George Carlin is one of my favorite comedians. Always sharp, sarcastic commentary on society. This clip from an interview shows how very insightful he was indeed.
Saturday, February 3, 2018
The Post is a well crafted film. The actors, Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks turn in excellent performances as does the cast of supporting actors. The story line centers around the decision by the NYT and the Washington Post to publish excerpts from the Pentagon Papers. Meryl, portraying Katherine Graham, manages a dramatic transformation from a reserved housewife over her head in corporate and newsroom politics into a decisive, courageous executive with a responsible, historic perspective on current events.
So, my quick critique of the film is a definite thumbs up. It is indeed well worth seeing. But, my
reflections following focused much much more on the historical events, the evolution of government policy and the nuances implicit in such reflections.
The Vietnam War was a painful and contentious period in recent American history. It remains a divisive issue still today. Yet I find myself asking why? Surely the release of the Pentagon Papers and the closure of the war (albeit in defeat) should have lead to an acceptance of some measure of collective guilt. Yet it hasn't. The 'progressives' talk about the war in terms of a mistake. The conservatives still insist that we failed to use our military capability decisively in order to achieve victory. The fact though, as Tom Hanks says in the film, is that a series of governments from the Eisenhower Presidency through Nixon's, were "lying to the American people."
Personally I have no doubt about the consensus historical perspective which will emerge in the future. Historians will conclude that successive US administrations following WWII, while facing down a perceived communist threat, fell into the trap of continuing the interventionist policies of the English and the French during the colonial era. The French attempted to return to Indochina after the war. The US supported them and provided military assistance. Ho Chi Minh decisively defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu. The negotiated settlement following their defeat resulted in their withdrawal. The settlement temporarily divided Vietnam into northern and southern regions. Elections were to be held to unify the country under one government. The US then stepped in and refused to allow elections, because it was evident that Uncle Ho would win them in a landslide victory. During the following two decades US governments concealed information from the American electorate, while progressively escalating the level of military violence. Terming this history a 'mistake' is tragically euphemistic.
There are additional subtleties that the film brings to light. The successive administrations that pursued these policies were both Republican and Democratic. Furthermore, Katherine Graham and Ben Bradlee (the owner and the editor of the newspaper) were decidedly partisan in their politics. They had close personal relationships with President Kennedy and Secretary MacNamara. They had to come to terms with those personal conflicts when they took the decision to publish top secret government documents. But I am left with a nagging doubt here. If a Democratic Administration had continued in power rather than President Nixon, would they still have published? The film ends in platitudes about the victory for a free press. But have things really changed? The fabric of influence from corporate interests to cosy, partisan relations between politicians and journalists remains fundamentally intact. During the second Iraq War the press was embedded with the US army. The Washington Post is now owned by Jeff Bezos of Amazon.
And I have another nagging concern. For those of us who embrace a guilty verdict on US policy in Vietnam (still a minority opinion) Daniel Ellsberg was the true hero. He was the most principled player in the historic cast of characters. He was by far the most courageous. Recently some have suggested that Edward Snowden is also such a hero. The sad commentary though is that secret government policies and intrigue are ongoing. Daniel Ellsberg was acquitted of espionage charges. But Edward Snowden is living in exile.
Friday, August 11, 2017
Something there is that doesn't love a wall
Garrett Carr's book, The Rule of the Land, is quite simply beautiful. It is written with style, immediacy and depth. The author has a novel idea: to walk along the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and to map and describe the detail along his journey. He relates memories from his childhood traveling with his father across the border into the north to buy cheaper goods and then shuttle them back to the south through customs. His father and others risked such trips despite the 'Troubles' and the presence of British troops then at border posts. Now, as Carr undertakes his journey, he reflects on the history of the borderland and its future, challenged by Brexit.
He begins his journey by boat paddling into the Carlingford Lough in the east and ends when he reaches Lough Foyle above Derry/Londonderry. In between these two seas Carr tells us the stories of Ireland. He relates conversations with borderlanders he meets along the way. He tells us stories of achievement and conflict both recent and ancient. He sketches and photographs landmarks from prehistory and modern industry. And he weaves all of these tales into a poetic odyssey.
The borderlands have witnessed both tragedy and human ingenuity. And the forensics are there to prove it. All the facts lie buried and preserved in the bogs, which the author crosses during his trek. Seamus Heaney's observation of the bogs' role as a chronicle of history is the Bard's truth.
