The end of the world as I know it?

"But present-day America is a great nation - a great nation by material standards but now by moral standards... A country becomes great on the basis of its ethical leverage; that is, when it sponsors the rights of people and nations, when it defends the principles of international law and when it defends all causes, not merely selective ones."

Anyone care to hazard a guess?

I've just been reading a recent piece on "The Sources of American Legitimacy" in Foreign Affairs, written by Tucker and Hendrickson. It raised a provocative issue.

One of the foundational principles of the American system of federal government, particularly as conceived by conservatives, was the potential corruptions of power. As the reasoning goes, the accumulation of unchecked power, regardless of good intentions, represents a danger to stability and democracy. But what does this say about the American role in the larger world in the post-Cold War world?

9/11 shocked the country, and the Bush administration, probably with the support of most of the nation, arrived at the conclusion that the United States could no longer tolerate the existence of threats to the American people, no matter how remote. The "Bush doctrine" of preventative war and its subsequent application in the war against Iraq embodied this new perspective. Few countries could dream of eliminating all the threats that face it, but the status of the U.S. as the sole superpower has created a unique situation.

The United Status may, perhaps, act in the best interests of the world by taming rogue status and aggressively eliminating perceived threats to its own security. Yet anyone who believes in a federal system of government should ask themselves whether the unprecendented ability of the U.S. to impose forceful settlements through the world is in the best interests of either the United States or the world at large.

In response to reports that Iran had tried and sentenced senior members of al-Qarda, a State Department official had this to say:

``If Iran does indeed have senior al Qaeda operatives, then we believe they
should be handed over either to the United States or to a third country where
they can be dealt with in a less opaque manner,'' State Department spokesman
Adam Ereli told reporters in Washington.

Look, I have no particular admiration for Iranian justice, but "less opaque" doesn't exactly describe how the United States deals with al Qaeda suspects, does it?

Or because I can't keep my mouth shut. Anyway, from today's Post:

In the industrial area on Fallujah's south side, residents said Thursday
that the bodies of 20 foreign fighters had been found outside a truck repair
shop, many killed by a single shot to the head. Insurgents native to
Fallujah said the foreigners were executed for deserting their positions
when the U.S.-led assault on the city began Monday night.

Why does administration policy seem to consistently ignore the reality that this article makes obvious? There is a sharp distinction between the native Iraqi insurgents and the foreign fighters. To achieve stability, the new Iraqi government must come to a political understanding with Sunni Iraqis, like those of Fallujah, hostile to the US presence. At the same time, the Iraqi government and the US must militarily defeat foreign jihadi terrorists. These people have no interest in Iraq except insofar as it allows them to inflict casualties on Americans. These goals do not conflict. The Iraqi government should grant amnesty to the insurgents of Fallujah in return for cooperation in ridding the city of foreign elements.

I don't particularly like the idea of extending such an offer to people who have fought and killed Americans, but there really is no choice. Given the strong local support for native insurgents, we cannot defeat this element of the insurgency militarily, so we should focus on what we can accomplish. This offer would both promote participation in the new Iraq and help eliminate the most destabilizing elements in Fallujah.

Speaking at the commencement ceremony of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, Karl Rove has urged the graduates to maintain "the moral clarity and courage to do what's right, regardless of consequence, fashion or fad." This from a man who doesn't get out of bed without checking how it effects the electoral math? Isn't it a bit like Richard Hatch from Survivor lecturing on the virtues of loyalty?

Or, perhaps Rove's emphasis didn't come out in the translation. Maybe he urged the graduates "to do what's Right."

Conventional wisdom says no. Most believe that by promulgating the killing of Americans and the abuse of Iraqis, the global mass media saps the resolve of Americans.

Let’s compare the experience of the U.S. in Iraq with, say, that of France in Algeria. Buoyed by the comforting platitudes of government rhetoric, the French people remained behind the war – until the revelation of years of French atrocities destroyed faith in the enterprise and in the government. Meanwhile, the ignorance of the public allowed the brutality to proliferate and intensify.

The revelation of the crimes of Abu Ghraib has shocked America, and the world. But as my father often told me, “every problem is an opportunity.” Despite these disgusting, America has been lucky; the infamy of these pictures will hopefully prevent the cancer of Abu Ghraib from spreading into the full horror of colonialism, as occurred in Algeria, Africa, and, indeed, Vietnam. Light is the best disinfectant, and if we use the occasion of Abu Ghraib to increase the transparency of the U.S. work in Iraq to the American people and the world, we may just be able to succeed in bringing democracy to Iraq after all.

According to CNN, a New York judge has ordered a couple not to have children.

I've often thought that some people are clearly too stupid or dysfunctional to become parents. Both drug abusers, this couple's four children had all tested positive for cocaine. The judge ruled that the couple could not have more children until their existing kids had moved out of foster care. It's tough to feel sorry for these people (the parents, not the kids).

But seriously, it's hard to imagine how this ruling could possibly fit with the US Constitution, and, in fact, it would set a dangerous precedent if upheld. A woman's right to choose is based on the existence of some right to privacy, that encompasses her right to control her own body. If a court can regulate a couple's reproductive life to avoid harm to society, where does the jurisdiction of the government over people's bodies end?

