. In seeking to avoid real leadership, the Congress has opted for a tactic that literally tells our enemy that we are faltering and retreating, even as more Americans poor into that hellhole. This is not a principled stand. This is cowardice. The shadow of congressional cowardice has hung over this war since its inception, and it will follow our shattered army all the way back home.
In 2002, a Congress both prone and supine decided that it must look tough. In particular, those members up for re-election had to look tough. So, in accordance with this divine insight, Congress proceeded to vote its constitutional duty out of existence. Congress and Congress alone holds the authority to declare war, but in 2002 Congress voted to arrogate this most solemn of authorities to the President. To be fair, it made them look really tough.
So, after a co-equal branch of government voted to castrate itself in the interest of avoiding the fulfillment of its constitutionally mandated responsibilities, Premier Bush had his war. He had his “mission accomplished” speech. The congress had the solemn pride of “supporting the troops”. But the war forgot to end.
So, four years later, Congress has decided that it wants to play its role. This would have been a masterstroke, say, four years ago. Now it will simply get more people killed. For how has Congress decided to assert its authority? By publicly voting no confidence in an already-initiated military operation and characterizing it as a “last chance”. Brilliant.
The Congress has two roles to play in war. The first responsibility is to decide whether there will be a war at all. Congress voted away this power in 2002. The second role is to fund and provide for armies in the field, or to deny doing so. Congress is not proposing to do this, because that would be….brave. So, Congress refused to make a decision, as required by the constitution, at the beginning of the war and now it has decided that it has no confidence in the war but that it will not use its funding authority to end it, because that would take…balls.
Instead of taking a firm stand on principle, Congress has opted for a masterfully conceived third option. Shortly after thousands of American soldiers are sent into Baghdad for a sustained and decisive confrontation against insurgents and militias, Congress told the world that they had no confidence in this operation and that, as far as they were concerned, this was the “last chance”.
Why? Why on earth would any secular, moderate Iraqi invest any time or effort or trust in the United States and the American-backed government when the American Congress is telling him that it has one foot out the door? If we are telling Iraqis that we have no confidence in our mission, why the fuck would they risk their lives by joining us? And is not the mission itself completely dependent on Iraqis joining us?
I hate this war. It was wrong from day one, and it is bound to end wrong. It was illegal and strategically catastrophic. It is now tactically absurd, militarily unwinable, and politically indecipherable. The way to end the war is to cut off the money. If the Congress, or anyone else, has no confidence in the President’s plan, they should propose cutting off the money. In seeking to avoid real leadership, the Congress has opted for a tactic that literally tells our enemy that we are faltering and retreating, even as more Americans poor into that hellhole. This is not a principled stand. This is cowardice. The shadow of congressional cowardice has hung over this war since its inception, and it will follow our shattered army all the way back home.
Friday, February 2, 2007
American Oligarchy
Hillary Rodham Clinton must not be president. Hillary Rodham is more than intelligent and capable enough to be considered a serious candidate for president, but Hillary Rodham Clinton must not be president. A second Clinton presidency would further the insidious trend of American oligarchy that is quietly coming to dominate our politics.
Since 1948, there has been exactly one presidential election in which Richard Nixon, Robert Dole, George Bush, or George W. Bush was not on the ballot. If national politics were dominated for a half century by four men, including a father and son, in any country to the south of us, it would rightly be tarred as a banana republic. Americans are so concerned with the democracy of others that we have allowed our own to deteriorate even as the members of our government have become the most powerful men on earth.
Oligarchy is a threat, and so is the dynastic sub-trend that is manifesting itself in American politics. It is not new, of course; America has it Adamses, its Harrisons, its Roosevelts and its Kennedys. But never before has the imperial presidency been dominated by so insular a group. If Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes President, a disastrous precedent will become firmly established.
George W. Bush was, in my mind, a less legitimate candidate than Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hillary Rodham would have been a leader regardless of who she married, but the only, the only reason that George W. Bush was in a position to almost win the election of 2000 was because of who his father was. George W. Bush is the purest example of inherited power in American history.
A second Clinton presidency would carry many of the same dangers as the second Bush presidency. Various officials from Bill Clinton’s presidency, and various fundraisers from his campaigns, will be the powerbrokers once more. Indeed, President Clinton himself will reside in the seat of power once more, privy to daily CIA reports as all ex-presidents are. Does anyone really want to live in a country where the first couple will be announced at state dinners as President and President Clinton?
As an aside, I trust Bill Clinton much more than George W. Bush. I believe that Bill Clinton is a liar and a scumbag, but also an abnormally intelligent person who is firmly rooted in the practice of amassing as much quantitative evidence as possible before making important decisions. I also trust Bill Clinton because he was born poor, which most leaders would ideally be, since they understand reality in a way that the George W. Bushes of the world never could, despite the noblest of intentions.
But trust must not lie in individuals if this is to be anything resembling a democracy. Trust must instead be invested in the institutions and offices themselves. This is all terribly unfair to Hillary Clinton, of course, but we can’t lose sleep over that. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one. And what we need now is to avoid a thirty-six year era of having a Bush or a Clinton in the White House.