Since the end of the 'Troubles' with the Good Friday Agreement, the borders have opened. Best they should remain that way. As Carr muses at the outset of his journey, (my summary of the author’s words) ’If only the Lighthouse in Lough Calingford could turn like a spool and gather up the border's twisting black line across the island, it would be a benign act indeed.’
Buy, read and savor this book. Borders the world over beware.
Wednesday, June 7, 2017
Reflections on the Six Day War
As a young university student 50 years ago I had developed an interest in politics and global affairs. I was already opposed to the Vietnam War and the black sheep in my family on that score, although I still had two years deferment from the draft remaining. When the Six Day War began, l followed the news every evening to learn the latest developments and consider every perspective and nuance.
I recall leaning solidly in favor of Israel. I can't say whether my leanings had been conditioned by the media or whether I may have been in awe, as were most, of Israel's astonishing military success. But I was clearly pro Israel during the initial days. Then one evening I happened to follow a BBC documentary on the history of the conflict. I was shocked to learn for the first time of the staggering migration of Jews from Europe after WWII. Yet despite those hundreds of thousands of Jewish migrants, the Jews remained a minority in Palestine. The Jewish community had lobbied for statehood and had begun guerrilla action against the British, who then occupied Palestine. When the UN General Assembly approved a partition plan hostilities broke out. What followed was a rapid expansion of the new state of Israel to encompass more then twice the land demarcated in the UN partition plan. Then hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled into Lebanon and Jordan as refugees.
This history is rarely shown any longer on the 'news.' Bits and pieces are occasionally referred to together with qualifying arguments and explanations that play down the facts. For me, however, from that day forward I realized that the history of modern Palestine was far less favorable to Israel than most people appreciate. The simple facts were that the recent Jewish immigrants to Palestine had seized far more land than they had ever been 'promised' and thousands of Palestinians had become refugees. I could no longer admire the Israelis, nor could I support the extension of that history resulting from the Six Day War.
Perhaps most people reading this opinion article will already have branded me anti-Semitic. While I am not, I won't waste time trying to prove I am not an elephant. In fact this accusation has always confused me. Hebrew is a Semitic language, but then so is Arabic. Others may use a different racial slur and call me an Arab lover. Neither does that hold; I am an atheist with no preference between religious myths. All I wish to do is to examine the recent history of Israel / Palestine in order to make a reasoned judgment on events, the status quo and future directions.
Presently, 50 years following the Six Day War, Israel continues to occupy much of the land that it captured then. Israel also continues to build new settlements within the occupied territory on the West Bank in breach of international law and UN decisions. Of course Israel has its defenders and apologists, but how can one defend the fact of a 50 year occupation. I find myself humming Dylan's lyrics "How many years can some people exist / before they're allowed to be free."
Let's consider the arguments in defense of Israel. (1) The Jews were persecuted in Europe and fled to safety and to a dream of returning to the promised land. This is of course true, although the promised land is partly mythology (as of course most ethnic tales are) and partly ancient history. (2) Israel's statehood was approved by the international community. Since then the Jewish state has simply responded to Arab aggression in defense of their state. In fact this line of argument is deeply biased and not historically objective. But, even if one were to accept such arguments, how can one accept the facts on the ground?
The Palestinian people were denied the right of self determination exactly at the time that The Jewish minority unilaterally declared the formation of their state. The Palestinians have existed in the occupied territories for 50 years now with no political rights and with severe constraints on their movement. How is this different from the South African Apartheid State? Why was the international community united against South Africa, but is not against Israel's policy? The apologists usually reply with two justifications. First, the Palestinians have engaged in terrorism and Israel has a right to protect itself. Yet, the imposition of apartheid policies amounts to collective punishment of innocent civilians, once again an illegal practice. Second, the Palestinians must accept Israel's right to exist before meaningful negotiations can proceed. Yet, in fact the Palestinian Authority has accepted and still negotiations are stalled and Israel continues building new settlements.
Yes, the Jewish people suffered the holocaust. And they were themselves oppressed for centuries within Europe and lived in ghettos and denied freedom and full political rights. That fact however does not confer upon them the right to occupy another population and to inflict on others those same injustices.
