From the East to the Middle East

In looking over the offerings on television tonight, I decided to watch the first two hours of a six hour presentation on the origins and the history of India. It is not a new subject for me; I came to the study of the subcontinent first as a major part of the World War II theater "East of Suez." A more in-depth appreciation had to wait a few more years until I studied the religions of India -- Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism -- and by extension, the cultures of India.

As I watched the first 90 minutes of the program, which carried the story up to the death of the Buddha circa 483 BCE, two points came to mind. First, the subcontinent had powerful and populous states based on the indigenous cultures and belief systems of the subcontinent. Second, virtually every exogenous culture -- from the Aryans whose origins are lost in the mists of unrecorded time to the 20th century British Empire -- that entered India to conquor and rule it inevitably lost its own identity in the vastness of the subcontinent.

India, in a phrase, is constantly evolving. It is always in flux, never static, never defined because it is never done.

And then it occurred to me that the very absence of this ability to remain flexible, to not become "done," lies at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both sides have come to define themselves rigidly in a zero-sum contest on one issue to the exclusion of all else: the land. To lose this is to lose their identity.

Dance Macabre on December 31, 2008

December 31st, 2008 at about 9:00 pm. The New York Philharmonic Orchestra is performing their New Years concert which is being carried live by PBS.

The piece the orchestra just finished was “Dance Macabre” by Saint-Saens. With just a little bit of effort, the listener can hear the percussion section mimic the sound of the crash and clash of bone on bone and envision the unrestrained whirling of the dancing skeletons – unrestrained until, exhausted, they collapse in a heap.

Elsewhere in the city, the UN Security Council is meeting to consider a resolution calling on Israel to cease its five-day bombing offensive against the 1.5 million mostly Palestinians who inhabit Gaza.

Israel, supported by the United States, insists that it is targeting only the militant Hamas terror organization that is responsible for ending the six month ceasefire declared in June 2008. For some two months, Hamas has been firing increasing numbers of mortar rounds and short-range rockets from Gaza into southern Israel – landing at increasingly greater ranges.

So far, the Israeli aerial assault has seemed to have had little impact on Hamas other than to kill some 400 people in Gaza – mostly terrorists or other Hamas “security forces” if one believes the Israelis. Without question many of the dead are non-combatants; even the Israelis have to concede that point as they decry the mixing of military and security facilities of Hamas with the abodes and businesses of “ordinary” Palestinians.

The U.S. will undoubtedly veto the resolution if it comes to a vote because it will call on Israel to stop bombing without insisting that Hamas first stop firing rockets into Israel. The Israeli cabinet has already spurned a call by France for a 48-hour ceasefire to allow medical supplies and humanitarian aid to enter Gaza. Israeli tank units are in position for a ground assault similar to the sweeps they conducted before they pulled out in 2004.

If this turns into a ground offensive, there will be many more skeletons – but they won’t have music and will not be dancing.

On that note, I end 2008.

Happy Hollidays and Holy Days

I am on holiday starting today and running to January 5th. Durinjg this interval, there will be no entry on the usual schedule (Monday-Wednesday-Friday), but I will post items "as the spirit moves me."

So thanks for reading this in 2008 and for your comments and views. And of course best wishes for joy and love during the cominng holy days and holidays..

The Quakers' Colonel

George Bush: "On the Road Again"

It has been work trying to stay up with President Bush as he makes the rounds on what one wag called “a victory lap without a victory.”

Since the election of Barack Obama to succeed Bush as president, the news cycles have been dominated by two stories. The first, understandably, is Obama’s announcements of his selections of those who will occupy top policy-making posts in his administration once the nominees have been vetted by the U.S. Senate as provided by the Constitution and statutes. The second thread, which seems to absorb more and more time, is the economy – both the U.S. and the broader world economy.

But every now and then a report will cite a Bush visit to some location. If something unusual occurs, such as the “shoe incident” in Baghdad, the visit’s visibility naturally is higher. Once the Baghdad visit became known, the visit to Afghanistan was predictable. But Bush recently (November 25) visited Fort Campbell, Kentucky, home of the 101st Airborne (Airmobile) Division to thank the troops for their service and their sacrifice.

Less understandable are two December visits by the President: to the United States Military Academy at West Point and the U.S. Army War College at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania. His objective in each case was to re-iterate his record on the “global war on terror” – a record which he clearly sees as successful even if the majority of the U.S. public does not.

