Tag Archives: Iran

Iran Deal: In Five Pictures

Iran Deal 1

All the usual suspects are challenging the Iran Deal, not to mention the over the top sensationalist (and extremely insensitive) comments by Buy-My-Book former Governor Huckabee.  It’s advised that before one buys into the hyperbolic renditions – and rending of garments – by the opposition which got us into a Fine Mess in Iraq, take a look at the fact sheet from which the graphics were taken.   For those who would like the coloring book version, here are the illustrations from that fact sheet:

Iran Deal 2 Iran Deal 3 Iran Deal 4Iran Deal 5 Feel better now?  If not, go back to the original fact sheet.  Still not completely satisfied?  The, see National Interest’s publication on five reasons to negotiate with Iran from back in November 2014.  For an economic perspective see IBT’s analysis on how the sanctions and Iran’s economy relate.  Or, try this opinion piece from Haaretz on three benefits from ending the cold war between the U.S. and Iran.

The ultimate argument from those who oppose any deal at all, and any deal will intrinsically never satisfy some of the critics, is that “Iran can’t be trusted.”  Not to put too fine a point on it, but for some critics every Iranian would have to have an IAEA inspector surgically attached 24/7/365 in order for the deal to be acceptable, and even then there would be questions.  Look at the four light blue segments in the last graphic “Access and Verification.”  What did Reagan say? “Trust but verify.”  And he was dealing with the old Soviet Union which already had nuclear weapons.

This might be the time to remember December 8, 1987, the date President Reagan signed the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with the Soviet Union?  How the feathers did ruffle!  George Will pronounced it “The Day the Cold War Was Lost,” asserting that we were the losers.  [RCP] [Shields]  Conservative columnist William Safire declared Reagan a fool and that  “the Russians “now understand the way to handle Mr. Reagan: Never murder a man who is committing suicide.” [Shields]  And then there was this commentary:

“Howard Phillips, the chairman of the Conservative Caucus, who, like former Governor Reagan, had been in 1978 a leading opponent of the Panama Canal treaty, accused Mr. Reagan of “fronting as a useful idiot for Soviet propaganda.” [Shields]

The take-away from this trip down memory lane is that (1) you don’t have to negotiate peace treaties with your friends, and (2) there will always be War Hawks among us who will denigrate any attempt at peaceful negotiations no matter who is conducting them.   For hard-liners no negotiations will ever be acceptable and no treaty will ever be successful.

There are some other considerations appropriate to this treaty. 

#1. This is not a unilateral effort.  We do tend to see international negotiations from a unilateral perspective, and this is magnified in the news coverage.  However, the treaty is the result of negotiations between and among China, Russia, Germany, France, the UK, and the US.  Defeat of this treaty discredits the efforts of the US to take into consideration the needs and policies of its allies, and that’s a dangerous element in an unstable world.

#2. Unilateral economic sanctions don’t work.  The “crank up the sanctions” argument is bombast.  The most conspicuous failure being the US sanctions on Cuba, imposed October 19, 1960 and extended on February 7, 1962.  55 years later the Castro regime is still nestled nicely in power.  One professor looked at the 550 pages of current sanctions on the Treasury Department’s list and observed:

“Daniel Drezner, a professor at Tufts University’s Fletcher School, says sanctions “tend to work when the demand is incredibly well-defined,” like resolving a trade dispute, “and there is some sort of decent relationship with the target state.” Those governments can compromise without worrying that the country imposing sanctions will keep demanding more. Drezner says that broad sanctions targeted at adversaries have far lower odds of success.” [Bloomberg]

This echoes the conclusion drawn years earlier (1998) by a presenter at a

CFR forum:

“The first conclusion is that sanctions have an extremely poor record of achieving their own foreign policy goals. Since 1973, the last quarter-century, only 17 percent of U.S. sanctions have worked. That’s whether they’re unilateral or multilateral. But less than one in five of the cases we have applied have, according to our scoring system, had positive effect. They almost never work when they are applied on a partial rather than comprehensive basis, which is the norm. They almost never work when they are applied unilaterally rather than multilaterally, which in these days is almost always the norm. There is no case—repeat, no case—where unilateral sanctions have ever worked to induce a sizable country to make a major change in policy, no case in history that we have been able to discover.” [Bergsten]

The reason unilateral sanctions don’t work?  If the US is unwilling to trade with the target, others are perfectly willing to do so – like the Chinese, the Russians, the French, the British, and the Germans.  In other words, without the cooperation of our allies the power of the sanctions evaporates.