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
A contemporary, scientific view of life on earth differs dramatically from the biblical perspective. To begin with the earth is not at the center of the universe. Nor, is it even at the center of our peripheral solar system. All right fine, you may say, we know all of that. But then, what if we were to stretch this new scientific perspective into an entirely consistent world view from the vantage point of the singular event 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang) that we now consider the beginning? The result of such a Cartesian discourse is a serious stretch for most. Yet, this is the journey that Yuval Noah Harari takes us on in his book, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind.
The journey and the revelations will be disconcerting to many. Harari though is an excellent guide and his style, that of a non-confrontational story teller, palliates the bitter truth. That at least is my view of his work. But then I am a fellow traveler. I wrote a book some years ago (2008), The Bridge, where I developed these same ideas and perspectives. To me it is most rewarding to see an historian of Harari's stature embrace such insights. I should confess here that I found myself speculating on how Wallace might have felt upon reading Darwin's publication.
And memories of the ebb and flow of ideas. (From The Story of Our People, a poetic drama by David Hillstrom)
Perhaps I should continue by simply stating the case: What are these common ideas? To start with the Big Bang was an absolute beginning. It is meaningless to ask what came before, since time and even space began with the singularity. Following the Big Bang billions of years passed before the earth was even formed. Billions of stars were formed before our own sun was born. The conditions on our planet earth happened to be favorable for the emergence of life (although we still have difficulty even in defining what life is precisely). Life forms then evolved for a few billion years more before we Sapiens appeared. There is no direction to evolution or purpose underlying natural events or human history. Nature has no discernible purpose. Step by step Harari guides the reader through this chronology of events. In fact he includes a timeline of the story as an introduction.
Harari goes on to explain that Sapiens then underwent a cognitive revolution through the development of speech and a greatly expanded consciousness. This cognitive revolution facilitated the growth of common myths that enriched the ability of communities to cooperate. For thousands of years though this cooperation remained at a local level. Once agriculture was invented further growth in the capacity for cooperation arose allowing a dramatic increase in social complexity. From that point on we enter the period of human history. Harari estimates that this cognitive revolution occurred about 70,000 years before the present, nearly 14 billion years after the Big Bang. The cognitive revolution has proven to be quite significant of course. Its impact has already reshaped life on earth (to the detriment of most other species). But, the inception of the revolution is inseparably bound together with the proliferation of myths.
Many authors have dealt with questions of mythology and contemporary religions often with the intent of debunking unfounded beliefs. Harari examines this issue of social belief structures from a rather different perspective. First he expands the discussion to include much broader elements of social organization. All communities he says are fictive; they are imagined realities. Again, many will be comfortable with such arguments as a critique of religion. But how about race, or nation states or empires? Harari even offers the example of business corporations as fictive social structures. So, all social structures are ultimately based in fiction. Yet these fictions, these shared beliefs, allow groups to identify themselves as ‘we’ and to thus establish rules of engagement and cooperation. These fictions, therefore, permit the emergence of ever increasing degrees of complex interaction.
Harari pursues the human story up to the present and beyond. However, he deals with history at a macro level considering major trends. His book is not about the twists and turns of history or the details of specific periods or regions. Rather he observes trends from a satellite perspective, as though an alien observer, and points out the turning points, the paradigm shifts. Quite correctly, I think, he suggests that history has been a progression of empires. Then, with the industrial revolution and the colonial period about five hundred years ago "The entire planet becomes a single historical arena." The trend since then is toward a single empire or some form of international governance. Despite hiccup-examples such as 'Brexit' this looks like a reasonable deduction. But, at this juncture Harari and I part ways.
My personal inclination is to reflect upon how humanity might move from our current state toward a peaceful and just form of international governance. Harari observes that we may be incapable of reaching a consensus on the sort of future we want. Instead he looks for new discoveries or trajectories that will define our future, such as technology and genetic design. Humans themselves are today becoming gods capable of 'intelligent' design. But is rather impossible for us to predict how such new technology will impact the future. Regrettably he is probably right.
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Paris and Western Military Intervention:
False Policy Alternatives
The events in Paris are unquestionably an abomination. A friend commented that this is France’s 9/11. Yet the response of media and public opinion is ominous. No one should condone such terror. But, we should try to maintain our objectivity and to carefully evaluate the complex history behind the events. We also should try to consider a full array of policy responses to these events from a perspective of enlightened and humanitarian goals for our shared future.