The current headline at the New York Times?

"Rumsfeld Accepts Blame and Offers Apology in Abuse"

Knowing Rummy, it's indeed more likely that he offered his apology in abuse.

Now The Economist calls for Rumsfeld to go.

They make a similar point to what I said earlier. If America proclaims the rule of law, she must stand for it at home and abroad. Especially when it's difficult and inconvenient.

So why are there hundreds of people still languishing untried at Gitmo?

I only watch Elimidate as a sociological project. I swear. What have I learned?

When four women the task of winning a guy, things get simple really quick. Personality, values, individuality - these are the first casualties of Elimidate. Almost invariably, the winners are catty, ready (for just about anything), and loud. Most of the contestants probably have interesting personalities in real life, but as soon as they get on the show, they all become the same person (although some distinguishing features, of course, remain. Not every contestant removes her fake boob and through it at another girl, as I witnessed last night). Elimidate is a giant psychological experiment that confirms that people conform to expectations. Whoever refuses to participate is cut in the first round.

In a strange way, this appears to be a similar mechanism to what occurred in Abu Ghraib - people losing their individuality because of their environment.

"Philosophy is all about people, and I'm a person, so I know what I'm talking about!" - Elimidate contestant

The revelations about Abu Ghraib has raised a broader question about the war in Iraq. Supporters of the war argued that they could win "hearts and minds" in the Middle East by toppling Saddam and erecting a model of liberal democracy in Iraq.

Implicitly, this goal rested on the assumption that the United States could use its technological and military prowess to fight a "pristine" war. Using smart bombs and a well-disciplined army, we could avoid the brutality, carnage, and horror that defined war in the 20th century, and, indeed, throughout all time.

But Abu Ghraib shows that you can never fully remove the inhumanity from war. While war may produce heroism and selflessness, it also corrupts and degrades.

Next time our nation debates the choice to embark on war, we must consider this truth. War is not a game of chess fought by the rules of the Geneva Convention. When we talk of changing people's hearts and minds through invasion, must we acknowledge that such actions will inevitably occur and undermine this goal?

Or is there something we can do?

Rumsfeld's comment in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee today? "If these [images] are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse."

The fact that Rumsfeld's first instinct still seems to be conceal evidence shows how out of touch he is with the currents of events.

Of course, additional visual representations of abuse and humiliation will not add to the factual record or contribute to the debate. Most likely, they will just inflame the world even more against the United States. But as I mentioned previously, the main issues here are accountability and transparency. Will we own up to our mistakes and come clean, or will we obfuscate and delay? There is only one way that we can separate ourselves from the thuggery of Saddam, and it is to have a full accounting of what, exactly, we have done.

Rumsfeld still doesn't get it.

He has to go, and soon.

I've always thought that conservative complaints about liberal bias in the media and universities had a significant element of "working the ref"; if conservatives complain enough that they are treated unfairly, mabye people will find them more sympathetic. But in some cases, its tough to ignore. Take, for example, this recent panel at my own Stanford University.

The panel, on the role of language of American politics, featured Deborah Tannen and Geoffrey Nunberg. Here's a representative smattering of their commentary, according to the Stanford Daily:

Tannen: “In speaking of his education reform act, Bush used very effective, emotionally evocative language and so he didn’t have to actually fund the program or put money into it.”

Tannen: “The fact that abortion-rights supporters do not use the word [abortion] is because the pro-life movement has been so successful in making ‘abortion’ a bad word,”

Tannen: “By refusing to use the word abortion, they continue the stigma of abortions as a negative thing. Also, pro-life is excellent language because no one wants to be pro-death.”

Nunberg: “The right has taken language from the left. Words like ‘inclusive’ and ‘discrimination,’ which are typically liberal words, are now [conservative] when President Bush says ‘we cannot discriminate against people of faith.’ ”

Nunberg: "Political attacks really have a different tenor then they had in other periods. It really isn’t about politics; politics is just standing in for some greater attack on lifestyle. The word ‘liberal’ means ‘middle class, white, self-indulgent Volvo drivers.’ ‘Liberal’ only stands in for this much broader lifestyle that they are attacking. That’s why the attacks feel much more personal in more recent years.”
________

In almost every instance, the panelists discuss how the right manipulates language. Only in one brief sentence does Nunberg address the use of language by the left to compare Iraq to Vietnam. In this commentary, the panelists not-so-subtly imply that the right is solely responsible for using language as propaganda. The argument that the right has co-opted words like "discrimination" and "inclusive" from the left seems to imply that these terms objectively belong to the left. The other quotations contain a similar tone. By discussing the "language" of conservative claims, the panelists implicitly dismiss the possibility that these claims might retain any element of truth. It is this apparent scorn for opposing viewpoints that disturbs me.

For the sake of fairness, I must note that I do not know Nunberg or Tannen, and I did not attend the panel. The apparently one-sided nature of the exchange might represent the bias of the writer, rather than that of the panelists.

