Long Pauses

Category: Debris

  • Sick Day

    An early update today because I’m at home, trying to kill a cold before it gets out of control. I hate being sick. Although I can’t really knock an opportunity to sleep late, drink coffee, and watch The Dixie Chicks: Behind the Music for the fifth time.

    After reading yesterday’s blog, a friend sent me two interesting links. The first is to an interesting article at ABCNews that questions Bush’s claim that “America speaks with one voice.” I wish the article had backed up some of its anecdotal evidence with hard statistics, but it’s comforting to know that other citizens are voicing concerns similar to my own.

    The other is to the home page of Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. ANSWER is working to organize several high profile demonstrations on October 26, the one year anniversary of Bush’s Patriot Act. Their rhetoric is a bit blustery at times — too often reducing the entire, complicated situation to a matter of “Big Oil” — which is unfortunate because, as the Vietnam era should teach us, public dissent only carries political weight when it becomes louder than the voices of the more radical minority. Still, though, their goal of 100,000 marchers in D.C. and San Francisco is impressive. It’s definitely an exciting start. Dig around the site. Plenty of interesting reading material.

    Oh yeah, and welcome to any of you who may have found Long Pauses through my short piece on Ingmar Bergman at Christianity Today. I’d love to hear from you.

  • All We Are Sayin’

    Liza Featherstone’s article, “Peace Gets a Chance,” provides a helpful overview of the various coalitions being formed to protest America’s regrettable foreign policy decisions of late. The largest gathering in America so far was on October 6 in New York City, where 20,000 assembled as a response to Bush’s call for war. Strange that such a large gathering took place and I’d heard nothing of it, particularly when I live in a culture dominated by the liberal media. I guess it’s true what they say about a tree falling in a forest.

    To me, the most interesting part of the piece is this quote from Global Exchange‘s Jason Mark, who claims that the challenge now is to oppose “the idea of American empire without sounding like 1970s leftists. People don’t want to sound off-the-wall, but the words ’empire’ and ‘imperialism’ are fair game because they’re using them.” With the failures of, first, the New Left, then the collapse of Communism, the left has been struggling for some time now to find a practical approach to global issues, one that acknowledges the potentially positive influence of capitalism without surrendering its progressive stance on humanitarian issues. As a child of the 80s, I’m beginning to feel something like excitement for the first time, guarded but hopeful that a popular movement — one with a moral foundation and genuine political substance — might coalesce in response to America’s economic (and now militaristic) imperialism.

    On a whim, I googled “Christian peace movement,” which returned a fascinating assortment of sites. Of particular note are Pax Christi: The International Catholic Movement for Peace and The Quaker Peace and Social Witness Programme. Both links will take you to statements on Iraq — both from a British perspective and both well worth reading. The following is the final paragraph from Pax Christi’s statement:

    It is our considered view that an attack on Iraq would be both immoral and illegal, and that eradicating the dangers posed by malevolent dictators and terrorists can be achieved only by tackling the root causes of the disputes themselves. It is deplorable that the world’s most powerful nations continue to regard war and the threat of war as an acceptable instrument of foreign policy, in violation of the ethos of both the United Nations and Christian moral teaching. The way to peace does not lie through war but through the transformation of structures of injustice and of the politics of exclusion, and that is the cause to which the West should be devoting its technological, diplomatic and economic resources.

    By the way, Stark hasn’t been the only person making noise on Capitol Hill. I seldom find the motivation to watch C-Span, but lately I’ve been riveted by Senator Robert Byrd’s eloquent, impassioned speeches in defense of the Constitution and its separation of powers. I’ve grown quite fond of that man, who seems now to be the only member of the Senate (on either side of the aisle) that respects history and understands the inevitable consequences of recent decisions. Here’s a tasty snippet from his comments of October 3:

    As James Madison wrote in 1793, “In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man….”

    Congress has a responsibility to exercise with extreme care the power to declare war. There is no weightier matter to be considered. A war against Iraq will affect thousands if not tens of thousands of lives, and perhaps alter the course of history. It will surely affect the balance of power in the Middle East. It is not a decision to be taken in haste, under the glare of election year politics and the pressure of artificial deadlines. And yet any observer can see that that is exactly what the Senate is proposing to do. . . .