Samuel Huntington, some will say, predicted this clash of civilizations. Alternatively, one may ask whether the historian’s work was prophetic or whether policies on all sides have become self-fulfilling prophecies. From my personal perspective what comes to mind is a verse from one of Donovan’s songs, I stand here with a fading dream.
As a starting point we need to analyze the the historical context and to consider the facts. After World War One France and the United Kingdom carved up the Middle East into spheres of influence. These continuing colonialist policies failed to create stable nations, if indeed that was ever a goal. After World War Two, as nation states across the world increasingly gained independence, the world powers resisted independence for Arab Nation States. The founding of Israel was a cornerstone of US policy in the region, while the indigenous Palestinian population was denied self determination (Jeremy Hammond, Foreign Policy Journal). Instead Palestinians were forced from their land and left for decades in refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan.
We can continue this list right up to the present. The US and UK invaded Iraq on entirely false pretenses, despite the fact that the UN efforts to inspect Iraq for WMD had failed to discover anything. More recently the West hijacked the Arab Spring to promote its own goals of regime change in Libya and Syria. Both of these interventions entailed aerial bombing and the supply of guns to local militias. The result is ongoing civil war in both countries.
The initial mobilization of Islamic resistance fighters took place in Afghanistan as a proxy war against the Soviet Union following its coup attempt and later occupation of that country. The financial support given to those Islamic revolutionaries lit a fuse which has continued to burn across the Muslim world. And the initial support for these groups was provided by the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
The historical context that I have just briefly presented here is a simple list of facts. Inconvenient facts for those in the West who are calling for war. The war didn’t begin with 9/11 or with the Paris terrorist attacks. It began decades ago and western powers were the perpetrators, the instigators. Acknowledging this is not an attempt to condone terror as a method of resistance. Rather it is an attempt to counter knee-jerk reactions that would support a continuation of failed policies, illegal military intervention by the West in the Middle East.
Since Israel’s founding violence has prevailed in the Middle East. Initially neighboring Arab States tried to face Israel with conventional armies. That attempt failed and resulted in additional loss of territory and eventually an uneasy detente between Israel and its neighbors. Within Israel and the territory occupied during the ‘67 war the world has witnessed an escalating war of resistance vs the Israeli State. The response from Israel has been to progressively enforce apartheid policies, while continuing to build illegal settlements on occupied territory. The response on the Palestinian side has been resistance through intifada and activity the Israelis and most in the West term terrorist attacks. In parallel Israel has pursued a policy of targeted killings and repeated military offensives on Gaza and Lebanon (Noam Chomsky quite rightly calls this State terror).
There is little question that the efforts to reach a peaceful solution to the conflict in Palestine have been half hearted. It is also clear that Israel prefers either no solution or only a solution which is entirely on its own terms. Since the Afghan conflict, the first Iraq war, the invasion of Iraq and the policy of regime change in Libya and Syria, what we are witnessing is an expansion of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to include the entire Arab world and the Western powers. Furthermore the methods of warfare are one and the same. The West is employing targeted assassinations, aerial bombardment and military incursions. The Arab resistance is employing terror tactics and is bringing the war to the West. So once again we are witnessing a contest of State terror vs resistance terror. Again, acknowledging this as a fact is not an attempt to condone terrorism. We need to recognize though that a military response to the Paris attacks will most likely serve the perpetuation and escalation of the conflict. By supporting the military option we may end up in a situation similar to that of Israel; no solution, rather perpetual war and terror.
We must consider policy options more carefully, more wisely. In doing so we also need to reflect upon other aspects of the problem. There are demographic and economic issues that we need to consider here as well. The West has an aging population. In the near future the West will have to face a twofold challenge: The collapse of state pension funds and a labor crisis for industry in the West. Industries which have production facilities in the West are faced with the choice of moving production off shore, pushing their governments for more open immigration policies or opting for full scale automation of production. An interesting observation here is that both problems, industrial production and pension programs, could be mitigated through open immigration policies. But there is a catch to such a policy response. Popular opinion is not in favor or such a solution and the evidence on the ground suggests that Western societies are incapable of integrating Muslim immigrants. Remember the Paris riots?