The ideal candidate for president in 2008 is Al Gore. Gore was the only establishment figure in the country in 2002 and 2003 who argued publicly and passionately against going to war in Iraq on the grounds that the aftermath to the invasion as it was then being contemplated would fall somewhere between chaos and catastrophe. In the ultimate indication that he was not running for office, Al Gore was wearing a beard during this time. He also raised his voice frequently. And while the American elite were falling over themselves to appear as martial as possible, Al Gore was called a traitor and a sore loser. But Al Gore was right. From day one.
In a further indication of how free Al Gore found himself, he produced a documentary that focuses on what is by definition the most important issue in the world. Global warming is the ultimate issue-to-be-avoided in a democracy, since global catastrophe is always farther off that the next election cycle. Al Gore is using his influence to educate as many people as possible about the most fundamental challenge facing the entire human race. That is leadership.
Also, Al Gore has the virtue of actually having been elected president in 2000. Most Americans know, by virtue of intuition, mathematics, and common sense that Al Gore was elected president in 2000. By conceding that election, an election that he knew very well had been stolen from him, Gore displayed leadership beyond measure. In my opinion, the inauguration of George W. Bush was a coup detat. Pure and simple. Gore knew, however, that the alternative to concession would be a crisis that would inevitably be worse than a George W. Bush presidency. If he only knew then…
Gore’s campaign is simple. “Imagine what this country, and the world, and America’s place in it, would be if George W. Bush had never been president”.
Since 1948, there has been exactly one presidential election in which Richard Nixon, Robert Dole, George Bush, or George W. Bush was not on the ballot. If national politics were dominated for a half century by four men, including a father and son, in any country to the south of us, it would rightly be tarred as a banana republic. Americans are so concerned with the democracy of others that we have allowed our own to deteriorate even as the members of our government have become the most powerful men on earth.
Oligarchy is a threat, and so is the dynastic sub-trend that is manifesting itself in American politics. It is not new, of course; America has it Adamses, its Harrisons, its Roosevelts and its Kennedys. But never before has the imperial presidency been dominated by so insular a group. If Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes President, a disastrous precedent will become firmly established.
George W. Bush was, in my mind, a less legitimate candidate than Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hillary Rodham would have been a leader regardless of who she married, but the only, the only reason that George W. Bush was in a position to almost win the election of 2000 was because of who his father was. George W. Bush is the purest example of inherited power in American history.
A second Clinton presidency would carry many of the same dangers as the second Bush presidency. Various officials from Bill Clinton’s presidency, and various fundraisers from his campaigns, will be the powerbrokers once more. Indeed, President Clinton himself will reside in the seat of power once more, privy to daily CIA reports as all ex-presidents are. Does anyone really want to live in a country where the first couple will be announced at state dinners as President and President Clinton?
As an aside, I trust Bill Clinton much more than George W. Bush. I believe that Bill Clinton is a liar and a scumbag, but also an abnormally intelligent person who is firmly rooted in the practice of amassing as much quantitative evidence as possible before making important decisions. I also trust Bill Clinton because he was born poor, which most leaders would ideally be, since they understand reality in a way that the George W. Bushes of the world never could, despite the noblest of intentions.
But trust must not lie in individuals if this is to be anything resembling a democracy. Trust must instead be invested in the institutions and offices themselves. This is all terribly unfair to Hillary Clinton, of course, but we can’t lose sleep over that. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one. And what we need now is to avoid a thirty-six year era of having a Bush or a Clinton in the White House.
The ideal candidate for president in 2008 is Al Gore. Gore was the only establishment figure in the country in 2002 and 2003 who argued publicly and passionately against going to war in Iraq on the grounds that the aftermath to the invasion as it was then being contemplated would fall somewhere between chaos and catastrophe. In the ultimate indication that he was not running for office, Al Gore was wearing a beard during this time. He also raised his voice frequently. And while the American elite were falling over themselves to appear as martial as possible, Al Gore was called a traitor and a sore loser. But Al Gore was right. From day one.
In a further indication of how free Al Gore found himself, he produced a documentary that focuses on what is by definition the most important issue in the world. Global warming is the ultimate issue-to-be-avoided in a democracy, since global catastrophe is always farther off that the next election cycle. Al Gore is using his influence to educate as many people as possible about the most fundamental challenge facing the entire human race. That is leadership.
Also, Al Gore has the virtue of actually having been elected president in 2000. Most Americans know, by virtue of intuition, mathematics, and common sense that Al Gore was elected president in 2000. By conceding that election, an election that he knew very well had been stolen from him, Gore displayed leadership beyond measure. In my opinion, the inauguration of George W. Bush was a coup detat. Pure and simple. Gore knew, however, that the alternative to concession would be a crisis that would inevitably be worse than a George W. Bush presidency. If he only knew then…
Gore’s campaign is simple. “Imagine what this country, and the world, and America’s place in it, would be if George W. Bush had never been president”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)