    The President is using the Oval Office as a bully pulpit to sound the call to arms, but it is from Capitol Hill that such orders must flow. The people, through their elected representatives, must make that decision. It is here that debate must take place and where the full spectrum of the public’s desires, concerns, and misgivings must be heard. We should not allow ourselves to be pushed into one course or another in the face of a full court publicity press from the White House. We have, rather, a duty to the nation and her sons and daughters to carefully examine all possible courses of action and to consider the long term consequences of any decision to act.

    And finally, congrats to Karen, et al, on the relaunch of Beyond Magazine. Good luck.

  • Miscellaneous Debris

    Four random but interesting links for today:

    “On Being Postacademic” — After earning tenure at a research university, the dream of all young academics like myself, Kenny Mostern resigned and entered into the world of non-profits and political analysis. I find this article in which he justifies his decision absolutely fascinating, both because he happened to resign from my department (though I never really knew him) and because he says so much that I have been thinking lately. I’ll go ahead and give away the end:

    Even in postmodern times, do-it-yourself art, the art of people who survive through other means, retains a political potential, an intellectual energy, a form of commitment to community building that I believe has fundamentally dissolved in the professional world of the academy.

    And, yes, I know the critique of that position. So what?

    “The Painter of LightTM” — I can’t even remember how I stumbled up this site — Images: A Journal of the Arts and Religion — but I like it. Gregory Wolfe’s editorial takes on many of the same questions that I’ve been writing about lately: What is the proper response to Christian kitsch? Can ten million people be wrong? How do we step away from the commodification of culture in order to have a genuine experience? And what is wrong with sentimentality? (I have other questions about Thomas Kinkade, but since Wolfe doesn’t go into them, neither will I.) Thanks to Wolfe for my new quote of the week:

    The great theologian, Cardinal Henri de Lubac, once wrote: “There is nothing more demanding than the taste for mediocrity. Beneath its ever moderate appearance there is nothing more intemperate; nothing surer in its instinct; nothing more pitiless in its refusals. It suffers no greatness, shows beauty no mercy.”

    “OJ Stupid: Bush’s Iraq Gambit” — Christopher J. Preist’s 4,500 word analysis of current events should be required reading for every American of voting age. Priest is a modern Renaissance man — comic book writer, minister, political commentator, and fellow blog-ist. His site is a great way to lose a day of work, and this article is a powerhouse.

    Doing The Pepsi Challenge between Bush’s proposed resolution and the Tonkin Resolution conjures up possibilities that’ll have me sleeping with the light on for quite awhile. Or, am I just being unreasonably cynical? Maybe. But, in the final analysis, the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy boils down to this: these men are either evil or stupid. There’s really not much middle ground. Rallying America for a just cause would seem to invite if not require bipartisanship, and eschewing even the appearance of politics. No component of Bush’s mealy, meandering attempts to convince us of the rightness of his cause presents any compelling reason why the whole matter couldn’t be tabled until the new congress is seated in January. The merits of his case are not my issue here so much as the timing, the urgency being so seemingly transparent. For all I know, the president has a valid case for this policy, but he squanders it on brazen political opportunism, which makes me question his ethics and, therefore, his judgment.

    “Make Your Own Bush Speech” — It ain’t mature, or even in good taste, but it’s a hell of a lot of fun.

  • Kennan and Containment

    I had no idea that George Kennan was still alive. The man who literally wrote America’s containment policy, the policy that has directed our foreign policy for nearly sixty years now, is 98 and living in Georgetown. Speaking about Bush’s desire to wage war with Iraq, Kennan said:

    War has a momentum of its own and it carries you away from all thoughtful intentions when you get into it. Today, if we went into Iraq, like the president would like us to do, you know where you begin. You never know where you are going to end.

    He is also critical of Congressional Democrats, who are allowing the President to make this a purely political issue, despite Daschle’s protests.

    I wonder why the Democrats have not asked the president right out, “What are you talking about? Are you talking about one war or two wars? And if it’s two wars, have we really faced up to the competing demands of the two?” This is, to me, as a very old, independent citizen, a shabby and shameful reaction. I deplore this timidity out of concern for the elections on the part of the Democrats.

  • No Democracy for You!

    Looking for further evidence of America’s legislated xenophobia? Apparently afraid that his films might remind voters that Muslims are humans too, the State Department has denied a visa to Abbas Kiarostami, who was scheduled to present his latest film, Ten, at the New York Film Festival before delivering lectures at Harvard and Ohio University. Kiarostami’s response?