#3. The sound bite “No deal is better than a bad deal” is pure hogwash.  First, this is NOT a bad deal.  It keeps the sanctions option open, it provides for the Reagan Formula “trust but verify,” it prevents Iran from pursuing its nuclear weapons program.  Secondly, without the deal the sanctions would be unilateral (see above), while access and verification would be nearly impossible thus allowing Iran to continue its nuclear weapons program without international interference.  Finally, there are two general options in diplomatic relations: Diplomacy and War.  War being, as the saying goes, the failure of diplomacy.  

It seems incongruous for those who’ve been telling us for years now that Iran is One Year Away from a nuclear weapon that a treaty which prevents nuclear weapons programs in Iran from continuing for the next 10 years is somehow a “failure,” or a bad treaty.

There will be no convincing those who want a war with Iran that the current treaty is a diplomatic success.  It will be up to those who aren’t predisposed to dismiss diplomacy and who seek negotiated settlements of profound problems to support the acceptance of this treaty.

Comments Off on Iran Deal: In Five Pictures

Filed under Foreign Policy, Iran

Get Serious or Get Lost? GOP lack of focus on ISIS

ISIS I’ll take the Republicans, especially the ones in Congress, seriously when they speak of ISIS threats to national security when they take up the bill sent to Congress during the week of February 11, 2015 which authorizes U.S. action against the Islamic State.  The joint resolution had a bit of something for everyone:

“The proposed legislation limits Obama from the use of “enduring offensive ground combat operations,” deliberately vague language intended to win over those on the left wary of mission creep and those on the right who don’t want to restrict possible military action against ISIS.” [TheHill]

As of the moment it merely looks as if the GOP wants to turn foreign and defense policy into a semantic game for the purpose of giving Democrats headaches in an election many months away.  Witness the whinging from Senator Lindsay Graham:

“One by one, nearly a dozen GOP presidential hopefuls took the stage here last weekend for a Lincoln Dinner, each different in style and stature but all joining a rising Republican chorus that lays blame for the Islamic State terrorist group squarely at the feet of President Obama. “If you fought in Iraq, it worked. It’s not your fault it’s going to hell. It’s Obama’s fault,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) said to cheers.” [WaPo] …

“This deterioration of our physical and ideological strength has led to a world far more dangerous than when President Obama entered office,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said in a speech this month. “We’ve seen [the Islamic State] sweep across multiple states, commit brutal atrocities and attempt to establish a caliphate.” [WaPo]

If the Republicans want more U.S. involvement in Iraq, then why not authorize the administration to apply more force in the region – as in bring the joint resolution to the floor for a debate and vote?

Perhaps the delay is because the Republicans don’t want to address key issues, and would rather launch verbal flames than real ones.  Consider the flap over the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government.

If the Obama Administration had been serious about winning in Iraq it would have negotiated a status of forces agreement,” wail the right wingers. Not. So. Fast. It takes two parties to negotiate such an agreement and the al Maliki government wasn’t playing the game:

“But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.” [Time 2011]

The Iraqi government under al-Maliki, once touted as the harbinger of democracy, proved to be a colossal failure.

The Iraqis wanted stable government, less corruption, economic reconstruction, and all the other things modern governments can provide. However, rather than moving forward from the gains made during the last months of U.S. occupation, the al-Maliki government swung away. The situation fell apart almost immediately.