Across the Arab peninsula and North Africa we observe a clear, mirror image of the problem within the West. Demographically there is a population bulge of young people, who face no or at best poor economic opportunity. In addition these young people now face political instability, civil war and the West’s bombing campaigns. Given these facts their only realistic course is to try to emigrate to countries where they may find opportunity. We can argue ad infinitum over the cause of low economic growth in the developing world. But allow me to suggest that the problem has wide joint ownership. The Arab governments certainly share some of the blame as do the economic policies of Western governments. The UN and development banks have for decades talked about the problem, but have utterly failed to develop successful policies to promote sustainable growth.
Europe needs to analyze the failure of past policies, both economic and military, before rushing into an escalation of military conflict. As I noted earlier the military response is most likely to result in permanent war and terror. It will also result in continued, massive migration from the Middle East to Europe. The pressure of migration in turn will result in calls for the end of Schengen and further centrifugal force toward the break up of the Union itself. The terror attacks in Paris were an abomination, but the rational response to our trauma is not a call for revenge or war. Despite the frightening number of casualties, Western civilization is not in imminent danger. Thousands more innocent civilians have been killed across the Muslim world by Western bombs than by the terror attacks within the West (This is but one more inconvenient fact.) Unfortunately though popular opinion fed by mass media sensationalism and misguided political leaders is leaning toward the wrong policy response. As another friend said, this is just going to lead to more racism and madness.
Monday, October 5, 2015
Neocolonial Air Power:
The Kunduz Crime
The NATO air attack in Kunduz is a dual tragedy. Innocent lives were lost and 'Doctors Without Borders' has withdrawn from a country in need of medical support. But in the wake of this tragedy it is useful to reflect on the use of air power today.
During the colonial period Western nations built empires by occupying less developed countries. The popular consensus today is that the practice was egregious and exploitative. Furthermore, most people believe that the wave of independence that began following WWII was a positive trend, even if the full potential of independence has not been realized.
You might ask what connects these two observations? Just this: Western nations and alliances have not ceased intervening in the political affairs of smaller, less developed countries throughout the world. Usually this intervention is managed through economic leverage; hence, the term neocolonialism. Occasionally however, and all too often, western powers revert to the use of military force. Herein lies the connection, but with a new twist.
Today when the US, the U.K. or France employs military force to impose political solutions, they rely overwhelmingly on air power. The reason behind this preference in favor of air power is clear. There is little support within the American electorate for placing ground troops in harm's way. Political and military leaders, however, assure us that modern technology permits precision strikes with limited 'collateral' damage.
Obviously the strike on a hospital in Kunduz refutes the technology claim. But the more damning conclusion remains obscured. What right does the US or any other super power have to intervene militarily in foreign, sovereign countries?
The case of Syria is a perfect example. US leaders have been insisting for several years that President Assad must leave. They say he has used violence against his own people. Yes, the civil war in Syria is deplorable. But how does that empower the US to decide the political fate of Syria or Libya or any other country? And when the US or NATO send their air forces in bombing raids against targets within Syria or Afghanistan how does the situation differ? The simple fact is that they are using military power to impose a political outcome. And they are using such power not within their own sovereign territory, but rather against a foreign people.
During the colonial period western nations occupied colonies. They controlled the police and imposed peace on the ground. Popular opinion rejects the practices of that historical period, because the colonies were denied their political rights. And furthermore we recognize that the economic policies implemented by colonial powers were generally in their own interests and not the interest of the indigenous population. Yet today public opinion is far too complacent about military intervention across the world, as long as 'our casualties' are few.
Clearly we need to deepen our analysis. The dots are not difficult to connect. Should sovereign nations around the world be free and independent to chart their own political and economic course? Yes! Should it be permissible for major powers to pressure smaller, independent nations to recognize and accede to demands that cater to those major powers' national interests? No! No nation should have such extended power. In fact the concept of overseas national interests is blatantly contradictory. All transactions beyond national borders should only, must only, be matters for negotiation on equal terms. Any balance to the contrary evidently smacks of neocolonialism.
Was the bombing of the hospital in Kunduz a war crime? There is no need for an inquiry. The US has been an occupying power in Afghanistan for over a decade. If President Assad is guilty of war crimes against his own people, then President Obama is guilty of war crimes against the Afghan people.