    “I certainly do not deserve an entry visa any more than the aging mother hoping to visit her children in the U.S. perhaps for the last time in her life … For my part, I feel this decision is somehow what I deserve.”

  • Evangelical Fallacy

    This morning I received one of those e-mails that tend to make the rounds every week or two. This one concerns an address to Congress delivered by a man whose daughter was killed in a school shooting. I googled the first line of his speech and found that it has since been appropriated as a prayer of sorts by certain gun rights activists. (I don’t feel like reproducing the speech here. If you’re curious, follow the Google link.) Both Snopes and Urban Legends confirm that, on May 27, 1999, Darrell Scott did, in fact, testify before a House judiciary sub-committee, but they also debunk the hyperbolic claims often added to the e-mail, claims that the liberal media prevented “the nation from hearing this man’s speech.”

    To be honest, I responded to this e-mail the same way I respond to all of its ilk: I read the first line, then deleted it. I didn’t give it another thought until a friend — a friend who happens to be on the same person’s forward list — sent me this fascinating analysis, which I’m posting here with his permission:

    It’s the typical evangelical fallacy: it’s true that the most fundamental problem is not guns and their availability (or poverty, or whatever) but people’s fallenness and sinfulness; but the mistake is in thinking that we should only attempt to treat — that is, pray for — the fallenness and sinfulness without dealing with their symptoms. In this line of thought the problem’s not poverty but people’s immorality, so we shouldn’t have welfare because until people’s hearts are changed it won’t do any good, etc.

    The parent says that metal detectors wouldn’t have stopped the shooters — but, um, why not? Does their sinfulness act as some kind of cloaking device? As far as I can tell, the only exception to this logic in the sphere of evangelical political thought, is, of course, abortion — according to the standard logic, we shouldn’t attempt to stop people from having abortions, but should rather pray that their hearts would be changed (in school, I suppose). But no one’s advocating that…

    The “evangelical fallacy” — I like that.

  • Planning for War (and Whatnot)

    In my response to Bush’s UN speech, I welcomed his desire to address the human rights violations occurring in Iraq, but did so knowing that he was only paying lip-service to those very real problems for rhetorical and political ends. This hypocrisy is the subject of Fred Hiatt’s wonderful op-ed piece in today’s Washington Post. After detailing the abuses in North Korea and Burma (neither of which is currently scheduled for an American induced “regime change”), Hiatt concludes:

    “So it is naive to think that people will link “regime change” to “brutal repression” as a regular matter anytime soon. Yet to the thousands of North Koreans who even today are scraping bark off trees or boiling grasses in an effort to survive, who are chipping coal in labor camps, who are deprived of donated American food because they are deemed insufficiently loyal to the regime, the proposition of international responsibility might not seem so outlandish.”

    One day before Tony Blair is scheduled to finally reveal the mysterious dossier that will apparently prove the existence of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, the Prime Minister must first convince his own cabinet that war is necessary. His international development secretary, Clare Short, voiced serious reservations yesterday, and in the process made a statement the likes of which I have yet to hear from an American politician:

    “We should be ready to impose the will of the UN on them if they don’t cooperate but not by hurting the people of Iraq. We can’t inflict pain and suffering on the people of Iraq, they are innocents. Each one of them is as precious as the 3,000 people who were in the twin towers.”

    Here is a really interesting Hawk/Dove breakdown of Blaire’s cabinet, including links to further information about each member.

    Want a preview of the upcoming war? Here is an overview of the Pentagon’s latest proposal, or, more precisely, the latest proposal shared with the press. This article feels like a sick PR piece to me, complete with the requisite double-speak from Rumsfeld. His intense bombing campaign will be an “attack on a government, not a country”; his target is the “dictatorial, repressive” Hussein: “The United States has not and never has had any problem or issue with the Iraqi people.”

    When I read these articles about our precision attacks, our gung-ho bombing campaigns, I’m reminded of Michael Herr’s remembrances of his childhood, when he first saw photos of dead bodies in Life magazine:

    “Even when the picture was sharp and clearly defined, something wasn’t clear at all, something repressed that monitored the images and withheld their essential information. It may have legitimized my fascination, letting me look for as long as I wanted; I didn’t have a language for it then, but I remember now the shame I felt, like looking at porn, all the porn in the world.” (Dispatches)

    When he says “I remember now,” Herr is referring to his experience in Vietnam, where he saw first-hand the effects of America’s intense bombings. His porn analogy seems even more appropriate today, when technology allows us to watch a precision guided missile hitting its target from a first-person point of view. How disgusting to think that we are now made to identify not with human victims, but with the weapons that kill them. It’s Eisensteinian montage at its most perverse.