Maliki’s government used “de-Baathification” laws, introduced to keep members of Saddam Hussein’s regime out of government, to target his opponents — but not his many allies, who also had been senior members of the Baath Party. The 2010 government formation process turned out to be yet another opportunity for politicians of all stripes to grant themselves senior positions which they could use to plunder the state. When tens of thousands of Iraqis took to the streets in February 2011 to protest corruption, they were branded terroristsand were attacked and beaten by security forces and hired thugs. Dozens were killed and thousands arrested and tortured until the protests fizzled. Meanwhile, though terrorist groups were not operating as openly as before, hundreds of civilians continued to be killed every month, particularly in Baghdad, denying Iraqis in many parts of the country even a brief period of normalcy. [ForeignPolicy]

This is not exactly a recipe for popular government, or even a respected one. However, the situation with the Iraqi security forces was even dimmer.

“The security sector, which had an annual budget greater than the budgets for education, health, and the environment combined, was subject to minimal oversight. Soldiers were enrolled and paid monthly salaries without reporting for duty. Overpriced and faulty equipment was procured using the laxest standards. Training sessions were financed on paper but never took place in practice. Appointments were politicized. Officers close to the prime minister’s office who failed to investigate leads on terrorist attacks were almost never held accountable for their actions. Even the most grotesque failures, including the military’s passivity in the face of regular attacks against Christians in Nineveh over a period of years, went unpunished. Morale among the rank and file was low, and there was very little desire to take risks on behalf of political elites who were viewed as wildly corrupt.” [ForeignPolicy]

And we wonder why the Iraqi forces couldn’t hold Mosul, and  can’t hold Ramadi?   By 2006 the political atmosphere was getting obvious, only the willfully blind could avoid seeing the implications of the Sunni-Shia split, and al-Maliki’s role in that disintegration:

“By the time Maliki took office, the police and the Army were overwhelmingly Shiite, packed with former militiamen bent on cleansing Baghdad of Sunni Arabs. In the summer of 2006, each morning brought new reports of sectarian atrocities. Maliki did very little to stop them, according to Matthew Sherman, the civilian adviser to the U.S. Army. “We’d go into his office, we’d tell him about a massacre that had been carried out by his men,” Sherman told me. “And Maliki would just sit there and say, ‘I’m sure they were terrorists.’ We could never get him to act against the death squads.” (Maliki says that he never received any evidence that his soldiers or police had acted improperly.)” [NYorker 2014]

The eggs laid by the parliamentary elections of December 2005 were fully hatched by 2014.   By 2015 the eggs were completely scrambled, and not in a good omelet sort of way.

al-Maliki’s resignation in 2014 didn’t alleviate the situation. As of August 12, 2014 the Iranian government pulled its support for al-Maliki, offered him asylum, and backed his successor Hiadar al-Abadi. [Guardian] The disaffected Sunnis, the former criminal gangs, the death squads and the local militias were now a fact of life in Iraq’s daily existence.  Nor has U.S. policy been all that helpful.  The Iranians, who are positioned to assist the current Iraqi government in its fight with ISIS, are the subject of saber rattling by members of the U.S. Congress who want to do everything from bolster current embargo terms to engage in outright military action against Tehran.

In other, less elegant terms. if we weaken the Iranian government then we risk undermining the Iraqi government’s efforts to retain or retake territory seized by ISIS.

It is very difficult to have a consistent and rational foreign policy when the requirements are (1) opposition to the Iranian government, and to all forms of Iranian involvement in Iraqi military operations against ISIS; (2) opposition to ISIS which doesn’t incorporate Shia interests in Iraq; and (3) support for Sunni participation in Iraqi governance, when the Sunnis could be convinced that their interests would be better served by ISIS than by the governing Shia groups in Baghdad. Perhaps these contradictions help explain why the Republicans don’t want a full blown discussion of U.S. foreign policy vis a vis Iraq, and seem content to snipe from the sidelines?

If the GOP is serious about discussing our policy toward Iraq, then it’s time to bring the joint resolution to the floor, debate the ramifications seriously, recognize the historical and political implications of the policy, and to take a stand on those issues.  The rest is simply political noise making, the equivalent of slide whistles and noise-makers.