Of particular note in Bush’s remarks at both locations was his self-identification with the cadets and the older students at the War College (usually lieutenant-colonels and colonels). “We have been called to serve,” he said to the War College audience, trying to use their war experiences to justify his personal mission from the deity to rid the world of the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.

It is a vision, a mission, that Bush believes extends beyond Iraq and Afghanistan, for he also made the point that it is the official policy of the United States to oppose all dictators and to aid democratic reformers and dissidents anywhere in the world.


Bush also is setting a bar that the new administration (he hopes) will have to clear in terms of Homeland Security. He noted that his administration is leaving a structure that can carry on the fight against terror with hardly a ripple on January 20, 2009. He noted that the intelligence community had been re-organized (many critics say the “reform” simply added another layer of bureaucrats). Congress established a new executive department, the Department of Homeland Security (which critics contend is too unwieldy to function). Local police and state and city governments have early warning technology capable of detecting chemical and biological agents and visual monitoring of tunnels and bridges.

Bush also claimed that his administration‘s anti-terror coalition stood at 90 countries. Among its members he specifically noted four: Saudi Arabia once a supporter and financier of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the home country of 15 of the 19 hijackers; Pakistan, which also established formal diplomatic links with the Taliban; and Iraq and Afghanistan, the two regional states that arguably had the most to win – or perhaps the most to throw off.

Bush mentioned two other programs his administration started. The first is the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) directed primarily against North Korea’s transfer of long-range missiles, missile spare parts, and even nuclear weapons-related technology. The second is the Global Millennium Challenge Account under which the administration rewarded developing countries that were “active” in the “war on terror” and promoted good governance and the rule of law.

Of all that happened, of all that he did in response to what happened, Bush seems to believe that the absence of any direct attack on the United States after September 11, 2001, was the result of the development and implementation of homeland security measures that thwarted or at least discouraged numerous terrorist plots. Maybe so. But I still think geography – albeit breachable – is a more probable explanation.

Meanwhile, Bush travels – seemingly oblivious to the fact that Air Force One is adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

The Role of Women for Peace -- A Commentary

I don’t normally read “The Huffington Post,” but over the weekend two emails from quite separate sources (that is to say, one source did not get the posting from the other and pass it on to a similar list of acquaintances) highly recommended it.

The immediate subject was President-elect Barack Obama’s choices – both women – for Secretary of State (Hillary Rodham Clinton) and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (Sudan Rice) and whether these appointments signal a more gender inclusive U.S. foreign policy – that is to say one that emphasizes “women’s issues” – over the next four years.

At this point the Huffington piece veers off to the role of women in Afghanistan, one of the poorest, most traditional patriarchal countries in the world. Since many Americans, including – apparently – President-elect Obama, consider this conflict “justified,” it is worth reminding ourselves what the real motive was for invading Afghanistan.

Following the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the United States, the Bush administration demanded that the ruling Taliban faction in Afghanistan surrender Osama bin Laden to the U.S. or to a third “neutral” country for trial. When the Taliban refused, President Bush invaded Afghanistan to effect regime change – justifying the war as bringing democracy to that country and liberating women from a harsh subservience to men. Under the western-backed regime, women were allowed to work outside the home, to be educated, to enter politics, and in general have the same rights and privileges as men.

Installing a new government that recognizes gender equality and legislates such guarantees is a necessary but insufficient step to actually achieving equality, especially in a society where ethnic and tribal identity is more important than national identity. Moreover, it is a status that cannot be imposed by outsiders. It can only be accomplished by women who must organize themselves politically and economically to both press for removing restrictions that still inhibit equality of treatment and ensure new laws do not “claw back” the rights they have already won.

In this regard\, it is significant that 68 members of the Afghanistan parliament – 14 percent – are women. By comparison, 17 percent of the members of the just-ended 110th U.S. Congress – sixteen in the Senate and 75 in the House – were women. The 110th is also noted for being the first to have a woman as Speaker.

What the Huffington Post doesn’t address (or what I cannot find in it) is why “women’s issues” would become more prominent in international relations of a Barack administration featuring women as Secretary of State and U.S ambassador to the UN. We don’t wonder about “men’s issues” when these positions go to men.