  • That Old Bitch, Hipocrisy

    Norman Mailer has quite the way with words: “Mediocrities flock to any movement which will indulge their self-pity and their self-righteousness, for without a Movement the mediocrity is on the slide into terminal melancholia.” (Armies of the Night, if you’re curious.) And with that I somewhat reluctantly offer this link.

    I heard about Oxfam America’s new report, “Mugged: Poverty in Your Coffee Cup,” on Morning Edition during my drive into work today. This one hit me where it hurts: right in my stained, 16-ounce coffee mug — the one I fill and drain every morning or risk the consequences (first a headache, followed by pronounced napishness). America’s coffee industry, it seems, is one of the few bright spots in our sagging economy, thanks in part to 30-year lows in coffee bean prices (which translate into dire poverty for third world farmers) and to the continued trendiness of designer brands (you can now buy your $3 iced mocha latte in 5,688 Starbucks locations worldwide). I like my coffee strong and black, by the way.

    I say all of that so that I can ask this: So what the hell do I do about it? As someone whose political convictions have allowed me to justify the time I waste each day on this blog, I find myself teetering between self-pity and self-righteousness, desperate to stave off the melancholia that lingers nearby. I mean, I’m not going to stop drinking coffee, right?

    About a year and a half ago, Eric Alterman found himself engaged in a similar ethical battle. After considering the exploitive practices that resulted, finally, in his favorite meal, along with the humanitarian good that could be accomplished by the price of that meal, he finally came to the conclusion that so many of us are loathe to admit:

    “Here’s the problem. I can’t answer any of these arguments, but I can ignore them. At least I intend to (except for the $200 one–I did stop in the middle of writing this article to fork over $200 to Oxfam). The trouble seems to be that I’m a massive hypocrite. I make sacrifices for my principles but not, apparently, ones involving hamburgers and steaks. I like them too much, torture or no torture, starving kids or no starving kids, E. coli risk or no E. coli risk.”

    Mailer at least could take comfort from the burgeoning radicalism of his day. Marching on the Pentagon in protest of Vietnam, assuming that he would finally be arrested for a “real cause,” he could write, “some drabness had quit [liberals] since the fifties, some sense of power had touched them with subtle concomitants of power — a hint of elegance.” But that comfort is lost to me. I’m cursed with hindsight, with the failures of the New Left and the reemergence— the institutionalization, even — of banal drabness. In the immortal, irony-soaked words of the late, great Phil Hartman, “Good times. Good times.”

  • This American Irony

    Knowing that I’m a fan, a friend just sent me this link to an interview with Ira Glass. I’ve always been struck by Glass’s even-handed treatment of Christianity, which is somewhat surprising for two reasons: 1) he broadcasts on National Public Radio (I’m an NPR-o-holic, but I know evangelicals who refuse to listen to it on principle – sigh) and 2) he is outspoken about his own atheism. The interview is conducted by re:generation, a Christian publication that I’ve only just discovered. Looks interesting.

    There’s much to admire in Glass’s attitudes toward religion, ideas, stories, and people. He’s done much to encourage a dialogue between the sacred and secular and has approached that divide with a rare and open-minded curiosity. A few choice snippets:

    Irony is just boring, and it’s also played out; it’s done elsewhere and it doesn’t shed light. I feel like it’s dull. And I feel like it also prevents one from seeing, and it prevents the kind of empathy that I feel like makes for a more engaging movie, story—anything! We view our work as more of a ministry of love. (Laughs.) We feel like the thing that we’re about is empathy, and in fact, the few stories that I regret us ever doing (and there aren’t many) are ones where the writer wasn’t achieving an appropriate level of empathy with the characters in the story. . . .

    As soon as you are in that territory, you have left the realm of mainstream reporting, and you have entered a realm that only Christian journalists report on. But I would meet people and they would tell me their stories, and I would talk to their friends and families, and the stories would check out. Their relationship with God had completely changed their lives in a completely undeniable and positive way.