Comments Off on Get Serious or Get Lost? GOP lack of focus on ISIS

Filed under Foreign Policy, Iraq

Yes, Heller Embarrassed Nevada

newspapers 1 The Reno Gazette Journal adds its editorial voice to the backlash over the #Iran47 participation of Senator Dean Heller (R-NV), in “Heller embarrassed Nevada with Iran letter.”   Thus, the Gazette Journal joins a chorus including the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Nashua, NH Telegraph, the Concord, NH Monitor, the Peoria Journal Star, the Salt Lake Tribune, the New York Times, the Kansas City Star, the Sacramento Bee,  the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, the Baltimore Sun, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times,  and others. [Pol]

Senator Heller’s web site doesn’t include any press releases explaining the inexplicable.  Perhaps he’s adopting some of the other incredulous statements made, like Senator McCain’s “snow storm” excuse?  [Pol] Or, he might use the Senator Rand Paul template: “I signed the Iran letter in Order to Help Obama?”  Or, how about the former Governor Jeb Bush idea, “I approved it out of frustration?”  There’s always 60+ day Senator Tom Cotton’s version: “If Congress doesn’t approve the deal it may not last.”

Maybe the junior Senator from Nevada could mash them all together?

“I signed the Iran Letter because I was frustrated with the snow storm, and in order to help the President I thought I’d let the Iranians know that the Constitution allows the Senate to offer “advice and consent” to treaties before they’re ratified, just in case the fellows weren’t educated.”

The last part is really amusing given that the Iranian government has the highest number of US college graduates serving in any foreign government cabinet in the world.  President Rouhani has a PhD from the prestigious Glasgow Caledonian University (Scotland), Zarif has a PhD from the University of Denver; the Science, Research & Technology minister (Mohammad Ali Najafi) did post graduate work at MIT.  Vaezi, Minister of Communications, began his PhD at LSU and finished at the Warsaw University in Poland, the Minister for Industry, Nematzadeh, graduated from Cal Poly in 1968, and studied industrial management at Cal Berkeley. Ali Akbar Salehi, head of the AEO, has a PhD in nuclear engineering from MIT.  Chief of Staff, Mohammad Nahavandian, has a PhD in economics from George Washington University.  [IranPrimer]

The junior Senator from Nevada might want to consider his response and rationale very carefully because when an editorial board uses terms like “condescending, embarrassing, clueless, damaging, and hypocritical,”  the Senator’s next words should be very carefully weighed and measured.

Comments Off on Yes, Heller Embarrassed Nevada

Filed under Foreign Policy, Heller, Iran

GOP Age of Un-Enlightenment: Heller one of the #Iran47

Heller 3

Nevada’s junior Senator, Dean Heller (R) is one of the  signers of the now infamous ‘enlightenment letter’ to the Iranian leadership.  Heller, who has a certain flare for the dramatic – if not the practicable – has demonstrated his willingness to participate in amateur political theatricals before.   Witness the “Balanced Budget Amendment” which he hauls out every session only to be reminded that the budget of a sovereign nation doesn’t have the same characteristic as a household budget in East Deer Breath.  Or, there was the gallant attempt to repeal the Dodd-Frank Act, in tandem with former Senator (now Heritage Foundation guru) Jim DeMint. This scene evaporated as well.   Considering the matter at hand, here are some absolutely unsolicited bits of advice for the junior Senator:

#1.It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system.”  Before signing on to this line, one might be aware that the recipients include  Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who attended Drew College Prep in San Francisco, got his B.A. in International Relations from San Francisco State University in 1981, and a Master’s in 1982. He did post graduate work at the Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver, and received his PhD in International Law and Policy in 1988. Here’s guessing that the Iranian Minister for Foreign Affairs might have some knowledge of U.S. governmental operations?

Opening lines such as this are patronizing or at least condescending, and one of the Things Not Done in international relations is being… patronizing or condescending.  Iran, love it or loathe it, is a sovereign nation, and that pompous, supercilious, opening sounds suspiciously like the #Iran47 would like to teach their “little brown brothers” about U.S. politics. 