For the past week, the abuses of US soldiers at Abu Ghraib in Baghdad have dominated the headlines internationally. After a slow start, they have become the focus of debate in the US as well.

What does it mean? Hopefully, these revelations destroy the ethnocentric impulses of any who argue, implicitly or explicitly, that Americans are better, more democratic, or more moral than people in any other part of the world. I don't doubt that most of the people who perpetrated these war crimes (let's call a spade a spade) were perfectly average members of society in the U.S. Phillip Zimbardo's famous Prison Experiment showed that, under particular circumstances, normal people will committ heinous acts. These soldiers faced mortar attacks and assassination every day, and they had almost complete control over the captives who they humiliated. I'm not excusing them for responsibility for their actions, but let's acknowledge that nothing in the "national character" of Americans prevents us from becoming beasts.

What separates the crimes of the US from the atrocities of Saddam Hussein (which, it deserves to be remembered, occurred on a much larger scale), are our institutions. Whereas Saddam embarked on campaigns of murder, torture, and ethnic cleansing complete unchecked, democratic society ideally prevents such abuses. Consent, accountability, transparency - these are the foundations of democracy.

Bush is, of course, the prime exponent of the virtues of democracy. After failing to find the advertised WMDs in Iraq, he has shifted his rhetoric to emphasize the necessity of shaping Iraq into a paragon of liberal democracy which will help cleanse the Middle East. I agree with Bush's affirmation of democratic values; the rights, liberties, and protections of constitutional democracy represent one of the greatest inventions in the history of man.

Yet, it is for exactly this reason that Bush must go. Even as Bush waxes poetic on the greatness of democracy, he has failed to protect its most critical foundations. Democracies generally avoid atrocities on the scale of Saddam Hussein's butchery because of the safeguards I outlined above - consent, accountability, and transparency. The bulk of the population does not want its armed forces to committ war crimes. Consent, of course, rests on information - the population of a democratic country must know what is going on.

Bush has said the right things so far, condemning the perpetrators of these acts and apologizing to the Iraqi people. But actions are more important, and here, Bush has failed miserably. The soldiers responsible have received "letters of reprimand" and the scandal has ended the military careers of a few officers. This is how we punish war crimes? Would we have excused Slobodan Milosevic if he he reprimanded a few colonels. I think not. We should hold our own leaders to the same standard. And what of Rumsfeld? I don't know if the abuse at Abu Ghraib reflected any directions from higher authorities, but, as Secretary of Defense, Rumself remains responsible for what took place under his watch. The fact that these allegations first surfaced in the army in January and have not become public until May reflects poorly on his administration as well.

These are not isolated incidents; they are consequences of how the Bush administration conducts itself. It is a White House devoted to secrecy, where information is on a "need to know" basis, and the American public, apparently, doesn't need to know. From Cheney's secrecy about who, exactly, he met with in forming the administrations energy policy to Bush's unwillingness to acknowledge and address the intelligence failure or deceptions that occurred with respect to WMDs in Iraq, this administration is allergic to accountability and transparency.

If we wish to show the Middle East the virtues of democracy, we must ensure that our own institutions are built on these fundamental values. I increasingly believe that this is impossible with Bush as President.

A good question, to which I don't really have a satisfactory answer, but I'll run down some biographical anyway. I'm about to graduate from Stanford University with a bachelor's degree in history and math. Next year, I'll be at St. Cross College, studying for an MPhil in Modern Middle Eastern Studies at Oxford. I'm quite relieved to have postponed my entry into the real world for another two years. With any luck, I can continue avoid finding productive employment indefinitely!

I don't know that I have any particular wisdom - my only true area of expertise is the English Reformation 1570-1600 (I'm currently writing a thesis on perceptions of intra-Protestant religious conflict during the 2nd half of the 16th century under Professor David Como). For everything else, I have to rely on what I read, and the little common sense that I have been blessed with.

I hate labels, especially in politics (they almost always conceal more than they reveal). I'll avoid them as much as possible. I don't want to get stuck in a box - i.e. I'm a Democrat, so I must support issues x,y,z and oppose a,b,c.

To give a flavor of where I stand, I co-founded The Stanford Progressive, a left of center journal of political thought at Stanford, currently in its third year of publication. At the Progressive, I've written in support of marriage rights for homosexuals and the war in Iraq (a position that I've come to regret in many ways, although I cannot bring myself to wholly repudiate it). I wrote against Nader's candidacy in 2004.

"May you live in interesting times," says the old Chinese curse. I'm sure that most people find their eras compelling, but as far as complexity and confusion goes, the 21st century seems to be making a run at the all-time record.

I guess that's why I'm here. Writing helps me clarify my thoughts - I understand better what I think I believe when I have to put it on paper. So the modest goal of this blog is to help me better understand the rather strange world in which I've found myself. Maybe someone else will find it enlightening as well.

Or maybe not.

Hello?

Is anyone there?

I'll always remember it as the happiest moment of my life. On Friday, May 7, at 2:44, my blog first opened its eyes and looked out onto the world.