    It’s my job to report that. And to report it in a non-dismissive way: this is their experience, so take it or leave it, but this is it. Doing that made me awake to how bad most reporting on religion is. Both in the news and in the fiction we create as a culture, Christians are always portrayed as these intolerant right-wing nuts, as people who are not awake to others. That is so different from any of the Christian friends I have or the people who work here at the office that are Christians. It’s exactly the opposite. Of all the people I know, they’re the most awake, the most interested in the world. It was so crazy to me, it was exactly the opposite, and it seemed so inaccurate. So I found myself always wanting to do variations on that story again and again.

  • Calling the Bluff

    Things are getting interesting, eh? Looks like Hussein has called Bush’s bluff. This editorial is the best I’ve found. Of course, the folks in Washington and London are already voicing their doubts about Iraq’s motives, which is neither unexpected nor completely unwarranted. I realize that the Bush administration must continue to pressure both the UN and Iraq, but it sure would be nice to hear someone, anyone, in Washington voice some enthusiasm about the possibility (even this slim one) that we might avoid war after all. But then that $200 million we’ve set aside for anti-Iraq PR would go to waste.

    Check out Terry Gross’s interview with M.J. Akbar, the founder and editor-in-chief of The Asian Age, an English language newspaper published in India. Akbar is wonderfully entertaining and the most articulate spokesman I’ve yet heard for “regular” Muslims. His analysis of the Pakistan/India situation is fascinating and more than a bit frightening. He also has some interesting opinions on America’s showdown with Iraq. (I say “interesting” because he generally agrees with me.) Good stuff.

  • Wagging the Dog

    In today’s Post, Dana Milbank lets leading figures from both sides decide if the Bush administration is “Wagging the Dog” in Iraq. It’s a good, well-balanced piece, and worth a read, despite being fairly predictable. (Daschle: He’s wagging the dog. Fleischer: No he isn’t.) This is the first article I’ve read that compiles all of the relevant soundbites from the last few weeks:

    Karl Rove argued earlier this year that the war on terrorism should be part of Republicans’ campaigns this year. Last week, White House political aides encouraged GOP candidates to emphasize national security. Also, Andrew H. Card Jr., Bush’s chief of staff, said last week that the White House held back on promoting the Iraq policy in the summer because, “from a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.” And Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, made an Iraq vote explicitly political, saying, “People are going to want to know, before the elections, where their representatives stand.”

    Once again, I have to begrudgingly applaud the Republicans, who, as Milbank points out, are winning this round. A few weeks ago a Canadian friend asked me to explain why so many Americans were supporting this war. After ranting about Dubya’s supposed “moral authority,” I predicted that he would apply enough political pressure on Congress to force a vote, leaving even the most hesitant Democrats with a choice between supporting a war that they don’t want or looking “soft on terrorism.” Unfortunately, it looks like I was right. Milbank writes:

    Whatever the White House motive, the emergence of Iraq as an issue before the election has spooked Democrats, who find themselves struggling for a response. Though there is no consensus for handling the matter, party strategists said the likeliest course is for Democrats to agree to votes quickly on a resolution authorizing force against Hussein — in hopes of getting back to domestic matters.

    Of course, while the Democrats struggle to find an answer, Bush has already turned his attention to domestic matters, in a manner of speaking. While his two most eloquent spokesmen, Cheney and Powell, take turns looking Presidential on Meet the Press, Bush is back out doing what he does best: shaking hands, posing for pictures, and sitting down to $1,000 dinners. Remember the good ol’ days of bashing Clinton for his fundraising exploits? He’s got nothin’ on this guy. After visiting Iowa today, Dubya will spend part of tomorrow in my most recent home state, Tennessee, where he’ll be stomping for Lamar Alexander. Yes, that Lamar Alexander. He’s hoping to return to Washington by filling our vacant Senate seat. (Feel free to support his competition.)

    And what message will Bush be pushing on the trail? Why the need for “fiscal responsibility,” of course. It seems that we’ve suddenly run into a $157 billion deficit. A note for Karl Rove: please tell Mr. Bush that his $1.35 trillion tax cut may be partly responsible for that crunch and that the war in Iraq will also cost a penny or two. For more info, listen to Terry Gross’s interview with Steve Weisman, author of The Great Tax Wars, who puts the current situation in its proper historical perspective. He mentions, for instance, that no President has ever cut taxes during war. Interesting.