#2. Don’t make obvious errors.  It really doesn’t do to have a legal heavyweight from the Bush Administration tell you that the Senate may “offer advice and consent,” but “The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” (my emphasis). [Goldsmith]  In athletic parlance, this fumble is often called an Unforced Error.

#3. You will be known by the company you keep.  Very junior Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) has made it very clear that he wants to scuttle all attempts at diplomacy with Iran.  “The end of these negotiations isn’t an unintended consequence of congressional action. It is very much an intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so speak,” Cotton said in January, speaking at a conservative conference hosted by the advocacy group Heritage Action for America.” [Huffington Post]  This puts the #Iran47 deep in the realm of American hardliners who see no practicality in negotiating a deal with the current Iranian government.  Not everyone has dived into that pool, including acknowledged foreign policy expert former Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN).  If Senator Heller would like to retain his “periodically moderate” label, this is not the way to do it.

#4. The more flexible you are the more options you’ll have.  Taking the hard line stance as a signatory to the Cotton Letter means that diplomacy is off the table.  What does that leave?  Let’s assume the old adage is correct: War is the failure of diplomacy.  If diplomacy is removed as an option then the only way to resolve an international dispute is with armed forces.  But, what of economic sanctions?

#5. Don’t discard options merely because they require assistance.  Unilateral economic sanctions never work.  At best they can be functional in about 13% of their applications, at least since 1970, and  usually with small countries. (Rhodesia comes to mind)  [Hill]  Then there’s this observation from the Director, Institute for International Economics, a panelist at the CFR:

“There is no case—repeat, no case—where unilateral sanctions have ever worked to induce a sizable country to make a major change in policy, no case in history that we have been able to discover. The simple reason is that the United States no longer dominates the world economy. There are always alternative sources of export, import markets, finance, whatever it may be. We alone cannot coerce others. And there are always alternatives, and they will always be available.”

And, this leads us to the next point.

#6. The more friends you have the better.  The current negotiations involve  members of the P5+1 who are actually negotiating the deal with Iran.  The U.S. isn’t the only country with a negotiating interest in the talks, the other nations include the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, Germany, and the U.S.  Some care should have been taken that what was perhaps meant as a poke at Iran wouldn’t be received as a slap in the face of the other negotiating countries.  Now, consider the next point —

#7. If the #Iran47 intend for the talks to collapse, then the intended (or unintended?) consequence could be the U.S. wedded to a unilateral policy calling for a military solution to the issue of Iranian nuclear development? After all, why would the UK, France, or Germany participate in military operations if they assume their negotiations were in good faith, and the U.S. was the one to pull out?

Should the U.S. become embroiled in a war with Iran,  a nation with about 450,000 regular military personnel, some 120,000 in the Army of the Guardians, and about 3 million combat trained paramilitary Basij, it should be reasonably obvious that the conflict would not be a simple matter of a few air strikes.  And, while the U.S. is thus engaged what happens in, say, Ukraine? Iraq? Central Africa? Nigeria? North Korea? Libya?

#8. “Regime Change” is a term freighted with negative associations. In an ethereal world of ideals, as opposed to the practical one in which we are living, we could bargain very nicely with a ‘new’ regime in Tehran.  That is, IF, the new regime was cooperative.  However, as we learned to our dismay in Iraq, a new regime doesn’t necessarily equate to a cooperative ally.  The ‘new regime’ in Iraq refused to negotiate a status of forces agreement with two American administrations, insisted on the pull out of U.S. combat forces, and then proceeded to make a hash of Sunni-Shia power relationships giving ISI a wedge into the fray.