I suggest that similar cultural and social attitudes on “protecting women” are subconsciously at work in tribal or clan-based societies while they are present as legal (and therefore intentional) choices of the body politic in émigré countries like the United States. But in the latter instances, such concerns are part of the larger issue of human security. The choices, however, still breakdown between a “male” response (war) and a female response (diplomacy).

The Huffington piece notes that until women occupy 30 percent of policy-making positions in government, their ability to consistently influence \social and legal policies will be problematical. Any successes will have to be nurtured and protected until they become so integral to the society as to not be noticed at all. And in a tribal-based society, that is asking a great deal.

Even as far removed as is the U.S. from the tribal/clan social order, the press and the public dote on differences rather than commonalities of experience. For example, in the just-ended U.S. presidential sweepstakes, the press constantly reminded the voters that (1) Obama is the first African-American to win the nomination for president from a major political party; (2) Clinton was the first woman to seek the nomination of a major party for the presidency; and less frequently that (3) had McCain won the presidential race, at his swearing-in he would have been the oldest first-term president. What these facts had to do with the substantive issues – especially the economic distress evident in November and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – is still unclear.

While yet to attain the presidency, many women in the United States have risen to policy-making positions in government. Those who have held presidential cabinet-level positions tend to be appointed to departments dealing with domestic issues. Six women – including the first appointed as Secretary of a cabinet department, Frances Perkins – have been Secretaries of Labor, the most in any department. Overall, 33 women have been appointed to cabinet or cabinet-level positions. According to the Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) at Rutgers University, at one point in President Clinton’s second term, 47% of cabinet level positions (nine of nineteen) were held by women.

The four departments that have never been headed by women are in the “national security” arena: Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs. Only one woman, Janet Reno, has served as Attorney General, a cabinet position whose role in national security has mushroomed since the start of the “global war on terror.”

It would seem that, when it comes to “national security,” the only department or cabinet-equivalent positions open to women are diplomatic. Ronald Reagan appointed Jean Kirkpatrick as the first woman to represent the United States as ambassador to the UN (1981-1985). After three men occupied the post, Bill Clinton chose Madeleine Albright as the top U.S. official at the UN (1993-1997). In Clinton’s second term, Albright became the first woman to be Secretary of State and the first woman to hold both posts. The current Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, came to the post not through the UN but from the position of National Security Advisor to the president. (Three women have served as Trade Representative when that position has been designated as cabinet-level by the president.)

The men have succeeded in grossly mismanaging relations between the U.S. and Iraq, Afghanistan, the global war on terror, and still possibly in Iran. Perhaps it’s time to see whether more women at the top of the seven key national security cabinet departments or cabinet-level agencies (State, Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Veterans, Attorney General, U.S. ambassador to the UN) c find the key that opens the door to less war and more peace. .

Obama: A not-too-radical start

The signs are accumulating, beyond the individuals named to head the cabinet departments, agencies, and the Executive Office of the President, that the Obama administration is not going to be as radical as many supporters thought would be the case.

Central to this conclusion are the statements by key leaders in the House of Representatives advocating continued increases in the funds allocated to the Department of Defense. The regular Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Defense Appropriations legislation includes $65.9 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This week, Representative John Murtha (PA), chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, told reporters that he expected the Bush White House would submit a FY2009 supplemental defense request for $82 billion, But Murtha indicated that he would be open to adding more money to the administration’s request. That would make the $147.9 billion a floor rather than a ceiling. Informed observers also told the Congressional Quarterly that the Joint Chiefs of Staff will submit a place-holder budget (due in early February) of approximately $584 billion.

All the condemnation of supplementals by the Democrats in the 110th Congress may be having some effect, for the FY2009 appropriation ($147.9 billion) to fight the “global war on terror” stands at $40 billion less than in FY2008. (This, of course, is before Congress gets the opportunity to work its will on the measure.) Conversely, the draft FY2010 Defense Appropriations place-holder from the Pentagon is $57 billion higher than the last previous administration budget estimate. This already is an increase overall of $17 billion, but the supplemental is almost sure to be more than $82 billion.

This means that in considering the defense appropriations measures that will come before Congress in calendar 2009, there will again have to be a double-barreled effort. To keep a lid on the supplemental and not include “bridge funding” for warfighting in the regular appropriations for 2010.

Afghanistan May Become Obama's war

It seems as though every newspaper and magazine that comes out or is posted on the Internet features depressing news.