  • Dorothy Day

    Apparently this is going to be an unusually “religious” blog today. It had been several days since I last visited Sightings, so I had missed both excellent entries from last week. In “Your Two Cents,” Martin Marty gives voice to the many recent responses by Sightings readers. Then, in “A Just War?” James Evans summarizes the fundamental questions at stake, before concluding:

    No one questions the legitimacy of the American government to make the decision, it’s the other criteria that are more difficult to establish. Is our country under a direct threat, or are we dealing with a potential threat, or even a likely threat? In short, do we have a just cause for waging war? And what is our intent? The stated purpose of the war is to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Is that a legitimate cause? Is any part of our action motivated by revenge for the events of September 11?

    If we are to be faithful to the ideals of our faith, before we consent to the killing of our declared enemy, we should strive diligently to be sure our cause is just. If we determine it is not, then we should not pursue it. Even if we determine our cause is just, we may only submit to war with a somber spirit, and with repentant hearts. No cause is so just that we may kill without sorrow.

    On a related note, I’m becoming somewhat obsessed with this photo of Dorothy Day. Taken in 1924 in Staten Island, it shows her at rest on a front porch, her legs curled to one side, her hat resting against a bare foot. There’s something remarkable in that stare, the sly smile, the ease of her posture. She was younger then than I am now — already a published novelist and a once arrested suffragette; still a decade removed from the birth of The Catholic Worker and even further distanced from her later civil rights protests and week-long fasts for peace.

    I stumbled upon the photo while investigating “personalism,” the first philosophy I’ve found that builds upon the radical politics of the Gospels. That phrase will no doubt make some uncomfortable, and perhaps it should. I’ve always joked that Christ was a socialist — joking makes it easier for both my audience and myself to ignore the practical consequences of such a statement — but I’m feeling more at ease now with the thought of saying the same with a straight face.

    The examples of people like Day and Peter Maurin make it easier, for they were willing to embrace the Marxist critique of capitalism and bourgeois complacency — and at a time when doing so went completely against the American grain — while tempering their politics with a deep love of Man and the truths of Christianity. More importantly, they put that faith into practice, improving the lives of thousands by their efforts.

    Casa Juan Diego is one product of Day’s and Maurin’s work. CJD’s Website provides a host of information and insightful commentary. I’ve spent hours and hours and hours there over the last few days, marveling at the consequences of lives lived in imitation of Christ.

  • Cold War Logic

    The first editorial I read today is also the best. What I love about this piece is that it makes explicit the paradox at the root of the current administration’s appropriation of Cold War rhetoric: while they have succeeded (though not without difficulty) in reducing the situation to a gross dichotomy (good America vs. evil totalitarianism), they have suddenly abandoned our six-decade policy of deterrence and containment. Every time I hear Dubya speak, I’m reminded of those Congressmen who we point to in our recent history books and laugh at, those who called for a preemptive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in order to “guarantee peace.” Our containment policy has, of course, been fraught with problems — ethical problems most of all — but it seems odd to me that our new Cold War logic has made a bigger threat of Iraq than the Soviet Union ever was. I wish I could take some solace from thoughts of Dubya’s inevitable place in future editions of those same history texts, but too many lives are at stake.

    A quick note: The Artists Network has built several demonstrations around the slogan, “Our Grief is Not a Cry for War.” I wish I could attend just for an opportunity to hear “REVEREND BILLY & The Stop Shopping Gospel Choir.”

  • Democracy?

    Two weeks ago I read a wonderful novella by Joan Didion called, Democracy (1984). Near the end, we learn that one of the main characters is an Ollie North-like agent, a guy who embraces the profit potential and moral ambiguity of international affairs. I love Didion’s treatment of his downfall: “What Jack Lovett did was never black or white, and in the long run may even have been . . . devoid of ethical content altogether, but since shades of gray tended not to reproduce in the newspapers the story was not looking good on a breaking basis.”

    So, in pursuit of those gray areas, be sure to read Fred Hiatt’s column. After deftly summarizing the positions of both the hawks and the doves, he turns his attention to the more complex problems associated with our involvement in the Middle East:

    After achieving a crushing military victory last fall, Americans said that they would not walk away again from Afghanistan. Bush invoked the Marshall Plan. Yet, incredibly, with not even a year gone, Washington’s attention is drifting away. Administration officials say that they would not oppose broadening the inadequate peacekeeping force. But they wait for others to do the job.