#9. Striking a pose and taking a position are two different things. Striking a pose is easy.  One may be belligerent – fists at the ready, emotions on high;  or pacific – fists down, brain engaged. Taking a position requires thought, especially forethought, and the inclusion of a host of factors which may or may not prove to be critical elements.   One of the conveniences of militarism is that it requires little forethought – have a problem with someone? Simply shoot’em up.   The current situation in the Middle East is not a scripted melodrama from film writers; the good guys are difficult to identify and may not always be ‘good,’ and the bad guys may be helpful in one area (think Iran and its assistance against ISIL) and unhelpful in others.

Signing on as an original founder of the #Iran47 wasn’t the best idea Nevada’s junior Senator has had, and in fact it may prove to be one of his worst moments.  Unless, of course, he would like to posture as a belligerent, mindless subscriber to militarism and the notion that not only is might always right but it also always works.  This is a dubious proposition at best, and it certainly offers a future challenger an opening on an unforced error.

Comments Off on GOP Age of Un-Enlightenment: Heller one of the #Iran47

Filed under Congress, Foreign Policy, Heller, Iran

A Map For the Geographically Challenged

 

Got it?

Comments Off on A Map For the Geographically Challenged

Filed under 2012 election, Foreign Policy, Romney

War Games: Real and Imagined

The NV Rural Democratic Caucus picked up the sounds of Neo-Cons on the March. The Stove-Pipers seem desperate to have another WAR, with someone, anyone, please…”We’ll only look strong if we’re bombing someone.” Perpetual Warmonger John Bolton thinks it’s in our best interest to get directly involved in a conflict between Iran and Israel (assuming, of course, that Israel and Iran want to get into an armed conflict). [MMFA] Yesterday Faux News got its knickers in a twist over U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Rice because of insufficient bellicosity. [Crooks & Liars]

The interesting thing is, that in my experience, the same people who vociferously call for military intervention also tend to be the ones with the least actual military experience. The veterans in my circle of acquaintance are concerned that the U.S intervene directly only after all diplomatic efforts have failed, only after the aims of the operation are clear and precise, and only after due diligence has been performed in which the costs and the casualties are stringently contrasted to the rewards and objectives. They truly understand that war is not a board game like Risk, or an exciting version of a  video game — real people with real families are placed in real peril.

We use the term “war” too often. Perhaps part of the problem evidenced by the free and easy way the word is tossed around is that we use it too often in inappropriate ways.  For example, the “war on drugs” merely describes a system of law enforcement operations designed to reduce domestic consumption and to arrest, try, and convict those apprehended selling and using controlled substances.  For all the governmental agency coordination involved, this isn’t and never has been a real war.

President Lyndon Johnson wanted a war on poverty, but that too was simply a description of coordinated domestic government programs designed to ameliorate the most severe effects of poverty, such as illness, homelessness, and hunger. People die in wars, the concept of Medicare was that life would be prolonged.  However, the war motif makes issues sound every so much more grand.  Thus now we have all manner of little “wars.”

Right wing pundits created a “War On Christmas.” They creatively imagined that retailers wishing their customers “happy holidays” was part of an overarching  effort to secularize the Christmas season.  Not that this “war” stopped the American public from spending some $976 million on real trees, and another $530 million on artificial trees in 2010. [NCTA]  Nor does this “war” tend to depress church attendance during the holiday season (Advent to Christmas).  In fact, for most churches the question is how to get the holiday Christians to show up for more than just the Christmas and Easter services. [TCP]  The real battle appears to be how to get the knaves in the naves when it isn’t Christmas. The artificial fight is about something else entirely.  Sometimes it almost appears as a form of “badge earning” in order to create a specific cultural identity. Consider the following:

“The reason the War on Christmas is being fought isn’t to suppress the private practice of Christianity (at least not yet!). Rather, the intent is to destroy the link between America’s majority religion and its culture. […] Americans have a right to the American holiday of Christmas. It is part of who we are… even though some of us are not Christian. It’s time for us to stand up and reclaim it from the small majority who are trying to take it away from us!” [TWOC]

If this proposition seems not to make any sense, it’s probably because it doesn’t. However, it does hint at the mind-set that informs other culture wars. The author assumes (1) the validity of the “Christian America” perspective, and further assumes (2) that to admit diversity is to sanction tolerance. Indeed, those who do practice intolerance may be justified in believing themselves to be under attack.