Grabbing most attention the last few days has been the plight of the economy, particularly the “big three” U.S.- based automobile manufacturers who asked the federal government for loans and loan guarantees of $36 billion – of which they probably will get $14 billion if they even get that.

Another very prominent news “thread” centers on the transition of political power in Washington as the Bush administration winds down and the Obama electoral machine morphs from running for office to running the country starting January 20, 2009. And this week saw an unanticipated tangential news “thread” concerning the governor of Illinois who is alleged to have put the appointment of a successor to Obama in the U.S. Senate up for auction to the highest bidder.

On the international front, U.S. publications have had “in depth” coverage of the deadly raid (nearly 175 killed) on India’s financial center of Mumbai by Kashmiri militants who used Pakistan as their base for the operation. The U.S. has leaned on the Pakistan government to cooperate fully in any investigation by outsiders and not use their own investigation to muddy the waters.

As important as these stories are (and I do believe the “tangential” corruption case is important because it involves the public’s trust in those chosen to govern), together they have pushed the seven-year-long war in Afghanistan off the front pages or into the second, third, or even fourth position on television news programs.

Only when a report or an analysis carries a title such as “Afghanistan violence up 40 percent” (June 2008) or “U.S. helicopter shot down as Afghan violence rises” (July 2008) or “Afghan violence seen to be worsening” (November 2008) does Afghanistan register on the public consciousness. Yet unless and until more attention is given to resolving Afghanistan’s geo-political divisions, which everyone agrees cannot be done by military action alone, the public in four years may find large numbers of U.S. troops still in that country.

Listening to the words of the incoming “national security team” leaves the impression that Obama is content to have George W. Bush take the rap for a disastrous war adventure in Iraq (or as Bush himself once characterized it, a “catastrophic success”). But Obama must know that Afghanistan, like it or not, is going to become his war. And he may find that resolving it – even if the U.S. economy he inherits had been A-1 when he took the oath as president – will require radical approaches to both the military struggle and for the hearts and minds of the Afghan people.

I am reminded, in the context of the estimate that the Afghan Taliban now have a permanent presence in two-thirds of the country, of Bernard Fall’s 1964 lecture at the U.S. Naval War College in which he described the signs of where the Viet Minh insurgency against the French in Vietnam’s Red River Valley was in control of the population. As I noted in a 2004 essay on Iraq that referred to Fall’s earlier findings:

"[R]evolutionary war differed from all other forms of guerrilla (or small) wars in that its goal was to advance “an ideology or a political system.” Fall’s research about conditions in Vietnam convinced him that the Viet Cong (VC) and North Vietnamese (NV) approached the war as a struggle for control of the local and regional administrative structures of governance whereas U.S. civilian and military leaders saw armed conflict as the primary challenge. This mismatch in perceptions – an example of conceptual asymmetry – was reflected in events on the ground. The VC-NV concentrated on securing political levers while the U.S. emphasized a military “solution.” The U.S. failure to apprehend fully and consistently the secondary purpose of armed engagements in the VC-NV agenda resulted in a practical asymmetry in which superior U.S. firepower could win every battle yet lose the war.

"Fall himself attests to the extent of this conceptual misjudgment of the depth and extent of political action and intimidation by the VC-NV. Based on some truly intuitive insights that guided his investigations before the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu in May 1954, Fall developed three criteria of effective administrative control (as differentiated from what is often intermittent military control) which convinced him that the French position in the North’s populous Red River Valley was about to collapse. The criteria identified the loyalties of de facto village chiefs in a region (which could be gleaned from reviewing the many obituaries of incumbents who lacked protection and plotting locales to determine patterns); where the government says it has teachers (in Vietnam teachers were centrally appointed); and which communities were paying taxes into central coffers.

"New research in 1958 and 1959 convinced Fall that the VC-NV had effectively isolated Saigon from the rest of South Vietnam by a “wall of dead village chiefs” – as many as eleven each day by 1961. But as Fall relates, not until 1963 did the U.S. Agency for International development (USAID) realize that Fall’s focus on tax receipts would apply to South Vietnam. What USAID discovered was that only three of 45 areas were free of VC-NV tax collections."

So the question for today is: “Who is collecting taxes for Afghan President Hamid Karzil?”
Regardless of the answer given today, I suggest that should the same question have to be piosed in 2012, Afghanistan will have become Obama's war.