    “We have a greater objective than eliminating threats and containing resentment,” President Bush said in his State of the Union speech. “We seek a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror.”

    That is the right aspiration. No lesser goal could provide a foundation for war. But no speeches on Iraq will carry the day, no matter how inspiring the rhetoric or solemn the promises to stay the course, if explosions in Afghanistan are the accompaniment.

    This one’s been making the rounds, but if you haven’t seen it, be sure to check out the New Hampshire Gazette’s Chickenhawk Database. Seems that the folks behind our current war-mongering found some interesting ways of avoiding combat themselves. My favorite response is from Cheney, who apparently “had other priorities” during Vietnam. Also worth reading is Marty Jeezer’s great piece on the subject.

    And have I mentioned lately that This Modern World is really funny?

     

  • A Blessing and a Symbol

    Why am I surprised? The Sunday edition of my local paper leads with two “local interest” stories: one on a couple from Chattanooga who were married hours before driving to Knoxville for UT’s opening game; the other an embarrassing interview with a couple whose first child was born on the morning of September 11. If the folks at The Onion are paying attention, I would encourage them to rerun the story without alteration. My favorite line is from the proud and deeply earnest father:

    “We just want Audrey to be an encouragement, a blessing and a symbol of hope and inspiration to the people of America. Terrorists can take life out, but they can’t bring it in,” he said.

    I can’t really blame the father, though. When I read stories like this I wonder why the “journalist” felt any need to conduct the interview at all. The story writes itself. And it’s a story that goes down much more smoothly than, say, a discussion of Colin Powell’s curious defense of America’s preemptive attack policy. Did I say “preemptive”? Sorry. I meant “preventive.”

     

  • Nine Questions

    What with Dubya and Tony Blair now promising startling revelations in the coming weeks (what exactly does a dossier look like?), I’d like to join those who are encouraging the President to answer the following questions (courtesy of the editors of The Nation):

    1. Why engage in a risky and potentially calamitous invasion of Iraq when the existing strategy of “containment”–entailing no-fly zones, sanctions, technology restraints and the deployment of US forces in surrounding areas–not only has clearly succeeded in deterring Iraqi adventurism for the past ten years but also in weakening Iraq’s military capabilities?

    2. Why has the Administration found so little international support for its proposed policy, even among our closest friends and allies (with the possible exception of Britain’s Tony Blair), and what would be the consequences if Washington tried to act without their support and without any international legal authority? Isn’t it dangerous and unwise for the United States to engage in an essentially unilateral attack on Iraq?

    3. Is the United States prepared to accept significant losses of American lives–a strong possibility in the projected intense ground fighting around Baghdad and other urban areas?

    4. Is the United States prepared to inflict heavy losses on Iraq’s civilian population if, as expected, Saddam concentrates his military assets in urban areas? Would this not make the United States a moral pariah in the eyes of much of the world?

    5. Wouldn’t an invasion of Iraq aimed at the removal of Saddam Hussein remove any inhibitions he might have regarding the use of chemical and biological (and possibly nuclear) weapons, making their use more rather than less likely?

    6. Are we prepared to cope with the outbreaks of anti-American protest and violence that, in the event of a US attack on Iraq, are sure to erupt throughout the Muslim world, jeopardizing the survival of pro-US governments in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia and further inflaming the Israeli-Palestinian crisis?

    7. Can the fragile American economy withstand a sharp rise in oil prices, another decline in air travel, a bulging federal deficit, a drop in consumer confidence and other negative economic effects that can be expected from a major war in the Middle East? And what would an invasion mean for an even more fragile world economy and for those emerging markets that depend on selling their exports to the United States and that are vulnerable to rising oil prices?

    8. Even if we are successful in toppling Saddam, who will govern Iraq afterward? Will we leave the country in chaos (as we have done in Afghanistan)? Or will we try to impose a government in the face of the inevitable Iraqi hostility if US forces destroy what remains of Iraq’s infrastructure and kill many of its civilians?

    9. Are we willing to deploy 100,000 or more American soldiers in Iraq for ten or twenty years (at a cost of tens of billions of dollars a year) to defend a US-imposed government and prevent the breakup of the country into unstable Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite mini-states?