How alarming it must be for the intolerant to be told they must allow a mosque or synagogue in their community?  We’ve seen a truly and remarkably preposterous “battle” over a mosque at Ground Zero, which wasn’t a mosque and wasn’t at Ground Zero. [USnews] That newspapers and magazines reported that it wasn’t a mosque and it wasn’t at Ground Zero was perceived in some quarters as a “typical liberal media” attack. These would be the quarters in which any information which does not support and confirm one’s personal perspectives is unwelcome. But, there are other “battles” to be fought.

As of March 2011 at least a dozen state legislatures saw the introduction of legislation to “ban” Sharia law.  One piece of legislation was remarkably fact-free: “A Tennessee bill, S.B. 1028, explicitly defined Sharia law as a “legal-political-military doctrine and system.” It cited the “threat of terrorism” and concern about “the replacement of America’s constitutional republic” by Islamic law.” [EthicsDaily] [ThinkProgress]  Members of the Jewish faith are rightly concerned by this xenophobic atmosphere, and noticed its implications for Judaism:

“If the state legislative initiatives targeting sharia are successful, they would gut a central tenet of American Jewish religious communal life: The ability under U.S. law to resolve differences according to halachah, or Jewish religious law.” More specifically: “A number of recent beit  din arbitrations that were taken by litigants to civil courts — on whether a batch of etrogim met kosher standards; on whether a teacher at a yeshiva was rightfully dismissed; and on the ownership of Torah scrolls — would have no standing under the proposed laws.” [JTA]

Halachah, it would seem, would be just another casualty of the Culture Wars. (In case you were wondering, “etrogim” is a citrus fruit native to Israel.) It is not that the Culture Warriors don’t have some real opposition.

Anti-choice advocates convinced AT&T to cut its charitable contributions to Planned Parenthood back in 1990. Had the Susan G. Komen Foundation leadership paid attention to what happened next they may not have been so quick to announce their decision to cut their funding for the women’s health organization.  [TPM]  All that the SGK Foundation will say for now is that it may consider funding women’s health programs related to Planned Parenthood, but this is no guarantee the organization will actually reverse its recent stand in the Culture Warrior battles. The “war” moves on to contraception.

The Obama Administration announced that health insurance companies would have to cover expenses for contraceptive prescriptions in employer paid health plans.  Catholic bishops moved to earn their badges, but may have missed the target.

This particular battle in the Culture War seems not to have all that many willing participants. Those who are willing to serve in this artificial conflict appear to be among the 26.3% of the population who constitute the white evangelical category.  While their numbers nationwide may be low, their grip on the Republican Party is solid, and this is problematic:

“What’s an even bigger shame is that Republican leaders see the aforementioned poll numbers and continue to court white evangelicals, which means the most bigoted among that pious population have no incentive to change their discriminatory ways, and our nation’s ideals, including inclusion, diversity and religious freedom, will continue to be eroded for years to come.” [D&T]

There’s another iceberg in the water as well.  By assuming the defensive positions sought by those white evangelicals who are motivated by intolerance, fearful of change, and cling to a notion of “white nationalism.” the Party is in peril of shrinking its adherents to a core which is antithetical to the very mainstream it purports to represent.

Meanwhile, American continues to be part of the continent to which Estevanico of Azamor came in 1527, becoming one of the first Muslims to visit Florida, and the first mosque was probably built by Albanian immigrant followers of Islam in Maine in 1915. The first synagogue was dedicated before the Declaration of Independence was written. [Touro] And, the self same country in which Confederate General William Dorsey Pender, advised in 1862 that his wife was unexpectedly pregnant, told her the fetus was ‘God’s will, but sent along a packet of pills the company surgeon was certain would “relieve her.” [London]

There are wars and there are games. The two should not be confused.

Comments Off on War Games: Real and Imagined

Filed under conservatism, Foreign Policy, Women's Issues, Womens' Rights